John Bramfeld's blog

I was going to write about Harry Reid's racism, but Ward Connerly did it better than I could have, and now, because I am quoting a negro, it will be harder to call me a racist. (Except for the fact that I have used that well-known racist epithet: "negro".) 
 
Here is what Mr. Connerly said:
 

For my part, I am having a difficult time determining what it was that Mr. Reid said that was so offensive.
Was it because he suggested that lighter-skinned blacks fare better in American life than their darker brothers and sisters? If so, ask blacks whether they find this to be true. Even the lighter-skinned ones, if they are honest with themselves, will agree that there is a different level of acceptance.
Was it because he used the politically incorrect term "negro"? If so, it should be noted that there are many blacks of my generation who continue to embrace this term. In fact, "negro" is an option along with "black" and "African-American" on the 2010 Census.
Was it because he implied that Mr. Obama might be cut some political slack because of his oratorical skills or his looks? If so, that fact was not harmful to Joe Biden, who was elected vice president after praising Mr. Obama as "articulate" and "clean-looking."
Or, finally, could it be viewed as offensive that Mr. Reid suggested that blacks often have a distinctive way of speaking? If that is, indeed, the offense, then I will offend a lot of individuals when I assert that I can tell in probably 90% of the cases whether an individual is black merely by talking to him on the telephone.

 
Senator Reid’s statements can and should be parsed differently. What Reid was clearly saying is that those voters most likely to vote Democrat are also more likely to vote for someone with light skin (among other things). As more of an expert on non-racism than racism, I will defer to the Senator in his assessment of the Democrat rank and file. He was clearly not speaking about Republicans, as he presumably knew that Republicans were not going to vote for Obama no matter how clean, articulate and light he was.
 
As always, we should be dismayed by the readiness of the left to vilify even obvious non-racism. I, however, am more dismayed by the right’s willingness to join right in. Virtually the entire pantheon of right-wing commentators has parsed Harry Reid’s statements in terms of racism. This includes Rush, my favorite, who has good reason to know better. In fact, Rush and the Senator were both called racists for, in effect, calling other people racists.
 
Is anyone else surprised by this lightness issue? While I was aware that skin tone has some importance in the black community, I have never heard it discussed among whites. I suppose I could have dredged up the observation that in public life, Sidney Poitier is darker than Andrew Young, but other than noting that Michael Jackson and Bill Clinton were mighty odd looking negroes, it is simply of no importance to me. Why is it so important to the left, and why does the left’s second most powerful spokesman think the Democrat rank and file won’t like a dark candidate?

I haven't seen the decision, but here is a description of a 5th Circuit decision allowing Katrina victims to sue oil companies and other villians for contributing to global warming which worsened Katrina which ruined their lives. I can only assume the oil companies were working in concert with George Bush.

It is clear to me that, like bad school systems, federal judges need to take over the climate for about ten years and get things straightened out.

If you drove your car in the ten years preceeding Katrina, you are a co-defendant.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/5th_circuit_allows_katrina_victims_to_sue_energy_companies_for_global_warmi/

For the last ten years or so I have frequently turned to the obituaries.  They can be touching, informative, verbose, or a better alternative than the comics which I can no longer read.  Or they can be all those things.

This has been expurgated by about 50%; names and verbosity removed.  Be sure to read to the end.

SAVOY –Susan was mercifully escorted into eternity by her friend, Jesus, in the early morning.

Susan was born on in Chicago. Her parents raised Susan and her two sisters and a brother on a humble electrician's wage. From her mother, Susan learned to cook, sew, manage a household and take care of her little brother. From her father, she learned the value of an honest day's labor and to live within her means.

Though she graduated high school near the top of her class, she was unable to afford college; and instead, moved to Los Angeles, Calif., with her sister. While there, Susan worked a clerical job by day; and by night she enjoyed the music of some of the all-time greats of jazz in the clubs of L.A. People were often struck by Susan's radiant beauty, and for a time, she was a dancer in Las Vegas. Shortly thereafter, she was selected to appear on the cover of Playboy magazine and was hired by Playboy Enterprises in Chicago where she befriended Lenny Bruce, Dick Gregory, Paul Desmond and many other artistic celebrities of the era.

