Instapun***K.com Archive Listing
InstaPunk.Com

Archive Listing
June 21, 2008 - June 14, 2008

Thursday, August 02, 2007


A Primer on Minnesota

On the map it's somewhere near the top, in the middle, but slightly left of center.

BARBARIANS.4.1-18. It's a terrible tragedy, and we have nothing but condolences for the victims of the bridge collapse and their families.

[Pause for a typically phlegmatic nordic expression of grief; i.e., a long sigh]

Okay? Okay. Now we begin the long and complicated process of bringing the blame for this catastrophe home to the Bush administration. I suspect liberals are going to need some help with this, because Minnesota lies not on the blue west coast or the blue east coast, but somewhere in between, in -- let's face it -- flyover country. So why would Bush and company need to drop this city to its knees with so much loss of life? As it happens, there are plenty of good reasons to suspect a conspiracy.

In the first place, Minnesota is a blue state. The greatest writer yet produced by this northern wasteland was Max Shulman, who made it clear that the roots of his home were far different from those of the Anglo-Saxon imperialists who did so much to impose their will on the New World. Note, for example, Shulman's eloquent translation of 'Minnesota': "a name which derives from 'minne' meaning a place where men and women ate underdone pemmican and 'sota' meaning the day the bison got away because the  hunter's wife blunted his arrows in a fit of pique."

You see, they're just different. Not Scottish, not Irish, not Welsh, not even English, but Scandinavian, descended from the Norwegians and Swedes who have led the way in turning Europe into a suicide-obsessed socialist dystopia. That's undoubtedly why leading conservative intellectuals like Ace of Spades have expressed some polite reservations about their character and motives:

I don't remember when my Pappy first taught me hate -- hatred of the icicle-squating Scandi snow-wops. But I'll always thank him for it.

One of my earliest memories is of watching the Muppet Show, and happily laughing along to the Swedish Chef. Hur-de-ver-de-verd-e-verr, the Swedish Chef said. And I, not knowing any better, merrily repeated his dirty Scandi gutter-talk. "Hur-de-verd-de-verd-e-verr," I said along.

My Pappy walked in, agahst, and shook his head in disgust. "They're goddamned trying to brainwash these kids," he said. The next day, the television was gone, and in place of the tv was a record player and a bunch of Richard Pryor and Redd Foxx albums. "You listen to these guys," my Pappy said. "They don't truck with any goddamned Scandi luge-jockeys"...

I remember how excited he'd get to watch the US Open, and root for Jimmy Connors, who he called "The Great Off-White Hope." The day Bjorn Borg beat Jimmy Connors was just about the saddest day of my Pappy's life. "Don't worry, son," he told me as he gave my hair a comforting tussle. "Bjorn Borg is just a shaved Yeti in short-shorts. Those people are barely evolved from the snow-sasquatches. Jimmy Connors is still the greatest human tennis player in the world."

The thing about the ultra-whites (as Celts refer to Scandis) is how credulous they are about dumb socialist ideas. For example, it's only natural that the mainstream media would have lionized at least one of their number as a coldly objective journalist. Don't know who we mean? Ultra-whites are always great at sliding in under the radar:

Aaron Brown (born November 10, 1948 in Hopkins, Minnesota... is an alumnus of the University of Minnesota. He dropped out after his freshman year to work at a local radio station and never returned.

Brown has over twenty-six years of experience in journalism and was CNN's lead anchor during breaking news. He also hosted "CNN Presents," a documentary series, and was co-anchor during election coverage.

They can't fool real Americans like Bush, Cheney, and me, though. He attracted my attention a long time ago:

[A] journalist always has to be on the alert (a la Dan Rather) for the story that is being suppressed just because it's false when everybody who is anybody knows it's really true, or sort of true, or should be true, because it would make such a damn good story. And that's journalism in a nutshell, which is where you can always find the mind of an Aaron Brown.

On the Wellstone Funeral

“I find myself at exactly the right place for a reporter tonight. I’m annoyed at both political parties, and you can’t be more fair and balanced than that. Last night’s event in Minneapolis – calling it a memorial insults the dead – was totally tasteless....Equally shameless has been the reaction received here. There may in fact be non-partisans upset with the event, they may in fact exist. They did not make themselves known in our in-box today. Instead, what we received was a series of identical letters....I don’t mean thematically identical; I mean literally identical. Word for word....So here is what last night proved: One side can be tasteless and the other side has the computer skills to cut and paste under the guise of genuine outrage. Which is worse? To me it’s a tie.”

