Keep Your Eyes on the Road, Please

The always humorous dad29 threw himself into the fracas about the Coexist bumper sticker over at Professor John McAdam's blogsite (if ever there were an argument against tenure, McAdams would be exhibit #1). Anyway, here is the text of dad29's comment:

The syncretism expressed by the original "coexist" sticker is offensive to anyone who values that which is true.

It was also smug and condescending--as though those who speak out about the deficiencies of Islam are somehow bellicose, or impolite.

Sorry, Seth, that's wrong. Just as you correct your children when they are wrong, (I think you do, anyway) someone has to correct the Mohammedans.

Benedict XVI has taken an initiative in that regard. So have Sykes and Limbaugh (and countless others), each in their own way.

The IFC's "offense" is spurious.

Further, I seriously doubt that Abp. Dolan formally concurs with ANY letter that espouses religious syncretism. Board member or no, that is not his position.

Dad's got his undies in a bundle I think and it must be uncomfortable. Until Tom McMahon came out with his revision of the bumper sticker, I really doubt daddio gave it more than two seconds of his ponderous thought, though I suppose it's possible. But if so, there are a few traffic accidents I'd like re-investigated.

Anyway, I've seen the bumper sticker, too. I spent less time looking at the symbols (I had other things on my mind, like minding the road) and more thinking the thought expressed was kind of cool. I mean, who wants to be perpetually offended anway?

Now truly, I could not infer any impolite references to dad's or other conservatives' thoughts regarding Islam. The message of the bumper sticker was simply one of hope that we (all of us) might find a better way to live together, and used a few symbols as examples because they matched the letters needed to spell out Coexist.

I suppose, for those of you who actually like being perpetually offended, this might be difficult to ignore. But the bumper sticker message was smug and condescending ... nah, one has bigger issues if that's what one really thinks. One of which is the idea that you, daddio, have somehow cornered the market on what is true. History is full of those making that assumption. They were all brought back down to earth eventually, usually by a coalition of forces.

Happy Thanksgiving

Box Score Line of the Week

From ESPN, this is the box score line for Thai pitcher, Chanati Thongbai, from the recently completed World Cup baseball tournament. For those of you who are not baseball fans, these numbers are not good.

6 IP, 22 H, 24 R, 19 ER, 9 BB, 1 K, 1 WP, 4 HR.

In English, these stats mean that Mr. Thongbai pitched six innings (he managed to get 18 outs somehow), he gave up 22 hits, the other team scored 24 runs of which only 19 were earned (Mr. Thongbai's fielders did him no favors), he did not help his own cause by walking nine batters and embarrassingly enough for one batter, Mr. Thongpai actually struck someone out. Mr. Thongpai threw one wild pitch (got past the catcher) and gave up four home runs.

I'm guessing Thailand lost this game.

Honor the Three Sisters Tomorrow

It was traditional in many First Nations cultures to offer an official giving of thanks during autumnal gatherings. In Haudenosaunee culture, Thanksgiving is a prayer recited to honor "The Three Sisters" (i.e., beans, corn, and squash) during the fall harvest. -- Wikipedia


Tomorrow is the day we all give thanks the Native Americans didn't wipe out the group of 38 British settlers who landed at Berekely Hundred on December 4, 1619. And let's all give thanks that Squanto freely offered his help to the colonialists in Massachusetts so they might survive.

We returned the favor nicely over the next 250 years by forcing them off their lands, starving them, massacring them and attempting to convert them to that heathen religion, christianity.

So tomorrow, give thanks.

For An Old Friend

A Sad Day for Baseball

I am not going to waste time heaping vituperation on Barry Bonds. The lesser lights on the right will do that for me. However, I will say this: What a sad day for baseball.

Here are two links to articles at ESPN, one by Gene Wojciechowski, who manages to express his disdain for Bonds without the use of vulgar language or coded racial epitaphs. The other is an investigative report that goes far in illuminating the evidence that Bonds did perjure himself.

Brilliance? Genius? Fred Dooley?

It's as though conservatives have this huge self-image issue so they must go around labeling each other as brilliant or genius. Seriously, keep an eye out for this and you will see it recur over and over.