 Also in 1990, Susan acquired her daily companion, Fritz: and for the next 19 years, she spoke to her little dog every day, reminding everyone. "It's OK, he understands English."

Susan loved her family, parties, humor, art, music, good books, flowers, and most of all, talking to people. She was always enthusiastic about the achievements of others and took great interest in the lives of everyone she met. Christmas was her favorite holiday and her decorations, food, and generosity were always stunning. Susan read the newspaper and listened to talk-radio every day. She cared about justice and voted in every election. Serving jury duty, she once caused a mistrial by being the lone juror to hold fast to an alternative opinion. Susan was refreshingly honest, hardworking, humble, helpful whenever asked, and thought of others more than herself. Despite suffering great hardships at times, she learned to forgive everyone who ever hurt her, and spoke about others in only positive terms - except conservative Republicans - whose policies she found despicable. Susan accepted responsibility for her mistakes and was remarkably free from prejudice of any kind. To her dying day, she embraced life with a positive attitude, was always optimistic, persevered during trouble, and was often able to see life through a comical lens.

A lifelong cigarette smoker, Susan died of lung cancer.

Europe has a peculiar relationship with Jews. On the one hand, you can go to jail for questioning the Holocaust, and on the other, you can go to jail for mentioning that certain unnamed groups are planning to do it again.  But I love England. Not the real England, which often joins in this dangerous foolishness, but the England I know through Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Evelyn Waugh, Kingsley Amis and a dozen other novelists. For the last several decades, I have been plowing through these books, and with a great deal of luck, have been treated to British adaptations of the novels within a few years of my having read them. I think particularly of the mini-series adaptations of Brideshead Revisited and Pride and Prejudice, and of Bleak House, and now, Oliver Twist.

As with anyone who likes to read,  screen adaptations are often a letdown, but they are almost always interesting. Oliver Twist is a case in point.

Even those who haven’t read Oliver Twist recognize the villainous character Fagin, who had in his employ a band of child pickpockets. I should warn you that they don’t sing much. Fagin, incidentally, is a non-practicing Jew in the novel. These recent screenwriters believe that was a mistake. 

At the end of the Masterpiece Theatre adaptation, as in the novel, Fagin is tried and convicted for complicity in Oliver’s kidnapping. On the screen, Fagin is asked if he wishes to plead for mercy, and not wanting to hang he replies “Yes, I do.” Paraphrasing here, the judge says, with knowledge that Fagin is a Jew, “Get down on your knees and pray to Christ,” to which Fagin replies, “I can’t do that.” He is hung of course, as in the book, but a certain saintly glow intrudes.

The novel does not contain this scene, even by implication. In fact, due to the miracle of find, I can tell you the word “Christ” never appears in the novel.   Instead, here is what Dickens wrote:

The noise subsided, and he was asked if he had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon him. He had resumed his listening attitude, and looked intently at his questioner while the demand was made; but it was twice repeated before he seemed to hear it, and then he only muttered that he was an old man−−an old man−−and so, dropping into a whisper, was silent again.

Later in the book some Jewish elders visit him in the prison, and he refuses to pray with them, but on the screen he says things like “L'Chayim” and keeps Kosher.

I look to you for a theory for this radical transformation of perhaps the most famous villain in literature. Did the screenwriters find Dickens’s character too offensive for the screen? Did they believe that Jews would be offended by a Jewish villain who didn’t practice his faith? For the three of you who have gotten this far, what is the explanation?

John

Kathryn Lopez says of the Blagojevich scandal “Finally, a political scandal you can talk to your children about.”  And if you are from Illinois, particularly Chicago, there is plenty to talk about.  The first question your child might have is this:  “Why is Uncle Blago in trouble for selling the Senate seat; Cousin Maxie the alderman sells building permits?”

You may respond thus:  “Aldermen have been doing this for years, honey.  It actually helps contractors and building owners get their permits and variances faster and more efficiently.  Almost everything the City does can be handled more efficiently by the aldermen.  Plus, its hard to keep track of the inspectors.  If they were always paid directly, Cousin Maxie would go broke. Everybody here on the North side knows how this works.  Your poor relations on the South Side do it too.”