Anchor Aaron Brown’s “Page Two” commentary at the start of CNN’s NewsNight, October 30.2002

Yes, we remember the Wellstone funeral too. No matter how long we live, we will NEVER get over the ugliness of the fact that Republicans objected to it and had the unmitigated gall to communicate their objections to the mass media via boilerplate language. It was unspeakable then, it's unspeakable now, and it represents a permanent dishonoring of the memory of Paul Wellstone. And the Democrats shouldn't have done what they did either, like Aaron pointed out.

I had occasion to remember Aaron's eloquence last night, when a Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter pointed out that Minnesota hadn't experienced a tragedy as tragic as the bridge collapse since the plane crash of Paul Wellstone. I'm sure the families of the victims would be happy to trade their lost loved ones for Paul Wellstone even now if he could be restored to life and the U.S. Senate.

That's where real Democratic values come into play. Ultra-whites in Minnesota are primarily Lutherans (atheists) who exhibit the limitless tolerance for opposing ideas exemplified by the state's most heart-warming stoogesage, Garrison Keillor. Here's a touchstone American liberals should all be able to relate to in their struggle to accept the humanity of Minnesota's pasty-faced and diversity-free residents of an otherwise contemptible heartland state. His 'Lake Woebegone' is the drab, emotionally impotent commune all liberals everywhere pine for with the comforting certainty that it can never come to pass. I've gone personally out of my way to recognize his unique contribution to public discourse in the past:

Here's a man, we're being told, who knows how to listen, a man whose ear for heartstrings has perfect pitch and infallible memory. The word pictures create for us a space of tender three-dimensional empathy inside which we can share with him everything that is fine and good and humble and human and authentic in the American experience.

But there are dark things afoot, things that cannot help but alarm a man of such exquisite sensibilities and, of course, all who have the depth of character to recognize the harmonic intricacies of his composition. Okay, I'll get to the point. If you want to know what Garrison is working up to here, listen for the discord in this passage:

After the iPod takes half the radio audience and satellite radio subtracts half of the remainder and Internet radio gets a third of the rest and Clear Channel has to start cutting its losses and selling off frequencies, good-neighbor radio will come back. People do enjoy being spoken to by other people who are alive and who live within a few miles of you.

People like Tommy Mischke, a nighttime guy on a right-wing station in St. Paul and a free spirit who gets into wonderful stream-of-consciousness harangues and meditations that are a joy to listen to compared with the teeth-grinding that goes on around him. Not that teeth-grinders are to be disparaged: I enjoy, in small doses, the over-the-top right-wingers who have leaked into AM radio on all sides in the past twenty years. They are evil, lying, cynical bastards who are out to destroy the country I love and turn it into a banana republic, but hey, nobody's perfect. And now that their man is re-elected and they have nice majorities in the House and Senate, they are hunters in search of diminishing prey. There just aren't many of us liberals worth banging away at, but God bless them, they keep on coming. [emphasis added]

My my. The article is 1770 words long, but the bold-faced clause is just about all you need to read. Like his soulmate Andy Rooney, Keillor affects a folksiness that is merely a cover for pronouncements by a personage who is, truth be told, superior to most of us. He simply knows and we should believe him because he is wired into the real soul of the nation:

The reason you find an army of right-wingers ratcheting on the radio and so few liberals is simple: Republicans are in need of affirmation, they don't feel comfortable in America and they crave listening to people who think like them. Liberals actually enjoy living in a free society; tuning in to hear an echo is not our idea of a good time. I go to church on Sunday morning to be among the like-minded, and we all say the Nicene Creed together and assume nobody has his fingers crossed, but when it comes to radio, I prefer oddity and crankiness. I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it. What I want is to be surprised and delighted and moved. Here at the low end of the FM dial is a show in which three college boys are sitting in a studio, whooping and laughing...

Do you see what's going on here? In his universe, good and evil are so dead obvious and simple that they don't need to be explained, illuminated, or even considered. They are merely declaimed like commandments, because the speaker is not, for all his aw-shucks "hankering" and "twiddling," one of the great unwashed, but a seer. He listens, he sees, he passes judgment.

