Saturday, February 07, 2004

Open Letter to the Anoka Flash - What was the variety of beer in that Rock Bottom Growler you were kind enough to give me the other night?

Because I just had two glasses of it, and i think i just fiured ou wher Osama Bin Laden is hiding,a nd I'm going to go gt him now.

posted by Mitch Berg 2/7/2004 02:38:15 AM

Friday, February 06, 2004

Happy Reaganmas! - We're on our way out to celebrate the family's annual Reaganmas holiday.

So may the spirit of the holiday prompt you to win one for the Gipper!

posted by Mitch Berg 2/6/2004 05:25:46 PM

Change Of Heart - I've had a couple of them, as regards capital punishment.

When I was a liberal, of course, I opposed it. When I became a conservative, I inherited a bit of support for the death penalty.

Then, for years, I was opposed, based on only one thing; the likelihood of a mistake. I thought - and still think - that it's better to spring everyone from death row than to execute the wrong person, although life without parole was probably a more reasonable compromise.

Today, I think I'm coming around:
The body of an 11-year-old girl whose abduction was captured by a surveillance camera has been found and a mechanic has been charged with her murder, officials said today.

Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill refused to say where Carlie Brucia was found, saying it is an active crime scene.

He said Joseph P. Smith, 37, has been charged with her murder. He is believed to be the tattooed man in a mechanic's shirt who was seen in a car wash surveillance video leading Carlie away by the arm Sunday evening, authorities said.
I have a hunch Governor Pawlenty's death penalty proposal is headed for an initiative and referendum. So - if you are a pervert who likes to kill young girls, you might want to tell all your friends to cheese it until after the election. I have a hunch I'm not the only usually-anti-death-penalty voter who's getting a taste for the blood of vermin.

You can call it society's revenge if you'd like. I think I could stand behind that.

posted by Mitch Berg 2/6/2004 07:25:21 AM

Zzzzz - Too tired to blog. Must. Find. Coffee.

More later.

posted by Mitch Berg 2/6/2004 06:41:47 AM

Note to CINOs - I just found this quote, from Lord Acton:
At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own".
Think of the real victories for conservatism - large and small - in the past few years; Concealed Carry Reform involved a small group of activists winning over the legislator, by selling the issue in terms that made sense to the opponent-turned-supporter. Moving Pawlenty to the right - including his "No New Taxes" pledge, which is the most important part of his administration so far - was something the minority that supported Brian Sullivan achieved.

The way to win - to impart some conservative ideals on society - is not staying home from the election is a petulant, self-righteous snit. It's getting the idea across - through the back door, if the front door is locked.

posted by Mitch Berg 2/6/2004 05:06:56 AM

Salvation - My son, Sam, newly 11 years old, is still the world's pickiest eater.

Buffalo wings, hot dogs and pizza are about the only acceptable foods - and then only if the wings are ultra-hot and the pizza is pepperoni.

I have to say that it's been an interesting window into my son's personality; I will not make multiple meals for dinner, and he will not make himself a peanut butter and jelly sandwich - the offered alternative to whatever I'm cooking. So when he says he'll go without, he will truly go without. He's a determined little cuss.

Ordering pizza is trying; pepperoni is intolerable to me (why not eat sprinkle blood on pure salt and cut out the middleman?) and essential to him.

So I'm indebted (horror of horrors) to the Fraters' JB Doubtless for drawing my attention to the obvious solution - Pizza Hut's new "Pizza Via Socialist Realism".

Upside: I get my Veggie Lovers, Sam gets his farging Pepperoni.

Downside 1: It looks like something from the Gallery of Regrettable Food.

Downside 2: Square Pizza. Am I the only one for whom this is a complete disconnect?

posted by Mitch Berg 2/6/2004 05:00:26 AM

Thursday, February 05, 2004

CINO - Conservative In Name Only - I"m going to pick a fight. A big one.

No, not against Democrats. Against Republicans.

I got up this morning intending to do a comprehensive fisking of Josh Marshall's latest, blunderiffic screed about the President, with an aim toward convincing those who can be convinced that the man is not a competent writer on defense and foreign policy matters.

But I can't. Not enough time. It may happen this weekend - but then, there are other plans afoot there, too.

Lileks had the line that really matters:
I’m waiting for an ad that simply puts the matter plainly: who do you think Al Qaeda wants to win the election? Who do you think will make Syria relax? Who do you think Hezbollah worries about more? Who would Iran want to deal with when it comes to its nuclear program – Cowboy Bush or “Send in the bribed French inspectors” Kerry? Which candidate would our enemies prefer?

O the shrieking that would result should such an ad run. You can’t even ask those questions, even though they’re the most relevant questions of the election.
We'd better ask them.

Here's my question; given what we know about Kerry - what he says about his own free-spending Massachusetts liberal legacy, his cozying up to the North Vietnamese as they were cramming their people into reeducation camps and boats, his two-faced views on the war (opposed to the '91 war, in favor of the current one - but only on terms under which it could not succeed), would you conservatives vote for him?

No. Of course not.

Over the last few weeks, some commentators have noticed the elephant in the living room; Bush isn't a fiscal conservative. Some of us knew that all along; some figured (rightly) he was more fiscally-conservative than McCain, some equate social with fiscal conservatism, some are Buchanan Republicans who went along to get along in 2000. And they're not happy.

Nor should they be.

But I've heard too many people calling in to talk shows saying "I'm a Republican, and I'm staying home this election. I'm disgusted by the budget". I've had too many comments like this in my blog, reporting on the feeling of too many "conservatives":
Unofficial poll at my regular morning
coffee spot: 5 out of 6 conservatives would find it easy to stay in bed on
election day. One vote for W's opponent - " a true big spender, not
a hypocrite"
Scary.

If you are a conservative, you owe it to your philosophy and your country to tell people this:

Overly-centrist Republicans can be dragged to the right. John Kerry can't be.

Budgets and deficits can be fixed. The Americans who will die at the hands of terrorists, if John Kerry's irredeemably stupid philosophy for fighting the war on terror (as a criminal enterprise!) takes control can not be.

If you think John Kerry will spend a dime less than Bush, then you should probably vote Democrat - you're just about deluded enough.

If you stay home on election day - or vote for some moonbat "Constitution Party" drone - out of a sense of injured misplaced conservative purity, and risk putting John Kerry in office, then you risk a lot more than four more years of massive spending, military decay, and out-of-control political correctness. You risk this nation's future, its civil liberties (imagine how a closet authoritarian like Kerry will react to a major terrorist attack).