But Mom, why does Maxie have to charge money if he is just helping people?  Doesn’t he get paid to be an alderman?

Well, son, he doesn’t get paid much, and his time is valuable just like ours.

If Maxie runs for Congress like he says he wants to, can he sell stuff for the federal government, and does he get more money?

Honey, where do you get these ideas?  It is illegal and wrong for a congressman to sell political influence, just like it is for the governor.

I don’t know, Mom.  It sounds like someone forgot to tell Uncle Blago that there were different rules for his job.  I suppose he got in the habit from watching his friends and relatives in Chicago.  Who was in charge of making sure Uncle Blago knew the rules were different when you change jobs?

I don’t know Son.

Maybe Uncle Barry can have a talk with Uncle Blago.  He knows how it works.

I think it might be too late.  Go to sleep now.

That was conversation number one.  Conversation number two will explain why Illinois Courts and Illinois prosecutors are unable to find any corruption in Chicago.

And as always, our final prayer at night is for God to arrange that all federal money to Illinois comes in the form of federal prosecutors.

I wrote this several days before the first vote on the bailout, and for reasons I don’t remember, I didn’t post it.  If I were to re-write it for “modern” times I would change the number 700 billion to 3 trillion and the expression "housing market" to "economy," but other than that, this essay is pure genius:

Maybe we are putting the horse’s ass before the horse, so to speak.

A lot of effort is going into figuring out who caused the “current financial mess,” I believe more commonly called the CFM by economists, which is one more way of obscuring the fact that no one seems to know exactly what the CFM is.  Do you?  I doubt it.

Despite my best efforts to find out, this is the information available:

Some but by no means all big banks are failing;

Freddie and Fannie have effectively failed;

Banks are less than pleased to lend to each other.

This has or will cause a:

            Mess;

            Meltdown

            Frozen credit between banks;

            Major economic event unparalleled since the great depression (MEEUSTGD);

            Other bad things (OBT).

The why of all this is prominent for its absence.  That is, the why of how a $700 billion [3 trillion] federal purchase of assets of an unknown value will help in the long run;  the why of how normal market treatment of failed companies is insufficient; the why of how we would not be better off, let’s say ten years down the road, if we suffer the pain of massive capital reorganization now, rather than band-aid it and keep the geniuses in Washington in charge of the housing market [economy]; the why which includes some facts and figures explaining how this particular reorganization is beyond the capability of the market.

One of the reasons we have not heard these whys, is that no one knows.  In the past, when no one knew what to do, a sacrifice was made to the gods.  A goat, a prisoner, and in desperate cases, a virgin would be killed in front of a mob.  By “in the past” I mean right up through yesterday.  The question is whether the custom will continue today.

Most recently, since we are at least nominally capitalists and because the mob but not the virgin are still available, the sacrifice has been money.  My reading of the past fifty years or so is that money sacrificed to the gods is roughly as effective as the virgin.  (Ask one of your Democrat friends how those wars on poverty and education are going.)  It may appease Wall Street for a day or a month or a year, but it surely will not fix something we haven’t fully identified, except as a function of pure luck.

As you are asking yourselves who is to blame, further ask yourselves how well you actually understand what we are specifically blaming them for.  As a conservative (and a foreclosure lawyer) I am perfectly aware of the abuses heaped by an impressively bi-partisan Congress on the economy through Freddie and Fannie, whose various idiocies I deal with every day.  But can I say that substandard residential loans foisted on the economy by these worthies was sufficient to cause the real estate lending market to freeze up?  No way.  I can’t even say for sure that it is true that residential lending is freezing up, much less long-term.  I don’t know anyone who can say.

I think it is safe to say that excessive salaries to the men who ran these and other companies is unlikely the cause.  It might be closer to the mark to blame the men themselves.  But again, who knows?

Here is my suggestion.  Go ahead and figure out who is blame, so long as in the back of your mind you cross your mental fingers because you don’t yet know what they are to blame for.

My other suggestion is that we don’t sacrifice a huge portion of $700 billion to the gods just yet.  If the gods are going to help us, they can help us better when we can form an actual request more specific than “Please Zeus, make the CFM and OBT go away, and by the way, here is the smoke from a few hundred billions for your trouble."

