Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Sports: The U.S. Petit Prix
Sunday, June 19th, 2005
The U. S. Grand Prix was anything but grand; once again, American fans pay the price for the fat cats’ stupidity. Today’s Formula One travesty reminds us that all professional sports make their money from fans whom they in turn ignore. This is a sport dominated by billionaires, men with egos fatter than than their wallets. Such men do not readily identify or sympathize with the ordinary mortals who provide the cash that supports their vicarious life in racing. Such men bask in the reflected glory of exceptionally brave and talented drivers who risk their lives and actually earn the respect and even the adoration of the fans. Such men view fans as a faceless herd of nobodies entitled to nothing more than the privilege of handing their money over to the lords of F1.
On the surface, the facts are simple. Michelin provides the tires for seven of the current ten F1 teams. Unfortunately, they were not able to provide tires that would actually carry the cars around the entire track at Indianapolis Motor Speedway. In particular, the tires had a tendency to fail in turn 13, AKA the Indy 500’s turn one. In correspondence posted here and here, Michelin described their dilemma and offered to provide tires based on another compound, but the F1 sanctioning body, the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), refused. According to F1 rules, cars are supposed to race on the same kind of tires they qualified on.
Michelin then asked the FIA to order the construction of a chicane (a barrier that produces a speed-reducing S-curve) before turn 13. The FIA refused on the grounds that changing the course to help some teams solve an equipment problem would be unfair to the other three teams. They informed Michelin that their teams would have to deal with the problem by (a) suffering a penalty for using a different tire, (b) slowing down in turn 13 (an obvious competitive disadvantage, (c) pitting roughly every ten laps to change the affected tire. The seven team owners, obviously acting in concert, simply refused to follow the F1 rules and run the race.
Their are rumors of ongoing disputes between the owners and the FIA. Perhaps there was more to their decision than the fact that their chosen tire vendor wasn’t up to the task. This kind of fat-cat-fight is certainly nothing new to American fans of open-wheel racing, particularly the Indianapolis 500. Disagreements between car owners and the United States Auto Club (USAC) produced a new sanctioning body, Championship Auto Racing Teams (CART). Disagreements between CART owners and Tony George (owner of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and of an ego the equal of any F1 owner) spawned the Indy Racing League (IRL), current sanctioning body for the Indy 500. But no fan of American racing had ever seen 70 percent of the field take the parade lap (warm-up lap in F1) and drive straight to the garage to sulk.
Will F1 come back to Indy – or anywhere in the United States next year? No one knows. F1 has been a hard sell in the United States, showing up in Watkins Glen (New York), Long Beach (California), Las Vegas, and most recently in Indy. The farcical National Hockey League invites us to ask instead, will anybody care?
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
PCUSA: The Presbyterian PAC
Friday, June 17th, 2005
Like most of its mainline sisters, the Presebyterian Church USA (PCUSA) is wandering clueless through the post-modern landscape, trying to decide which carries more weight, the Bible or the latest cultural trend. Trends seem to be gaining the upper hand. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the public posturing of our unregistered PAC, the PCUSA Washington Office.
First, a little background on the PCUSA’s governance and my role in the PCUSA. The General Assembly (GA) is highest governing body of the PCUSA. It meets every two years. Actually, this is the first year in a couple of centuries that that it hasn’t met. It used to meet annually, but the GA decided to meet every two years because falling income from a dwindling membership made yearly meetings an unbearable financial burden. Like many bureaucracies, the PCUSA has a number of entrenched organizations that pretty much do as they please. This seeming independence is because the PCUSA, like many bureaucracies, disciplines only selectively.
I have been ordained as a deacon and as an elder in the PCUSA for several years. Although this subjects me to the “discipline” of the denomination, it also compels me to comment on its worldly ways and its lust for the affirmation of the culture.
Political Action Committees aren’t required to tell the truth. Their job is to tell politicians what they (the PAC) want them (the pols) to hear. If we take that as a working definition of a PAC, then the PCUSA Washington Office surely qualifies. Undeterred by mere facts, its director, Elenora Giddings Ivory, tells the pols what she wants them to hear, true or not. She seems to think that “PCUSA” is not the organization to which she is nominally accountable, but the acronym for her personal political objective – a Politically Correct USA.
Of course, PACs are supposed to be registered as such and are required by law to follow certain rules. But by masquerading as an arm of the GA and claiming to be accountable to it, the Washington Office avoids all that messy paperwork and unwanted attention from elections officials. According to its page at the PCUSA web site, it poses as “the public policy information and advocacy office of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Its task is to advocate, and help the church to advocate, the social witness perspectives and policies of the Presbyterian General Assembly.” This is simply false, as evidenced by two recent lobbying efforts:
Senate filibuster of judicial nominees
Presbyterian General Assembly: No stated perspective or policy.