Now I hasten to say that someone of my intellect is easily satisfied by the act of criticizing a Garrison Keillor or an Aaron Brown. But the Bushes and Cheneys of this world do not have my intellect. Have you noticed their brow ridges, their prognathous jaws? They represent the neanderthal throwbacks of the not-quite-white Celtic under-race. They can't ever hope to attain the transcendent ennui and schadenfreude of the master racehyper-whites. That's why the Bush administration had to act as it did.

Do you still doubt? Well, just consider this in-depth poll taken among Minnesota citizens a few years back. They were asked two simple questions: 1) Did Bush lie? 2) Did people die? Here are their answers.



I wouldn't have taken this as a cue to destroy property and citizens. But I never conspired to make 9/11 happen, either. All I can do is try to shed some necessary light.

I think I've done that. Yah?





Endangered Habitats

Some migratory species require bright lights, fast cars and fast food.

LOVING THE LAND. Here's an interesting news item:

 Mexico seeks changes in U.S. border fence plan to protect migrant species

The Associated Press
Monday, July 30, 2007

MEXICO CITY: Mexico on Monday called on the United States to alter a plan to expand border fences designed to stem illegal immigration, saying the barriers would threaten migratory species accustomed to roaming freely across the frontier...

On Monday, Mexico's Environment Department said the proposed fences would seriously hurt species that cross the 1,952-mile (3,218-kilometer) border and that the United States needs to alter or mitigate the barriers where necessary.

"The eventual construction of this barrier would place at risk the various ecosystems that we share," said Environment Secretary Juan Rafael Elvira, noting that the border is not just desert, but includes mountains, rivers and wetlands.

Mexico also wants Washington to expand its environmental impact study on the fences and will file a complaint with the United Nations' International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands if necessary.

The inventory of affected species is rather large.


Free-ranging cabana boys have to deliver margaritas over a vast area.


Larval gangbangers are genetically wired to nest in urban concrete habitats.


Domestic servants annually "flock" to Malibu and Beverly Hills.


Gardeners are irresistibly drawn from the desert to green suburban oases.


Not surprisingly, farm laborers migrate obsessively toward farms.

Sure, it's a cheap shot. But no cheaper than Mexico's flimsy excuse for opposing a border fence.

We wish them luck with that U.N. lawsuit, though.




Tuesday, July 31, 2007


Snowy, Icy Stuff

"Who is that other who walks beside you?"

WHO. Well, I'm backward, I guess. I just found out about Christmas in July this week. But I can make up for it. Here are some ice-cold entertainments that are guaranteed to last you till December.

First up, starting on a reasonably light anti-Vick note, is a movie about the relationship between tough dogs and tough men (and one tough woman). It's called Eight Below. Based on fact, according to the background info. Antarctic researchers act desperately to save one of their number who is injured. In the process, they leave behind the team of sled dogs who rescued the stricken man from immediate death. The man whose team it was tries to get back to save his dogs from the fatal Antarctic winter but no one will help. The movie cuts back and forth between the world of dogs and the world of men. They're a lot alike as it turns out. Did I say the movie was light? Sorry. There's some sadness here. The star is the young husky with the deep eyes. We think he's going places. Not that he hasn't already been places. The Antarctic. It's a season in hell. Hopefully, he won't buy a Bentley and start squiring Paris Hilton around. No, he wouldn't do that. We're sure he wouldn't.

Next, the Snow Walker. A handsome bush pilot is hired to ferry a sick but young and beautiful Inuit (i.e., Eskimo) woman to a place where they have hospitals and some sort of treatment for tuberculosis. But they crash enroute. Think you know the rest? Think again, kiddo. This movie's a keeper. There's nothing cheap about how it gets to you. You'll know that because it keeps resonating long after the credits are done. In the same way that it took Return to Paradise to make us appreciate Vince Vaughn, this one made us appreciate Barry Pepper. And that heartbreaking Inuit girl.

We haven't seen it yet, to be honest, but we're waiting for Netflix to deliver the two-part production of Shackleton, starring Kenneth Branagh.  How could it fail? It's the true adventure story to end all adventure stories -- how one man recklessly sailed his crew into the waters of the Antarctic in 1913, and then, just as recklessly, moved heaven and earth to save them from certain death. The great news is that it's still possible to buy a copy of Endurance, the masterfully written account of the expedition by Alfred Lansing. We recommend buying and reading the book, then watching the DVD. If you're anything like us, winter won't seem so cold to you this year -- or ever again.

If you can buy one book, you can buy two. Here's the other one you have to get if you haven't already read it. Alone by Admiral Richard Byrd. Yeah, it sounds like it might be dry, superior, and philosophical. It isn't. The explorer made a huge mistake and put himself in life-and-death peril. His account is so vivid that you'll feel the freezing cold in your bones days after you finish the book. Come to think of it, maybe you should read this one before you go the Shackleton route. Otherwise, you might wind up sitting on the couch with a shawl wrapped around you for the next ten years or so.

Phew. Just made it. Christmas in July. Enjoy.





Commenters


OYSTERS. There are people out there who know that it's easier to criticize blogs than to write them. They're something like ambulance-chasing attorneys. They wait for some accidental opportunity to apply their skill at transforming order into chaos. We welcome such folks here at InstaPunk, because we're every bit as nasty and destructive as they are. On most blogs, the sly, pejorative comment slips through the cracks. Not here. We read, we smack our lips, we rejoice. Then we sail in. Of course, now and again, there are comments worth responding to in polite terms. To these we do respond. Politely. But most of them are just silly and we wouldn't go on about them except for the advice I once got from a smart blogger who said, "If they're worth responding to in the Comments, they're worth a blog entry -- because why waste your time talking directly to one fool when you can talk to a bunch of fools all at once."

So we've gotten some weird comments lately, and it seems like it might be fun to share them with you, along with our usual impeccably right responses. For example, we did a post a few days ago about the MSM's refusal to give Nancy Pelosi credit for her fashion brilliance. This inspired  "Rez" to comment:

I was disappointed in the piece. Not one of the women featured would be considered real good looking in California. Same with the mediabistro-reported conflict between "money-honey" Maria Bartiromo and Erin Burnett -- both of those women look like racoons to me.... Maybe East Coast folks just have a different aesthetic sense. What am I missing?

Uh. Uuuuuuh. What's "real good looking in California," Rez?  Six and a half feet tall, 100 pounds, 18 years old, plastic tits the size of basketballs, and no panties under a crotch-length skirt? Is that it? But here's what we replied:

Rez:

"What am I missing?"

Clothes. With all your focus on flash and red carpet trash, you've lost sight of elegance.

Probably unfair. Ever since, we've been experiencing a mysterious burning smell that must be Rez's brain overheating during his search for a definition of 'elegance.'

Then there was our tribute to Muhammed Ali, whom we nominated -- hardly uniquely -- as the greatest athlete of all time. This upset the guy in the graphic above ("Bud") so much that he felt compelled to comment as follows:

Greatest athlete?

Put him on a set of skates and watch what would happen. A) he wouldn't be able to play the game, and B) John Ferguson would have whipped his ass.

Greatest boxer? Maybe, although Sugar Ray Robinson gets my vote. Greatest fighter? It would have been interesting to watch him and Rocky - two guys who both could take an enormous amount of punishment and, at the same time, had devastating punches.

But I'm sorry, no way for general "athlete".

John Ferguson? Huh? Has anyone ever even heard of him? We shouldn't have, but we responded:

What a doltish argument. Give Wayne Gretzky a basketball. Throw Babe Ruth in the pool. Call Lance Armstrong in from the bullpen to pitch to the Red Sox. It means nothing.

Nuts.

Well, look at the guy in the picture above. You know he couldn't take that lying down. He couldn't take anything lying down but life itself. He came back to explain:

Not a doltish argument, a doltish proposition.

"Athlete" describes a vast range of physical and mental skills, and proposing one person as the greatest is an exercise in futility, but if you must, at least pick someone who has demonstrated 999th percentile performance in more than one sport, which certainly doesn't describe Ali. Jim Thorpe, maybe.

And John Ferguson had Ali in personal demeanor, as well. An animal on the ice, but a seflf-depreciating perfect gentleman off.

