Ledger

I don’t get to all that many movies these days.  It’s a rare treat, indeed – I haven’t been in a theater since the last entry in the “James Bond” franchise, and that had been a while since my previous venture.

So I’m not so hip on who all the kids are watching these days.  Except Scarlett Johnannson.  And while she’s a fine actress (fantastic in Lost in Translation, among a few others), well, let’s just say my critique isn’t all that clinical, if ya catch my drift. 

Where was I?

Oh, yeah.  Heath Ledger.  I know I’ve seen a movie or two of his, but for the life of me I couldn’t remember which.  I know that in the back of my mind I knew “he’s not a crappy actor” – quite the opposite. Very good.

So I’ll just link to two people I know who do know their movies; First Ringer:

 Unlike [James] Dean, Ledger may not find posthumous Oscar glory unless a weak supporting actor field and a sympathetic Academy find something as mainstream as a Batman sequel worthy of a slice of acting immortality.  Despite all the logic against doing so, here’s hoping they do.

Surprisingly even to me, I find Ledger’s untimely death deeply disturbing on a personal level.  At 28 years of age, and as a struggling filmmaker who could only wish for 10% of Ledger’s professional success, I find myself tragically drawn to Ledger’s passing for reasons even I don’t yet fully grasp.  Having worked with plently of actors and other “talent” who vastly overestimate their skill, I am reminded of the few I have known who possessed genuine acting ability – and how so many of them wasted it on drugs, drink or a simple lack of ambition.  I’m also reminded – and horrified from seeing it firsthand myself – of the rigors that method actors like Ledger could put themselves through merely to entertain. 

and Red:

 I never ever had that thought [that he was “just acting”] with Ledger. And I remember, too, his couple of scenes in Monster’s Ball, another deeply portrayed kind of awkward guy, not used to speaking much – and given the right circumstances that character would probably be an awesome husband, partner … But as it was, he was relegated to isolation, stoic silence. I hadn’t seen Knight’s Tale when I saw Monster’s Ball, so that was my first impression of Ledger, and it has pretty much stuck.

And now, I’m impressed.

The Strib’s Bottomless Stockpile Of Straw Republicans

Never let it be said that I’m not a big-tent kind of person.  Indeed, the GOP – as an amalgam of fiscal, social, legal and cultural conservatives, any individual of whom might fit one through four of those four adjectives – needs to some extent to be flexible on its bedrock principles, especially since they are so relatively complex.

Indeed, that’s one of the things that separates conservatism from liberalism; you can teach any child to be a liberal (indeed, that’s what many of our schools do); it’s a short leap from “share and share alike” to “what is yours belongs to everyone; from “don’t run with scissors” to “the Second Amendment is a collective right”; from “mind your own bees-wax” to “keep your laws off my body”.   It’s not for nothing that Churchill said a man has no heart if he’s not a liberal at 20 and no brain if he’s not a conservative by 40; liberalism and adolescence are both prone to callow, facile sloganeering.  Conservatism is, if you were raised liberal (and to some extent in western culture we all are), somewhat counterintuitive.

So to be a conservative (at least a multi-issue conservative) requires a certain amount of thought – and any group of three individuals who thinks about any set of issues is going to come up with at least four solutions. So running a “conservative” party necessarily needs accomodating a wide range of points of view (to say nothing of the more-rigid, more sloganistic views of the single-issue crowd who, I should observe, often don’t understand conservatism outside the bounds of their main issue – although they can be, and have been, taught).

And that is as it should be.  It makes election time a contentious scrum (as we see in the GOP Presidential race right now), but there’s really no other way. 

That being said, “big tent” or no, there are some “Republicans” we’re better off without. 

The Star-Tribune seems to have a boundless stockpile of these people.  They show up on cue in columns by Lori Sturdevant and Doug Grow; people who mewl about feeling “cut off from the current state of the party”, who pine for the days when the GOP, especially in Minnesota, was pro-choice and anti-gun and took a soft line on crime and foreign policy.  In other words, when the GOP (nationally and especially in Minnesota) was basically Tics in better suits.

Two of these popped up in the Strib yesterday, in an op-ed by Liz McCloskey and Peter Leibold entitled “To value life — in all regards — is to be politically adrift”.  The duo – described as “…a doctoral candidate at the Catholic University of America” and a “former general counsel of the Catholic Health Association”, respectively, describe a journey that’s not all that terribly different than my own (if you substitute “Protestant” for “Catholic”), in some ways:

When we were born in the early 1960s, it was possible to be both a Democrat and a Catholic without any agonizing pangs of conscience. John F. Kennedy was president; John Courtney Murray was a public theologian; Pope John XXIII was opening a window to the world at the Second Vatican Council. But as we came of age politically, we felt orphaned by the Democratic Party, whose prolife positions on war, poverty and the environment did not extend to the lives of the most weak and vulnerable, those not yet born.

In other words, they are liberals, except for that whole “infanticide” thing.  Now, I’ve confessed in the past – abortion, like gay marriage, isn’t my hottest-button issue.  I’m pro-life, but it’s somewhere down my list of “gotta haves”.  As it was for Ronald Reagan, as it happens.

While the moderate wing of the Republican Party provided us a foster home when we worked on the Senate staff of John Danforth, R-Mo., with the likes of former Sen. Mark Hatfield, R-Ore., and others, the Grand Old Party’s move to the right, including its hardening, dominant positions on the Iraq war, access to guns and the death penalty, among other issues, have made it an inhospitable place for us to dwell permanently. 

Let’s stop right there.

I’m not one to speak for the GOP as a whole – far from it.  But if Ms. McCloskey and Mr. Leibold can’t tell the difference between the life of a fetus – a human-under-construction, utterly innocent of any wrongdoing, exactly as the Catholic Church teaches – on the one hand, and convicted murderers, especially child-murderers, murderers who rape and then kill, mass-murderers and spree-killers on the other, perhaps it’s not their politics that are adrift.  If they compare abortion on the one hand with the right of the law-abiding citizen to defend themselves from criminals on the other, perhaps it’s not the GOP’s politics that have deserted reason and rationality.

During many elections we find ourselves facing the same dilemma: Which of our values must take a back seat when we go to the voting booth? Do we let our moral concern for peaceful resolutions of conflict, the environment, addressing poverty and aggressive enforcement of civil rights guide our choices? Or do we stand firm on another important issue of conscience and signal our hope for an end to abortion? Often, both choices leave a bad taste in our mouths.

Welcome to real life, kids!

But the fact that you – a “pro-life” voter – get a “bad taste” in your mouth because I have the right to protect my and my family’s lives through the grace of the Second Amendment as an individual right, then perhaps your notion of “life” is what’s adrift.

Tuesday’s March for Life in Washington brought home this problem. The assumption of abortion opponents is that anyone serious about his or her desire to see an end to abortion will vote for the “prolife” candidate. Yet there is rarely a candidate, and certainly not a political party, that embodies the consistent ethic of life that would make casting a truly prolife vote a simple or straightforward choice.