And if you're willing to risk that because Bush isn't conservative enough, then it's you who are a CINO - a Conservative In Name Only.

posted by Mitch Berg 2/5/2004 06:51:24 AM

Reap The Whirlwind - Hewitt was in rare form last night, hammering Terry MacAuliffe's idiotic statements and John Kerry's record.

He tears apart Josh "Joshua Micah" Marshall, whose vapidity on defense and foreign policy matters should be obvious to anyone who ever pulled an "R" in the voting booth. Hewitt says:
To every question on this issue, Republicans ought to respond: President Bush was honorably discharged. Did the question of honorable military service ever cause you pause when you were supporting Bill Clinton? And do you agree with John Kerry that the men who fought in Vietnam routinely committed war crimes?
And my favorite, from his WorldNet article on Tuesday:
McAuliffe's decision to deny that service in the national guard is service in the military – even as thousands of national guard have served in Iraq – is a blunder larger than any of his others, and trafficking in discredited urban myths gives you a glimpse of McAuliffe's desperation to turn the conversation to anything except Kerry's way-left voting record, or his role in the Dean meltdown, or the failure of Wes Clark to capture any significant support outside the loon caucus.
Kerry tells the Republican world "Bring It On". Does he have any idea what he's getting himself into?

More over the weekend.

posted by Mitch Berg 2/5/2004 06:13:52 AM

Happy Anniversary To Me - It took me a couple of glances at the calendar, but today, February 5, is this blog's second birthday.

Reading Michelle at A Small Victory and her essay about her blog's third anniversary prompted me to remember the date.

As fast as time seems to fly these days, this past two years has been enough of a whirlwind to actually feel like...well, two years. It's seen three girlfriends come and go, three jobs (one of them's stayed so far), innumerable crises with the kids, four months of unemployment, five more of drastic underemployment...

...ugh. I'm tired thinking about it.

But I get exhilarated again thinking about what this blog has meant for me. During the most miserable days at my most miserable dotcom, it was an outlet to feel like I wasn't completely irrelevant - back when I was getting eight hits a day, it meant the world to me. During the '02 elections, when my hit counts jumped from 20 a day into the hundreds courtesy of a couple of fortuitous Instalanches and a really fun Fraterlanche, , it was as big an adrenaline rush as I'd had since my talk radio days. And during the endless, arid, throat in mouth months of unemployment, it was a reason to keep my mind together after the kids left the house in the morning.

Anyway - today, we're averaging around 500 hits a day, and the oocasional Instalance and Hughricane will push it into the thousands, and while that makes me still pretty minor-league, it's still fun.

So thanks. And I'll hope to see you here next year.

Bring some friends!

posted by Mitch Berg 2/5/2004 05:02:40 AM

I See How This Works - The cover photo in Tuesday's morning Strib showed a half-dozen or so representatives from A Million Pink Moms for Supine "Safer" Citizen Codes, protesting at the opening of the legislative session against the Minnesota Personal Protection Act.

One of their signs said "A Million Moms" demanded gun control.

I thought about this.

A few years ago, Lewis Farrakhan convened the "Million Man March", on behalf of which about a hundred thousand men marched on Washington for a bunch of Farrakhan-y causes.

Score check: "Million Man March". Peaked at around a hundred thousand. Currently in the thousands, if it exists at all. And I'm not sure about that.

A few years later, a group of Sarah Brady's functionaries kick off the "Million Mom March", which may have mustered 100,000 "moms" at its peak, with its goal being to disarm potential crime victims and make America's streets safer for criminals. Most recent estimates of its membership are right around 30,000; a few years ago, the organization cut its staff from 30-something to five, and was evicted from its offices. Guess those "million" "Moms" aren't committed enough to put their money where their million mouths are.

Score check: "Million" "moms" claimed. Perhaps 30,000 on the street, and that's on a sunny day and if someone brings refreshments. Feeble.

But I see how the game is played.

So it's with great pride that I announce the formation of:
A Billion Americans For Freedom
That's right. All One Billion of us - I'm merely their spokesperson! - demand our due!
  • An end to victim disarmament!
  • Lower Taxes!
You can not ignore A Billion Americans with their voices crying out in unison (via me, their spokesperson)!

We are a Billion strong! Hear us roar!

posted by Mitch Berg 2/5/2004 05:02:06 AM

Ahem - The Fraters' Saint Paul commented on last week's secret meeting between he, King from SCSU Scholars, and me:
"It was a fine time and both gentlemen proved to be entertaining and provocative conversationalists. I left the 90 minute meeting with even more respect for the amalgamation of intellect brought together under the Northern Alliance banner.
So far, so good. I agree.

But then he swerves into the weeds:
I also had the honor of participating in a kind of sartorial devolutionary line up. As we stood up and walked to the exit, I noticed King was wearing a bespoken suit, I was wearing Stillwater casual office slob chic attire, and Mitch was wearing sweat pants.
Saint's powers of observation are as dissipate has his sartorial sense is natty. I was wearing jeans and a sweatshirt - which, if "clothes make the man", is probably approriate. I haven't worn sweatpants outside of a weight room or my own yard since college.

The Saint continues:
I also noticed that height positively correlated with dressing down. Not sure what that says about Darwin or the ascent of man, but as I walked into the cold January St. Paul night, I had renewed faith for the theory of creationism."
When I'm on my own time, the post-Sinatra, GQ ideal of the perpetually-Docker-clad male bounces off me like Hesiod's spittle. I dress for the occasion; at work, I'm businesslike; On a date, I try to impress. Out for a drink at a neighborhood bar with a bunch of bloggers? I try not to smell like cat litter.

That is all.

posted by Mitch Berg 2/5/2004 05:01:06 AM

It's The Mileage- There is officially a site for everything, as we see with "World66", a site that generates maps of where you've been.

Here's where I've been world-wide.



create your own visited country map
or write about it on the open travel guide

Ooof - that's not much of the world. How about the US?



create your own visited states map
or write about it on the open travel guide


I need to get out more...

posted by Mitch Berg 2/5/2004 05:00:41 AM

Wednesday, February 04, 2004

12:25 AM... - ...on February 4, 1993, a little, rashy, red bundle slid into my life and this world, with his forehead pushed down over his face, looking like a little pit bull (and like a pit bull puppy, we didn't see his eyes for quite some time). He was two weeks late - a pattern repeated at bus time every morning to this day. I fed him his first bottle at about 3AM that day, and I've been feeding him ever since. Usually from plates, lately, but with boys that age you take nothing for granted.