I have never understood people who don’t like the Rolling Stones. I suppose ignorance is an acceptable excuse. Another possibility is that they were turned off by the cult of celebrity perpetually keeping the bandmembers on the brink of destruction. A third possibility is the immoral nature, mild by today’s standards, of some of the songs - probably not the songs you are thinking of. 

The remedy, as I have written before, is to steadfastly resist knowing anything about the artists personally. Forty-five years of relentless publicity makes this difficult in the Stones’ case, but it’s not too late to begin the withdrawal process. 

Martin Scorsese’s new film, Shine A Light, apparently of a small venue Stone’s performance, is being released today. I was looking forward to seeing it, but now, after exposure to the publicity, I may take a pass. More likely, I will wait and see what others think and decide later. 

One of the reasons I was excited by this film is that the Stones are impossible to see live in any musically relevant way. They are either in huge arenas where the music is lost somewhere in the half mile that separates you from them, or they are in a small venue populated by coked out models and Hollywood types. Not that I wouldn’t snort coke to get in, but I am unlikely to be invited. 

In about 1971 I actually went to a Stones concert, reasoning that they were unlikely to tour again. I don’t remember much about it, except that for every thousand feet away from the stage you are, the closer you are to not being there at all. 

The Stones concert I remember best was actually an IMAX film at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago about twenty years ago. Not only was that experience the best Stones concert, it was the best musical experience of my life. That includes ten rows back from Segovia, all three concerts the Doors did in Chicago, and our own band playing warm-up for Segal-Schwall and BB King, leaving me and my bandmates exactly front row center for BB, a perk I don’t think the promoter intended. 

That concert, exquisitely filmed and miked, included no backstage scenes, no guest stars and no bullshit. Mick ran several miles during the concert, something I would rather he didn’t do, but since he never missed a note I am not in a position to complain. I am hoping this film gets to the IMAX again in the wake of Shine A Light publicity.

 If you want to take a risk and decide to see Shine A Light, consider seeing the IMAX version. There are approximately ten IMAX theaters within a day trip of here, and any one of them will be twice as better than Carmike. 

Once in a while I will get behind a car with a bumper sticker that says something like "Why is there always money for war and never money for education?"  I don't know if I keep getting behind the same car or if there is more than one person in this area stupid enough to believe that.  At any rate, it appears they may be right.  It comes to my attention that our newest casino, finished recently in East St. Louis, is claiming a 25% drop in revenue because of the smoking ban.  http://www.bnd.com/business/story/289872.html

This will be interesting, because education funds allegedly come from casino revenues.  Even if it doesn't work out to be a direct benefit to education as our political class maintains, it unequivically generates income for the State, and some of that finds its way to the schools.

So what will smoking ban fans do about this?  First of all, it is irrelevant for political purposes whether or not the claim is true.  We will see calls to ease the smoking ban in casinos because now taxes are threatened.  The only thing more precious than the air we breathe is the tax we collect. 

While the State is busy easing up on the smoking ban, I am hoping Champaign will ease up to the point that we can replace some of the garbage cans downtown.  They were taken out because God forbid a smoker might use one, though there was no evidence a smoker ever had. How many dogooders in this town would support a needle exchange for addicts and oppose an ashtray for smokers-an ashtray where incidentally I could put the beer bottles I collect on my way to the office.

John

In another post, I had a few semi-complimentary words to say about Ann Coulter and the response was the usual vitriol. I suggested in so many words that people were afraid to admit they enjoyed her columms and I heard nothing in the replies that disabused me of that notion, but I did hear that fear formulated in a different way, in a way that struck me. It was suggested that Ann was doing nothing to advance the conservative cause. I have no reply to that, and the more I thought about it, the more I wonder; who is advancing the conservative cause?

Of course, on balance, no one is advancing conservatism because conservatism is in general retreat. That doesn’t mean some conservatives are not making a positive difference (by slowing the rate of decline, presumably).

As much as I admire our president’s remarkable tenacity on Iraq, I would not describe him as advancing the conservative cause. McCain won’t, and makes no such promise.

What national figures, politicians, pundits, intellectuals or celebrities do you perceive as advancing the cause?  And don't forget to say why.  If there are others that are hurting the cause, by inexcusable rudeness or otherwise, let's hear about that also.

John

Now that Ann Coulter is persona non grata among conservatives who wish to be well thought of by liberals-heck, even Mike Adams has lashed out at her- I think this article by her, and about William F. Buckley, gives some insight into both their characters. Read and enjoy, it’s almost all quotes from WFB.
 
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=237
 
John

http://www.nationalreview.com/

I use long titles because I am too undisciplined to write a coherent essay. On the other hand, lack of coherence is the coin of political discourse, so maybe my own lack thereof is a benefit in following politics. Discussion of politics and religion is way beyond incoherent, so we are all on our own there.
 
Romney is an interesting case. On one hand, his current ideology appears to be such that he is the only true conservative among the four frontrunners. He has a better resume than anyone else in the race, even marred as it is by the insufficiently pro-choice tack he took as governor of Massachusetts. He has repented, an option open to both Mormons and Christians. OK, I have implied that he is not a Christian and I confess I have not investigated that thoroughly. In fact, except for a brief and fairly distressing turn through the Book of Mormon, I don’t have much to go on. I will say that the religion of a candidate is important to me. So for instance, as a Catholic, I am interested to know that Giuliani is also. He is a Catholic in much the same fashion as Bill Clinton is a feminist. He is also an abortion rights and gun control candidate. The combination of his disdain for his own religion and for basic conservative principles is a deal breaker for me. I would certainly vote for him over any conceivable Democrat, but I sure wouldn’t like it.
 
Romney is a Mormon. We are told by many, including Romney, that religion should not be a factor; to which I say "Good luck." In fact, the biggest strike against Romney for me is that he is apparently a practicing Mormon. I can’t help what I think, and I think Mormonism is a religion that can best be described as goofy. On the other hand, Romney and other Mormons I know don’t strike me as similarly goofy, so I temper my opinion by the thought that Romney may be no more influenced by his religion than Giuliani.
 
Anyway, I much prefer Romney’s current polical philosophy to Giuliani’s or Huckabee’s. McCain may have a conservate philosophy, but it doesn’t translate well to his politics. I factor their religions into my equation, along with everything else, and Romney comes out on top. Not because I am disregarding his religion, but in spite of the big negative his religion represents to me. If I had a choice between Romney and and similarly qualified mainline Christian, it would be no contest.
 
I am very suspicious of the motives of people who tell us religion should not be a factor, including my current favorite candidate person, Romney. What they are saying is that religion isn’t important. I am sure many of these people believe that. I could just as easily argue that political affiliation is not important, but like you, I tend to look at the political affiliation of all the candidates. I figure that since religion is more important than political affiliation, I should look at that also.
 
I am not trying to convert anyone here to Romney. I would rather convert you to the idea that you can look at any factor you like when you pick your nominee, and you shouldn't feel the least bit bad if religion is high on the list.
 
Adding to the incoherence here, did you know that Tony Blair recently converted to Catholicism? Of course you didn’t, the media think religion is not important. Would they have reported his conversion to Islam?
 
John

Senator Obama just can’t get patriotism right. He never will get it right until he learns what it is. He already knows what it isn’t, which he explained when asked why he had quit wearing his lapel flag. The proper explanation would have been something like this: "Why don’t your write down the rules for the proper display of patriotism and hand it up at the end of class. I’ll memorize it and try to adhere to the rules in the future." Instead, we got the usual drivel coming from a liberal whose patriotism has arguably been challenged - he challenged the patriotism of people who do wear a lapel flag. He said that wearing a lapel flag had, since 9-11, become a substitute for real patriotism. Now I am afraid to wear my own lapel flag, which is attached to a blue suit I wear about once a week. I think we can all agree that, contrary to our Senator’s remark about us, wearing a pin could never be a substitute for patriotism. There is nothing wrong and plenty right about wearing one, and there is nothing wrong with not wearing one. 