May I suggest that y’all – and the organizations you represent – are the ones with the inconsistent “ethic of life”.  To fail to differentiate between innocent life and life that is itself anti-life – murderers, and those whose actions are lethal enough to be covered by laws governing legal self-defense – is inconsistent to the point of meaningless.  And I say this as a conservative who opposes the death penalty. 

If the Democratic Party could adopt a much less disdainful, more welcoming, perhaps even “prochoice” stance toward those under its tent who have conscientious objections to abortion, we would be much less squeamish about supporting its candidates, and we know that we are not alone in that conviction.

As the 2008 campaign unfolds, we will look for a candidate who will not use rhetoric or a tone seemingly designed to alienate those of us who simply cannot cheer for speeches celebrating the availability of abortion….

…A party and a candidate that truly respect this viewpoint are ones that can adopt these two political orphans.

I can’t speak for the notion of “respect” – but if my party were to follow your viewpoint, that the life of a murderer or of someone who wishes to kill my family and I are of no less value than an an innocent human-under-construction – then I’d choose “orphan”. 

It’s a view of “life” that doesn’t even rise to the level of “illogical”. 

The Case Of The Diced, Spiced Ham

LAW AND ORDER
SPECIAL VICTIMS UNIT
EPISODE (redacted)

SCENE 1:  SMALL GREENWICH VILLAGE APARTMENT, SPATTERED WITH BLOOD AND GORE. 

A MAN IS IMPALED TO THE WALL, APPROX. FIVE FEET OFF THE FLOOR, BY A LONG PIECE OF METAL DRIVEN LONGITUDINALLY THROUGH THE LENGTH OF HIS BODY. 

DR. HUANG AND MEDICAL EXAMINER WARNER ARE ON SCENE WITH THREE CRIME SCENE (CSU) OFFICERS AND DETECITIVES MUNCH AND TUTUOLA.  DETECTIVES STABLER AND BENSON ARRIVE ON THE SCENE. 

STABLER (HOLDING HANKIE OVER FACE):  Wow.  What’s up?

MUNCH:  It’s a bad one.  Vic was shot 24 times with a .22 pistol.  We’ve got casings…well, all over the place.

BENSON:  How’d the killer get in?

CSU1:  Killer blew the lock off its hinges with three shots from a .44 Magnum.  We have the slugs here (points), there and there.  Vic was killed over there (pointing to desk with computer); see the blood pooled on the floor?

STABLER:  Yep.  Good job.  So he blows the door open with a big gun, but he kills the vic with a tiny little popgun?

TUTUOLA:  Look at this;  CSU found the gun’s magazine. 

BENSON:  (Examines metal object).  It holds eight rounds.

MUNCH: The perp would have had to have fired eight shots, reloaded, fired eight more, and reloaded again

STABLER:  Wierd.  (Ponders).  Wonder why, when he had the .44 handy?

HUANG:  He wanted to cause pain.  A single .22 hit hardly ever kills; it takes a hit to the medulla or heart, pretty much.

WARNER:   Look at this – all 24 shots hit the stomach.  All those nerve endings – it had to be incredibly painful.

BENSON:  That had to hurt!

TUTUOLA: Word.

HUANG:  What we have here is a deliberate attempt to cause intense pain. 

STABLER:  OK.  Perp comes in, confronts vic, fires eight shots, reloads, fires eight shots, reloads, and fires eight more times.  And then…

MUNCH:  Then, the perp dragged the body over there…

 BENSON:  Blood smears on the floor in a trail from the desk to the wall…

MUNCH: …took this (points at victim) nine-foot-long piece of rebar and used this mallet to hammer it down the vic’s mouth, all the way through and out the…

BENSON:  Spare me that detail, thanks…

MUNCH:  …and then nail the whole thing to the big beam along the wall, five feet up.

STABLER:  Like a pig on a spit.

BENSON:  A monster…

WARNER:  Judging by the lividity and the blood spattering on the floor below the body, I’d say he was alive while the perp put in the rebar.

MUNCH:  Ow.

CAPTAIN CRAGEN WALKS IN. 

CRAGEN:  Whadda we got?

STABLER: A real sick puppy!

CRAGEN:  I need a collar on this one.  The media’s camping out on the commissioner’s front door demanding answers.  Canvas the neighbors?

TUTUOLA: Neighbors heard nothin’.

BENSON:  What motive could someone have to kill someone like…this?

CSU OFFICER 1 (sitting at computer along the wall opposite the body):  Detectives?  Take a look at this.

DETECTIVES, CRAGEN AND HUANG GATHER AROUND, LOOKING OVER CSU1’s SHOULDER

CSU OFFICER 1:  It looks like our victim wrote spam and trojan horses for a Russo-Nigerian online “marketing” company.

BENSON:  (Reading) Get…A…$500,000…mortgage…for…$25 a month…

BENSON, STABLER, CRAGEN, MUNCH, TUTUOLA, HUANG and WARNER TRADE GLANCES.

STABLER:  I call it a suicide.

BENSON:  Me too.

CSU OFFICERS ABRUPTLY PACK UP THEIR GEAR. 

CRAGEN:  Bagels, anyone?  I’m buying.

AND…SCENE.

The Other Side Of Zeal

Yesterday – among many other times – I wrote about the need for conservatives to stand up for their beliefs (and, more importantly, stick with them; work for them; get involved, even tangentially, in the political process).  This, I firmly believe; now – caucus time – is the time to get out to your precinct cauci and speak up for conservatism.  Spit fire.  Exude brimstone.  Get real conservative candidates, planks and ideals endorsed.  If you’re elected as a delegate or alternate, go to the convention and do more of the same.  And so on and so forth, up the party food chain, to the State convention.

Everyone with me so far?

Still, that’s kinda the easy part; although conservatives and Republicans tend not to be “go hang out and do political things” people the way Tics are (we tend to have jobs and families and stuff),  a lot of us came to conservatism for deeply idealistic reasons.

And let’s be honest; it’s a hard time to be an idealistic conservative.  MOBster and True North contrib Kevin Ecker – so conservative he actually laughs at the “Daisy Ad” – writes:

Starting in 2003, many conservatives were becoming extremely disgusted with the Republican party. We had the Presidency and we had Congress, yet none of the conservative agenda was being accomplished. Instead we had the same inept leadership and massive spending. While conservatives did bite their tongue in 2004, they decided to express their disgust in 2006. Many didn’t show up, others made protest votes, the result being horrible losses across the spectrum for the GOP.

That’s a tough one for me.

Back in 1994, in the wake of the ’94 Crime Bill and the GOP’s cave-in, I “expressed my disgust” for the GOP by leaving the party.  I sat out the “contract for America”, and joined the big-L Libertarians.   Standing for absolute principle was important to me, then.

As it is now, actually.

I left the Libertarians in 1998 because relentless purism never won an election – not even for Ronald Reagan – and never changed anyone’s history (at least not in a good way).  I figured the best way to enact the liberarian-conservatism I believed in was to engage in the long, patient slog within the GOP.  And in the long term, I still believe that.

So I have two questions for conservatives who – like me – are underwhelmed with the remaining choices in this race.

