Heather and I have started a new blog.  It’s called the Common Consumer.

We were speculating tonight on the difference between energy saving light bulbs and regular light bulbs (how much longer they actually last, whether they are really worth the extra money, etc.).  In the process, we started thinking about how cool it would be to test different products and then post our results on a blog, and so we went ahead and started one.  We’re going to test various products as well as different restaurants and then give our thoughts and opinions about each.  Feel free to share any comments or opinions about products as well, and if there’s anything in particular you would like us to test, just shoot me a message and we’ll give it a shot and let you know our opinion on it.

“Wikipedia is the best thing ever.  Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information.”  ~ Michael Scott

Unless you’ve been living under a bridge, you have surely heard by now the hullabaloo surrounding conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh and his minority partnership in a bid to buy the St. Louis Rams.  Limbaugh, along with other investors led by Blues owner Dave Checketts,  approached current Rams ownership to talk about the possibility of purchasing the team.  This, predictably, set off a firestorm of controversy around the country, with columnists, sportscasters, players, and fans weighing in on whether or not the league should allow a controversial public figure like Limbaugh to own an NFL franchise. Limbaugh’s racial views have been bandied about, quotes that he has made in the past have been discussed, and accusations have been made.  The end result was that yesterday, Checketts said that rather than have the attempt to buy and keep the Rams in St. Louis be jeopardized, they were dropping Limbaugh from the group.

I’m not interested in discussion over whether Rush Limbaugh is a racist.  He has a three hour radio show in which he can speak for himself, and plenty of people listen, so the public at large can make those determinations for themselves.  What I am interested in is how this blossoming debate has further exposed the shoddy state of journalism in the twenty-first century.

At the heart of the issue lie a couple of quotes, one in particular, that has been attributed to Limbaugh from a variety of corners, everywhere from Democratic political strategist James Carville, to sports columnists Bryan Burwell and Jason Whitlock, to NBC journalist David Shuster.  The primary quote under discussion is said to have been uttered by Limbaugh in 1998:

“Let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: Slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back. I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”

The second quote, which has gotten less attention but is no less inflammatory, is this:

“You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray (Dr. King’s assassin). We miss you, James. Godspeed.”

Obviously, if Limbaugh had actually uttered these quotes, one touting the benefits of slavery and the second honoring James Earl Ray, this would likely be enough to end his illustrious (or infamous, depending on which view of Limbaugh you have) career.

There’s one problem.  No one can seem to ascertain whether he actually said it.

Burwell, a columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, was one of the first to strike by touting the slavery quote.  In a column on October 7th, he chided the NFL for their greed and conservative politics, and advised them to think twice before agreeing to allow Limbaugh to even obtain minority ownership in the Rams.  Along the way, he quoted Limbaugh comparing the NFL to the Crips and the Bloods, and says those are “Limbaugh’s words.”  Which they are.  But he then goes on to say, “So are these” and gives the slavery quote.

The problem is that Burwell did not do his research when it came to the slavery statement.  In his latest column, he defends the quote, stating that it was reported in a 2006 book called  “101 People Who Are Really Screwing America” by Jack Huberman.  He goes on to state that the quote was in line with other things Limbaugh had said, so he didn’t bother to verify the quote anywhere else.  There are so many problems with this that I don’t know where to begin.  The first is that Huberman is an author who is the polar opposite of Limbaugh, an unabashed liberal (and atheist) with a vicious streak.  His written works include “The Bush-Haters Handbook,” “The GOP-Haters Handbook,” and “The Quotable Atheist: Ammunition for Non-Believers, Political Junkies, Gadflies, and Those Generally Hell-Bound.” In his “101 People” book, he includes in his list of people who are “screwing America” a wide variety of subjects, among them J.K. Rowling, Dr. Dobson, people who buy SUV’s, and God.  So it’s not as if this is an objective source.  Using a single source for such a controversial quote is inexcusable in its own right, using a single source with such an obvious bias is doubly inexcusable.

Working in the journalism industry should tip Burwell to the fact that not everything that gets published or goes to press is fact.  Using a little known book by an obscure author with an obvious grudge to prove a point is irresponsible journalism.  Especially, and this is important, if Limbaugh’s racist overtones are so obvious.  If it’s so apparent that Limbaugh is a racist, why, of all the quotes Burwell could have apparently sourced, did he use an unsubstantiated one that could only be found one place?  The same question applies to anyone who has quoted the slavery quote over the last week or so.  If it’s so easy to find racist commentary by Rush Limbaugh, why use this particular quote?  It’s as if those using this quote just went somewhere where there was a list of alleged comments by Limbaugh, and picked a couple of the most compelling without checking to see whether they were accurate or not.

Which brings me to my next point.  What I would really like to know is whether Burwell, Whitlock, and the others who have repeated this actually did so by obtaining a copy of Jack Huberman’s book, reading it, and then quoting it.  Because there are a few other places the quote has been referenced, including a couple of anti-Limbaugh websites….and Wikipedia.