This is one of the results of political correctness, which consists mostly of a series of code words and phrases which, while devoid of serious thought, serve as useful identifiers for the faithful. Sort of like sticking your foot under the stall divider. It is also telling that our Senator is so insecure in his own patriotism that when challenged by an obvious idiot, he resorts to attacking other people's patriotism.
 
Now Obama, whose tin ear for public discourse is becoming something of an embarassment, has been caught not holding his hand over his heart during the singing of the national anthem. I haven’t heard his explanation, but my guess is that he will not attack the patriotism of people who do hold their hands over their heart; if not because he is getting smarter, at least because all of his Democratic rivals had their hands over their hearts at the same event while senator Obama stood with his hands at his sides.
 
I know exactly why he didn’t hold his hand over his heart. He was understandably tired, unfocused from the rigors of the campaign, and he blanked out. I do that myself, as some of you may be able to tell. Is that the explanation he will give? Since it contains no platitudes, I doubt it. I suggest you watch this recording of the event. OK, now that you are familiar with the particular and peculiar circumstances, I am offering this explanation to the Obama campaign gratis. "I, Senator Barack Obama, winner of several elections and author of not one but two memoirs, was waiting for the national anthem to begin. As I patiently stood, I heard some kind of caterwauling in the background and I began to worry that the unpleasant sound would interfere with our patriotic moment. After several seconds of this, I discerned that the sound I was hearing was some kind of song, and I began to be concerned that I had missed the start of the anthem. I noted however, that where the anthem might have had five notes and perhaps four syllables in a familiar pattern, this song had ten or more notes and syllables in an unfamiliar pattern. By the time I had come to the realization that someone was horribly desecrating our national song, it was too late, and she got off the stage before I could get my hands around her throat."
 
And another piece of advice for the Senator. You may lack a common touch, but at least you could have a common name. John was Jack, Ronald was Ron, James was Jimmy, William was Bill. How about Barry?
 
And remember your base in Chicago. Add an apostrophe, Senator Barry O’Bama, and maybe you can be vice-president.
 
John

I won't burden you with my thoughts on

The Dangerous Book for Boys
by Conn Iggulden and Hal Iggulden
HarperCollins, 288 pp., $24.95

but I will say this review is a great introduction, with some quotes from eminent personages that you never heard before and can impress your spouses and neighbors with. 

John

A recent tally by McClatchy Newspapers underscored this point: Thomas has spoken 281 words since court transcripts began identifying justices by name in October 2004. By contrast, Thomas' neighbor on the bench, Justice Stephen Breyer, has uttered nearly 35,000 words since January.

For those of us who haven't been able to recreate that special lack of interest about who would win the Iran/iraq war, there is a new dispute guaranteed to bring you to the brink, and beyond, of apathy.  Remember David (lying then and lying now) Brock, the Republican smear artist turned Democrat smear artist and proprieter of Media Matters?  Remember Anthony Martin-Trigona, aka Anthony Martin aka Tony Martin, ex-CU landlord, ex-candidate for some statewide office or other, subject of unprecedented Federal Court order for no-more-federal-lawsuits-without-federal-court-permission?  They are engaged in a libel suit.

Prepare to sit back in perfect peace and apathy about the outcome.  In this article, Catherine Moy makes the mistake of thinking Martin is some kind of Republican and siding with him, but read it anyway.

Wayward was kind enough to furnish a link for Professor Francis Boyle's famous "Chief" emails to the President of the University of Illinois.  It turns out that the good professor has a flair for comedy.  For instance, he consistently spells it "Illiniwak."  I think this is like "Amerika," which I hope he doesn't find out about. In the same hilarious vein, he compares the Ch**f to Little Black S**bo, which may turn out to be our only area of agreement ever.  They are alike;  they are both excellent examples of fake racism.

Professor Boil (see how funny that is?) may appeal to a leftist's idea of racism, but after you read the epic tale of Little Black Sambo, complete with racist illustrations, I suspect you will be scratching your head.

Full disclosure is all the rage today, so let me admit that S**bo is also what I called my younger son Samuel.  I was like the Don Imus of fatherhood.