Today he looks more like Calvin, but he's 11, and the tallest kid in his class, and his eyes turned out a shade of hazel that is going to have all the little girls cooing (and give me heartburn) in a few years, and he's a class clown and an artist and a natural guitar player and a just plain fun boy to be around.

Happy Birthday, Sam!

Now get your homework done.

posted by Mitch Berg 2/4/2004 03:18:09 AM

The Personality - We've seen a number of replies to Powerline's Hindrocket's pessimistic appraisal of Bush's odds in this election (Hindrocket alone among the Northern Alliance picks Kerry to win the election).

Jay Reding had a good piece on the subject, as well as the Captain. I also commented yesterday.

But there's a bit in Reding's reply that I thought deserved some elaboration. Hindrocket said "The first is that he is associated with bad news--a recession which he inherited, and the Sept. 11 attacks for which he bears no responsibility. But the fact, fair or not, is that most people associate the Bush presidency with troubled times." Reding replies:
I don't believe that the American people reject political leaders just because they are associated with bad times. Abraham Lincoln led the country through the darkest hour in its history then or since and still won re-election (in fact, I believe the election on 1864 is the best historical analogue to 2004 for reasons I'll go into later).
Which Jay does - read his piece.

And I thought - to what extent do the American people impose their fortunes on a sitting, first term President during elections? And why?

Let's look at first-term presidents that had international and/or economic crises to deal with, going back to the dawn of economic records, the 1850's. For purposes of this post, let's limit it to presidents since the rise of the mass media; while I think the same patterns hold true before this, they're more pronounced since then:
First-Term President: Herbert Hoover
Economic Crisis: Crash of '29
Notes: Hoover had all the intellectual talent it would have taken to solve the problem; Hoover was perhaps the greatest technocrat ever to serve as President. Which may have been his undoing - he brought his tinkering, engineering personality to the White House. Hoover was the Jimmy Carter or Al Gore of the 1920's, more interested in manipulating the levers and pulleys of government than in leading the people.

First-Term President: Franklin D. Roosevelt
Economic Crisis: Great Depresson
Notes: Proof that leadership - even in the wrong direction - is frequently more important than having the right direction in the first place. FDR won re-election handily, and two more after that.

First-Term President: Truman
Economic Crisis: '47 Recession
NotesTruman was a special case; lots of economic and foreign policy issues, and lots of special circumstances getting him in and out of office. Technically, his first full term was his last. Hard to count him.

First-Term President: Eisenhower
Economic Crisis: '53 Recession
Notes: Mild recession (and a post-war one at that) - but Ike's leadership style promoted the sort of stability that both mediated the recession and got him re-elected.

First-Term President: Kennedy
Economic Crisis: '60-61 Recession
Foreign-Policy Crisis: Cuba, Vietnam
Notes: Responded aggressively to recession, cutting taxes. Responded aggressively to Bay of Pigs, creating Vietnam. Can't win 'em all...

First-Term President: Nixon
Economic Crisis: '69'70 Recession
Foreign-Policy Crisis: Vietnam War
Notes: How did Nixon survive his first term?

First-Term President: Ford
Economic Crisis: 1974-5 Recession - continuation of doldrums from Nixon administration
Other National Crisis: Fallout from Watergate.
Notes: Ford didn't have the time or mandate - or, possibly, potential - to lead the nation from these crises.

First-Term President: Carter
Economic Crisis: 1979-80 Recession Stagflation - simultaneous inflation and recession, double-digit unemployment.
Foreign-Policy Crisis: Iran Hostage Crisis, losing cold war.
Notes: Carter had a full plate - of problems. Unfortunately, his plate empty when it came to leadership ability. He was as inspiring as sauce-free spaghetti. He lost the '80 election, and has gone on to serve as a national laughingstock for 20-odd years.

First-Term President: Reagan
Economic Crisis: 1982 Recession - serious unemployment.
Foreign-Policy Crisis: Cold War, Grenada, Lebanon.
Notes: Despite massive problems and a hostile Congress, Reagan persevered politically (winning a massive, historic set of tax cuts) and won the '84 election by a historic landslide.

First-Term President: George Bush 41
Economic Crisis: '91 Recession
Foreign-Policy Crisis: Gulf War, Somalia
Notes: The elder Bush squandered the Reagan legacy and superhuman popularity after the Gulf War by caving in to his legislative opponents, waffled on taxes, and lost the '92 election (albeit with a lot of help from Ross Perot).
So on the one hand, we have Hoover, Truman, Ford and Bush I that fell afoul of their circumstances, and FDR, Ike, JFK and Reagan leading the nation out of the circumstances (or providing leadership and, in the cases of JFK and Reagan, economic reform while the economy did the job by itself), with Nixon has an in-between case.

What does this tell us? More or less what the Fraters' Elder says - "It's the personality, stupid."

Powerline's Hindrocket may be right - the President may fall victim to the combined recession and war-weariness - it really does depend on the type of leadership the President applies.

So what kind of leadership is the President applying?

If you're Virginia Postrel or Hindrocket, you say "not enough".

If you're Thomas Lifson (Via Big Trunk), you say "yeah, so what - it's intentional, so far".

A commenter to one of my threads yesterday echoes Lifson's point, and unintentionally echoes the same precise point made by Dinesh D'Souza about Reagan:
People always underestimate Bush... at their own peril. One gets the sense he cultivates this.
So is Bush letting the Dems have their day, and saving his campaigning, his money and his momentum for the stretch, where it (note to Howard Dean and Wes Clark) matters?

If so, is it a wise move?

posted by Mitch Berg 2/4/2004 03:15:54 AM

Buck Up, Bucky Badger - The Wisconsin Legislature's attempt to override Governor Doyle's veto of a concealed carry reform law failed yesterday.

By one vote.

DC from Brainstorming - Shot in the Dark's favorite cheeseblogger - says:
I'm annoyed with people who disregard facts.....No......misrepresent facts......because they believe they are elite, and know what is best for us "little people".
Welcome to life in Minnesota, until last year. Get used to it.

It took Concealed Carry Reform Now seven years to get the Minnesota Personal Protection Act passed. In 2001 and 2002, we actually had all the votes lined up to pass the bill - but Senate majority leader Moe bottled it up in DFL-controlled Senate committees until it died. It wasn't until we controlled the House, got a more moderate Senate, and got Tim Pawlenty in office (who, unlike Ventura, was actually committed to reforming the law for Minnesotans who weren't sitting governors) to get things changed.

Hang in there.

posted by Mitch Berg 2/4/2004 03:13:55 AM

A Not-So-Obvious Point - Powerline's Rocket Man tackles the current Democrat trope - that Bush was AWOL/deserted the Guard.