Now, I like Tom McMahon, he is very clever and has had more than a few interesting posts, but “genius” and “brilliant?” Oh, heck ... yeah, I'd rank Tom right up there with Stephen Hawking and Charles Dickens. It's the weekend and I'm leaving to visit friends, so I'll be generous. Have a great weekend, Tom.

It's Not Attacking, It's Poking Fun

As always, apologies to the genius of Tom Tomorrow and This Modern World.

I Object (continued)

The continuing saga of Peter DiGuadio and the chattering chihuahuas. Capper at Whallah and the Brew City Brawler have taken up the slack and kept up the heat on some very objectionable blogging. Below are links to four additional posts.

Very interesting, indeed.

Blogger who called Mexicans "chihuahuas" stands by his words

Why does the Journal Sentinel's McIlheran link to a blogger who calls Mexicans "chihuahuas" part two

Why does the Journal Sentinel's McIlheran link to a blogger who calls Mexicans "chihuahuas"

Time For Some More Satire

Happy Birthday, Abby

Been busy (inside joke, but yes, Fred ... I know the word ). This past Sunday we held a Packer/ Barbie party to help convince relatives to come and to celebrate my daughter Abby's seventh birthday (I suspect the relatives would have come anyway). It was a blast. Here are a few pictures of one very ecstatic little girl, and one of her baby sister who hogged some of the spotlight.

I Object

Thanks to John Foust and here is a link to the offending comments by Peter DiGaudio that were referenced below in the post titled: McIlheran Likes it Caustic and Pungent.

The title of Peter's post was innocent enough: Texas Pizza Chain Accepting Pesos. Here's the text of the post.

This is wrong on so many levels.

Pizza lovers who don’t happen to have American currency on them can still purchase their favorite pies with Mexican pesos, thanks to a Texas-based restaurant chain.

Starting this week, Pizza Patrón outlets, which caters heavily to Mexicans, will offer the alternative form of payment.

“We’re trying to reach out to our core customer,” Antonio Swad, president of Pizza Patrón Inc., told the Dallas Morning News.

“We know they come back [from Mexico] and have pesos left over. We want to be a convenient place for them to spend their pesos.”

It’s believed no other food chain operating so far from the Mexican border is allowing customers to pay with foreign currency.

You’re in the United States. Embrace our culture. Learn our language. Use our money.

Or go back home.

Pretty standard nonsense from the charitably-challenged. Just commenting now on this subject I could provide a couple of reasons for this being a good thing. One, it's good business. And two, other places in the United States have been accepting international currencies for years ... and the dollar is accepted internationally.

But you see, it's not really a question of what constitutes good business practices, or a question of whether we want to be a good, international buddy. Nope, in the comment section we find out what it's really about. This is where Peter hits his stride.

I am sick of them shoving their fucking culture and theire fucking language down my throat.

I stood in Wal Mart yesterday and listen to a bunch of chattering chihuahuas speaking Mexican until I sick of listening to it and finally said, “You’re in America. Speak English or go back to wherever you came from” and walked away.

Either adopt our culture or language or get the fuck out of the U.S. My grandparents were immigrants and guess what? English was learned in their homes. It was the only acceptable language.

This is who McIlheran links to approvingly. Why does the Journal Sentinel employ this guy? He's not even a real journalist. Hell, I'd feel better (well, just a real, teeny weeny bit - microscopic really) if Jessica McBride were writing the columns.

His posts and columns are poorly researched, using either ultra right-wing conservative think tanks as his sources, or questionable news organizations like the Washington Times, which is run by Sun Myung Moon. Yep, that Moonies guy and humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent.

I don't have a problem with conservative columnists being employed by the local paper to provide views. That's as it should be. But the Journal Sentinel must be able to do better.

4-Block Fun

With apologies to Tom McMahon.

McIlheran Likes It Caustic and Pungent

My good friend Michael Mathias, co-proprietor of Pundit Nation, wrote a post titled "The Banality of Evil Redux." He wrote of the torture issue and noted that Journal Sentinel columnist Patrick McIlheran admits to having slept well despite evidence that the CIA has involved itself in cruel interrogation methods, popular amongst these being waterboarding, which causes the victim to think he is drowning. Having once almost drowned, I can state unequivocally that the sensation is extremely unpleasant and stressful.

