Robin “Rew” Marty answers my questions about Andy Birkey’s piece on last week’s vandalism of a “Soulforce Q” bus in Iowa…

…well, no. That’s not true. Robin – a high double-dog poobah at “Minnesota Monitor”, the local rentablog that swears it’s never gotten a nickel from George Soros, but has released no financials that I’m aware of – doesn’t “answer” the questions in the sense of “resolving ambiguities” or “filling in logical gaps”.

No, perhaps Robin – who is no dummy – giggles and smirks and avoids actually bothering with any of that “clarifying opacity” stuff that journalists are supposed to fuss over. Perhaps it’s in solidarity with most other leftybloggers; “nobody gives an intelligent answer until everyone can give an intelligent answer”.

In any case – we got nothin’ here:

So it’s Springtime, and young men’s fancy turns to thoughts of love, yadda yadda yadda…

I can only assume that’s what’s going on here, since Mitch has obviously developed a crush on me. He can barely make it a week without pulling my braids or stealing my lunch box or some sign that proves his underlying devotion to me.

Tee hee, but the only thing my heart turns to is Flash’s kegerator.

She claims that I do…

… a cute little insinuation that Andy Birkey has a disclosure he’s not disclosing:

What is Birkey’s relationship with “Soulforce Q”? While his sympathies are apparent in context (“Expect more events like these as Soulforce and the Equality Ride directly confront the institutions that produce this type of hatred”), his relationship is not.

Obviously not taking the time to see that Andy’s been covering Soulforce since October of 2006, he just assumes Andy’s making some sort of push in his own interest. I guess Mitch’s crush on me is more recent than I knew.

And that’d make two of us, but again, irrelevant.

No, I didn’t know that Andy Birkey’s been covering “Soulforce” for six months. In fact, I doubt most readers who happened onto the site would know it, or have the faintest idea about it. Nor, if you believe that journalism should be clear, should they have to. You don’t want your readers to have to dig great swathes of context out of your stories.
No, I was insinuating nothing. Read my original piece; I wondered why key elements of the story were left out, and from where Birkey drew his bout of clairvoyance?

The worst part is, he is still claiming that we must be part of Media Matters since we share offices with them, even though the Center moved offices a few months ago. I hope he hasn’t been sending me poetry to the DC office, since I’m not sure how long they forward the mail.

Aw, shucks. But again, the Minnesota Monitor’s parent organization – the one that paid rentabloggers like Marty and Jeff Fecke throughout the campaign and (presumably, though I could be wrong) still does, did share offices with Media Matters for quite some time. And try as I may (and I have), I can find no financial disclosures of any kind from that organization.

So Robin can giggle and smirk all she wants – and, indeed, she does…:

But his little spitballs and stickers on the back of my shirt are noticed and appreciated, and seen for what they truly are – an obviously smitten admirer.

Don’t worry Mitch, I’ll see you at the garage soon, and you can bring me the flowers.

…but the questions remain:

• Why didn’t Andy Birkey tell the entire story?  The fact that Dordt college cleaned the vans up with their own maintenance staff?  Would that have upset the “baaaad Christians vandalized us” narrative too badly?
• How does Minnesota Monitor’s “Pledge” square with that shortcoming?
• And, as re Minnesota Monitor, where does that money come from, anyway?  You guys yap endlessly about Michael Brodkorb being a “paid GOP operative”, even though he discloses his income fully and promptly.  Why won’t MNMon and the Center for Independent Media do this?

And love is best saved for those that are worthy. Like a fresh new M1911A1 or a Gibson Les Paul.

Sorry. But we can be friends!

Minnesota Monitor – the group blog funded by a group that shares offices with George Soros’ attack-PR firm “Media Matters”, but whose operatives claim there’s no connection, nosirreebob, although no financials seem to be available – wrote about last week’s incident at Dordt College in Sioux Center Iowa (which I wrote about below):

Expect more events like these as Soulforce and the Equality Ride directly confront the institutions that produce this type of hatred. These people are doing the really hard work for the LGBTcommunity. If you have the means, please visit Soulforce and give a donation.

They left some parts out.  According to the Sioux City Journal, Dordt – which is a Christian school that explicitly prohibits gay relationships on campus (as is their First Amendment right; nobody forces anyone to attend Dordt), not only invited “Soulforce Q” – the gay activists from the Twin Cities who were the victims of last week’s vandalism – but would seem to have gone the extra mile in dealing with the vandalism:

The group contacted Dordt officials a few months ago to set up a panel discussion between its members and Dordt officials about the college’s GLBT policies, also having students accompany members around campus and facilitate conversations, said Norlan De Groot, Dordt director of public relations.

“We allowed their visit for two reasons: We considered this to be a learning opportunity for our students and an opportunity for Christian witness,” De Groot said…College officials were “saddened” to learn about the vandalism and apologized to the riders for its occurrence in Sioux Center, he said. Dordt maintenance workers cleaned the graffiti off of the vehicle.

“We don’t want to see that happen here,” De Groot said…The harassment and vandalism was reported to Sioux Center police, [college media relations guy Kyle] DeVries said. There was no indication anyone associated with Dordt was involved in the incidents.

(De Groot?  De Vries?  Dordt?  Ik sprek niet so veel Nederlands!  But I digress).

Go back and read the MNMon piece on the subject.  You could search for any of these facts – that Dordt did their best to both welcome the group and atone for the bad behavior of whomever committed the vandalism – but you’d search in vain.

Why?

When Minnesota Monitor came onto the scene, they said with a straight face (or as straight a face as Robin “Rew” Marty ever affects, at any rate) that because they took their organization’s “pledge”, they were a step or two above, better, and  more reliable than run-of-the-mill bloggers.

So let’s check out their “Code of Ethics” on behalf of reporter Andy Birkey’s story:

New Journalist Fellows should be honest, tireless, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information for the public… 

 I think it’s safe to say that Andy Birkey has tirelessly interpreted the events.

Never misrepresent events in an attempt to oversimplify or take events out of context…

Do you think the entire context of the story was correctly represented? 

Never limit their reporting to information that people want to hear…

If you assume that MNMon’s audience wants to hear “Small-town Christians (or maybe just Christians in general) are bigots!”, then I think that’s what MNMon has done. 

Seek to improve the public discourse by never stereotyping based on race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.

Given what was omitted from Birkey’s story, I think religious stereotyping is pretty much inevitable. 

 Use both official and unofficial sources to acknowledge and give voice to those without traditional power.

Birkey and MNMon seem to have ignored a couple of official sources.

  * Acknowledge the difference between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be understood as such.

Re-read Birkey’s last paragraph: “Expect more events like these as Soulforce and the Equality Ride directly confront the institutions that produce this type of hatred. ”  Did Birkey fulfill his duties under “the pledge?”

  New Journalist Fellows must maintain a sense of decency and integrity by treating sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

By ignoring Dordt’s efforts to invite and welcome “Soulforce Q”, and their efforts to atone for whomever committed the vandalism, Birkey and MNMon violated this term.

  * [Pledgors should] Recognize the possible negative effects of their news stories, and remain humble in the pursuit of gathering and reporting information.

“Expect more events like these as Soulforce and the Equality Ride directly confront the institutions that produce this type of hatred. ” 

  Act Independently
New Journalist Fellows should inform the public of news stories and issues without letting improper relationships compromise their integrity.

One might be bidden to wonder if Andy Birkey’s obvious sympathies for Soulforce Q might not call his commitment to this part of “the pledge” into question?

Since one or the other of the usual suspects in my comment section will no doubt yap about this, I’ll head y’all off at the pass:   Yes.  To some extent, the fact that I am a Christian colors my approach to these kinds of stories.  Given the anti-Christian bigotry that suffuses so much of the lefty media, I tend to give Christians the benefit of the doubt.  And I think that, given the facts that Andy Birkey left out of his victim-mongering polemic, those doubts are amply justified.

  * [Pledgors should] Always be fair, but always favor truth over balance.

It’d seem Birkey achieved neither…

  * Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived, and disclose unavoidable conflicts. 

What is Birkey’s relationship with “Soulforce Q”?  While his sympathies are apparent in context (“Expect more events like these as Soulforce and the Equality Ride directly confront the institutions that produce this type of hatred”), his relationship is not.  If there is a relationship, that’s fine – I’m up-front about my own sympathies, so as to help the reader gauge my own detachment, or lack of it, from a story.  The tone of the story begs the question.

  * Maintain integrity by resisting pressure from advertisers and special interests to influence news coverage.

So why did Birkey’s piece not report the whole story?

 New Journalist Fellows are accountable to their readers, critics, advocates and each other as well as to the public at large.

OK.  From where does your organization’s money come?

We can start there!

  * Keep an open dialogue with the public in an effort to maintain and improve standards.

  * Encourage the public to use the information they have to question and analyze news stories on their own, and voice grievances when they feel stories are wrong.

  * Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
  * Expose unethical practices among each other and wherever they are found to maintain professional standards.

  * Keep the same high standards to which they hold others.

Hm. 

We’ll see, won’t we?

CORRECTION:  Of course, it’s Andy Birkey, not Matt.

 Earlier this week, some of my commenters were piqued that I didn’t demand Ann Coulter have her head sawed off in the public square for using the anti-gay slur “F” word in referring to John Edwards.  I called it “bad form”, using my gift for understatement, and bemoaned the fact that Coulter’s constant “malaprops” (I wish I had the faith to believe that they actually are such) make life a lot harder for us conservatives in the trenches. 

Why didn’t I express sufficient outrage?  Partly because everyone else already was; the starchamber of mega conservative blogs have already put Coulter on their eternal spit list; what difference does it make if Mitch Berg piles on?

And partly because to do so would be to play Coulter’s game.  Inflammation is Coulter’s stock in trade, and she plies that trade better than most.  To hop up and down and wax purple over it would be like yelling at Madonna for trying to provoke, or at Michael Moore for tossing around baseless accusations, or at Lindsay Lohan for being a vacuous celebrity; it plays into the schtick.

And partly because I cling to a shred of fandom.  Coulter’s sharp, she’s incisive, and – when she’s not aiming to outrage, or doing it just for the flop of it – she’s better than most of her detractors. 

And finally, partly because I wanted to wait for someone to say what I wanted to say, only better. 

Which brings us to Mitch “The Other Mitch” Pearlstein’s letter on Coulter from the Center of the American Experiment.

Folks on the right often criticize folks on the left for not criticizing one of their own when they say something thoroughly offensive and stupid. To avoid countercharges, let it be known that I wasn’t a fan of Coulter and her style before last weekend and I’m even less so now, as her reference to presidential candidate John Edwards by the full two-syllable, homosexual-slur “F” word was galaxies beyond the pale. It was ugly and she ought to be ashamed, and frankly, I’m not too thrilled that her audience of conservative activists in Washington didn’t make their displeasure immediately clear.

And I agree.

Why was her jab at a joke so unacceptable? Because decent people just don’t talk like that, or at least they shouldn’t. And no, this is not because of overly sensitive, politically correct touchiness.

Pearlstein is right.  It’s something that goes far deeper than callow political correctness; one should treat people the way they’d like to be treated themselves.  Not that Coulter doesn’t come in for a lot of abuse from her detractors – in fact, much of it vastly more scabrous than anything Coulter herself has ever said – but that’s really no excuse.  One should try to be better than one’s opponents. 

But Coulter also was wrong because she was counterproductive. Conservatives are more inclined than liberals to challenge emotionally saturated initiatives, such as the drive for same-sex marriage. There’s not the smallest doubt in my mind that the overwhelming majority of us who oppose same-sex marriage do so honorably, as we simply (or not so simply) fear that such a radical change in our most important institution would not be in the best interests of society generally and children especially. But making such a case is increasingly hard if high-profile conservatives talk dirty.

Exactly.  It’s hard enough to cut through the noise that the left tosses in our faces without giving them more ammo.

Pearlstein notes the blazing contradiction between Coulter’s words and the conservative movement’s actions as manifested at CPAC:

… I’ve been intrigued by how well Rudy Giuliani is doing with Republicans across the country, social and religious conservatives evidently among ’em. You know the latter guys I’m talking about. All those Christians thumping without time, mercy or American place for anyone outside their parochial fold…Sure, it’s 20 months to Election Day, and by no means are all religious conservatives enamored with America’s Mayor. Not by several stretches. But for now, isn’t it more than a little elucidating that so many of them appear open to supporting a presidential candidate who doesn’t line up with them precisely on abortion, gun control and gay rights; who has been married three times; and who, for picturesque measure, has been famously photographed (I’m on real fragile ground here) wearing a dress?

Save for Coulter, what in the world is close-mindedness on the right coming to these days?

I wonder – if you posited that contradiction to a dogmoleftist like a Cenk Uyghur or a MNob, would their brain herniate?

Pearlstein notes the irony of the left’s charges as seen in his own life:

Oh, by the way, a well-known political/religious activist in Minneapolis of the larboard persuasion (that means left) recently declared at a community meeting on the North Side that American Experiment is anti-black and ultra-right-wing, not to mention “Klan-like.” My biracial daughter already has written him a respectfully nasty letter. Maybe some of my liberal friends will follow up, too.

Um, yeah, Mitch.  Let us know how that goes.

Because way too much of the left treats “nastiness” and “incivility” the same way Spike Lee treated racism; as something the left can’t be accused of, because they’ve got bigger things on their minds.

I’d say “the right needs to be better than that” – but really, we all do.

Lil’ Ollie Willis, who wouldn’t know a deep, unreported truth if it came to the surface and announced itself directly to his face, thinks he’s clairvoyant:

The big, deep unreported truth about Ann Coulters comments at CPAC is this: conservatives agree with her. They do believe that “faggot” is an acceptable term, both for gays and political opponents.

Hm. Do we?

[John McCain] denounced her remarks on Saturday morning. “The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said his spokesman, Brian Jones.

Mr. Giuliani said, “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.”

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mr. Romney, said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”

What, you mean conservative bloggers?

Like this one?

[McCain]can point to the Coulter remark as an excuse for bypassing CPAC by calling it an extremist venue that he was correct to avoid. It’s not true — most of the CPAC attendees abhorred Coulter’s remark when informed of it

Or here?

Question #2, if too obscure, is “Don’t you think Ann Coulter is typical of all conservatives?” Since every single conservative blogger I have seen this morning has roundly condemned her as well as most going so far as to believe she should never be invited to a respectable political gathering again, any broad brush painting done by liberals can easily be dismissed for what it is; rank stupidity.

Or her?

With a single word, Coulter sullied the hard work of hundreds of CPAC participants and exhibitors and tarred the collective reputation of thousands of CPAC attendees. At a reception for college students held by the Young America’s Foundation, I lambasted the substitution of stupid slurs for persuasion– be it “faggot” from a conservative or “gook” from a liberal–and urged the young people there to conduct themselves at all times with dignity in their ideological battles on and off campus.

Don’t see much approval there.

Where is the approval, Ollie? I know – you’re used to writing to the left-wing fever swamp, where all you need is to declare something for it to be so.

So where were you, Ollie, on Amanda Marcotte’s corrosive, anti-Christian bigotry?

Oh, yeah – you didn’t give a jiggly giggle about it.

Working for George Soros means never having to think real hard.

Whenever a smug, sanctimonious, unctuous liberal demigogue anywhere is under attack, you can count on someone in the Strib front office to stand up and be counted.

And with Algore’s hypocritical, power-guzzling ways (and, moreover, his lame “carbon-credit” defense) being heckled off the stage of public opinion, it makes sense that that someone is Nick Coleman.  A fellow child of political power, a fellow patrician grown accustomed to lecturing the hopeless hoi-polloi, both with hours of, um, fascinating stories to relate the sixties to today, Coleman is the Algore’s perfect defender.

It’s all so – unfair, says Coleman:

After his film about global warming won an Oscar on Sunday, Al Gore basked in the adulation of Hollywood.

You knew he’d get paid back.

No, Nick.  We knew he’d give us plenty of material. You do understand the difference, right?

The right-wing wood-chippers have been chewing Gore into little pieces ever since.

COLEMAN BS ALERT:  Actually, the story came out in The Chattanoogan – not exactly part of the Right Wing Noise Machine. 

They didn’t enjoy the joke when Gore reached into his tux and pulled out a phony presidential campaign announcement before the Oscar orchestra drummed him off stage.

Truth be told, I actually did get a laugh out of that.  Whatever his faults, Algore – like the President, actually – can occasionally poke fun at himself.  I’ll give him that much.

Strike two, Nick. 

The very sight of Gore offends people who think the Supreme Court ruled he should never again be seen in public. Those folks can’t forgive Gore for continuing to draw breath.

(Closed circuit to Nick Coleman’s nonexistent editor:  Isn’t that not only a little hyperbolic, but kind of clubfisted and inarticulate?  And, by the way, as we saw with Vice President Cheney’s brush with the Taliban this past week, it’s not the right that goes about wishing death on people…)

But what really got the phlegm flying on talk radio was the “gotcha” from a conservative group that outed the former vice president as a Limousine Electricity user. Zap.

Last year, Gore’s mansion used almost 20 times as much electricity as the average American home. Take that, you Hollywood types.

Everyone loves a juicy bit of hypocrisy, and I am prepared to believe a politician might say one thing in public and act another way in private. But the Gore electricity kerfuffle offers an opportunity for Americans to point a finger.

At ourselves.

Before Nick begins the real purpose of this column – a rote transcription of talking points – let’s set a few things straight.

I’m far from above conserving.  Of course, in my case it’s not a matter of buying into a fabian socialist scare story; it’s because I’m half Norwegian, and I like to squeeze twelve cents out of a dime, and I’m all for sending less of my take-home pay to Excel Energy.  Or to the House of Saud, for that matter.  It’s a market prerogative, and I’m doing my best to vote with my feet and my wallet.

I mentioned “fabian socialist talking points”:

The science on global warming is convincing [Hah!], and so is the need to throttle back on our polluting energy ways.

“The best response to Al Gore’s energy usage is for us to think about our own,” says Michael Noble, executive director of Fresh Energy, a St. Paul-based nonprofit group.

The group is working to develop a “clean, efficient and fair” energy system (www.fresh-energy.org). “We all ought to be looking at the automobile we drive, how we heat our house, whether it’s insulated, whether we have efficient appliances, and how to reduce our fossil fuel use.”

When non-profits start talking about making things “fair”, it’s time to keep one hand on your wallet and the other on your Constitution.

No, we don’t have to live in cold, dark caves, Noble says. The issue is about taking responsibility for our energy use, while supporting efforts to “change the entire energy system, top to bottom, to substitute energy-efficient and carbon-free energy for fossil fuels which lead to warming.”

Of course, the market will do that, on its own.  It got a major boost this past two years, as gas prices jumped over $3 a gallon; SUV sales plummeted, people took a serious look at hybrids (and found them largely wanting), alternative energy started to show at least fringe-y signs of being viable someday, and even environmentalists started reconsidering their generation-old hysteria against nuclear power.

Gore, by the way, offsets his fossil-fuel use by paying extra for renewable energy credits.

This was ignored by the talk-radio goobers, but the idea is simple: For a small extra charge, pennies per kilowatt hour, you can “buy” renewable energy credits from your energy company, which uses the money (it is carefully audited) to buy that amount of nonpolluting power (such as wind energy) for its system rather than building more power plants.