The post as a whole is a fairly complete digest of the facts - which have been gurgitated for the past four years, and will no doubt require full court reiteration this year for those who can be saved.

But in the interest of absolute accuracy, I have to point this out. Rocket Man says:
The Democrats would have voters believe that while John Kerry was risking his life in Vietnam, George Bush was skipping Guard meetings in Alabama. But note the chronology: The peak of American involvement in Vietnam was in 1968 and 1969. It was in those years that Kerry piloted a boat on the Mekong River. At that time, Bush, who is 2 1/2 years younger than Kerry, was training to be a fighter pilot,
...all of this is true.
and could reasonably have expected to be posted to Vietnam at some future point.
Probably not true.

Bush flew the F102 Delta Dagger, a plane designed for shooting down Russian bombers and not much else. The plane served with Air Defense Command (ADC), a no-longer-extant part of the USAF intended to...well, shoot down Russian bombers and not much else. The F102 wasn't built to dogfight with planes like the nimble North Vietnamese MiG-17s, or drop bombs - like the F4s and F105s and F100s of Tactical Air Command. It certainly couldn't carry nukes or jungle-flattening loads of conventional bombs like the B-52s of Strategic Air Command, either. Both TAC and SAC served in Vietnam - ADC never did, to the best of my knowledge (Fingers? Am I right?)

ADC - and the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard units attached to it never fired a shot in anger; Democrats will no doubt say "Hah! Because there was never a threat of an air attack on the US!" Well, in hindsight, that's both right and wrong, as we found on on 9/11.

Anyway - Bush flew the F102 (some Democrat moonbat acquaintances of mine said he never got his wings, which is poppycock), and probably would never have been deployed to Vietnam.

As a side note, though - the Democrats are really piling on the National Guard, lately, making it sound like Powderpuff Football. Do they have any idea how many people in this country are in the Guard? And how that line of rhetoric sounds to them?

And how few of them wind up in Quinnipiac polls?

posted by Mitch Berg 2/4/2004 03:03:28 AM

Coming Soon to Minneapolis - California's State Assembly is pondering a resolution that would encourage feng shui in building codes.
The resolution, which has yet to pass a committee vote before going to the full Assembly, is meant to encourage planning agencies, building departments and design review boards to provide for the use of feng shui principles, which often touch on the placement of doors and staircases, the position of buildings and the alignment of objects in rooms. It aims to help people live in harmony with nature by promoting the flow of chi, or positive energy, and neutralizing or avoiding negative energy.

"The structure of a building can affect a person's mood," the measure says, "which can influence a person's behavior, which, in turn, can determine the success of a person's personal and professional relationships."

Mr. Yee said: "We need to allow the expression of one's culture. That's why people come to California."
Look for one of the Greens on the Minneapolis City Council to introduce this.

Single-payer homeopathy soon to follow...

posted by Mitch Berg 2/4/2004 03:00:15 AM

Tuesday, February 03, 2004

'Splain Me Somethin' - So at the beginning of January, Mark "Revolutionary Gonad" Gisleson leaves his resume writing service to join the City Pages full-time.

During that time, he pointlessly attacked Fraters Libertas, and made statements that even Steve Perry, the CP's crypto-Maoist editor, had to disavow, if only sotto voce.

Then, he left the City Pages - all in three weeks. He's back in the resume business (and, to give credit where due, his business site is as useful, helpful and rational has his political writing was fevered and delusional).

That was a fast job arc, even for a City Pages writer.

What happened?

posted by Mitch Berg 2/3/2004 06:00:54 PM

Concealed Carry in Wisconsin - A vote to try to override Wisconsin governor Doyle's veto of the state's proposed concealed carry bill is scheduled for a vote in their legislature today, according to DC of Brainstorming:
"[Thirty]-Six states have already passed concealed carry. We need 66 votes to override Governor Doyle's veto. All 59 republicans are expected to vote for the bill. Seven democrats voted to pass concealed carry in "
DC links to a fisking of an anti-veto Milwaukee Sentinel op-ed in Milwaukee blog Boots and Saddles. All the material in the MilSent piece should look depressingly familiar - it's the same Brady Factory Campaign the Strib and PiPress spent seven years regurgitating (and which is refreshingly absent from the press today).

Good luck, Wisconsin. I'm pulling for you.

posted by Mitch Berg 2/3/2004 07:18:12 AM

Above It All? - Among the Northern Alliance, Powerline's Hindrocket is the only person predicting a Kerry victory.

The reason's not a bad one:
But President Bush, sadly, is too inarticulate to make his own case. He is a good man and generally a good decision-maker. At one time I thought he would become one of our greatest presidents. But he lacks the talent to defend himself against the torrents of hate that are being unleashed against him by the Democrats--an outpouring of viciousness that has no parallel in our history.
But there is a parallel; Reagan.

The left cordially detested Reagan. And they did it for many of the same reasons they hate Bush; he didn't play the same academic paper chase they all did; he gleefully ignores their ideals of "intelligence", to say nothing of their politics. And he outmaneuvers them politically at nearly every turn.

Reagan ignored the hate - in fact, he didn't dignify it with a response. He stayed on message. He let his opponents make him their subject - while he focused on the subjects that mattered.

Is that what Bush is doing? Is he letting the Democrat orgy of hatred and concurrent self-adultation play itself out in the media before focusing the nation and himself on the real task at hand - the war, the economy, and the presumptive choice between a flawed conservative and a perfect fabian statist?

I don't know. Karl Rove is no Lee Atwater. I have a hunch, though; if nothing else, Bush is adept at incorporating behavior he admires into his own act, and so far in this war he's shown his admiration for Reagan; his drive, and above all his focus on the key mission.

Hindrocket continues:
He has made, really, only one major mistake, his failure to control spending. But that mistake, together with a terrible run of bad luck, will, I am afraid, cost him his presidency.
I'm far from complacent about Bush's odds. I also have a thin crust of faith that the American people, in the end, aren't superficial enough to choose the likes of Kerry - and that Bush knows what really matters, politically.

The message; the war, the econony, the tax cuts.

It's what Reagan would have done.

posted by Mitch Berg 2/3/2004 06:43:42 AM

Son of Signs I Need a Life, Part II - Stories Liberals Tell Themselves - Yesterday, Jeff Fecke of Blogomodleft left a comment under my "Conservatives and Bush" piece. It contains a number of tropes, memes and urban legends that even moderately reasonable Democrats are telling themselves these days (and while Fecke is by no means moderate - no more than I am - he's relatively reasonable).

Jeff's points are presented out of order - and my apologies for superimposing Fecke's views on the entire Democrat party, but I don't think it's entirely an inapt thing:
Oh, fwiw--yes, it's a January poll, but here's your latest Quinnipiac Poll:

Kerry 51%
Bush 42%

Invincible my ass.
I have no idea how vulnerable your ass is, but I digress.

No credible pundit on the right has ever called Bush invincible - any that did more than a few weeks before the election were either hopelessly deluded or trying to move papers. I think there's an interest in the left media in portraying Republicans as thinking that - to set their guy up as an underdog, of course. But I don't know a genuine Republican who doesn't know Bush can be beaten.

That being said - I doubt Kerry's the guy to do it. Sure, he's leading in a meaningless poll today - he's had entirely favorable press for the past three weeks, the majority of the American voting public has no idea of the baggage he brings to the table (not everyone is an amateur pundit), his negatives are correspondingly low - if he weren't doing very well at this point, he'd have a lot to worry about.

But he still does. He's a Massachusetts Liberal - worse than Ted Kennedy. That's not invoking the "L" word like a bed-time story used to scare the kids; liberalism has consequences. He has a twenty-year voting record that will not play in the hinterland. He has his schizophrenic record on the war, terror, and Hussein - voting against the '91 Gulf War, but for this one - but only in a way that ensured we couldn't do the job.

He's seen as a moderate today only because Howard Dean took all the flak from the left until his recent implosion, shielding Kerry from embarassing allegations of liberalism. Without Dean to soak up the "Liberal Moonbat" accusations, who'll protect Kerry? Kucinich?

And then we get past perceptions, and get down to substantive issues - like his long record in the seventies of sucking up to Hanoi Jane Fonda. Even worse was his shameful abandonment of the POW/MIA issue in the eighties - in the interest of "normalizing" relations with a homicidal dictatorship. How will that play in Sturgis?

Badly.

And that doesn't even scratch the surface of a voting record that rivalled Paul Wellstone's for being off-the chart left.

But the surface will be scratched.
I am predicting a John Kerry victory, and I'll tell you why: Democrats are pretty much ready to vote for Satan Himself if it will get George W. Bush out of office.
Which is how Republicans approached their campaign against Clinton.

In 1996.

Unfortunately for Kerry, it's a truism of politics - you rarely win running against something - and Bush Hatred is the only issue Kerry has. He's illiterate on the War on Terror, illiterate and hypocritical on Iraq, he's peddling Ted Kennedy in a world that's looking for JFK, against a president that has - get this - been successful in one of the most difficult first terms since Lincoln's.
Meanwhile, Republicans are disenchanted with Bush, and while most will vote for GDub, few are excited about it.
"Republicans are disenchanted?" What?

All Republicans?

Or just all the Republicans the Daily Kos chooses to quote?

News for ya - I was always disenchanted with Bush. I said it the other day; I supported Forbes. I gritted my teeth at the convention. And I voted for him rather than a write-in because I figured he needed every possible vote to keep Algore out of office. Would I rather he spent less? Hell yeah!

Do I think John Kerry would spend less? Hell no. And any Republican...no, any voter that does - or worse, mistakes "Deficit reduction" for "cutting spending" (stealth talk for "tax hikes") is deluding themselves.

Fortunately, I don't think we get deluded that easily.
In 2000, the situation was reversed; the Republicans wanted desperately to end the Clinton/Gore era, while the Democrats were only marginally in favor of continuing it.
Which is why so many of them crossed over, right?
In a close election (which 2000 was, and 2004 is going to be), the depth of support of a candidate matters greatly. John Kerry will have every monetary and human resource the Democrats can spare this fall.
Doesn't matter. Bush will have the same resources (and more), and one thing neither Kerry nor George Soros can buy - the knowledge on the part of most people that the War On Terror - the only issue that really matters - is in vastly better hands with Bush than with the vacillating, opportunistic, vacuous, commie-coddler Kerry.
The same cannot be said about 43.
Keep telling yourself that - not just you, Jeff, but all Democrats. We are a fractious lot, we Republicans - in our caucuses, the pro-lifers square off against the libertarians, and come near to blows. And yet, we finally learned how to come together, in time to elect Pawlenty, Coleman, Kennedy, Kline - most of them candidates that the "conservative base" was ambivalent about, all of them upset winners that left the pundits of the left scratching their head. Or worse.
So pack a lunch, GOPers.
I will. Even money I'll be dining on Democrat Expectations.

Besides, Jeff - your prediction curse has already swallowed one candidate; Mad Wesley Clark is DOA. Are you sure you want to add your support to all of Kerry's other upcoming problems? :-)

posted by Mitch Berg 2/3/2004 05:06:44 AM

If Perception Equals Reality... - ...then I'm really screwed.

Hugh Hewitt commented on our Northern Alliance get-together/group lunch/Loya Jirga last Saturday:
Great fun with the Northern Alliance ladies as well at our gathering on Saturday.
So far, so good.
Observations: If Northern Alliance members were pop/rock stars:

Big Trunk: George Harrison [Not bad...Ed.]

Captain Ed: Don McLean [Also not bad...Ed.]

Mitch Berg: Tom Jones
< screeching sound > Tom Jones?

Criminy, Hugh - I've always spoken so highly of you!

Back before I became follicle-challenged, I heard "Paul McCartney", or "the lead guitar player from Soul Asylum". I even heard "James Honeyman-Scott", the first guitar player for the Pretenders (the observer even thought it was accurate down to the heroin-chic shabbiness).

But Tom Jones?

If I have to put up with that, at least I should have women throwing underwear at me.

Onward:
St. Paul: Tommy James [I met Tommy James once. St. Paul is no...well, wait a minute...]

Hindrocket: Gordon Lightfoot [Good catch - Ed.]

Atomizer: Clay Aiken [Hmmmm...Ed.]

JB Doubtless: Elvis Costello [That one actually works - Ed.]

SCSU Scholar King: Santana [Although with an afro, he'd look like Kim Thayil of Soundgarden - Ed.]

Spitbull's Warrior Monk: John Prine [I've met John Prine. Even carried his guitar case. Warrior Monk is...well, not a bad resemblance... - Ed.]

Spitbull's Eloise: Linda Ronstadt [I've met Linda Ronstadt. Three Eloises in the same dress might look like Linda Ronstadt - Ed.]

The Elder: Cher. [Have I mentioned that Billy's Lighthouse makes an amazing Jalapeno/Jack burger? - Ed.]

Calling them as I see 'em.
Ditto.