Mathias offers this insight from Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem that Adolf Eichmann "... represented the sort of everyman that had to exist for the Nazis to exercise total control over German life. Hitler didn’t owe his power to the loyalty of his fanatics, but to the acquiescence of the regular German citizen—the ordinary citizens who were only too happy to turn away from the truth, even as greater and greater evils were perpetrated against his neighbors."

McIlheran took offense. He did not like being compared to Eichmann, he thundered. In fact, though, Mathias never said that. He explicitly said he was not calling McIlheran, Eichmann. You can read McIlheran's rambling post here. He concludes by wondering whether "... Mathias has already sent them [Washington Times and Wall Street Journal editorialists] little paste-on Hitler mustaches."

Mathias responded with a knockout blow, which you can read here.

After reading all this, I checked to see if there were any comments to McIlheran's post. I found this comment left by someone named 3rd Way:

Condemnation of Hitler comparisons are apt. A blogger you are supporting with a link from this page has posted a video of Hitler and claims it is a US senator. I hope you condemn the comparisons being made by the Texas Hold 'Em blogger by removing his link. Such tasteless comparisons do nothing but degrade the debate.

Ah, so let's up the ante. McIlheran relied thusly:

Well, you've got a point there, Mr. Way. I assume you're talking about Texas Hold 'Em Blogger's post of last Jan. 20.

All right, then: Tsk, Tex. It was quite a good PhotoShopping, and it's as amusing, in-house, as it was during the previous Clinton years. But it wasn't the most effective argument against Hillary.
I know this because you've made far better arguments. One would hate to think you'd have to do the reductio ad Hitlerium against the Hildabeast.

There, Mr. Way. Taken care of. And as I gave Matthias a heap of free publicity -- and an enduring link to his blog off my post -- I don't think I'll asymmetrically sever my blogroll link to Tex. After all, he remains the Clorox of Wisconsin blogs: pungent and caustic in such a wonderfully beneficial way.

My, he thinks highly of himself. I had to reply to this impossible defense of DiGuadio:

Peter DiGuadio, or Tex, as you refer to him, once proudly admitted on his blog to yelling at a group of Latinos because they were speaking their native tongue. He demanded they speak English, called them "chattering chihuahuas" and suggested they go home, assuming, I guess, they were here illegally. Which, by the way, is still no excuse in case you had doubts, Mr. McIlheran.

I am stunned that the Journal Sentinel keeps you on its payroll ... one who so approvingly links to this character. It's not a good smell emanating from the JS these days.

McIlheran returned fire:

Dear Mr. Rock: You may have missed this one, but I'm not Pete DiGaudio's editor. You may want to go complain to him about that one.

Or, to be more explicit, here's my disclaimer: Hyperlinks from my blog, either in posts or in the blogroll, do not imply agreement in whole or in part with any particular content on the linked pages.

Particularly in the case of the blogroll links, it implies only that these are blogs I look at with some regularity and that I suspect you may find interesting as well. They are, after all, bloggers with viewpoints of their own.

If you want to impose your little speech codes on them, knock yourself out, but don't expect me to play along.

And I conclude here at my blog:

No, you're wrong. Considering the sparseness and selectiveness of your blogroll, it's reasonable to assume a certain amount of agreement with the views of those linked to, including the views of DiGuadio. Additionally, you have accorded praise for other posts he's written in the past, linked to him approvingly and quoted him on occasion. All this implies just a wee bit of agreement..

As far as speech codes, isn't that exactly what you were trying to do with Michael Mathias? I've read his post and nowhere did it imply you were a little Nazi. Michael made a point, albeit a harsh one (as he said), regarding the ease of acquiescence of the “everyman” in WWII Germany. Eichmann is described by the author Michael quotes from as archetypal of that everyman. Your continued defense of the indefensible Bush administration and your dancing around the torture issue brand you as an acquiescent “everyman.” You swallow what you are told and follow in lockstep.

Mathias (one T by the way) is exactly right.

By the way, you still owe Mathias an apology for your little aside regarding Hitler paste-on moustaches. Who now is playing the Nazi-insinuation card?

One More Thing

McIlheran wasn't done, though, and added one more defense of the indefensible DiGuadio, whose writing style he referred to admiringly as caustic and pungent.

Mr Way: Yes, caustic and pungent, just the qualities that made, for instance, H.L. Mencken so readable.

I almost threw up after reading that, but recovered. Here my final comment to it all:

Finally, comparing H.L. Mencken to DiGuadio, even in the abstract, is ludicrous. Mencken was the master of satire and the exquisite use of the lampoon ... quite a bit different from the race-baiting and sophomoric name-calling that DiGuadio engages in.

It discredits you and the Journal Sentinel to lend any credence to DiGuadio's writings.

Done.

The Headline Was Telling

I continue to be astounded by Jessica McBride.

Her most recent leap into looniness is titled: Isn't this headline telling?

The headline in question tops a front page article in the Journal Sentinel: Residents of south side divided on whom to blame.

All right, I thought, let's start with how the headline is telling. So I linked over before reading the rest of her post and I read the story. I discovered that the headline is an accurate decription of the story. The story includes a number of interviews with local residents about the recent shootings on southside. Each of the residents interviewed shares personal horror stories and their different views of the shootings and the reasons why. Also part of the article are statements from District Attorney John Chisholm, Police Chief Nannette Hegerty and Mayor Tom Barrett. In other words, the writer, Linda Spice, did her job as a professional journalist. She did not try to ascertain right or wrong. She remained neutral and objective. She reported. It's a good article.

I returned to McBride's blog. All right, why is the headline telling, I asked myself? This weird ramble from the golden-haired one followed:

This is an open question? Why is it a tough question? The people to blame are the shooter(s). THE SHOOTER SHOT 2 COPS.

Both sides play the blame game - it's the gun! it's the culture! it's poverty!I don't even blame gangs. A person has to choose to join a gang.

I would apportion some blame to the parents; however, not as much blame as the shooter deserves. The shooter was allegedly 15. The parents should have made sure their underage child wasn't roaming around the street, possibly with a gang, shooting at cops. Period.

Okay. What was that all about? The headline did not ask a question. The rest read like something my 12-year old would put together. At least he is learning to reread what he writes and work with rough drafts before submitting a final copy.

Now I know that she is just writing on a blog. And I know she's probably writing bits and pieces between the times she spends with her daughter, or looking at the television, or scheming ways for her husband and herself to keep their name in the limelight (you know, like lawyering up for the Sheboygan One). But still, you would think she had a little more self-respect and would attempt to at least make some sense.

Please, why is she teaching journalism?

Help on Deciding for Whom to Vote

My mom just sent this link to me. It's kind of fun. If you are undecided about who to vote for in the presidential race, answer the questions provided by the ABC Match-o-Matic.

I'm apparently a Barack Obama supporter.

It does clarify one thing for me, I knew I was not a supporter of Hillary Clinton or any of the Republicans.

Shallow Hal's Sister?

Is it possible for Jessica McBride to be any shallower?

She links to a story about a child that miraculously survived an attempted abortion and wonders why there isn't any condemnation of the original decision to abort.

Of course, it matters not to her that it was a joint decision of doctors and mother. The doctors believed the child would die in the womb and his death could cause the twin to die as well.

Happily the child survived.

What is there to condemn?

If I were the mother, I know what I would call McBride for her insinuation that anyone, doctor or mother needs to be condemned for what was a heartbreaking decision based on the best medical evidence. But I would keep it to myself or the conservative blogosphere would be all over it.

More Thoughts on Smokers' Rights

Did you know that the cost of a pack of cigarettes averages $4.49, probably more now with the increase in taxes? A pack-a-day smoker, which is what I was for nearly 30 years, coughs up nearly $1,700 per year. But, as the rights people like to say, "Hey, it's their choice."

Did you know that smoking continues to be the leading cause of preventable death in the United States? An estimated 440,000 people were hacked off prematurely from 1995 through 1999.