John

John Foreman at the News-Gazette has been busy formulating The Wonders of Champaign County for awhile now, and in order to make the list more impressive, there is no requirement that the wonder actually be in Champaign County. The exact criterion, I believe, is that you be able to get there from Champaign County. With that important caveat, I have to nominate the wind farm going up east of Bloomington. I also have to thank Ed Scharlau for reminding me about the farm.
 
One of the most pleasurable aspects of being a lawyer in Champaign is going to the small courthouses that surround us. Last week I had the good fortune to appear in front of a fine jurist without the necessity of going through a metal detector. It is the only courthouse I know of where that is possible. The defendant, from whom I was collecting a smallish debt for a largish client, agreed to a judgment and payment arrangement and we recited it to the judge. When the judge finished handwriting the entry on the docket sheet he looked up at the defendant and said, "Are you working now, because I haven’t seen you at the grocery store lately."
 
That, for me, sums up a great day, so I was reluctant to return to my office right away. Instead, I headed west on Route 9 to see if I could find the windmills. As if they could be missed. Imagine they were building the Grand Coulee Dam thirty miles away and nobody ever saw or mentioned it. That’s what it’s like. I haven’t burdened myself with the facts, but I can tell you what I observed; about one hundred enormous towers each holding up a bus size turbine powered by blades that looked to be every bit of 150 feet in diameter. At their apogee, the blade tips appear to be over 400 feet in the air. About twenty percent of the windmills are operating, and their propellers took a lazy 4 seconds to turn around once. It looks very slow, but by my calculation the end of each propeller was going about 200 miles an hour.
 
So drive out there, and when you get to the first turbine, go south to the first county road heading west again and traverse the whole nine mile length of the complex. As you get closer to the end you will see some partly erected turbines accompanied by giant cranes.
 
What you don’t see is people. An occasional truck goes by on some mysterious mission, but the whole area is eerily quiet and empty. All in all, it is one of the most amazing things I have ever seen.
 
Think about this; on the next sunny weekend, plan a trip to Tobin’s Pizza in Bloomington (another Champaign County Wonder) by way of the most amazing secret billion dollar project you have ever seen.
 
John

When the media get involved, and when don’t they, things get stupid. Hence, forty or fifty college kids get shot, and Brian Williams breathlessly asks a bystander if he has been able to "absorb" the event not yet a day old. If he feels it necessary to channel Barbara Walters, someone should explain she is not dead yet. We also saw our Empathizer-in-Chief travel to Virginia to hear a poetess compare the massacre to, among other things, killing elephants for ivory. This apparently struck no one as odd. Indeed, considering the location, it was not. The only good thing about this new media circus is that the old media circus around Don Imus died out about a month early.

I don’t know anything about Imus other than what I’ve read since his thug-like comments about a women’s basketball team. I read a conservative describing him as a liberal and a liberal describing him as a conservative, but everybody seems to agree that he is a shock-jock. When he was originally criticized for calling a predominantly black women’s basketball team "nappy-headed hos," and we were as usual provided no context for the statement, I reserved judgment. I finally got around to some old Media Matters newsletters and found a link to the video where I discovered that the context was not particularly complex. Imus was saying that these women with multiple tattoos were not as "cute" as the Tennessee players who beat them. His method for doing so was to call them whores. I gather this is the shock jock part.

There has been some suggestion that "nappy-headed" is a racial slur. I suppose one could think that, but it’s a little hard to justify. My understanding, and I am not big on racial slurs, is that "nappy-headed" is a colloqialism for kinky hair, perhaps not complimentary. Goldilocks is an unfavorable colloquialism for caucasian hair. Even if a known racist like Al Sharpton used that expression, it would be hard to call it racism.

If Imus had called the team "curly-locked whores," would that have been any better? As the saying goes, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In the ongoing culture wars, that saying could be updated with a dog scooper as the tool.

On the other hand, ever since an obvious non-racist like Howard Cosell was labelled a racist for referring to an agile black football player as a "monkey" ("Look at that monkey run" is how I remember it) it has been clear that racism is to be defined only by the alleged victims. In any other context that would be a conflict of interest, but it is a right we now give to all victims, and we are used to it. So let’s assume the reference to nappiness is racism; can we all agree that there are worse things? Like calling a young woman you don’t know a whore on a nationally syndicated program? How about ten young women?

John