It's the way of things, isn't it? The right idiotic statement can force you to articulate your point more clearly and correctly than you did when you thought you were talking to an intelligent audience. So, thanks to Bud, the real argument finally got made:

Hardly a doltish proposition, Bud.

It's the stuff of which great conversations are made, unless you're making the mistake of trying to converse with a Canadian hockey fanatic.

There are, of course, criteria that cut across individual athletic disciplines, just as there are criteria which cut across writing forms, military situations and ages, the history of music, and the history of nations and the world. That's why it's entertaining and educational to hear advocates make a case for the greatest writer, the greatest general, the greatest composer, and the greatest American president. Sport is hardly as important as any of these other categories, and yet -- in some cases, notably with Ali -- sport occasionally intersects with other cultural factors like politics, class, ethnicity, and populist symbolism to become far more than sport.

I'm sure your John Ferguson was a great athlete, but he is little known outside hockey. Thus, I can say with confidence that he never entered the ultimate arena -- one in which his ability to perform at his sport also carried the burden of large populations of nonsporting people's dreams, fears, aspirations, dreads, and faiths. Strange as it may seem to you, there have been more than a few of these. One you mentioned: Jim Thorpe. Others include Jack Johnson, Jesse Owens, Joe Louis, Satchell Paige, Ben Hogan, Babe Didrickson, Jackie Robinson, Althea Gibson, Lee Trevino, Arthur Ashe, Greg Louganis, Lance Armstrong, and the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team. Undoubtedly there are others. What they have in common is that they became more than their sport and were pushed to exceed their own limitations for a larger purpose. In succeeding they gained more than a trophy or a place in some hall of fame. They became milestones in the changing values and beliefs of their times.

Note that they couldn't have done these things unless they had been truly outstanding performers in their individual sports. But their winning performances are all the more brilliant for the additional sometimes crushing pressures under which they were achieved.

Most people past that age where history is synonymous with "what I remember personally" recognize that Ali has to be considered in any evaluation of the list above or its expanded versions. He earned the love and admiration of people who were prejudiced against him in three monumental categories: his color (least of the three), his religion (Islam), and his politics (anti-Vietnam War and flagrantly defiant of the U.S. government).

He therefore still has enemies to this day, people willing to belittle his achievements and his character. But he was for many years the most famous man in the entire world and among many of those he was the most beloved. He was also the first in his sport to regain its most valuable championship (heavyweight) twice -- despite losing three of his best years to enforced inactivity.

I know hockey guys are tough. But they fight their fights in pads and the referees break them up quickly. They don't begin every contest in their sport with the knowledge that they have a significant chance of being killed within the rules. Boxing shares this fact with horse racing, auto racing, and rodeo. But only in boxing is the competition specifically focused on inflicting maximum bodily injury to the exclusion of all other purposes, one on one.

One can make a case for other athletes in the Greatest category, but if you do any research at all into the Rumble in the Jungle and the Thrilla in Manila, you'll realize that the contenders are few and that the case for Ali is strong.

I also guarantee that a debate among the proponents of Owens, Louis, and Ali would be far more illuminating than any of your maunderings about whats-his-name Ferguson.

Also, on very rare occasions, comments give you the opportiunity to be educational, to summarize things you assume most people know. We did an entry about Newt Gingrich, which elicited the following earnest objection:

Why? Because we're at war? I'm sorry, I just think I missed the part about how Newt would be good for self-governance.

I wonder who would promote the more vigorous police state, the greater blow to our sovereignty, the more totalitarian abuse of newly consolidated executive powers, wanton breach of privacy or destructive affront to the rule of law, Giuliani or Gingrich? It's hard to say.

I know Newt values the rights of a life while it's in the womb, but other than that what's the difference between he and the great mayor? (Ok, Newt's funnier, wittier, makes some great criticisms and can effectively draw from history for his arguments, while Rudy doesn't even seem to have read the 911 Commission report)

Based on their example of conservatism and especially their restraint, I think both Reagan and Goldwater would be turning, no spinning in their graves at what their party has become. Yes, Gingrich is critical of the spendthrift Bush administration. But both they and most of the "pygmies" ride a wave that's throwing us into a state of eternal warfare, drowning the foundation of our nation and eroding the greatest achievement of capitalism and very pinnacle of civilization. In the ebb, the Christians will wonder how their faith allowed them to forsake that other thing they believed to be so precious, that now "anachronistic" Constitution which was once the law of the land.