Oops. Wrong host.

I mean, "Nice meeting you, Hugh!"

posted by Mitch Berg 2/3/2004 05:05:36 AM

Signs You're Over - Sites dedicated to hating you are declaring "Mission Accomplished".

Jon Chait is bagging his anti-Dean blog.

He's now free to continue his spittle-flecked hatred of George Bush.

(Via Blogomodleft)

posted by Mitch Berg 2/3/2004 05:01:17 AM

"...And the #1 Sign I Need A Social Life..." - ...is when you start fisking comments to your own blog.

Although "Fisking" is perhaps too harsh a word. The commenter in question, "Flash", is the type of Democrat we have to count on continuing to exist if our two-party system is to survive; moderate enough to be responsible on many key areas. There are a lot of them out there - outstate DFLers like Bob Lessard, Eastsiders like Randy Kelly, southerners not too far to the left of Zell Miller. They don't control the party, of course - which is why the Minnesota DFL is led by the likes of Ellen Anderson, why the Minneapolis DFL's communications read like Pravda, and why John Kerry is seen (erroneously) as a moderate option to Mad How. But they're out there. So let's not call this a Fisking. It's just...feedback.

Flash wrote in the comments to a post from last week:
In the 2003 SOTU address, GW states:

"We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

While using the word disarm 10 times throughout the speech he mentioned the UN ONLY in the context of disarmement. He only mentions terror ties while discussing the fear of sharing SoDamns WMDs with them. He only talked of attrocities by SoDamn as the reason to get WMDs out of his hands, not as a pretext to war.
Does anyone think the subtext of those remarks wasn't perfectly clear, especially as most of the invasion force was already in place?

To have said "Disarm or get ready for an invasion", in addition to being stratetically bad pool, would have been portrayed in the media as "foaming at the mouth and mongering war". No need for that.
I ask all of you, if SoDamn Who'sInSane could have proven he had disarmed would that have been the end of it. That is clearly what GW implies, and why that is the ONLY reason he used, at the time.
But the other three justifications mentioned in Berg's Law had been iterated many, many times in the previous year; the resolutions, the human rights record and the support for terror. One address, even a SOTU, doesn't a complete policy make.
It is clear, in GW's own words, that the other 3 reasons you give as justifications for war, are really reasons to disarm the man, NOT a pretext to war itself. So much for Berg's law.
Let's take this exactly word for word. "Reasons to disarm" Hussein - precisely how does anyone expect Hussein to have been involuntarily disarmed?

Was there any rational means short of an invasion? Especially given that the UN's inspection program was not only ineffectve, but was in fact designed to be worthless?

I think Berg's law stands...

posted by Mitch Berg 2/3/2004 05:01:01 AM

Monday, February 02, 2004

Noted In Passing - If she were alive, my grandmother would be 100 years old today.

You may not have heard of my grandmother, Bea Berg. But if you're an upper-midwestern Lutheran - or been in the home of one for any length of time - you've seen her work.

You've seen "Amazing Grace", the picture of the old man saying grace? Apparently, my grandmother was working at Eric Enstrom's photo studio in Bovey, MN at the time, and had some hand in producing the original photo. Exactly what hand, I don't know - dark-room, hand-coloring (I was amazed the first time I learned that the picture was a photo, not a painting), but my Grandma had a hand in it.

posted by Mitch Berg 2/2/2004 06:12:39 AM

Conservatives And Bush - Yesterday, I asked the Northern Alliance to comment on the question - how will the conservative base react to President Bush's free-spending ways?

I went to the 2000 caucuses without any delusions about Bush's conservatism. While it's a time-worn principle for the media to call anyone to the right of Roger Moe a "Paleoconservative", Bush has clearly been no such thing at any point in his career. Oh, sure - he's a social conservative in all the ways that make the social conservative crowd happy; pro-death penalty, pro-life. There's nothing wrong with that - except the myopic notion that being socially conservative makes one conservative in any other way. He's also a conservative in the way that I expect any president to be; he favors a strong military (and acted on that belief even before September 11, thank God).

But he, like his father, has never been a fiscal conservative. Which was why I supported Steve Forbes for President, until the moment George Bush was nominated.

Will the conservative base defect in droves? Well, on the one hand:
  • I think the real conservatives - the ones we'd have called Buchanan conservatives four years ago - were already marginalized and driven out of any serious influence in the party well before the 2000 GOP convention. Have they gotten any more intransigent? Well, the ones that care about defense and prosecuting the war on terror had better not have, since maintaining the safety of this nation is job #1.
  • Conservatives are, if nothing else, realistic. Of course, to seriously ideological conservatives, "realism" is dangerously close to "pragmatism", a notiong that serious ideological conservatives like Jason Lewis sniff at - the idea of, if not selling your soul, at least negotiating bits and pieces of it away for short-term gain, in this case trading ideology for votes. "What difference does it make if you win the election, if you sell you political soul to do it" is an accurate paraphrase. It's all or nothing at all to these people. And yet, what is the option? Staying home and giving a John Kerry a better shot at winning? Because...
  • As dismal as Bush has become on the spending front, there are two crucial things to remember:
    1. Spending can be undone; Americans killed by terror can not be brought back to life.
    2. If he pays lip service to fiscal conservatism, then it's more likely we can make him cash the checks his lips are writing.
    Bush may have triangulated his way out of conservatives' good graces in order to win some liberal votes - but that's un-doable, just the same way Bill Clinton had to reign in his inner (and his wife's outer) liberal in 1994. Does anyone really think Kerry can be won over through any means?
  • And getting Kerry elected - even if through the back door, because conservatives stayed home out of misplaced ideological purity, more or less the wal Algore lost in 2000 due to Nader's influence - would give us results that should be unacceptable to Americans of all stripes, not just Republicans; the War On Terror would be come another law-enforcement exercise; the military would be plunged into another Clinton-era set of doldrums; worst of all, we'd have a Massachusetts Liberal at the helm.
I think frequent correspondent James "Oughtta Be A Blogger" Phillips has the right idea, when he writes:
Essentially, it is as if conservatives are in a Chinese restaurant. They look at the menu and order Beef Stroganoff. It ain't on the menu folks, and no matter how loud you scream you want it, the waiter ain't gonna bring it. So get over it.

I am going to vote for Bush. But I will think twice before I give him money again. My money is going to go to the Congressional and Senatorial candidates who can and will say "no" to their own President.
Absolutely.

Now, neither of Minnesota's Senate seats are in play for this election. All the house seats are - and none of them have especially heated up yet. Being a District Four resident "represented" by Betty McCollum, it's a moot point - even a Rockefeller Republican would be a big improvement.

But that may indeed be our best shot at curtailing the President's spending; making sure we elect Congresspeople who know that defense is the top priority, but who aren't afraid to go toe-to-toe with the President on the B-list issues like spending.

What do you think?

SIDE NOTE: Mark from Classically Liberal notes:
I think the number of conservatives sitting on their hands will be a pretty small percentage, less than 5%. I get the feeling that for all the carping about Bush and his (rather serious, in my opinion) flaws this is mostly healthy venting. I find it unlikely that when push comes to shove in November that conservatives would rather de facto vote for the Democratic candidate by staying home.
No argument.

posted by Mitch Berg 2/2/2004 05:05:46 AM

The Session - The 2004 Legislative Session will be getting underway today. It's going to be a doozy.

It will pit Governor Pawlenty - hot off a very successful freshman year in office - against a DFL-controlled Senate that is down, but by no means out - and desperately yearns to recapture the unfettered hegemony of its one-party glory days.

We should expect big things from this legislature.

Or...maybe not.:
So while there may be sound and fury in the early going over the most controversial issues, this also might be a session in which few things are settled and legislators go home by their unofficial Easter deadline, a goal seldom realized in recent years.

There's also a chance that legislators will decide to put some of the most explosive disputes -- death penalty, tough new tax and expenditure limitations and a gay marriage ban -- on the November ballot for voters to resolve.
Which, of course, will be the most interesting outcome of all.
Despite all the media attention to divisive issues, recent opinion polls seem to show that the public is not overwhelmingly eager for any big changes in particular, according to at least one veteran observer, Sarah Janecek, editor of the Directory, a biennial guide to the Legislature.

"Nothing seems to be really resonating -- the public isn't clamoring for anything," Janecek said. "There is no clear mandate to do anything but bond," given the strong local interests for projects ranging from commuter rail to state college campus projects to Minnesota Zoo improvements. "The conventional wisdom in and out of the Legislature: Leave well enough alone."
Where was it written that Sara Janacek is the token Republican pundit?

The next question is interesting:
"Among the key political questions to be answered: Should DFLers allow the various ballot questions to go before the voters in November, in the hope that an agenda that could be portrayed as pro-death, anti-gay and anti-government will galvanize the liberal and moderate base, and in the process help the Democratic presidential candidate and DFL House members?

Janecek says some Republicans are worried that a batch of conservative ballot initiatives could 'crank the opposition up beyond a fever pitch.'"
Weren't they worried about this last year?

The Strib includes a digest of analysis of specific issues from the paper's stable of political reporters. Issues by issue, here's what they saw:
  • Death Penalty: Conrad DeFiebre says "The Legislators will listen to Gov. Tim Pawlenty's plan to bring the death penalty back to Minnesota nearly a century after it was abolished, but they are more likely to go for life-without-parole sentences for the most dangerous sexual predators." Mitch says: I have a hunch that this may be the real motive for the GOP anyway. They'd never get the DFL to agree to reform Minnesota's "catch and release" penal system by asking for something as pedestrian as sensible, responsible reforms. But if those reforms are presented as a fall-back position to the death penalty - something that I doubt will pass, no matter how outraged we are about the disappearance and apparent murder of Dru Sjodin - it might work.
  • .08 BAC for DWI: DeFiebre says about the potential for lowering the drunk driving limit: "With the scheduled financial penalties mounting to about $70 million by 2007 and highway deaths on an upward trend, there's growing consensus that the state can no longer afford to condone driving at levels of intoxication that nearly everyone agrees cause impairment. More and more policymakers, including Gov. Pawlenty and House Speaker Steve Sviggum, say it's time for a change." Mitch says: Unfortunately, probably true. The reduction in BAC limits is stupid, but money talks, and principle walks.
  • Commuter Rail: DeFiebre, again: "Prospects appear good for Northstar. And House Transportation Finance Chairman Bill Kuisle, R-Rochester, said he expects passage of the busways. As for roads, there will be attempts to put as much as $100 million for projects into the bonding bill. Pawlenty says he can implement his plan to add privately built toll lanes to metro freeways without legislative action. But some legislators may try to block the plan, at least until "sane" lanes on Interstate Hwy. 394 are opened to toll-paying solo drivers and the change is evaluated" Mitch says: I think it's a big win for Pawlenty. I think the Northstar Line has serious potential to be self-supporting - which would go a long way toward stealing the transit issue from the DFL (and their fixation on light rail and pie-in-the-sky schemes based on massive social engineering). Meantime, the toll lane plan will give us a start toward moving road construction toward being user-fee supported - which makes Mitch's inner libertarian all warm and fuzzy.
  • Stadiums: DeFiebre says "The committee [appointed by Pawlenty] is set to deliver its full recommendations to Pawlenty on Monday. But that will only set the stage for what promises to be a vigorous debate in the Legislature over public subsidies for billionaire owners and millionaire athletes versus the teams' role in Minnesota's quality of life." Mitch says this is going to be a high-profile exercise in triviality. We'd be nuts to play the game - the state government should not be subsidizing stadiums any more than they should be subsidizing any other form of recreation or, for that matter, subsidizing poverty.
  • Gay Marriage - Mark Brunswick says "House Speaker Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, predicts the House will pass a bill to put some version of the [anti gay-marriage constitutional] amendment on the ballot this fall. The issue has great currency right now on a national level, with conservatives pushing President Bush to make a more prominent statement on the sanctity of marriage. It is also believed to be a strong election year get-out-the-vote issue. New Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, DFL-Willmar has not signaled how he feels about same-sex marriage but says his caucus is very cautious about tinkering with any constitutional amendments." Mitch says this will be a bellwether issue to determine exactly how far to the right Minnesota has swung in the last decade. As to Johnson's remark - this is going to be interesting. I'd suspect that most of the outstate DFL - including Johnson's constituents in bucolic Willmar - have very different feelings about this issue than do most of the DFL's metro-area far-left base. They may be stuck between a rock and a hard place; they don't dare go soft on a core issue (perhaps the core issue) for their gay base, but the outstate DFL will have a hard time going along with it. This will be interesting.
  • Expanding Gambling to pay for a Stadium: Mark Brunswick says: "Senate Minority Leader Dick Day, R-Owatonna, a sponsor of the Canterbury Park bill, is optimistic about its chances in the Senate, but Gov. Pawlenty hasn't supported expanded gambling proposals in the past and in all likelihood will continue to feel that way.