Now we all know what Wikipedia is.  Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which is open to the public, and anyone can log on and make changes to any entry they want.  The first thing you are told by any professor in any college when talking about sources for papers is that Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source.  That’s because people deliberately fabricate information on Wikipedia, or enter information that is unsubstantiated.  The administrators of Wikipedia try their best to make sure the information is as accurate as possible, but by its very nature, Wikipedia is a breeding ground for biased, unsubstantiated rumors and information without objectivity.  I can think of no reason whatsoever that a credible journalist would use Wikipedia as a primary or secondary source.

Now, I don’t know if Burwell, Whitlock, Carville, Shuster, or anyone else who has repeated the slavery quote got their information from Wikipedia.  Since Burwell’s column went to press, the Post-Dispatch has issued an addendum to the column noting that the quote has not yet been substantiated.  Whitlock, who quotes both the Earl Ray and slavery quote, has since updated his column to note that he got them from Huberman’s book.  Initially, both columns had stated unequivocally that the words did, in fact, belong to Limbaugh.  Once called on it, both issued clarification that they got the quotes from Huberman’s book, and nowhere else.  But color me skeptical.  I doubt Whitlock or Burwell or anyone else who has referenced the quote actually read the Huberman book.  It is MUCH more likely that they either pulled them off a website, or got them from Wikipedia.

Why Wikipedia?  Well, because with the rise of social media, journalists are more and more using unconventional methods in order to obtain information for columns or stories.  Consider this:  According to a new survey by the Middleberg Communications and the Society for New Communications Research, a whopping FIFTY-ONE PERCENT of journalists use Wikipedia to assist in their reporting.  Now, I doubt that means that fifty-one percent of journalists are using Wikipedia as a source.  After all, I’ve used Wikipedia to jump start a search, and many times the entries there contain links to the source material, which is sometimes credible.  I think it’s not unlikely that many people in that fifty-one percent might use Wikipedia in this manner, and I don’t see a particular problem with this.

However, the twenty-four hour news cycle, the flagging paper industry, the explosion of blogs and alternative media such as The Rush Limbaugh Show, have all placed an increasing amount of pressure for journalists to deliver news at breakneck speed.  Add to that the increased rancor that exists in politics today which has bled over into newsrooms, and you have the perfect storm of journalists who have a whole world of misinformation at their fingertips and a motivation to use it.  Over the last five to ten years, we’ve seen plenty of journalistic screw-ups, everything from Dan Rather and the Bush National Guard story to Newsweek’s “Koran flushing” incident, and all of them were completely avoidable.  Obviously all these aren’t connected to Wikipedia, but an over reliance on faulty or contrived sources were to blame.  Combining half of surveyed journalists in this new era of journalism with a flawed research tool like Wikipedia is a recipe for disaster.  Sure, some journalists will know that Wikipedia shouldn’t be used…and others will know that they’ve got a deadline to meet and as long as Wikipedia provides a source, why bother to check it out?

Even when the stories aren’t political, journalists get caught with their pants down (metaphorically speaking) because of their own laziness and inefficiency.  Earlier this year, when French composer Maurice Jarre passed away, Shane Fitzgerald, a student from Dublin University, decided to try an experiment. He went to Wikipedia and posted a false quote which he attributed to Jarre.  The whole process took about fifteen minutes.  And then he sat back and waited.

Wikipedia’s vetting crew found the quote and scrubbed it clean, but not before newspapers worldwide spotted it and decided it sounded plausible enough.  So they added it to obits of Jarre, even though the quote had no sources shown on Wikipedia.  It wasn’t until a month went by, and Fitzgerald finally contacted some of the news agencies responsible, that they realized that the Jarre quote was fabricated.  Only one paper publicly apologized, the Guardian from the UK.  Others either corrected the obit quietly or some not at all (it’s possible that they could have done so since the story broke several months ago).  Regardless, Fitzgerald exposed a crucial flaw in the way some journalists operate.  When in doubt, use the source anyway and apologize later.

The American Journalism Review wrote an interesting piece last year about the use of Wikipedia in newsrooms. It points out the flaws in the database, as well as noting that some journalists use it as a starting point for trying to find more credible sources. There’s some division over whether or not Wikipedia should be used, and some journalists are staunchly against it.

Asked his opinion of Wikipedia, Phillip Blanchard, the Washington Post copy editor who started testycopyeditors, responds, “I’m not sure what I could add, beyond ‘don’t use it’ and ‘it’s junk.’”

Other news rooms, though, are not so discriminating.  For instance, the Los Angeles Times, who has used Wikipedia.

Melissa McCoy, the Times’ deputy managing editor in charge of copy desks, says the paper occasionally allows Wikipedia attribution. “We’re certainly not going to use Wikipedia as a stand-alone news source, but we’re not going to exclude it if it takes us somewhere,” she says. “If a reporter spots something in there and it makes them do an extra phone call, it’s silly” not to use it.