Yeah, we're at war, but we'll be at war a lot longer if Newt takes the helm. Of course, I guess that works for anyone promoting some sort of national security state to supplant the republic.

Ah. Idealism. The convictions of the young. "Pete" was polite and hopelessly wrong-headed. So we actually worked to respond as politely as we could in a right-headed way:

Peter,

I know it's hard to accept that the U.S. really is at war with a determined enemy bent on our utter destruction. It's so easy to pretend otherwise. Especially since all your leading lights are so anxious to argue that the people who want to murder us have legitimate grievances. By all means, proceed with your denial. I can't do anything to alter that perspective; only circumstances can. I expect they eventually will.

Viewing Republicans as the fomenters of a police state and, by implication, Democrats as defenders of our civil liberties is frankly perverse. No Republican prior to this decade and no pre-McGovern Democrat would ever have considered extending the constitutional legal rights of an American citizen to foreign combatants or illegal aliens, which seems to be the current dominant ideal of so-called progressives. Such policies may seem sweetly virtuous but they are suicidally counter to our (and your) long term interests.

Would that they were willing to defend the most important rights of their own citizens with equal ardor -- freedom of political speech, freedom of choice in matters of education, health, property, and economic opportunity, and real equality under the law for all U.S. citizens.

But it is the 'progressives' who seek to limit political speech via campus speech codes, campaign laws that abridge the First Amendment, reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, and laws denying a private ballot to workers targeted by unions for membership; who condemn the poorest to remain in failing public schools and make a joke of equal educational opportunity by redistributing that opportunity based on sex, race, and ethnicity; who aspire to impose a government monopoly of health care options on everyone and pretending that the expensive rationing which would result is somehow "free"; who endorse the seizure of private property for 'community benefit'; who subscribe to the totalitarian policy of making the U.S. and its citizens subject to anti-capitalist, anti-democratic international organizations in the name of a phony crisis called global warming.

Can you smoke a legal substance in your favorite tavern? Can you buy a car without an explosive device installed six inches from your chest? Can you drive yourself anywhere without a seatbelt with legal impunity? Can you drive your children anywhere without them in the backseat, you in the front like a 1930s chauffeur? Can you sell your house without having to make thousands of dollars of improvements, regardless of whether you or the buyer want them? Can you get an incompetent teacher fired at your children's public school? Can you object successfully to the latest PC curriculum innovation at your children's public school? Can you spank your child for disobeying your direction, or does some government social worker tell you what you can and cannot do in raising him?

Who passed and who continuously promotes the laws that now police your private behaviors in such ways? Whether you agree with their intent or not, they all represent reductions of your ability to live your private life autonomously.

These are the real roots of a police state, one which draws limitless power from the vague argument that the state has the right to protect people from their own stupidity, poor decisions, and wrong-headed convictions.

I'm sure you're one of those who lament the ceaseless incomptence of the Bush administration. In all likelihood you have fogotten the ceaseless incompetence of the Clinton administration (Waco, Elian, Kosovo, Oklahoma City, Chinese missiles, etc), AND that of the Bush 41 administration, the Reagan administration, the Carter administration, etc, etc, etc. Government is always incompetent because it is too big, too ham-handed, too bureaucratic, and too subject to long-term institutional corruption. It's much much worse than Enron or WorldCom because no matter how badly it screws up, it can't be driven out of business, and it can always extort more money to finance even more screwing up.

Why do you think that most young people start out liberal and then many become increasingly conservative as they age? The primary reason is experience. They learn that organizations, by definition, don't actually care about people, even their own. That's why they decide that the best policy -- no matter how ugly and seemingly wasteful it can seem at times -- is to leave as many decisions as possible in the hands of individual people.

Note how easy it is to decide -- always -- that a committee of elite officials knows better than any individual what that individual should do with his money, his education, his children, his diet, his amusements, his home maintenance, his credit options, his transportation options, his healthcare, and for that matter, his choices of clothing, expression, and interior decorating. And especially his money. Government always knows better than Joe Sixpack how the money should be spent, right?

Do you really trust the government to make such decisions for you more than you trust yourself? Or do you just trust them to make the decisions for all those other sick bastards out there who aren't quite so wise and well informed as yourself?