Oh, it hasn’t been “ignored” at all.  We’ll be talking about the “Carbon-neutral” flimflam this weekend on the NARN, most likely.

“The scientific evidence is rock-solid,” says Noble. “The only solution to global warming is to reduce our total carbon emissions by 80 percent. Al Gore has helped get that message across.”

Even if Tipper leaves the laundry room lights on.

The evidence is far from “rock-solid”, and Coleman’s attempt at spin control ignores the real point:  Algore, the carbon scold, is an energy-guzzling hypocrite; this past week, his motto – “conservation for me, but not for thee”, became clear.

And we’re making sure the world knows it.

I’m of two minds about this story, about Alabama’s Stillman College hosting a conference on…not race relations in general, but the “N” word itself:

With a debate swirling nationwide over the n-word, a historically black college in Alabama has set aside four days to discuss the racial slur.Participants at the conference, which began Thursday and ends Sunday, discussed topics ranging from the origins of the epithet to whether juggling a few letters makes it socially acceptable at the NSurrection Conference at Stillman College.

Organizers said the goal of the event is to challenge the use of the n-word “through the use of intelligent dialogue and a thorough examination of black history.”

Debate over the use of the word has escalated in recent months, with comedian Michael Richards racial rant prompting black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson and California Rep. Maxine Waters to urge the public and the entertainment industry to stop using it.

Uh…waitaminnit.

Is there really “debate” over the word? Doesn’t pretty much everyone agree that it’s wrong?

Well, of course not; the conference does indeed address the very incongruity that has gone through every thinking person’s mind since they saw Richard Pryor’s first movie; why the “N-word” is the most caustic word in the history of the language when some people say it, and a term of endearment when others do:

“I really think that as far as white people are concerned, the word is almost on its way out,” said Hacker, who is white. “That said, there are a lot of white people who still in the privacy of their own minds think the word even if they don’t use it because they regard black people as genetically inferior and that word categorizes that.”

Kovan Flowers, co-founder of AbolishTheNWord.com, said striking the word from use would help set an example for other races.

“We can’t say anything to Hispanics, or whites or whoever unless we stop using it ourselves,” he said. “It’s the root of the mind-set that’s affecting why people are low, from housing to jobs to education.”

Stillman senior Maurice Williams said he organized the conference hoping to educate his peers about the history of the word. The event includes a community fair, charity basketball game, unity march and discussions ranging from the word’s origin to its use among various ethnic groups.

“I had to understand that a lot of the images that we portray in television, in the media, in the hip-hop environment — all of those things have the same connotations as the n-word itself, so therefore it’s the n-word personified,” Williams said. “Where do you see another culture portraying some of these same images?”

Not just “where”, but “why”?

Rapper Tupac Shakur was credited with legitimizing the term “nigga” when he came out with the song “N.I.G.G.A.,” which he said stood for “Never Ignorant Getting Goals Accomplished.”

Stillman English professor Alisea McLeod said she doesn’t buy it.

“It’s hogwash. What this is really indicative of is a heart problem,” she said. “What is coming out of mouths is what is coming out of souls. These are not words that are uplifting and I think (they) point to a bigger problem — a lack of self-love.”

“Self-love”, perhaps.

Self-awareness, as well. Shakur’s “Strictly 4 Ma N.I.G.G.A.Z.” came out in 1993, two years after “N.W.A“, short for “N___z With Attitude”, a group that achieved immense success without the benefit of any radio airplay in the late eighties. It also happened nearly two decades after Richard Pryor released “That N_____’s Crazy”, his first big mainstream success.

Wanna get rid of the word? Stop saying it.

Katherine Kersten on the propaganda value of the imam publicity blitz:

But the report on the Iranian website, which has appeared on a variety of Muslim websites worldwide, had a larger primary focus. After the imams incident, it quoted Bray as saying Muslims want “new, broad-sweeping legislation that will extract even larger financial and civil penalties for any airline that participates in racial and religious profiling.”