Ultimately though, the AJR piece concludes by  quoting David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter from the New York Times, who says:  “No matter who your sources are, when you sign your name, you are responsible for every word, every thought, every concept.”

Which brings us back to Burwell, Whitlock and company.  Regardless of what you think about Rush Limbaugh, looking at it objectively, the shoddy journalism exhibited ought to bring down serious repercussions and instigate a larger debate about how journalism is conducted in the age of Technology.  Burwell could use this opportunity to admit that he was too lazy to do some digging and find out whether the quote was accurate.  He could admit that his research methods are flawed, that if the quote is left unsubstantiated it will bring further reproach to the Post-Dispatch, and that moving forward, in the future, he’ll try not to be such a lazy, inefficient screw-up.  He could even state that he’s sorry while STILL saying he disagrees with Limbaugh’s inclusion in the ownership group.

Instead, Burwell has this to say:

Fine, let’s play along for the time being and take him at his word that he was inaccurately quoted in the Huberman book. Heck, let’s go along for the full ride and believe that it was all a horrible “fabrication.”

So what are we left with?

Well, essentially, I think we just threw a deck chair off the Titanic.

Fine.  Let’s play along for the time being and pretend that Burwell’s use of the quote wasn’t a shoddy piece of journalism.

What are we left with?

In my opinion, a deliberate and malicious hack job by a loud mouth, know-it-all sportscaster who’s so egotistical that spots for his radio show tell us he’s “completely full of himself.”  A more accurate description of Burwell would be “completely full of crap.”

This past weekend was quite relaxing.  On Friday night, Heather and I went to an off-Broadway production of the Phantom of the Opera that was playing at the Fox theater.  I’ve been to the Fox several times before, but this was the first time I had seen Phantom there.  All in all, it was pretty impressive.

If you live in the St. Louis area and you’ve never been to the Fox, you owe it to yourself to go there at least once.  It’s an amazing place, built back in the 1920’s as an old movie house, but it’s been renovated and restored and now hosts all sorts of concerts and theater events.  The main feature of the Fox is a gigantic stained glass chandelier that hangs from the ceiling, high above the balcony.  It’s an impressive sight.  There are intricate carvings on the walls, and it definitely has the ambiance of an old fashioned Victorian type theater, with sweeping staircases and vintage woodwork.

Every production I’ve seen at the Fox has been first class (several of them were off Broadway shows), and Phantom was no exception.  For those unfamiliar with the Phantom of the Opera (that will probably be relatively few of you), it is about a musical genius who lives in the Paris sewers and haunts an opera house.  He’s in love with a musical prodigy named Christine, but is heartbroken when he finds she is in love with a childhood friend named Raoul.  In his despair and anger, he causes several accidents to occur at the opera house, only ceasing his war against the place if Christine will agree to perform in an opera written by him.

I saw the movie Phantom of the Opera several years ago, with Gerard Butler as the titular Phantom, and Christine being portrayed by Emmy Rossum.  It’s ok, I guess…I’m not in love with the story of the Phantom.  I think you are supposed to feel a measure of sympathy for him, but I just thought him annoying.  He whines incessantly about how unfair everything is, and throughout the story he’s constantly using his hypnotic musical powers to try to seduce Christine into obeying his will.  The music has kind of ominous overtones, and the whole thing is kind of a tug of war between the Phantom and Raoul over the soul of Christine.

I enjoyed the theater production much more than the movie.  The music is the same, but it just seemed more vibrant and intriguing when done live.  There is a bit more humor and lightheartedness injected into the stage production of the story, and I thought the characters were a bit more sympathetic, although I still found the Phantom to be an annoying whiner.  The effects are amazing…there is one scene where the Phantom captures Christine and leads her to his home in the dank Paris underworld, and lights flicker as though they were candles, and fog covers the stage making it appear as if the boat they are in is actually on water.  Just a top notch production, very compelling and enjoyable.  It’s only in the Fox for a few more weeks, but if you get a chance, I strongly recommend that you get out and see it.

The second thing we did was go to the Soulard Farmer’s Market, just outside of downtown St. Louis.  This was a first for me, but my wife had heard about it and wanted to go check it out.  So we invited our good friends Ben and Bonnie Meydam, and we all drove over to see what the Farmers Market was all about.

Turns out is pretty amazing.  It is a huge live market where farmers and others bring fresh vegetables, meat, fruits, flowers, and other items and sell them from day to day.  It is MUCH cheaper to buy these items at the Soulard Farmers Market than it is to buy them at a local grocers.  I saw a 50 lb. bag of carrots being sold for five dollars.  Small buckets of apples were being sold for a dollar, and a bag of onions was being sold for a dollar.  They have a huge meat market with every kind of meat you can think of, from bison to alligator to lamb to beef.  Many of the vendors sold their own bacon, sausage, chicken wings, and other kinds of meat for extraordinarily cheap prices.  And the closer it gets to the end of the day, the lower the prices go.  We got tons of vegetables, including apples, avocados, limes, onions, and lettuce for twelve dollars.  Unfortunately, we weren’t far sighted enough to bring a cooler for the meat, otherwise they had some cajun brats I would love to have gotten.  They also had shops full of home made preserves, spices, etc.  I was highly impressed, and we will definitely be going back there to get groceries.

Oktoberfest was going on in Soulard on Saturday.  We briefly thought about going in, but decided against it.  I’m sure it would’ve been interesting, but we weren’t sure it would have been worth the money.

I just wanted to make a few random notes about the goings on in my life.

The first is that you might notice on the sidebar that I am now registered on Twitter.  I’ve resisted “tweeting” for a long time because micro-blogging just seems like such a waste of time.  In a moment of weakness, however, I signed up.  We’ll see how it goes, but if you are registered on Twitter, of if you have a burning curiosity to see what I am doing from day to day, feel free to sign up and become my follower.

The second is that I did post a new story, one that was written in my creative writing class my last semester at Lewis and Clark.  It’s at the top of the home page under the title “Hunter.”  Take a look, let me know what you think.

That’s pretty much it for now.  It’s been a pretty tough couple of months, so I haven’t been blogging much.  Hopefully I can update more frequently this month.

It’s 1954.  The place is a small island in the Massachusetts Outer Harbor that houses a facility known as Ashcliffe Hospital, one of the most notorious institutions in the United States.  Ashcliffe is an institution for the criminally insane, and one of the inmates has escaped, a deranged psychotic by the name of Rachel Solando.  U.S. Marshals Teddy Daniels and Chuck Aule have been sent to investigate, but on this island, nothing is as it seems.  As a massive hurricane bears down, it is up to Daniels and Aule to get to the bottom of the mysterious disappearance of Rachel Solando.  But as the storm outside rages, the lawmen find that it is nothing compared to the storm raging inside the institution, and they are desperate to get to the truth on Shutter Island.

This was my first time reading Dennis Lehane, who also wrote Mystic River, which was adapted to the big screen, directed by Clint Eastwood, and won an Oscar.  I thought Mystic River was a decent movie, although I find Sean Penn an annoying hack who overacts and I didn’t care much for the ending.  But this book…wow.  It is the kind of psychological thriller that leaves you guessing up until the very end.  It’s that rare thriller that is intelligent enough to make you think in order to obtain answers, instead of happening upon them by way of a lucky guess.  Lehane begins with a large amount of buildup, introducing us to the characters of Daniels and Aule, letting us get to know them and understand their backstories.  But once the storm hits, we begin to discover one revelation after another, each as shocking as the last.

The characters were multi-layered and deeply interesting, but one of the things that gives this book real life is the way the island (and the hospital) are woven into the story as characters themselves.  They seem alive, with a past as dark and mysterious as the main protagonists, and the descriptions and character interactions with the island are just fantastic.  In most books, backdrop is a necessary part but not an essential element the way that it is in Shutter Island.  The island is a brooding, scary place, and it as much as anything else seems to be what Daniels and Aule are fighting against.  The place of Ashecliffe Hospital is more than a psychiatric hospital, it takes on a deranged, psychotic life of it’s own, spurred on by the people running it.

Lehane blends this altogether by showing us Ashecliffe through the eyes of the outsiders, all the while giving us clues that will lead to the final thrilling revelation.  This is a great read, intriguing and full of character and life.  If you like intelligent thrillers and characters with depth, I highly recommend this book.

It was raining the day my daughter was buried.

I know that might seem like a fitting atmosphere for some, dreary and dismal weather to match the somber moment when you lay your first child to rest.  But as I stood there, it came to me that with a different outlook, the rain might take on an altogether different context.  Where some might see the rain as the heavens mourning with you the loss of a loved one, new perception could show that it might be that Heaven was weeping with joy at receiving such a beautiful little angel as my little girl.

Four weeks ago last Friday, on August 28th at 10:22 p.m., my wife gave birth to an adorable baby girl that we named Madelyn Rebecca.  She weighed just over 3 pounds, and she was absolutely everything I could have dreamed of.  Due to lack of amniotic fluid, the cause of which we have since learned was underdeveloped kidneys, she didn’t have sufficient lung capacity to make it out in the world.  She lived for roughly 30 minutes, and every second that I got to hold her meant the world to me.  Life is a rare gift, and a child born into this world is a wonderful thing, especially when it’s your child.  It causes an ache that can’t be dulled to know that my time with her was so short, but having her was one of the single greatest moments of my life and I don’t regret for an instant the decisions we made.

We found out months ago, back in May, in fact, that the pregnancy was high risk due to an extreme lack of fluid.  It’s hard to describe the feelings of terror a person feels when you are faced with the prospect of losing your first born child, or at best months in the NICU and possible long term physical issues for your baby.  And then, when Maddy had gotten large enough, Heather went into the hospital so that she could be monitored twenty four hours a day.  It was difficult to take in, and even though I had moments of fear, anxiety, and dismay, through it all I also felt a sense of peace that God was with us.  The last two months, with Heather at St. John’s Mercy Medical Center here in St. Louis, was not an easy time, but I regret none of it.  It enabled us to get to know our daughter a little better, and for that I’m grateful.