The two indispensale roles of government are to provide a framework of laws equally applied to all citizens and to protect the citizens of the nation from exterior dangers and threats. There are a few others, perhaps, but they are all debatable. It's interesting indeed that it's the progressives of our nation who want our legal framework to be UNequally applied and who consistently take the side of those who do pose external threats to the nation. But both of these preferences pale beside their consuming desire to tell everyone else how to live their lives in every particular.

A Gingrich police state? You should be so lucky, my boy.

This time, at least, there's the chance of a happy ending. I actually know Peter, who doesn't look anything like the graphic above, and we spoke by phone after the exchange shown here. He still thinks I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but he's willing to entertain the possibility that big government is its own kind of evil and that the United States is engaged in a real war againt a real enemy.

That's why we allow comments here. If you're an idiot we enjoy smashing you. If you're interested in real conversation, we're delighted to talk.

Every sword has two edges. Keep commenting, Peter. And everyone like you.




Monday, July 30, 2007


Tour de Chance

Alberto Contador and Team Discovery. Winners till the chem lab checks in.

GLORY. It was the best of tours. It was the worst of tours. Unlike every other sport in the world, the Tour de France labored under rumors of unspeakable drug violations. Borat's sorry excuse for a country, Kazakhstan, was utterly humiliated when its national cycling hero Vinakourov tested positive for a drug violation any nation with running water could have easily avoided. A longtime Danish star and 10-day leader of the race was unceremoniously fired by his team and sent home for lying about where he was when he might have been ingesting illegal drugs in preparation for the tour. Bad. Very bad.

On the plus side, three of the four great competitive categories of the contest were won by rookies. A young Colombian named Soler came unheralded from the Andes to conquer the Alps and Pyrenees ("You call that a knifemountain?") and win the 'King of the Mountains' spotted jersey. A young Spaniard with a steel plate in his head, Alberto Contador, won both the white jersey of best newcomer and the yellow jersey of the overall winner of the Tour. Another youngster won the title of 'Most Aggressive Rider.' America's Team Discovery won the honors as best team because they recorded the lowest total riding time for the course, and their team leader, Levi Leipheimer, placed third overall. All to the good.

But one wonders what next year's tour will look like in terms of riders and sponsors. What profit-making corporation will want to be associated with a sport that can't complete its premier event without multiple disqualifications and drug controversies that may destroy yesterday's results or erupt months after the fact? This has become a sport in which superlative achievement is immediately suspect; Contador and Leipheimer carry away their laurels knowing that in a month, or two, or six, they may be accused of cheating simply because they excelled.


Next year's tour lineup?

The Discovery Channel has already decided not to renew its sponsorship commitment. CSC, the second-best American team, is likely to rethink its participation as well. Unless they're as dumb a computer company as IBM.

We anticipate new riders and/or new sponsors. Riders who can't be accused of blood-doping. Sponsors who don't care about their images as honest purveyors of honest services. Who else would participate? Thus, our proposed list of next year's sponsors of the illustrious Tour de France:

-- Microsoft ("Winning at any cost is our only corporate culture")
-- The Jack Murtha Congressional Campaign Committee "(If we sell it, you bought it")
-- TourTrump ("Hey, if we can do casino gambling, we can do crooked cycling too.")
-- TeamFEMA ("Lance rode for USPS; we can pretend we know how to do stuff, too.")
-- MalikiIraq ("We're committed to victory all the way to the 1st of September.")
-- AlaskaPork ("Senator Stevens knows a bridge to nowhere when he sees it.")
-- ExxonValdez ("If you're still buying our gas, you'll buy this act, too.")
-- ChavezVenezuela ("Citgo Zoom, Zoom, Zoom.")
-- AtomicIran ("We'll never stop, never stop, never stop...")
-- ChiracAttack ("C'est l'amour qui fait les (a)larmes....")
-- BritEmpire ("We've learned more about yellow than the French ever knew.")
-- PelotonPelosi ("We have not yet begun to surrender.")
-- SopranoThing ("We do blank like nobody. Just ask us about doping. Bada Bada Blank.")

Of course, you're free to suggest your own. Frankly, we can't wait till next year.




Back to Archive Index

Amazon Honor System Contribute to InstaPunk.com Learn More