    Look for the stadium debate to enter the picture, with the possibility that casino-owning Indian tribes will be asked to contribute to a stadium as a potential counter to expansion. Some tribal leaders are up for election in the spring and a compromise may not sit well with their members." Mitch says it'll never happen. Minnesota's puritan instincts cross party lines.
  • Health Care - Patricia Lopez says: ""Major health care reforms often have taken several sessions, and action is more likely in 2005. Pawlenty's Web site is up and running. Whether he will be able to use it to cut costs for state employees' drug purchases depends in part on how much opposition it gets from the federal government, which opposes reimportation." Mitch says this, along with holding the line on the budget (and succeeding at it) may well be the issue that makes or breaks Pawlenty as a national politician. Even if he "loses", he could gain the sort of national exposure, on a very ecumenical issue, that could make him a bipartisan household name. Watch for Pawlenty to ride this like a mechanical bull.
  • Spending Caps: Lopez says: "Rigid caps will be a tough sell to all but the most fiscally conservative legislators, but many are expressing interest in other types of tax and expenditure limitations already adopted by more than half the states, as are administration officials." Mitch says - hard sell. I bet this one gets dropped to gain capital on other issues.
  • Standards: Norman Draper says "Social studies will be a tougher sell for Education Commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke than the language arts and math standards she helped shepherd through the Legislature last year. Revisions that give teachers more choices and tilt the standards more toward the political center have muted some of the criticism that erupted over them last fall. But big issues remain: Are the hundreds of requirements too bulky? How much will it cost financially strapped schools to implement them? Will teachers have the time and students have the smarts to get through them?" Mitch says this is the social battlefield of this session - and yet another issue where Pawlenty's long-term interests are served, win or lose. Beating the teachers' union or fighting them to the end - either result works.
  • Abortion - Jean Hopfensperger says "Prospects look good for abortion opponents, who now boast friends in House leadership, Senate leadership and the governor's office. A child support overhaul is in a good position to move forward. Senior citizens and parents of disabled children also have the ear of committee chairs in both houses; finding the money to help them is the problem. Restoring cuts to child care will be tough." Mitch says this is an issue that the relatively moderate Pawlenty can afford to give a little on, to buy votes for issues that are more clear-cut for him. I'll bet he does.
We'll see. It'll be an interesting session.

posted by Mitch Berg 2/2/2004 05:02:57 AM

Confirmation - I usually hate those "What Candidate To Is Right for You" questionnaires. The questions never reflect the nuances that have to go into developing a real, informed, adult opinion on any serious issue.

But, like the Monkeys, I took the AOL Presidential Match Guide. The results, ranked in order:
  1. Bush (with 100% compatibility, which is absurd, because he spends too much)
  2. Lieberman
  3. Edwards (these last two are probably accurate - if you held a gun to my head and said "Vote for a Dem", and the gun wasn't big enough to kill me instantly but would only leave me in a chronic vegetative state, I'd vote for one of these two)
  4. Dean (I thought he ranked here because of his stances on guns, until I saw 5-8)
  5. Kerry
  6. Clark (huh? I think Kerry and Clark are equally dismal!) Actually, the scary part is that Edwards and Clark's compatibility rankings went fro Edwards' 58 to Clark's 56% - which may show how little truly separates these four guys...
  7. Sharpton
  8. Kucinich
No surprises...

posted by Mitch Berg 2/2/2004 05:01:52 AM

Sunday, February 01, 2004

What the Super Bowl Means To Me - Mere weeks until pitchers report for spring training.

I like pro football for purely social reasons; few things are more fun than gathering around the TV with a bunch of guys, beer, pizza and chips. And beer.

But as far as intrinsic entertainment? Just a few more hours, and that great annual time suck, NFL football, will be over, and America's real rite of spring, baseball, will be underway again.

Don't get me wrong: If the Bears were in the Super Bowl, or even in the chase, it'd be another matter. But they're not. So...

I predict New England 225, Carolina 3. Which should tell you more about how little I care than about how I think the game will go.

And good riddance to another Bear-less "Super" Bowl.

posted by Mitch Berg 2/1/2004 04:16:39 PM

Call it Practice - So I have a question for the Northern Alliance, in the spirit of the grilling our Commish gave us yesterday, and in practice for the big secret project...:

The press these days is gleefully touting the degree to which Bush's free-spending, neo-Tip-O'Neill ways are eroding his support from the conservative base.

What do you all think? Is the base going to stay home? Defect to an heir of Pat Buchanan? Write in Steve Forbes?

Will they respond as Sullivan seems to think?

Or will they take Jay Reding's advice, keep their minds on the real issue (the war on terror) and vote for lesser of the evils on the ballot?

My two cents tomorrow or Tuesday - but I thought I'd toss this out to my fellow muj as well.

posted by Mitch Berg 2/1/2004 10:34:04 AM

  BCCI - 67
BRPI - 9

"The Pen Is Mightier Than the Sword" can only have been said by someone that never had to prove it.

Best Shots

Blood of the Infidel
Gore-ing Hesiod
American Bankers and the Media
The New Newspaper
Tanks for the Memories!
The Untouchables
The Class System
The DFL Deck of Cards
For The Children
The Pope of Bruce
The Blogosphere Blacklist
Keillor, Again
Open Letter to Keillor
More...

Articles
Links

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More
The Northern Alliance of Blogs
Fraters Libertas
Lileks
Powerline
SCSU Scholars
Captain's Quarters
Spitbull
and the Commish

Blogs
 

Big Media
Frankfurter Allgemeine
St. Paul Pioneer Press
Minneapolis Star/Tribune
Jamestown Sun

Niche Media
Reason
Center for the American Experiment
National Review Online
Drudge
Backstreets
WSJ's OpinionJournal
Toquevillian

Other Blogs from my Kids and I
Daryll's "Horses and Orlando"
Sam's "Comic Post"
Rock's So Tough - the Iron City Houserockers

Mental Shrapnel
Ian Whitney's MN Bloggers
Day By Day
National Novel Writing Month
Bureaucrash
Top Five - the daily Top Five list!
CuriousFurious
MN Concealed Carry Reform Now
The Onion
James Randi Educational Foundation
The Self-Made Critic
Book of Ratings
DUI Gulag

Proof There Is No Justice
Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes
Joe Grushecky and the Houserockers
Little Steven and the Disciples of Soul

Current Issue
Archives

Contact Me!

Iraqi Democracy graphic

Support democracy and human rights in Iraq!

Everything on this site (c) Mitch Berg.  All non-quoted opinions are mine.

Email: shotindark (at) mitchberg dot com

Site Meter visitors, more or less, since 9/13/03

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com