Did you know that on average adult men and women smokers lose 13.2 and 14.5 years of life, respectively, because they smoke? My grandfather smoked and died of emphysema. It's a painful way to die, gasping for breath. Dobly painful for grandpa. He was unable to play with his grandchildren because the effort was too great for his burned out lungs.

I've got news for the rights people, it's painful to watch, too.

Did you know that the economic costs during the same period were $81.9 billion in productivity losses from deaths (average for 1995 to 1999) and $75.5 billion in excess medical expenditures in 1998? Productivity lost that affected those other than smokers. Excess medical expenditures that resulted in excess time being spent with smokers who had the choice, taking away time and money from those who chose more wisely.

Did you know that smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually? Some choice. Where are the anti-abortion forces?

Did you know that because of smokers, we all pay in higher taxes to fund government health care programs, like Medicare, and in higher health insurance premiums?

Did you know that secondhand smoke imposes significant costs on nonsmokers and society? The annual cost of excess medical care, mortality and morbidity from secondhand smoke exposure in the U.S. is approximately $10 billion. This includes approximately $5 billion in direct medical costs and approximately $5 billion in indirect costs, such as lost wages, reduced services and costs associated with disabilities per year.

Oh, did you know this stat includes those workers who are non-smokers but must endure the fumes offered up by the rights people?


I have a couple of additional rights that have been conveniently forgotten in the zeal to make a political point:

What about my right to breath clean, smoke-free air, or am I required to change my plans because of the poor choices of smokers.

What about my right to reasonably priced health insurance, which is adversely affected by the poor choices that smokers make?

What about the rights of my children not to be tempted into an unhealthy life style, and to not have to watch family members die a slow, painful death because of the poor choices smokers make.

There is no constitutionally-protected right to smoke. There is agreement, however, that government, which is selected by the people, can pass laws for the betterment of society, according to the standards the community agrees upon.

For example, pornography is legal, too, more legal in many ways than smoking ... the courts having determined that pornography is protected speech. But the courts have also determined that communities may make choices regarding the sale and distribution of pornography.

I have yet to find any free speech connection with inhaling noxious fumes. But I do know that communities have the right to decide how to handle poor choices.

Best Line of Day

From the "I will have to use this line someday" department:

The absolute necessity of the dogs needing to go outside is inversely proportional to the amount of clothes I am wearing at the time.

-- James Wigderson

Mountains Out of Molehills

Regarding yawning, have you ever noticed that yawning seems to be contagious. Researchers have found that 40-60% of people who see a picture of someone yawning will yawn themselves. Even reading the word YAWN can make people yawn.

Apparently the same holds true for faux conservative outrage. Regarding Fred Dooley's (Real Debate Wisconsin blog author) taunt to Jay Bullock (folkbum's rambles and rants bog author) and his thought that a 1,000 word post is in the offing.

YAWN.

Be assured that 40-60% of conservative bloggers will follow suit.

Update: Mike Mathias and Nick Schweitzer chime in about the misplaced outrage.

And now Jay does add-on ... though with considerably less than 1,000 words.

Don Imus Returns and Give It a Rest

NEW YORK (AP) -- A little more than six months ago, Don Imus' career seemed doomed. The shock jock had been fired over a racist and sexist remark that ignited an uproar over the limits of taste and tolerance.

But the cantankerous Imus has clambered back from the professional brink before, and the Rasputin of radio is poised to do it again.

Citadel Broadcasting Corp. announced Thursday that Imus would return to radio Dec. 3., confirming long-rumored reports that he was coming back to morning drive time on WABC-AM, based in New York - the same city where he was banished from the airwaves last spring.

Good. I have no problem with Imus returning to the airwaves. He was punished for his remarks and deserves forgiveness and a second chance ... something James Wigderson and others on the right would do well to consider the next time they decide to make insipid remarks about Senator Ted Kennedy.

Regardless of what tabloids James and the other righties read, the Kopechne family has moved on, with no indication they have not forgiven Kennedy for his role in their daughter's death. No one knows and it's borderline crazy to keep surmising otherwise.

Or just plain shallow.