Question 1: Remember 2002?  I, like many conservatives, was underwhelmed with Tim Pawlenty’s record in the legislature.  Not as a legislator, of course – he was a consummate legislative technician.  But Pawlenty was nothing if not pragmatic; he was no idealistic conservative.  It took the challenge from conservative Brian Sullivan to drive Pawlenty to the right to win the ’02 nomination.  Although he’s bowed to some pressure in the current term, to the chagrin of many Minnesota conservatives, the fact is that he answered the pressure from the right during the nominating process – the process that starts again a week from next Tuesday – and governed as the most conservative governor Minnesota’s had in a long, long time.   So – what if all of the conservatives who were disgusted with Pawlenty had stayed home in 2002?  Or 2006?  What would Minnesota look like today with Governor Roger Moe?  Governor Mike Hatch?

Question #2:  Have you checked the EKGs in the Supreme Court lately?:  In the next four years, between one and three seats on the Supreme Court will open up.  Now – Ronald Reagan said that if you agree with someone on 80% of the issues, you oughtta forgive ’em the other 20%.  It’s safe to stay that Rudy, JMac and the Huck are stretching to get anywhere close to 80% for me (and while Mitt is probably a safe 80% on the Berg scale, I just don’t see him winning.  Not at all).  But when it comes to filling three seats on the SCOTUS – in terms that will decide key interpretations of abortion law and the Second Amendment, to say nothing of the scads of issues the new justices will decide during their lifetime careers – I have to ask you:  is 70% better than 20%?

Is  50% better than 20%?  (Are Hillary and Obama even 20%?)

There is a time and place to stand on rigid principle to save the Republican Party.  That time and place is now, and extends through the national convention.  It’s a time when we – real conservatives – need to get out and fight like hell to save this party from the go-along, get-along crowd; the crowd that wants a moderate in the Third District; the crowd that concedes Minneapolis and Saint Paul to the Tics without a real fight; the crowd that gave us Kennedy-level spending and Strib-approved candidates.

But remember – the caucuses, the BPOU conventions and District and State and National conventions are where we act for the good of the party; where we save the GOP, and make it a real conservative party.  When the national convention ends next September 4 in Saint Paul, there’s another priority, and it’s much bigger.

We have a nation to save.

Eight years ago, I supported Steve Forbes.  I supported him for reasons that, in retrospect, were absolutely right;  I fought hard against the George W Bush machine at my caucuses and in my conventions, because I believed that Forbes would be a hard-core spending hawk.  In those pre-war days, that was the most important issue – and I was right.  Forbes would have been a better economic president than Bush.  My opinion of Bush didn’t change until 9/11 – and when it comes to spending, has yet to change.

But come election time, disappointed as I was, I reasoned; who’s going to be better for this nation?  A deeply-imperfect, barely-conservative Republican?  Or a gabbling, lisping, flip-flopping, ingratiating, holier-than-thou wonk like Algore?  George W. Bush was maybe a 60% candidate for me; Algore, perhaps 10%.

So however the convention turns out – and we still have a chance to save things – ask yourself this third, final question.

It is November.  It’s election time.  And in one hand, a Jihadi holds the Constitution, waving it menacingly over a bunsen burner.  In the other hand, he holds an AK47 aimed at your child’s head.  Who do you think is going to do the right thing – not for your party (the party stuff is over, now), but for the United States of America and its future?  For your child and the Constitution?

Rudy (65%)?  Mitt (a soft 80%)?  JMac (70%)?  The Hucker (Maybe 60%, and it’s the wrong 60%)?

Or Hillary (10%), Obie (5%) or Silkypony (2%, divided between “two Americas”)?

Come out on Tuesday.  Fight for perfect.

But remember that perfect isn’t just the enemy of good enough.  This year, it might just be the enemy of “survivable”.

Against Type

What do you get when you combine Katherine Kersten – the Strib columnist that provokes the most irrational hatred per pound of any columnist in America – and Don Samuels, the North Minneapolis figure and former hero who, once he demanded radical change in Minneapolis’ decrepit school system, became minority non grata?

Listen up, folks: I don’t exactly make a habit of praising collaborative, cross-departmental efforts dreamed up by DFLers.

But this is different.

The smart money says “look for the regional leftybloggers to turn on the program”.  Assuming any of them know about it, anyway.

Squadron Leader ‘Jimmy’ James

I was – it should shock nobody – a big geek in elementary, junior and (most of) senior high school. I read. A lot. I had my library card maxed pretty continuously from when I got one – in 1970, at age six – until I graduated from high school.

Mostly, I was a history buff; I read pretty much every bit of history Jamestown’s library offered. Now, in reading as in everything else in life, I’m not as a rule a systematic guy. My style: I’d pick a subject, and go on a jag of from a week to several months reading about it incessantly (not unlike someone we all know). And those subjects were all over the waterfront.

But there were two threads that made the biggest impression on me, then and now.

One was Ernest Shackleton and the “Endurance” expedition of 1916-1919. Shackelton was a British explorer whose ship, Endurance, was crushed by pack ice during a hard Antarctic winter. He led his men for two solid years, surviving on the pack ice and then, as hope seemed to fade, on a couple of nearly-impossible treks across the superhumanly-turbulent South Atlantic, sailing hundreds of miles without sophisticated navigational gear in what amounted to open boats, in a climate where “dead of winter” and “heat of summer” aren’t really all that different. He made it, saving himself and his entire crew, in a feat that borders on mythic. Whenever life’s gotten difficult – or “difficult” – for me, I’ve looked back on Shackelton’s example, put my chin up, and kept on plodding.

My other big reading jones, from age 11 to maybe 16, was escape stories.

There were many, of course; during World War II, tens of thousands of Allied soldiers were held prisoner in conditions that varied from bad to atrocious, even with the protection of the Geneva Convention; all of them fared better than the Russian POWs (the USSR never signed the Geneva Convention, and neither Germany nor the USSR honored its terms with each others’ prisoners); all fared better than the concentration camp and extermination camp inmates, whose fate is a matter of shameful record.

And their stories – full of ingenuity, wit, hope, and above all endless perseverence in the face of near-impossible (and, in the case of concentration camp inmates, brutal and lethal) odds – inspired me, then and now.

Many of the stories should be household names, taught to students in our history classes as examples of the best of humanity. In 1944, the inmates of the German extermination camp at Sobibor, Poland – perhaps a thousand Jews and Russian POWs, there to work the machinery that consumed over a quarter-million lives, plotted to overwhelm and kill their guards and escape to the woods to try to meet the oncoming Soviets. A few hundred made it to the woods. A few dozen survived the German pursuit and the depredations of Polish civilians (who largely hated Jews more than Nazis). The story was made into a pretty good TV movie, of all things, in the mid-eighties, with Rutger Hauer, Alan Arkin and Joanna Pacula.

There was also the story of British Sergeant-Major John Coward, captured near Dunkirk, who escaped from several camps and infiltrated Auschwitz. He testified at Nuremberg.

But the biggest – and best-known – body of work on POW escapes was by three British authors – Paul Reid, Eric Williams and Paul Brickhill. Their work was closely related.