She was a feisty one.  The doctors, I think, were quite surprised that she made it all the way to 34 weeks without showing any difficulties whatsoever, which is rare for a baby with no fluid.  But she showed us every day that she had a fighting spirit.  She gave us so many little memories which we can cherish forever…the day she kicked the “mean nurse” who was adjusting her monitor, scampering and squirming away from the ultra-sound techs, getting the hiccups on a daily basis, her heart rate jumping up so high when Bonnie guessed “girl”….I know there are memories that I won’t have of her that I wish I could have had, but for the short time that we had her, I’ve got a lot to be thankful for.

Heather has done a pretty good job of chronicling a lot of the high’s and low’s that we have had on her blog, and I don’t want to be redundant.  I do want to say thank you to everyone who made our difficult time just a little easier with your love and kindness…my family and my friends who were there for us, thank you all so much.  It’s been a difficult journey for us, and there are still a lot of questions we want answers to (some things we will never know for certain), but Maddy’s life has made a world of difference in me, and I’ll always cherish the time I had with her.

Recently, there has been a word that has been bandied about on cable news channels and written down in political columns, a word that heretofore had not been spoken or thought of in a very long time.  It’s a word that has drawn a lot of criticism, rebuke, and yet has also been used for political posturing in an effort to showcase one’s independent status from national politicians and the federal government.

That word is secession.

The word got a revival back in April during the Tea Party protests on Tax Day. Texas governor Rick Perry, who was being questioned about his support for a state resolution reaffirming the sovereignty of the state of Texas, was quoted in the Dallas Morning News, and while he didn’t use the “s” word specifically, he did allude to it.

“There’s a lot of different scenarios,” Perry said. “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.”

Even though Perry didn’t directly say the word secession, one of the reasons he was asked about it also had to do with the fact that some in the crowd were shouting, “Secede!”  Thus, his comments.  The article went on to state:

He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out.

So it’s clear that even if Perry was paying lip service to the idea of secession (and he’s given us no reason to think otherwise) at least he acknowledges the validity of the idea.  Of course, he was met with stiff opposition from Democratic opponents, who had an immediate response.  The Associated Press had the report a day later:

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) – A group of Texas Democrats says Republican Gov. Rick Perry was reckless when he suggested at an anti-tax rally that fed-up Americans may one day want to secede from the United States.

They said Thursday that he should disavow such talk. Democratic state Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco says talk of secession is anti-American and that some people associate it with racial division and the Civil War.

Since then, the word secession has continued to be thrown around, not just on the usual places like libertarian blogs and websites, but even in the mainstream media.  Perry was referenced in a report issued by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that “tracks trends” like militia that are mobilizing.  The report deals with the rise of militia groups since the election of Barack Obama, and predictably the report is laced with subtle accusations of racism.  Perry is referenced as an example of how elected officials and certain media are supportive of the current anti-government movement.  Fox News host Glenn Beck was also named.  I guess the lumping of these individuals with militia groups is supposed to cast some sort of pallor or tinge upon their reputations, since the claim is essentially being made that mobilization has become more frequent due to the fact that Obama is black.

Anyway, finally there was this exchange shared by Chris Matthews and faux-conservative columnist Kathleen Parker on Matthews show Hardball, which airs on MSNBC.  Parker is one of thousands of “new Republicans” that support taking the party in a more progressive direction.  By progressive, I mean that she favors making the GOP even more like the Democratic Party than it already is.    She was on Matthews’ show to discuss a column she wrote for the Washington Post in which she discusses what she sees as rampant racism in the Southern wing of the Republican Party, made manifest by their rabid support for Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in the 2008 presidential campaign.  While Parker’s article is not my point, it’s worth a read, if only to see how delusional some people can be.  In her column she mentions Harper Lee, and when she and Matthews begin discussing the column, they continue to expound on the idea of Sarah Palin as some sort of subconscious poster child for racism, and the parallel is even made between Palin and one of the main characters of To Kill A Mockingbird, Mayella Ewell.  For those unfamiliar with Harper Lee’s famous book (and if you haven’t read it, you really should), Mayella Ewell is a poor Southern white woman who claims she was raped by a black man, and even though her credibility is suspect, she is believed simply because she is white and the accused is black.  That this link is made is rather astounding, because essentially what Parker is saying is this:  Palin was brought out by the GOP because Southern Republicans are racist and would take the word of (in Parker’s view) an untrustworthy white woman against a noble black man, simply because she is white.  Maybe that’s not what Parker is saying…but by making that comparison you invite all sorts of speculation, and Parker never makes it clear that she is NOT saying these things, on the contrary, that’s precisely the impression that Matthews and fellow guest Joan Walsh seem to receive. The really shocking part is that Parker continues to have her columns posted on conservative web sites like Townhall.com…if I was a Republican, I would have to ask, with friends like that who the heck needs enemies?