The report is optimistic that Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, will lend his support to new legislation. Ellison, it says, has expressed his opposition to “such racial and religious profiling.” Ellison, through a spokesman, declined to comment.

He’s wising up, at least.

And by the way, I’ll support such legislation!

(When the Iranians stop “profiling” Jews, Ba’hais, gays…

(From Cox and Forkum)

Kersten continues:

One piece of legislation in the works is the End Racial Profiling Act. It is an important priority of Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, whose district includes one of the largest Muslim populations in the country. Conyers introduced the bill in 2004 and 2005, but it went nowhere. Now the alignment of forces may be changing. Conyers will probably be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee when the new Democratic-controlled Congress convenes next month.

Nancy Pelosi, who called herself a “proud” cosponsor of the Profiling Act in 2004, is the incoming House speaker. And in January, Ellison, who represents the district where the imams incident occurred, will take his seat in Congress.

Watch for a determined effort to make the term “profiling” equal “discrimination” in the public mind.

That church bells disturb the daytime slumber of another somnolent suburb…:

Fairfax County officials have issued a ringing non-endorsement of the bells at St. John Neumann’s in Reston, ruling that they must toll within the limits of the county’s noise ordinance or not at all.

The Board of Supervisors asked the zoning staff this year to see whether the law could be amended to accommodate the church, whose bells ring at a volume slightly higher than the 55-decibel maximum permitted in residential areas… at an average of 75 decibels (roughly equivalent to a vacuum cleaner at close range), which is considerably above the 55-decibel limit in residential areas.

…that the ‘burb’s government is backing and filling to justify it…:

James P. Zook, director of Fairfax’s Department of Planning and Zoning, recently told the board in a memo that…”Localities cannot enact different standards for noise emanating from a place of worship,” Zook said. If Fairfax did that, he said, the new rules would have to apply to “all other types of bells, chimes or carillons.” Zook noted, however, that at least two other cities, Morgantown, W.Va., and Seattle, did make exceptions for church bells.

…or…:

St. John’s, a Catholic church in south Reston, installed a $50,000 electronic bell system in 2004 as part of a major expansion.

…that the scourge of electronic “bells” continues unabated?

…this is the kind of lawsuit I love to hate: a California woman sues over food ingredients.

Not faulty ones.  Not unlabelled or unadvertised ones.  Not dangerous ones (shut up, Center for Science in the Public Interest).  No.  Just the wrong ones:

[Kraft guacamole] just didn’t taste avocadoey,” said Brenda Lifsey, who used Kraft Dips Guacamole in a three-layer dip last year. “I looked at the ingredients and found there was almost no avocado in it.”

She is seeking unspecified damages and a Superior Court order barring Kraft from calling its dip guacamole. Her suit seeks class-action status.

Brenda; then buy a different brand?  Make your own?  Substitute old mayonnaise?

On the other hand – watch this one carefully, American Beer Industry.

Tell you what we’ll do:  the next time we get on a plane together, you refrain from acting like you’re probing the plane’s security measures for whatever purpose…

 …and I’ll avoid acting like my Viking anscestors acted when they pummeled encountered your anscestors.

Deal?

Michael Richards’ Krama’ culpa trudges on:

Michael Richards said Monday he spewed racial epithets during a stand-up comedy routine because he lost his cool while being heckled and not because he’s a bigot.

“For me to be at a comedy club and flip out and say this crap, I’m deeply, deeply sorry,” the former “Seinfeld” co-star said during a satellite appearance for David Letterman’s “Late Show.”

“I’m not a racist. That’s what’s so insane about this,” Richards said, his tone becoming angry and frustrated as he defended himself in a clip from the show played on CBS before “Late Show” aired Monday night.

I think it closes the circle.  Long before Seinfeld, Richards was desperately un-funny on the old ABC Fridays SNL knockoff.  He was the least funny part of Seinfeld. And he’s apparently a terrible standup.

We can be done with this, now – right?