Brickhill, an Australian fighter pilot captured after being shot down over Tunisia in 1943, wrote Reach For The Sky, the story of Wing Commander Douglas Bader – one of Britain’s top aces in the Battle of Britain, despite having two artificial legs. Bader was the subject of many books. Held at a number of camps, including the infamous castle at Colditz (documented in Reid’s Escape from Colditz, among others), where many “high-value” and “incorrigible” habitual POWs were held, Bader still attemped several escapes, despite his “handicap”.

Williams was a navigator on a British Short “Stirling” bomber shot down early in the war. Held in a camp on the Baltic coast of Poland, he attempted several escapes (memorialized in his book The Tunnel); afterward, transferred to Stalag-Luft III near Zagan, Poland, he carried out one of the most ingenious escapes ever, chronicled in his book The Wooden Horse: he and two other POWs built a wooden vaulting horse; the other inmates carried the horse, the inmates inside, to the same spot in the compound every morning. Camouflaged under the spot was a trap door, which led to a tunnel the men dug, patiently, with kitchen knives and condensed milk cans, every day for months. Finally, Williams and his two compatriots escaped. Improbably, all three made it back to the UK – one (Oliver Philpot) via Switzerland, and Williams and his partner John Phillips via Sweden.  All three wrote books – Williams’ is the essential one (and was made into a movie in the UK in 1950, something I expect only Lileks to know…)
Williams’ feat was mentioned in the other major book on the subject, Brickhill’s The Great Escape.  Brickhill’s book – a true story – covered perhaps the greatest POW camp break of all time, which took place at the same camp, about a year later. This story isn’t unfamiliar to Americans; it was turned into a major motion picture in the sixties which, if you leave out Steve McQueen’s role completely (Americans were involved in the beginning of the escape, but were transferred to a US-only camp early in the digging), wasn’t all that inaccurate by silver screen standards.

But don’t forget Steve McQueen’s role entirely. It returns in a bit. Sort of.

The escape itself was epic in scale; the idea was to dig three tunnels – “Tom”, “Dick” and “Harry” – from the camp, allowing all 1,000+ inmates to escape. It went well beyond digging, though; the inmates – using jury-rigged, extemporized and smuggled materials – had to forge identity papers, create imitation civilian clothing, escape maps, iron rations for carrying on the road, and routes and tactics to get the escapees from the tunnel exit to freedom, for the POWs. (Brickhill was a POW at Stalag III at the time; barred from the escape by his claustrophobia, he particpated in other preparations).

And before any of that was an issue at all, they had to make the tunnels usable. Public TV’s Nova covered an archaological dig on the site of the old camp a few years ago. The soil in that part of Slaskie is thin, runny sand; Brickhill and Williams both spoke of the difficulties of digging through it, but it wasn’t until you saw it on Nova that you caught the full gravity of the engineering challenge it posed. The sand was a thin, yellow slop, resembling a combination of beach sand and diarrhea. The archeaological crew nearly lost a backhoe down a pit, when the side walls gave way; it would have been hard to build a useful sand castle in that slop. And yet, the Brits tunneled thirty feet down, building tunnels two feet wide and over 200 feet long, shored up with smuggled bunk boards and ration tins. They even built a trolley system on crude wooden rails, to ease the load of hauling the tons of sand – which then had to be distributed around the camp (it looked yellow and muddy until the sun could dry it, meaning that the inmates had to devise elaborate ruses to hide the stuff).

In the end, in March of 1944, 241 POWs entered one of the tunnels (one had been discovered, and the other used to hide sand); before the escape was discovered, 76 got out. 73 were recaptured (two Norwegian and one Dutch pilots made it to the UK); of the rest, 50 were murdered on Hitler’s orders.

I remember that story, like Shackleton’s, whenever I think something is impossible, or just too damn hard.

The above is a long, long lead-up to the actual story of this post.

The four great British POW escape books – Escape from Colditz, The Tunnel, The Wooden Horse and finally The Great Escape – all had one name in common; a young British officer, captured in the early days of the war, who attempted escape more than any known man. Steve McQueen’s motorcycle-jumping wise-cracking Yank in the Great Escape movie was said to have been loosely modeled after the real life exploits of Squadron Leader ‘Jimmy’ James, who passed away last week at age 92. S/L James particpated in the Great Escape – he was the thirtieth man through the tunnel on the night of the big break – as well as many earlier and later attempts. None of thsoe attempts got him back to the UK – he was rescued by American soldiers at the end of the war, as SS guards debated executing him and a group of other POWs that were bein held as hostages.  But all of which made him a legend among British POWs.

James was one of the few to escape execution after the Great Escape, and joined two others at the notorious death camp at Sachsenhausen, from where he made another daring escape by tunnel, only to be recaptured 10 days later.

Read the whole long, fascinating story.

And if you learn nothing else from his example, learn tenacity.

He Took The Deal

Fred Thompson is out.

Cap’n Ed:

Thompson had a great voice for conservatives in the race, but he had the weakest track record. He only had eight years in the Senate, no executive experience, and a mixed voting record. As a presidential nominee facing either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, the inexperience factor would have been negated — perhaps the GOP’s greatest potential strength — and his reluctance to campaign as necessary in today’s political market would have put the Republicans at even more of a disadvantage. In those senses, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain have better credentials and more upside for November.

Rated purely on the issues, Fred was my favorite Republican (ergo, candidate) in the race, and the closest to a solid conservative.

With two weeks until Super-Di-Duper Tuesday, my short list is looking like this:

  1. Mitt and Rudy in a dead heat.  I may need to re-score the grading (stay tuned), but at this point it’s a tossup for me.
  2. JMac is in a distant third, but if he gets the nomination, he’s still vastly better than any alternative from the left (even Bill Richardson, should he jump back into the race and somehow win the Tic nomination). 
  3. The Hucker?  Again – better than Madame Putin, Silkypony or Obie, but it’s not gonna be an issue.  No way he comes out of Super-Di-Super Tuesday on his feet.

Thompson was a long-shot all along, and those of us who wanted a “real” conservative should have known it – if not up-front, then as his campaign started slow and stayed somnambulent.

Blah.

So it becomes a choices of who’s “good enough”-enough; Rudy the hawk and fiscal conservative, Mitt the fiscal whiz and foreign-policy naif, or JMac the conservative with the asterisk.

More later.

Teaching Them A Lesson

I don’t quote Glen Reynolds much – everyone reads him anyway – but on reading and hearing from all the Republicans who want to “teach the party a lesson” if the nominate the wrong guy, this bit struck home:

Some people think it’s time to teach the party a lesson. Fine, but I thought 2006 was supposed to do that. Did they learn anything? Seems to me that things are about what they were when I put up my pre-mortem post that had Limbaugh exercised. (For that matter, did losing in 2000 and 2004 improve the Democrats? What, exactly, have they learned that led to the Hillary/Edwards/Obama offering? Are political parties capable of really learning?)

A couple of points here:

  1. Parties don’t learn “lessons”.  Minnesota’s GOP should be a great lesson for all of you who think that abstaining from voting is going to do you, the party or the country any good at all; the reverses in ’04 and ’06 caused the MNGOP to panic and revert (in many quarters) to the “moderate”, Sturdevant-approved  party of the bad old days.  Remember – parties have long memories, as long as those of the people who show up and do all the work.  And conservatism is still, in many ways, an insurgency in the GOP, especially in Minnesota.  Staying home from the election because, say, Mark Kennedy voted for ethanol subsidies, or because Mitt Romney flip-flopped (even in the right direction!) on abortion, teaches one lesson; conservatives are flighty and unreliable when it comes to election time.
  2. And don’t get started about third parties.  I say this as someone who left the GOP in 1994, outraged at the party’s sellout on the ’94 Crime Bill.  I joined the big-L Libertarians for four years.  It was great.  I got to hang out with a lot of people who believed all the right things!  Of course, they – we – had the luxury of ideological purity precisely because we never had to govern anything; we never had to put our ideas into the scrum of actually having to run anything or represent a district that had elected us via a plurality.  Just a convention that had endorsed us unanimously.  You think starting a third party “sends a message?”  Remember Pat Buchanan?  Remember the effect he had in 2000?  Me either.

So is the lesson “fall in line behind the party?”  Hell no.  Get pissed.  Get angry as hell.  Do something radical, and show up at the Caucuses, two weeks from tonight.  Find your precinct – here or here – and stand up for your guy or gal.  I’ll be there, and I’ll fighting like hell to do a bunch of things:

  • get my guy endorsed.  (I’m close to deciding, but I ain’t saying yet).
  • try to do my little bit to get some sort of grass-roots GOP movement going in the city
  • try to show certain parties at various levels in the GOP that some of us in the city aren’t satisfied with the way things are.

The catch, of course, is that you have to show up at caucuses.  And, if it works that way, your BPOU, District and State conventions.  And try to find the time to help out in between, phone-banking and lit-dropping and getting the vote out.  Because changing anything is way, way more than just writing a resolution and making a speech.  It takes work, and tons of it.

One of the most instructive lessons of my political life was watching (and, in an infinitesimal way, participating in) the movement to reform Minnesota’s concealed carry laws.  When all was said and done, Concealed Carry Reform Now of Minnesota spent nine years and thousands of hours…:

  • building a mailing list
  • getting people to show up at gun shows to pass out literature and make people aware of the issues
  • buttonholing legislators, one at a time, to state the case
  • doing the same for voters, until eventually – by 2000 and 2002 – outstate voters were removing DFLers (and a few recalcitrant Republicans) who opposed carry reform from office.  That got the legislature’s attention; after 2002, the DFL legislators, motivated by political self-preservation, allied themselves with the good guys.

It took good people getting involved.  Some of them got very involved; a few of CCRN’s majordomos made it nearly a full-time job, on top of their real jobs and families and lives – but the real triumph was that they got tens of thousands of Minnesotans to care about reforming a sexist, racist, paternalistic law – one voter at a time.  And eventually one lawmaker at a time.  And finally one state at a time.

That’s how you change parties.  A voter at a time.  A precinct at a time.  A ward, a legislative district, a congressional district, a state at a time.

Notice that “staying home and teaching the bastards a lesson” doesn’t pop up in there at all?

Someone Tell MPR

Non-profits shield scads of income from the IRS through “unrelated business activities”:

The Chronicle of Philanthropy reviewed the Form 990s for 91 nonprofit organizations — including Columbia, Emory, Harvard, Indiana, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Minnesota, Penn, Stanford, UC-Berkeley, USC, and Yale — and found that the organizations reported $412.9 million of income from unrelated business activities, but 46 (51%) reported zero tax liabilities:

The finding does not mean that the nonprofit organizations have run afoul of tax laws. In fact, legal experts say charities are merely following federal tax laws on the books for years that allow them to shield much of their income from tax through exemptions that Congress has built into the tax code and to take myriad expenses as deductions for operating expenses. …

This was (and, presumably, still is) Minnesota Public Radio’s big dodge for the past decade and a half; spin off companies like “Rivertown Trading” (a catalog knick-knack sales operation that moved everything from Lake Wobegone memorabilia to snarky sweatshirts) and others.  It made vats full of money, while MPR begged and pleaded both on the air and at the various capitols for more.

Yes. Yes. A Thousand Times Yes.

To:    Classmates.com
From: Mitch Berg
Re:    The Tenth Anniversary of your ad.

To whom it may concern,

You (pl) have been running the “She Married Him?” banner ad featuring this misbegotten couple…

 

…roughly since 1994. 

Yes.  They got married.  They had seven kids.  they were a happy couple, oddly enough, given the the odd nature of their “Bowser Meets Mr. Dreamy” relationship.

Then came your stupid ad in all of its permutations, and things were doomed from then on.  The stress of being “that geeky pasty-faced redhead” and “the jockboy who married the weird chick” probably got to them.  Their kids will be in therapy forever.

Are you satisfied, you bastards?

That is all. Continue reading

Where Have We Seen This Before?

The last time we saw Hillary! Clinton talking like this…:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration.

… it led us directly to the Gingrich Revolt of ’94.

Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.

Reflecting what her aides said were very different conditions today, Mrs. Clinton put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them.

File under “Silver Linings” should Hillary!’s pact with the Dark Lord pay off with a presidency.

Without Honor

Paul Mirengoff comments on Huckabee’s “I’d rather be in second place with honor than in first place with dishonor” quote – which’d seem to be a swat at current leader John McCain:

You can’t be in second place with honor once you take a shot like that at an honorable man.

I’ll chalk it up to the Hucker trying to coin a cute turn of phrase, and milling out a squib.

But it’s a dumb squib.

Noted In Passing

I got this via email today (I’ll keep the sender anonymous, unless the sender wants their identity made public); I’ve added emphasis:

As for the latest gusset plate findings, the original I35W bridge design and it’s approval seem to coincide with the peak of Minnesota political power of Nick Coleman Sr.  [the columnist’s father, and former Minnesota legislative leader] If you really want to P.O. “Nickboy” you can refer to the collapsed I35W bridge and “the Nick Coleman Senior collapse I35W bridge”.

Heh.

Although that’d be kind of below the belt; Nick Senior wasn’t any more an engineer than his son is. 

(Or any less a “journalist”, if we presume that the elder Coleman wouldn’t have been publicity-hungry, or dumb, enough to have blamed politicians for disaster before he knew any empirical facts).

Cave-In

One of the things that makes being a Republican in the city so interesting is that the entire place is such a tabula rasa; everywhere you go, there are people and institutions whose entire notion of who and what a Republican, and a conservative is is entirely formed by slanders they’ve gotten from the Tic media, their unions, their tic parents, or whatever.  It makes every victory you win (and those are measured by individual people in Saint Paul, not by offices or races or percetages of representation) all the sweeter.  And there are victories.

One of the things that makes being a Republican in a place like Saint Paul so enervating is that too many Republicans – as opposed to conservatives – are like the guys in Bruce Springsteen’s Born in the USA; like dogs who’ve been beaten too much, who spend half their lives just covering up. 

A little bird has told me a very disturbing story that, if true and in context, would indicate that way too many of my fellow inner-city Republicans are the latter; if true, the battle for the cities is going to get a lot harder before it gets easier.

More later.

Every Bit As Qualified As Nixon

One of the biggest, nastiest indictments against Richard Nixon’s legacy is that he used the apparatus of the Federal government – including the FBI – to gather information about his political opponents (although to be fair, so had LBJ and JFK, to one extent or another).  It was supposed to have been a thing of the past.

It’s a very dangerous thing.  It’s the sort of thing that President Bush’s critics carp about endlessly (although those critics seem to have trouble distinguishing between “internal political” enemies and “foreign terrorists arrested overseas”, but Bush Derangement isnt’ about distinctions).

So I’d like to make sure the whole world – or at least the part of it that reads this blog – knows that Hillary wants to do the same thing.  If you haven’t read the linked piece, from my radio colleague Ed Morrissey, then do:

In other words, the White House would basically run their sales pitch through the offices of the Democratic National Committee. The federal government, rather than making its case through the normal legislative process, would instead deputize the DNC to run its publicity campaign, further politicizing the entire process. They would also use the DNC to “help keep the Democratic base groups pumped up and excited”, which gives readers an insight into the purpose of the entire program.

All of that falls into the category of “politicizing” the White House, and much more than having Karl Rove as deputy chief of staff.

But it gets worse:

But this goes beyond mere politicization. The HCTF foresaw using the DNC to “gather intelligence” on political opposition — a way to gain information to intimidate or extort their critics. It’s bad enough when electoral campaigns do this, but having the White House use the DNC for these purposes doesn’t border on abuse of power but invades it with a vengeance.

It gets into Communist and Fascist turf; using the Party as a de facto arm of government, as a web of informants gathering information not just to further the party’s legitimate election efforts, but as an adjunct to furthering government policy. It’d turn the Tic party into a domestic political surveillance operation reporting directly to the President.

I’d love to know what actual Democrats think about this.

Speaking Of That Tiny Tent…

In the previous post, I decried the intellectual provincialism of the (usually) female voters who claim their vote will be based on gender first and foremost.

I have never, ever, met a guy who claimed he’d vote “men first”.  I suppose such a guy exists out there; an angry fathers’ rights advocate, a militant gay, someone – but if I met such a guy, it’d be a first.

In the meantime, I’ve known quite a few women (and a few men) who claimed – as I noted in my previous post – that a pair of Y chromosomes was basically all they needed to earn their vote (although presumably they’d make exceptions for Michele Bachmann and Mary Kiffmeyer).

And I knew, in the pit of my gut, that I’d find more on the subject by reading the Twin Cities’ media’s most reliable Tic flak, Lori Sturdevant.

And it goes without saying that the key to the story will be a “Republican who is disaffected by the current state of the party”:

The story was that one longtime Republican backer of womenwinning (which at the time was called the Minnesota Women’s Campaign Fund) phoned another to announce that she was organizing a Republicans for Choice rally at next September’s GOP national convention in St. Paul. It was the sort of thing the two of them used to love to do 25 or 30 years ago — back when there was something called the GOP Feminist Caucus and when Minnesota’s Republican leadership had not yet alienated or exiled almost all of its backers of legal abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment.

“Can I count on your support?” Sally Pillsbury asked Marilyn Bryant.

“I’m sorry,” replied Bryant, “but I’m supporting Hillary.”

Naturally, “feminism” in Sturdevant’s world is really only about one topic:
So is womenwinning. The still officially multipartisan state organization sends money only to candidates who are female, prochoice and viable, and this year found itself able to endorse a candidate for president for the first time.

Bryant, a womenwinning founder, explained her choice last week: “I’ve seen women move into the professions — business, law, medicine — with great success. But in politics, it’s been a terribly slow process. I’d love to have the opportunity to vote for a woman for president, especially a woman who’s as articulate, smart and qualified as Hillary Clinton is.”

That longing among female voters — some of them former Republicans like Bryant — is getting much credit for Clinton’s resurgent victory Tuesday.

Let’s take a step back here – partly because reading Sturdevant is so terribly depressing, but mostly because it’ll help unpack the stupidity of Sturdevant’s subjects.

Ms. Bryant just rattled off a condensed litany of real feminism’s genuine triumphs:  women are completely integrated into pretty much every facet of American life.  Indeed, in many areas, the pendulum has overcorrected; women are almost 2/3 of our college students today; primary and secondary public education is downright hostile to boys, and it’s having an effect on boys’ attitudes about seeking higher education that will eventually bite this nation in the butt.

To keep women’s votes coming the way they did in New Hampshire, Clinton has to make sure they see her the way Bryant does: articulate, smart, qualified, and a woman to boot — and not the way her opponents cast her in Iowa: too calculating, cautious, controlling and connected to a certain previous administration.
Articulate, smart, qualified – and let’s not forget a closet banana-republican authoritarian who has it in her to be the female Nixon.
And dont’ worry, Hills – Lori’s got your back; nary a discouraging word will escape her lips – or those of her paper, which will likely be thoroughly in the bag for you as well. But you knew that)
Clinton emerged from New Hampshire as both the establishment and the feminist candidate. That’s a complex and somewhat contradictory dual identity that no previous major presidential contender has borne. She’s traversing uncharted territory.
It’s complex and contradictory, perhaps.  It’s also fragrant crapola.  John Kerry, Algore, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were nothing if not “establishment” and slavishly adored by the “feminist” establishment.
And now, the local angle:
A lot of politically ambitious women are watching her for a lesson in how to do it…Minnesota House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, state Senate Assistant Majority Leader Tarryl Clark and Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner — would have to decide how early and how often to play the gender card if they run for statewide office in 2010 or beyond.

In the wake of Clinton’s New Hampshire experience, all three played it boldly Wednesday.

With a big chunk of the tic vote, it’s a safe bet.

The Tiny Tent

It’s a phenomenon I’ve long found perplexing; otherwise-smart women who, when the subject is politics, will always vote for the woman first.  Or, should I say, “always” vote for the female candidate, since they are frequently women who grunt and roll their eyes when the likes of Margaret Thatcher or Condi Rice are mentioned; what they mean, naturally, is liberal women.

Oprah endorsed Obie.  And it’s ruffling some of that same wad of feathers:

Yet a backlash by Clinton supporters appears to have prompted a rethink by Winfrey, the African-American media titan who is routinely described as the most influential woman on television…a reader called austaz68 said she “cannot believe that women all over this country are not up in arms over Oprah’s backing of Obama. For the first time in history we actually have a shot at putting a woman in the White House and Oprah backs the black MAN. She’s choosing her race over her gender.”

I’ve met people – most of them women – who literally say, in as many words, they vote for women first, regardless of their policies.  Of course, most of these people are in Saint Paul, where the only real choice in politicians is “liberal” or “more liberal”.

Right In The Gussets

The last time Nick “The Monkey” Coleman talked about gusset plates, he was tittering like a schoolgirl (I add some emphasis):

Get ready to be gusseted…I doubt that many Minnesotans heard of gussets before Aug. 1…“gusset” has become a favorite word in the mouths of politicians, particularly those looking to cast suspicion not on their politics or policies, but on inanimate steel objects.

Of course, if the “inanimate steel objects” (and, more importantly, the design work that went into them) actually were the problem – well, that’d be an issue, wouldn’t it?…Although a three-year study of the problems of the ailing I-35W bridge did not focus attention on the bridge’s gussets, and although the bridge was still in the Mississippi River, it took only a week after the bridge fell for the Bush administration’s secretary of transportation, Mary Peters, to finger the culprits: Gussets.

The mockery oozes through Coleman’s writing; you can practically hear his thought process creaking away:  “GUSsets!  That sounds FUNny.  Sounds like something a Buh-LOGG-er would think up.  Damg WINGnuts“.

Well, he was wrong.  We were right.  And Coleman has, apparently, been “gusseted”.

So badly gusseted was he that he gussets logic even worse than usual!:

The head of the National Transportation Safety Board says inspections of the Interstate 35W bridge would not have found flaws in the design of the bridge, which opened in 1967. Such inspections would not have learned if Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone or whether the moon is made of green cheese, either.

Ooh, can I play?

“But then, raising the gas tax wouldn’t have copped Oswald, cheesopsied the moon or raised the Titanic!”

Maybe I can be a “Metro Columnist”.

So NTSB board chairman Mark Rosenker was disingenuous, at best, when he said “routine” inspections would not have found a flaw in the bridge gussets that the NTSB is blaming for the collapse. “Routine?”

There was nothing “routine” about the bridge, including its inspections. It had so many problems that it was the most-inspected bridge in Minnesota and engineers were openly worried (according to a story in this paper Aug. 19) about the dangers of a collapse.

That nobody – nobody! – proof-reads Coleman’s material is a matter of record.  But I wonder – does Coleman even read his own stuff after he types it?

The fact that MNDoT recognized the bridge’s issues – “Worried” about it – to the point where it became the most inspected bridge in Minnesota means that the response was routine.

The question isn’t whether the original designers were distracted by thoughts of Marilyn Monroe as they were planning the bridge. The question is why wasn’t the bridge closed, or fixed, by those in charge now?

Because nobody knew the gussets were inadequate enough to topple the bridge.  Corrosion is a fact of life in steel structures, and piers are just as prone to tilting as foundations are to settling after 40 years. 

But the gussets are a godsend to officials who want the public to believe they had no idea the bridge was in jeopardy and there was nothing that could have been done about it.

Neither statement is true.

Right – presuming that any indication existed that the gussets were inadequate for the job. 

Which, as it happens, seems – at this point – to be inconveniently nonexistant.

The gussets are Minnesota’s O Ring. When the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986, the flaw was a gasket called an O ring that failed in cold temperatures. But the O ring problem was known to the officials who crossed their fingers and launched the shuttle.

The O ring didn’t decide to launch itself, and the bridge didn’t decide to stay open to traffic, despite its many flaws.

The difference – because Coleman either chooses not to explain it, or because he doesn’t know any better (place your bets) was that while Morton-Thiokol – the company that designed and built the O-rings on the Challenger – left documentary evidence that they knew the O-rings could contract outside of tolerances during cold weather, there is no documentary evidence (available to the public, at any rate) that the bridge’s designers had the foggiest clue that their gusset plates were inadequate to the job. 

To be able to explain the difference would be the mark of a good journalist…

…so let’s just move on.

But the present administration is in the hands of a political philosophy that has not been willing to invest enough in the future while leaning, too heavily, on what was built in the past.

So for Nick’s benefit, let’s indulge in some alternate history.

Let’s say Skip Humphrey was elected governor in 1998, and turned the show over to Mike Hatch in ’06, and just for kicks, let’s say they governed from 2002 on with Tic supermajorities in both houses.  Let’s assume (safely) that they jacked up taxes, and that they then went on to:

  1. anticipate that infrastructure repair was their top priority (we’re being wildly hypothetical, here), and…
  2. …until that long, unglamorous job was done, they would resist the politican’s great siren song, to build monuments to their own wisdom by wasteing any more money on mass transit (again, really going out on a limb) and…
  3. …in a feat of Kreskin-like prediction, someone at MNDoT knew that they needed to measure all of the gusset plates on the state’s bridges, re-checking forty-year-old calculations and material spec work from long-retired engineers against real-life deterioration and changes in assumptions, on the off-chance that such a project would come up with forty-year-old errors?

Then, if all  of those assumptions were met, there would have been a chance of predicting the disaster. 

Any action on that bet?

Blaming the collapse on design errors made by people who are gone from the scene does not go far enough in finding responsibility for an avoidable tragedy.

No.  It doesn’t go far enough in hunting the witches Nick Coleman wants to find.

The fallout from Aug. 1 is far from over. And Tuesday’s NTSB report won’t end it.

Minnesota was not just let down by flawed steel, but by a flawed commitment to safety and the public good.

And today, it’s being let down by shallow, showy, shrill, shrieking, agenda-driven hackery masquerading not only as “journalism” (where it stands out from the norm only through its own incompetence), but as armchair “engineering” to boot.

(Or as Coleman himself might say in his Bowery-Boys-via-Ole-And-Lena argot, the big cheese Coleman was so full of gas that his column got gusseted by the wingnuts) 

Facts Are For Wingnuts

I’ve been waiting with bated breath to see how the local Sorosphere would react to the news that their conclusion that the “No New Taxes” crowd all but blew up the 35W River Bridge was wrong.

And while Lori Sturdevant is the gold standard for Tic PR flaks in this area (and Nick Coleman is the DFL’s trained organ-grinder monkey), there is no better barometer of the Twin Cities’ left’s smug, entitled gestalt than Brian Lambert.  I’ve beein waiting for his take on what is – for most of us – the good news; the news that bad design, rather than depraved malfeasance, led to the collapse.

Was I to be disappointed?

It’s Lambert.  He’s the most reliable source of material in town.

It was 6 p.m. Tuesday when I first heard of the NTSB’s “preliminary” finding that a design flaw—too thin gusset plates—was the cause of the I-35W bridge collapse. By 6:07 p.m., I had received a copy of an e-mail Star Tribune bete noire, Dan Cohen, had fired off into the teeth of Eric Ringham and Tim O’Brien of the paper’s editorial page and columnist Nick Coleman.

Read Lambert’s piece for Cohen’s letter and [the parts of Cohen’s] background [that express Lambert’s bias].  Summary:  Cohen, like me, was jumping on Nick “the Monkey” Coleman’s many, loathsome, premature assignments of guilt.  (A detailed fisk of Coleman’s “the dog ate my logic” column will follow, probably tomorrow).

And to start with, Lambert puts on his big-boy pants and takes his medicine:

Those of us who shared Coleman’s view—that penny-pinching by craven politicians fearful of the wrath of the cynical “small-government crowd” bear a responsibility for the collapse—aren’t exactly buoyed by the NTSB report.

I’m trying to imagine how “buoyed” one would be by circumstances that led to 13 deaths.  But in the interest of discussion, I’ll let that one slide. 

But this one is “preliminary.” It is not the last word, and myriad issues remain, all supporting more comprehensive inspection and maintenance of government-owned infrastructure, something that requires significantly more cash than will ever be generated by a piddly five-cent-a-gallon tax increase…

 …and all of which would be more useful than the billion plus dollars we’re going to spend on a light rail line from nowhere to noplace – which seems to be completely inviolate in the world of Brian Lambert and Nick Coleman. 

Moreover, although Cohen and his “no-new-taxes brigade” have distilled this to Coleman and the Star Tribune vs. Republicans, Carol Molnau and Govenor Pawlenty in particular, Coleman at least was pretty clear at the start that blame should be placed at the feet of both political parties with the Republicans just happening to be running the show as the thing fell into the river.

This is, of course, buncombe:  it was aimed squarely at Pawlenty, fiscal conservatives (and the handy dandy group that serves as our lobbying body, the Taxpayers League) and anyone that doesn’t claim to channel the spirit of Walter Mondale.  Which would be Minnesota’s right – Republicans and the thin film of fiscally-responsible Tics. 

Read it and judge for yourself.

There is actual good news in Lambert’s column, though.  That’s right – those of us who believe Coleman has less “gatekeeping” and “editing” than any self-respecting blogger are also vindicated!

In the interest of both fairness and putting on a quality show for the reading public (who always loves a good scrap . . . not to mention the sight of newspaper elitists eating crow), I called…Coleman, who, at a little before 4 p.m. Wednesday afternoon, was banging out a column that he doubted the paper would ever run. (Have I buried the lede here?)

When I asked what he was going to say to the Dan Cohens of the world, Coleman replied, “I’ve been strongly advised not to even try.”  Word, he says, had been passed along down the editing chain that nothing from him on the NTSB  finding was wanted unless he could come up with a new, fresh “reported” angle, maybe, you know, another variation on some victim’s story. (Can’t get enough of that, can we?) But his columnist’s opinion on the report? Apparently not, according to Coleman.

Did I mention he was writing one anyway?

No, and since the suspense isn’t killing you either, gentle reader, here it is

That’s why I like the guy. He’s a public asset. I think it’s the Irish thing. Born to brawl and all that. When you have some insulated, dweeby editor wringing hands over . . . ooohhh “contentiousness” and “needless provocation” . . ., you want a guy who basically says, “[Bleep] off, and go back to your pod.”

Did the “insulated, dweeby editor” mention anything about “jumping to conclusions” and “acting on facts not anywhere in actual evidence?”

“Responsibility as a reporter?”

“Writing to a standard higher than the bloggers who standards Nick Coleman couldn’t meet if he had to?” 

 I used to think that was what good Metro columnists did. Especially when they had the acute theatrical sense to know that everyone following a story as rich as the Strib‘s (entirely warranted) “Get Molnau” series wants to hear his response to what appears to be a damning official declaration that he and his colleagues have been wrong, and his apology to the poor beknighted Ms. Molnau. (Believe me, that last part ain’t happening.)

And…why?

He was wrong!  The engineers have (preliminarily) scuppered Coleman’s arrogant, purplefaced, wrong conclusion!  Empirical fact has beaten emotional demigoguery!

And Coleman’s empirical, considered, “journalistic” response?

As for Cohen, Coleman says, “I like Dan. Hell, I agree with him on about 90 percent of his criticisms of the paper. But he’s full of gas on this gusset thing.”

“Full of gas”.

And yes, [Strib letters editor and leftyblog starboinker Tim] O’Brien says reaction to the NTSB report is already building with righties demanding to know when the paper is going to apologize to Carol Molnau.

Maybe publisher Chris Harte will run over to St. Paul hat in hand. I don’t see Coleman making that trip.

A better guess: like all good high priests of knowledge, they’ll withdraw to their inner sanctum until the peasants go elsewhere.

We’ll get to Coleman in a bit.

Life Is Short, And Here’s The Dang Thing About It

Kouba writes about yet another mutual favorite of ours, John Hiatt:

John Hiatt is a true musician, and an accomplished songwriter whose songs have been covered by many of the biggest names in the business. Like John Mellencamp, who is about the same age, Hiatt is from Indiana, and has had his share of hard knocks.

 Hiatt is indeed an amazing singer and writer.  I first discovered him with “Slow Turning”, his big comeback after kicking booze in the late eighties.  It’s a paradox of rock and roll – or maybe a metaphor for it – that some of the best artists’ best, most creative years come when they’re the most bent; Pete Townsend, Warren Zevon and a long list of others top the list of artists whose best material happened when they were partying like it was 1999. 

Hiatt went against that grain, and thankfully so; his best years were still ahead of him when he put down the bottle.

He stayed dedicated to his craft, and I think it’s one of the Laws of the Universe that if you shower something with love for long enough, something beautiful is guaranteed to grow.

Which, like “the best way to become wealthy/in love/happy is to appear as if  you already are”, is some of the best advice in life.

Fire Sale on Campaign Furniture?

Doug at BoGo has perhaps Bthe most salient sign that the Huckaboom is fading: Hugh Hewitt is defending him:

You had a nice run HuckaJesus, and gave He of the Immaculate Hair a heck of a (huck-of-a?) scare. But it’s obviously over for you now. You can stop the push polling and the pathetic pandering on immigration any time now. If you do perhaps we’ll remember you as the charming fellow with the quick wit and gentle demeanor, rather than the oily prick beneath the surface that act was designed to cover up.

I’m not going to diagnose what was beneath the surface; the oiliness was in the national media that tried to build him into an electoral strawman for Hillary to light on fire – and succeeded in making him a costly diversion on the GOP’s road to choosing a nominee.

All The Wrong…Solutions?

King Banaian may blanche, but I suggest that 99% of economics is political.

And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that that’s what’s behind the administration’s “Fiscal Stimulus” package aimed at jump-starting growth:

Bush planned to lay out his position Friday, but he wasn’t expected to go into specifics. Press secretary Dana Perino said Bush would demand that any package be effective, simple and temporary _ mirroring calls by Democratic lawmakers for a “timely, targeted and temporary” stimulus measure.

Well, it’s not really an echo; when Tics say “targeted”, it means “targeted at their constituents”. And if I were a Tic, I’d be just a little insulted.

But more on that later.

Taxpayers could receive rebates of up to $800 for individuals and $1,600 for married couples under a White House plan. Although lawmakers were considering smaller rebate checks and more money for food stamp recipients and the unemployed, Bush told congressional leaders that he favors income tax rebates for people and tax breaks for business investment.

In other words; Republicans favor handing out sandbags to fight the flood; Tics want to give out Handi-wipes to people who are in water up to the waist.

Naturally, due to the politics we’re stuck with, the real solution – shutting off the water – seems to be off the table.

The president did not push for a permanent extension of his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, many of which are due to expire in 2010, officials said.

To paraphrase Stone and Parker: “Dum dum dum dum dummmm”.