Anyway, all of this is secondary to what I’m saying here.  Matthews and Parker continue to talk about the South and the perceived racial overtones to the opposition to Barack Obama.  And wouldn’t you know it, the “s” word comes up again.

MATTHEWS: A majority of them are not willing to say, yeah, he`s one of us. And the rest of the country is overwhelming. Nine out of 10 say sure, he`s one of us. So why is the South alone in this regard? Not Northeast, not Midwest, not West. But the South stands out there uniquely and regionally and racially opposed to this guy.

PARKER: One word, Chris, one word: Confederacy. I mean, you know, the South is very, I live there, okay? I want to make that clear, too, because I`m not bashing southerners. I love the South and I am a southerner. But-

MATTHEWS: But 40 percent of those states like yours are black.

PARKER: It’s part of the history.

MATTHEWS: So it`s the 60 percent that are white.

PARKER: It`s part of the culture to be secessionist.

MATTHEWS: Like Rick Perry effectively is?

PARKER: To always view the federal government as the enemy. And it`s very, yeah, yes, I can`t, I can`t-

It’s interesting, once you begin to look at all these incidents not as independent, but as a common theme, to see what emerges.  Perry alludes to secession, and Jim Dunnam notes that “some people” associate it with racism.  Perry’s comments are referenced again in the SPLC report, amongst dozens of accusations and allusions to the racial motivations of anti-government militia groups.  Then the South in general, and Perry in particular, is referenced in an exchange regarding racism in the old South, by Matthews and Parker.

It’s easy to see that federal government advocates, from Democratic congressmen like Dunnam, to “non-partisan” groups like the SPLC, to even Republican columnists like Kathleen Parker, want to do their dead level best to associate anti-government sentiment and specifically notions of secession, to racism.  Why?  Easy.  Because by linking secession to racism, they can de-legitimize it before the idea ever takes root or a logical argument can be made for it.

But the fact is, secession and racism are not inextricably linked.  In fact, they aren’t even in the same ballpark.  Some might think otherwise, since any person who’s had a grade school education can tell you that the Southern States seceded over the issue of slavery.  But less than a hundred years before the South seceded from the United States, the 13 colonies seceded from the British Government, and no one is arguing that that secession was based upon racism.  It’s clear then, that the motivation for secession does not make the act itself illegitimate, regardless of how wrong the reasons are.

In point of fact, Perry’s remarks regarding the state retaining the right to secede were on the money.  I believe that states should uphold the Constitution as long as they remain in the Union.  But the federal government long ago violated the Constitution and has stepped outside of it’s limitations.  Secession, contrary to what some have argued, isn’t based on any specific Constitutional right but rather on natural rights that were cited in the Declaration of Independence and were given to us by God.  The States retained those rights, and particularly in cases where the federal government has violated our Constitutional and natural rights the states have the natural right of secession.

To Be Continued….

I just finished my second Clive Cussler novel, Inca Gold, and found that it was even better than the first one I read, Sahara.  The basic plot for both books is the same.  NUMA employees Dirk Pitt and Al Giordino get into some kind of sticky situation involving bad guys and life threatening, seemingly insurmountable geographic obstacles, and they survive against all odds.

I’d better back up, for those unfamiliar with the Dirk Pitt series.  Dirk Pitt is a director for the National Underwater Marine Agency, a government agency that carries out various aquatic scientific and historical explorations.  The agency is headed up by Admiral James Sandecker.  Al Giordino is Pitt’s sidekick and lifelong friend.  Pitt and Giordino have military experience and are well equipped for just about anything.  Cussler usually starts out his books by relaying some historical event that will have a later connection in the plot of the book.

Inca Gold deals with a vast Mayan treasure that was buried in Mexico in a mountain beside an underground river.  An ancient Mayan king found that his empire was threatened, so he sent his top general and a portion of his vast treasure far from the empire with the orders that it was to be buried so that it could be recovered when he had secured his throne.  The orders are carried out, and the details of the journey are put down on an ancient recording device, but the people involved are all killed before the treasure can be recovered, and so it lies buried for centuries.

Centuries later, a team of archaeologists are excavating in Peru, and a few of them get trapped in an ancient well.  NUMA, who is doing scientific research off the coast, sends Dirk Pitt and Al Giordino to rescue the archaeologists.  During the rescue operation, a group of mercenaries raids the camp and takes the excavating team (and Al) hostage.  Dirk Pitt rescues them, but it is revealed in the process that the mercenaries are connected to a worldwide smuggling operation run by the Zolar family.  They steal historical artifacts from dig sites and from museums, and sell them to private collectors around the globe.  Unbeknownst to Pitt and the archaeologists, the Zolars have found an artifact with clues that will lead them to the Mayan treasure.  Pitt, following up on certain research given to him by the archaeologist team, finds the ancient recording device and simultaneously begins searching for the Mayan treasure.  When the Zolar’s and Pitt come face to face, it becomes a battle of wills, the tough survivalist Dirk Pitt against the wealthy and ruthless Zolars.