Washington Office: “Careful and independent scrutiny of judicial nominees can happen during the confirmation process in the Senate. Scrutiny should not be shortchanged by cutting off extended debate (filibuster). Without careful review we can almost guarantee that we will open our newspapers one morning and see stories of judges who are being impeached.”
Impeached? Where does she get this stuff? (Although, to be sure, there are plenty of federal judges right now who ought to be impeached.) Note also that scrutiny “can” happen. It could, but that is not the Democrats’ (or the Washington Office’s) intent. Their intent is to block nominees they haven’t the votes to reject.
Federal Marriage Amendment
Presbyterian General Assembly: “Nothing the 216th General Assembly has said or acted upon is to be construed to state or imply a position for or against the Federal Marriage Amendment. General Assembly entities shall not advocate for or against the Federal Marriage Amendment”
Washington Office: “Congress [should] reject any proposed amendment to the federal Constitution that would prohibit the marriage of same-gender persons,”
In stories posted in The Layman Online on June 8, September 23, and September 28, 2004, this was the original text of a lobbying screed edited by the Washington Office. Caught red-handed, they edited and re-posted the document, but not until letters had gone to legislators falsely claiming that the PCUSA opposed the amendment.
There are many instances of the Washington Office simply spewing letters, press releases, and statements on topics that the General Assembly has not addressed. Such shoot-from-the-hip advocacy of liberal political causes does not in any way promote the “perspectives and policies of the Presbyterian General Assembly”. It is, indeed, the behavior of an independent PAC. Well, not altogether independent. Support of the Washington Office does divert at least $600,000 a year (as of 2002) from the denomination’s “mission” budget.
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
News: What is a "chaperone" anyway?
Monday, June 6th, 2005
As the father of a June graduate, my thoughts and prayers are with Natalee Holloway and her parents. I can barely begin to imagine what her parents are going through, hoping for the best even as they fear the worst.
If Natalee Holloway has been harmed, there is a person or persons responsible for the deed. But who was responsible for exposing her to the dangers of an island bar in a foreign country at 1:00 in the morning? Who was supposed to exercise adult judgment to counter their charges’ celebratory mood, sense of adventure, and youthful feelings of immortality? Who was responsible for ensuring that Natalee stayed with her group and returned safely to her hotel?
Who were the “chaperones” that let her slip away to an as-yet unknown fate?
Where were they? What were they doing? What were they thinking? Did they imagine that teenagers suddenly become seasoned adults just by graduating high school? Did they just lose track of her or did they get so caught up in their own island adventure that they left Natalee to her own devices?
Who were the “chaperones” who didn’t know or didn’t care that she was getting into a car with strangers?
By most accounts, there was a chaperone for every four or five students. Did they have any specific duties? Did they split up to keep an eye on their own group? Or did they hang out together, perhaps not wanting to interfere with the students’ fun? Did they try to prevent her leaving but stop short for fear of making a fuss? Were they reluctant to embarrass her – or themselves?
What did they think a “chaperone” is supposed to do?
Yes, I’m angry. And until it’s reported that at least one adult in the party fought like a demon to keep Natalee out of that car, I’ll be judgmental too. How can we not judge the chaperones’ collective failure to honor the trust of the parents who delivered their daughter into their protection? Did the chaperones even understand that they held Natalee’s life in their care? Even if Natalee is found alive and well, how could we not still condemn the actions of adults who abandoned Natalee at the moment of her greatest need?
What is a “chaperone” anyway?
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
Politics: "Deep Throat" unworthy of namesake
Saturday, June 4th, 2005
The original “Deep Throat” was a notorious porn movie. There’s little good to be said of such trash, but at least its producers were honest about its sleazy character. The same can’t be said for FBI turncoat Mark Felt.
Disclaimer: I had many vices in my youth, a fact I take no pride in. Seeing the movie “Deep Throat” was not one of them.
In 1974, I was a recently-retired 20-something hippie – a bit of a drifter with no family of my own, no property, and no real responsibilities. I still saw the world in simple shades of black and white. I was, of course, a liberal who hated Richard Nixon. As the Watergate story broke – and later, as I read All the President’s Men – I thought the mysterious “Deep Throat” was something of a whistle-blower. But while most whistle-blowers showed courage and conviction, this one was different.