The Dirk Pitt novels are clearly escapist adventures…Nobody could do the things Dirk Pitt does and live.  In Sahara, he treks across the Sahara desert with no water.  In this one, he swims 100 kilometers up an underground river that empties into the Bay of Cortez, with a bullet hole in his shoulder, a broken wrist and a couple of broken ribs.  He always has just enough strength to do what it is he needs to do, and he always almost single handedly saves the day.  But realism aside, you are rarely going to find adventures as entertaining as these.

For starters, I love the way Cussler incorporates history into his stories, whether it’s faux history like the Mayan treasure or real historical anecdotes which are sprinkled throughout the book.  Mingling history with adventure gives the books a kind of modern Indiana Jones feel, and it makes the books that much better.  Searching for a vast Mayan treasure in the Mexican desert…doesn’t get much more intriguing than that, and Cussler is able to bring it to life.  Plus, in spite of the fact that his characters are all pretty heroic, he’s still able to flesh them out quite well and make them interesting, not just one dimensional.  He manages to incorporate their interests in ways that advances the plot while still giving you additional information about the character beyond just what is needed.

My only real gripes are that sometimes the dialogue is a bit stiff and stilted.  Like when Dirk or Al have their enemies cornered, they rarely dispatch them with just a witticism or two…they usually have some moral proverb to impart instead, which can get annoying.  Some of the interaction between the characters seems less than casual, and I wish that the people who inhabit the Dirk Pitt world would talk a bit more like normal people rather than English majors.  Even Dirk’s old Indian friend, Billy Yuma, can speak like a Harvard grad rather than a poor farmer.  And the other gripe is that for some reason he makes a big deal in this book out of the metric system vs. the conventional English measuring system.  Every measurement in the book is listed in both, and he even cites the fact that back in 1997 or whenever it was that the US finally joined the rest of the world by switching over to the metric system.  I just didn’t understand why this was so important, unless he’s attempting to use the book to educate people on metric conversions.

Other than that, I really enjoyed this book.  I can’t wait to dig into more of the Clive Cussler novels, and if you are looking for something to read that’s not too hefty, and is a lot of fun, I can’t recommend these books enough.  Cussler is a genius at escapist adventures, and this book definitely showcases that talent.

Well, as most are aware by now, the Chris Duncan drama came to an abrubt end (we hope) with the team trading Duncan on Wednesday night to the Boston Red Sox for aging middle infielder Julio Lugo.  It’s pretty much a win-win situation here…Duncan gets a fresh start with another storied franchise, and the Cardinals acquire some much needed infield depth, one of their major weaknesses.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bernie Miklasz has a great column regarding the whole situation, in which he sums everything up quite nicely.  There really isn’t much more to be said.  The only tragedy would be if Tony LaRussa and Dave Duncan simmer over this for the rest of the season and allow it to push them out of St. Louis for good.  Yes, there were a lot of fans that were overly critical of Chris Duncan, and treated him unfairly.  That doesn’t negate the fact that the last two years, his numbers have plummeted and with his limited defensive skills, he just wasn’t able to help the Cardinals much.

In many ways, I’ll miss Dunc.  He was by all accounts a great teammate, and he was, to me, a classic example of a competitor who wanted to be on the field even when he was in pain.  In the end, that might have been what hurt him, because there has been so much speculation but no confirmation that his declining numbers have been due to injury.  But it is refreshing in an era of prima donna’s, to find a guy who’s willing to play through pain.  I truly wish Duncan all the best.  I hope he revitalizes his career in Boston and starts putting up the kind of numbers we know he’s capable of.

Here’s another example of how badly institutions of higher learning have failed their young charges, loading them up with all kinds of idealistic tripe instead of filling their heads with facts.  News Channel 6 in Concord, NC, is reporting that the Concord Mills Mall is giving the boot to a kiosk being run by a company known as Free Market Warrior, operated by a conservative gentleman named Loren Spivack.  The reason?  Apparently, Mr. Spivack’s kiosk, which sells conservative bumper stickers and the like, was found to be offensive by recent UNC-Charlotte grad Jennifer Ibanez.  In a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer, Ms. Ibanez had this to say:

“Free Market Warrior, a kiosk located adjacent to Bass Pro Shops, specializes in memorabilia embellished with pro-confederacy statements as well as those opposing both the government and President Obama. In addition, these products support ideas such as racisms, sexism, and even slavery. While freedom of speech is a Constitutional right it’s difficult not to believe that something just isn’t quite right here.

“I find it appalling that Concord Mills, North Carolina’s #1 visitor attraction, would condone such a message to be portrayed by their vendors and can’t imagine how the outside visitors’ perceptions of North Carolinians have been skewed by such an establishment.

“It’s hard to stay open-minded when such uncivilized and outdated ideas are endorsed on a daily basis. It’s 2009; please, let’s at least try to put this type of bigotry to an end.”

The article goes on to say that Ms. Ibanez wrote a letter to the owner of the mall, and she, along with a friend of hers, vowed to never return until Spivack and his evil conservatism had been vanquished from the mall.  After receiving the letter, mall management decided Spivack’s goods were not neutral enough, and told him that his lease will be allowed to expire at the end of July, without an option to renew. 

Now, it should be clear that malls are private places of business that should be able to decide who sells and what is sold in their stores.  So if the mall decides that it does not want to renew Spivack’s lease, it is within its rights to do so.  It does seem rather foolish that the mall would choose NOT to renew the lease based on two customer complaints…especially now that this story has made national news, and you can bet that more than two people will decide they don’t want to do their shopping at the Concord Mills Mall because it’s unfriendly to those of the conservative persuasion.  Nevertheless, the mall is not obligated to give a place for conservative viewpoints.

The real problem is with the ignorance of Jennifer Ibanez.  I went to the website of the Charlotte Observer and found a condensed version of her comments here.  Nowhere, either on the Observer or the subsequent stories, have I seen where she actually specifies items that are “Pro-Confederacy, pro-racism, pro-sexism, or pro-slavery.”  She just asserts that they are there.  The next logical thing to do is to find the website for Free Market Warrior, and examine the items that they have for sale.  It stands to reason if they are selling them in a mall, that the same items would be listed on their website, right?  The link can be found at the top of the page, and they have several pages of items like coffee mugs, bumper stickers, and posters that can be purchased, all with conservative slogans.  I searched diligently to find one item that was pro-Confederacy, racist, sexist, or pro-slavery, and nary a one was to be found.

In fact, I scratched my head when I went to the page that contained items for sale, because there, at the very top of the list, was a bust of Abraham Lincoln for sale.  Now, my history might be a little shaky, but the last time I checked, Abraham Lincoln was very much against the Confederacy, and he was personally opposed to slavery (even if he did feel it was Constitutionally protected in the southern states).  It seems odd to suggest that Spivack’s kiosk contains pro-Confederacy material when online, he’s selling a bust of the man universally hated by every advocate of the Confederacy in the last 150 years.  Nowhere did I see Confederate flags, busts of Jefferson Davis, or any other pro-Confederacy or pro-slavery material.  In fact, I saw nothing even connected with slavery at all, save for the bust of Lincoln.   Neither did I find any sexist or racist material.  Most of the items there were critical of Barack Obama, but they had nothing to do with his skin tone and everything to do with his policies.

And this, I suspect, is where Ibanez’s problem truly lies.  For she says in her letter: 

“Free Market Warrior, a kiosk located adjacent to Bass Pro Shops, specializes in memorabilia…opposing both the government and President Obama.”

*GASP*  SAY IT ISN’T SO, JENNIFER!  NOT MEMORABILIA THAT OPPOSES THE GOVERNMENT OR PRESIDENT OBAMA!

This is why I have such a low regard for liberals.  It’s because most of the time, they are educated fools.  Nothing against a college education…I believe it is important.  But sadly, the world of academia has failed people like Ms. Ibanez, who believes that a kiosk with material opposing the government is uncivilized and outdated.  Unswerving fealty to the state…that’s the new motto of the day.  Bow at the altar of government, and anyone who opposes it must be shut down.  I wonder if Ms. Ibanez opposed the kiosk selling the “Don’t Tread On Me” flag, which is also for sale on the Free Market Warrior site.  The flag has its roots in the American Revolution, which essentially boiled down to citizens who got sick of being taxed to death and abused by their government, and so therefore decided to oppose it…with GUNS!  *GASP* 

It is sheep like Ibanez who are too stupid to realize when they’ve been had.  She was probably one of the same liberal activists who during the Bush years screamed that dissent was the highest form of patriotism.  Sadly, then it was the Republicans who wanted to shut up free speech by calling everyone who opposed the Bush administration traitors.  Of course, the actions of people like Ibanez prove that it is not the government that these “freedom lovers” oppose…it’s just the opposite party.  Now that the Democrats are in power, Ibanez and her ilk can’t give away their freedoms fast enough.  And of course, Republicans have suddenly woken up and realized, “Hey!  The government is a corrupt institution that is trampling on the Constitution.”  Sadly, it’s hard to take them seriously when they spent the last eight years helping the government grow at it’s fastest rate since the New Deal.  And there are many voices in the Republican Party crying to take it further to “the center,” even though this last election has shown it to be morphing into a milder version of the Democratic Party.  But I digress.

Jennifer, let me tell you something they apparently don’t teach in college.  Opposition to abusive government is one of the founding principles of this country.  Perhaps instead of reading Chomsky and Marx, you should try reading Washington and Jefferson.  Liberty is an idea that is neither uncivilized nor outdated.  And until it returns to it’s Constitutional moorings, the government needs to be opposed, even if “the Chosen One” is at the wheel.