We knew the names of others – Karen Silkwood and Daniel Ellsberg, for example – but not this one. This one hid in darkened parking garages and refused to reveal his identity. This one, it seemed, lacked the courage to take responsibility – or credit – for his actions. This one stayed safe and comfortable, never really risking anything. This one was a mole, an untrustworthy official in a position of high trust.
Over the years I have found myself with a career, a family, a house with a mortgage, and many responsibilities. I have come to see that the pallette of the world is indeed black and white – good and evil, God and Satan – but the details are painted in shades of grey, none wholly white or wholly black. Gone is the easy liberalism of the government giving away other people’s money. Now it is my money and my family’s, given away in fraudulent programs that accomplish little and change nothing.
The Nixon that I despiseed was seriously flawed as a President, but his administration got some things right. He was a man with character, also flawed but who, by most accounts, was loving toward his family and kind to strangers. Woodward and Bernstien weren’t heroes wearing white hats; they were ambitious reporters on a mission that rewarded them handsomely. (And when Woodward’s new “Deep Throat” book is rushed into print in July, his rewards will only increase.)
Mark Felt was no hero, no whistle-blower. He was simply a coward who continued to feed at the trough he lacked the courage to disavow. The movie “Deep Throat” was publicized on the marquees of seedy theaters and, I am told, delivered what it promised. Watergate’s “Deep Throat”, Mark Felt, lurked in the shadows and delivered betrayal.
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Politics: Isikoff still doesn’t get It
Tuesday, May 24th, 2005
On the Charlie Rose Show, Michael Isikoff continued his self-serving spin, evading responsibility for his article’s effects and writing off the long-term harm to Newsweek as nothing more than “a blip”. Sigh. He’s probably right.
Michael Isikoff appeared on the Charlie Rose Show to discuss – and apparently defend – the shoddy reporting in his now-infamous Newsweek article. Newsweek’s owner, the Washington Post reported that Isikoff admitted he had “dropped the ball by not properly corroborating his anonymous source.” In his tepid mea culpa, he acknowledged only “the possibility that his article, which has been blamed for violent protests in Muslim countries, may have spurred riots.” Isikoff reportedly told Rose, “It was terrible what happened…. Even if it was just a little bit that we contributed to the violence that went on over there, that was awful, terrible.” Just a little bit? Consider what Newsweek itself said about the “contribution” Isikoff’s article made to the violence:
By the end of the week, the rioting had spread from Afghanistan throughout much of the Muslim world, from Gaza to Indonesia. Mobs shouting “Protect our Holy Book!” burned down government buildings and ransacked the offices of relief organizations in several Afghan provinces. The violence cost at least 15 lives, injured scores of people and sent a shudder through Washington, where officials worried about the stability of moderate regimes in the region.
The spark was apparently lit at a press conference held on Friday, May 6, by Imran Khan, a Pakistani cricket legend and strident critic of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. Brandishing a copy of that week’s NEWSWEEK (dated May 9), Khan read a report that U.S. interrogators at Guantánamo prison had placed the Qur’an on toilet seats and even flushed one. “This is what the U.S. is doing,” exclaimed Khan, “desecrating the Qur’an.” His remarks, as well as the outraged comments of Muslim clerics and Pakistani government officials, were picked up on local radio and played throughout neighboring Afghanistan. Radical Islamic foes of the U.S.-friendly regime of Hamid Karzai quickly exploited local discontent with a poor economy and the continued presence of U.S. forces, and riots began breaking out last week.
Isikoff again blamed the Pentagon for his failure to verify the story’s accuracy. According the Post story, Isikoff and co-author John Berry “had provided the article in full to a senior Defense Department official. The official asked for a change of wording on a separate issue, but said nothing about the details concerning the Quran.” Isikoff went on to explain that they had provided the article for review “as a precaution.” Maybe Isikoff has since figured out that his abysmal judgment (or laziness, or desire to embarrass the Bush Administration) wasn’t much of a precaution after all. Responsible journalist that he his, he did confess that he and Berry “had erred by not getting positive corroboration on each point in the article by the Pentagon official.”
Oh. They “erred.” Well, no big deal, I guess. According to Isikoff, more anti-American hatred and a few dead rioters won’t affect Newsweek much. “I think it has clearly done some temporary damage,” he said. “It’s thrown us off our game for a little bit,” he said. “I think this will end up being a blip.”
Off their game. That flippant remark says more about Isikoff – his hubris, his arrogance, his refusal to accept responsibility for the immeasurable damage he has done – than anything anyone else could possibly say.
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Politics: Isikoff says "the Pentagon nade me do it!"
Thursday, May 19th, 2005
I always thought that reporters and their editors (and ultimately their publishers) were responsible for verifying their stories. Not according to Michael Isikoff, whose shoddy journalism led directly to the rioting in Afghanistan that left 17 dead.
The facts are not in dispute. Newsweek ran a false story that was based on an anonymous source’s flawed recollection of a report he thought he saw. The writer, Michael Isikoff, did not bother to verify the report. If he had, he might have learned that report was unreliable. Outrage among Muslims worldwide – and in Afghanistan in particular – left 17 dead. Newsweek has since retracted the story and apologized for its error. Not surprisingly, it shows no interest in holding Isikoff responsible.
As CBS News demonstrated with Dan Rather’s forged documents, star reporters are permitted to ignore standards and abuse the privileges granted them by the First Amendment – at least as long it makes the Bush Administration look bad. (It is worth noting that Newsweek is owned by the notoriously biased Washington Post.)
But even Dan Rather showed enough integrity to admit that someone at CBS should have paid a little more attention to checking its facts. Not so Michael Isikoff. According to him, it was the Pentagon’s fault that Newsweek published its deadly fabrication. According to several published reports (i.e. here and here, Isikoff told the New York Times that “Neither Newsweek nor the Pentagon foresaw that a reference to the desecration of the Koran was going to create the kind of response that it did.”
What an astonishing statement! I don’t know about Isikoff, but I would guess that most sentient beings are aware that Americans – and American military personnel in particular – are not widely loved in the Muslim world. Some of us have even heard that Muslim clerics routinely accuse the United States of waging a “war on Islam”. Yet Isikoff claims that he simply never imagined that his story about flushing a copy of the Qur’an down a toilet might provoke some kind of negative reaction among Muslims. I suppose to a “journalist” trying to weasel out of his gross incompetence, the Ignorant Option was more attractive than the Irresponsible Option.
But it was not enough for Isikoff to claim blind ignorance. Isikoff went on to blame the Pentagon for not checking his facts for him: “The Pentagon saw the item before it ran, and then they didn’t move us off it for 11 days afterward.” There was no obligation for anyone at Newsweek to verify the story; that was the Pentagon’s job. Apparently Isikoff’s sole responsibility was to gather some rumors, shape them into a story, and wait for someone to tell him he was wrong. Is this the standard the Newsweek and the Washington Post embrace? Yes. Along with CBS News and much of the “mainstream” media.
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Politics: The Constitution according to Dirty Harry
Wednesday, May 18th, 2005
The Constitution requires super-majorities for several legislative functions. Consenting to judicial appointments is not one of them.
“Dirty Harry” Reid* is a political thug. He is a man who seems to be driven primarily by venomous hatred of President Bush and the values the President embraces. He is a man who lacks the integrity to distinguish between coy innuendo and political discourse. His lust for power is of the most covetous sort. He cannot bear to see any in the hands of those with whom he disagrees; he and those of like mind must have it all. He is, in short, a contemporary Democrat.
And like many of his party, he is outraged that the evil, Bible-thumping Senate Republicans might like to do business in accordance with the rules set down by the Constitution. The filibuster is an artifact of the Senate rules. It requires a super-majority (60 votes) to shut off debate and get on with business. The Republicans, who have the quaint idea that the President should be allowed to exercise the powers granted him by the Constitution, want to amend the rules to eliminate the filibuster for debates on judicial nominees.
Dirty Harry and his cohorts have used the threat of a filibuster to block ten judicial nominees whom they believe hold to values that are not politically correct – things like decency, fair play, Constitutional limits on the power they so desperately crave, and such. He laments that “The goal of the Republican leadership and their allies in the White House is to pave the way for a Supreme Court nominee who would only need 50 votes for confirmation rather than 60.” Dirty Harry seems to think there is something wrong with this.
But that is precisely the situation the Framers envisioned when they declined to specify a super-majority for approval of judicial appointees. In a single sentence (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2), the Constitution grants the President the power “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur” and grants the power to “nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, … appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court ….” There is no mention of a super-majority for Senate consent to judicial appointments.
We should understand what kind of judiciary Dirty Harry and his pals envision. It was best described by Justice Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court. It is a judiciary that “use[s] some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us.” Dirty Harry just can’t bear the idea of a federal judge who might agree with the Constitution’s own provision that it, along with laws made pursuant to it, is “the supreme Law of the Land”.
No, Dirty Harry thinks federal judges who think like him should be the supreme Law of the Land.
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »