Turnabout is Fair Play

One sure-fire way to get the hysterical left kicking and screaming is too simply use the very same philosophies and tactics they do, in pursuit of a more conservative ideaology. One great example of this school of thought is playing itself out right now in Australia, where the University of New England in northern NSW has named a "heterosexual officer" to act as an advocate for straight students, exactly as a "queer officer" does for gay students.

I think the photograph at right illustrates his bonafides quite nicely, don't you?

In a world that almost demands an advocate for every group and subgroup imaginable through gender, orientation, interests, or background, you might think that left-leaning students and faculty would welcome Australian conservatives obvious embrace of a progressive worldview. Naturally, you would be wrong.

National Union of Students queer officer Craig Comrie said the appointment of a heterosexuality officer was "crazy".

"The reason why queer departments are set up is because those students are disadvantaged on campus," he said. "I think it's just a really unfair reaction to the fact that student unions support queer activism and women's activism on campuses."

Let's see if I have this guy's thinking straight. Setting up an entire office to deal with a group that feels disadvantaged is a great idea that should be embraced by one and all. However, setting up an office to prevent a group from becoming disadvanteged is "crazy."

In the final analysis, what the Comrie is really saying is that he does not believe in equal rights. That groups he deems worthy, in this case the gay community, should be able to take advantage of a certain level of advocacy and support that non-gay students should not be allowed access too.

Ironically, a student of the university, James Wilson, seems to have missed that obvious point.

"If someone can show me how heterosexual people are marginalised in society, I'd be happy to hear it," he said.

Well, James, how about a concerted effort by the university's gay community to deny straight students access to equivilant resources as gay students? Does that count?

Personally, I think having a heterosexual officer is a great idea, and his message is right on the money as well.

"It doesn't matter whether you're straight, gay, black, white or brindle, but when it starts getting 'Oh, we need a space for us to hang out', it's crap; just come down the pub and have a few beers with us."

How's this for a compromise? Discontinue the queer officer and the heterosexual officer. Then, all students will once again be equal. Equality is what this is really about anyway. For a group that constantly claims that equality is all it is after, the gay lobby here and abroad seems awfully dedicated to creating inequality everywhere it can, and then whines when attempts to reestablish that equality are made.

No Place For Men in a Feminist Worldview

I've always been interested in the left's attempts to remove men, and even more specifically, fathers, from the essence of the social fabric. It would seem the latest shot across the bow, and one of the most desperate that I've seen since the APA published "Deconstructing the Essential Father," is Peggy Drexler's new book, "Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men."

Glenn Sacks does an excellent job of not only pointing out the obvious propoganda, but noting portions of the book where the actions of the children that took part in Drexler's "study" contradict that propoganda. Sacks notes that Drexler wastes no time in painting a picture of the healthier boys raised by lesbians.

Drexler asserts that boys raised by lesbians “grow up emotionally stronger,” “have a wider range of interests and friendships,” and “appear more at ease in situations of conflict” than boys from “traditional” (i.e., father-present) households. Fatherless boys “exhibit a high degree of emotional savvy…an intuitive grasp of people and situations.” Best of all, sons of lesbian couples are much more willing to discard traditional masculinity than boys trapped in heterosexual households.

Please note the last sentence, especially the "boys trapped in heterosexual households" part. Translated it means that the little boys raised by lesbians are much more easily trained to act like little girls, instead of burgeoning young men. Furthermore, boys raised in heterosexual households are "trapped" into being raised to be men. Only a dyed-in-the-wool feminist would see a positive in stripping boys of all hint of masculinity. Drexler even provides examples of the "new men" that are the poduct of lesbian relationships.

Fiona’s son paints his nails, while both of Maria’s sons dance ballet. Ursula’s son chose sewing and cooking for his electives in 7th grade. Kathy's son has rejected playing baseball as being “too competitive”—no surprise, because in their local, father-led baseball league, “the better players get more playing time.”

At the same time, Drexler seems painfully unaware of the abuses suffered by the mothers of the children that seems to result from having a total lack of a masculine disciplinarian in the house.

...her lesbian moms, particularly the “social” (i.e., nonbiological moms), cheerfully endure insults and disrespect that no parent should ever tolerate. Carol’s son calls her “stupid.” Bianca’s son calls her “lazy.” Martha’s son hops into her bed and effectively tells Martha tough luck, sucker--go sleep somewhere else.

Of course a father would never put up with that kind of behavior, but apparantly that is a bad thing, according to Drexler. But then, Drexler misses many obvious conclusions, not the least of which are the boys transparent need for a father figure.

When one of Brad’s two moms picks him up from the daycare center after work, every day she has to pry the six year-old off of the leg of an after-school worker named Ron to whom Brad is—pun intended—quite attached. A less determined researcher might see this as evidence of Brad’s need for a dad. Not Drexler, who instead tells us that, given Ron’s presence, Brad’s mom “knew she didn’t need to worry about Brad’s lack of an everyday father in his life.”

Julia’s little boy says “I want a daddy.” Darlene’s little boy tells his mom “we could find a daddy and he could move in with us.” Three year-old Ian--fatherless by the decision of his “single mother by choice” mom Leslie--watches TV with mom, continually pointing at male figures on the screen and saying “there’s my daddy.” Leslie explains “no, we don’t have a daddy in our family,” but little Ian doesn’t get it and continues to point and ask. A problem? Not according to Drexler, who writes “Will some little boys trail after men they don’t even know, perk up at lower-decibel voices, or hang on to the pant legs of the men who cross their paths? Maybe.” But whatever it is, she assures us, it isn’t father hunger.

Drexler appears to be so desperate to reduce a father's role to a negative that she is willing to ignore obvious signals being sent by her own study subjects. For many of us who have been paying attention to the forces whose primary goal is to eliminate the father and therefore eliminate the man, this book and it's conclusions come as no surprise.

If one were to add gay marriage into the mix, which most experts agree would be utilized far more by gay women than gay men, it becomes apparent why the feminist lobby has worked so hard to enact it. Simply put, gay marriage would go a long way towards eliminating men from the rearing and social training of children, clearing the way for a new, more enlightened generation of women to raise boys "right."

But, as Sacks rightly points out, fatherless children are at far higher risks for all kinds of negative pathology like crime, drug use, pregnancy and a host of others. The data on fatherless children and behavorial disorders is disturbing to say the least. In fact, fatherless children are:

5 times more likely to commit suicide.
32 times more likely to run away.
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution.
20 times more likely to end up in prison.

Of course, none of this seems to matter to Drexler, the gay lobby, or the pro-gay marriage crowd, who seem to care very little about future generations of our children. To them, children are an experiment, a by-product, and a pesky roadblock in the way of their selfish social agenda.

It should be becoming very apparent by this time that healthy children have very little to do with that, despite Drexler's and others attempts to pretend the opposite.

Back on the Beat

After a brief stint working outside of the world of journalism, it appears that it may be the only place fit for me after all. I gave the world of capitalism a go, but forces conspired to return me to the world of media. I feel like Michael Corleone. Every time I try to get out, they do indeed keep pulling me back in. If my son gets an opera gig in Italy, I ain't bringing the family.

I started a brand new, full time, gig for a newspaper and solid publishing company today and feel pretty good about it. It will be the first time in ages, if not ever, that I will enjoy things like profit sharing, health benefits, a retirement plan, and paid vacations. At least...all at once.

It remains to be seen if this blog will have to return to an anonymous one in deference to my employer, but it is possible.

In the meantime, it feels good to have my finger back on the pulse of everything that is happening around me. It's time to dust off all of those old connections in the county and at the state legislature. I feel like Lucas Davenport trying to put together the old network after years off the street.

Equivocal politicians and hazy math beware. Pat is back on the beat.

A Train Wreck on the Big Screen

Filmmaker Steve Rosenbaum is preparing to release a documentary on the subject of John Kerry's dismal 2004 presidential campaign entitled "Inside the Bubble." It promises to reveal the dirty, day to day details of the almost year-long political root canal.

I've often wondered if having their icons laid bare visually, like this film promises to do, would leave the hard-core liberals stale with the realization that liberal politicians are no different than that of any other variety. Not heroes. Not principled. Just politicians.

The naive among them (the vast majority) appear to be about to receive a wake-up call.

A press release claims the movie - which won't be shown publicly until Thursday - "turns a harsh but deeply revealing mirror on the campaign ... a disorganized, contentious, self-absorbed team that thought they could win by 'not making mistakes,' and keeping their candidate in the public eye without clarifying a position on anything."

If anything, my money is on the idea that most liberal politicians are more self-absorbed and disorganized than conservative ones...by far. While certainly anecdotal, it has been my experience that these two qualities specifically apply to most of the great many liberals I have had the pleasure of crossing paths with here in Minnesota, politicians or not.

With that in mind, I fear that most liberals who watch the film will come away with absolutely no idea what it is about Kerry that people didn't like, with no idea that Kerry is no different than any other power whore. In fact, that he might be one of the most dedicated power whores in modern times.

So much for that wake-up call I mentioned. It's always a good feeling to prove one's own predictions wrong.

Looking For Rita Info?

Texas blogger Republican Jen, who lives just far enough away from the coast that she doesn't have to evacuate her home, but is predicting to face damaging winds and flooding, is going to be blogging on Rita and the aftermath. She is thorough, honest, and well-written, and should be an excellent source for Rita updates.

Want your news from the front lines? Check her out.

Tracing the Money

The radical left is making a big show out of their rally in Washington this weekend. United for Peace and Justice (UPJ) is imploring all birkinstock-wearing doves to descend on the capital for three days of anti-war orgy.

Sickened by the killing, the torture, the destruction, and the spiraling human and financial costs of this illegal and immoral war? It's time to let Congress and the White House know: We're fed up and we will hold you accountable!

They will even train the naive leftists how to whine effectively.

Like most modern leftist endeavors though, it is being bankrolled by economic rapists, Hussein apologists, and of course, the commies. The Washington Times lays out the financial backers for the protest, which was reprinted in part at Captain's Quarters.

The leaders of ANSWER, founded three days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, are connected to the Workers World Party, a Marxist group that has expressed support for such dictators as North Korea's Kim Jong-il, Yugoslavia's Slobodan Milosevic and Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

To be sure, many people will be in D.C. for a legitimate purpose on Saturday. One wonders though, if they are even aware of the fact that they are puppets for anti-American and pro-dictatorship forces. Perhaps they should do some homework on their own supporters.

Captain Ed explains the risks involved in these unseemly associations:

Apologists for dictators do not have any moral standing for protesting American foreign policy. When groups like that discount 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq having the ability to select their own leaders and laws and would consign them to suffer under the brutality of strongman rule once more, they show themselves as the self-congratulatory, reactionary anti-Americans that they are.

The left seems to subscribe to the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doctrine and are proving, once again, that they will excuse any behavior, any platform, as long as it stands against the Republican Party. My old man used to have a word for people who were willing to sell themselves to anyone willing to bankroll their personal interests. What was it?

Oh ya...whores.

Who Will Speak For the Boys?

What is it about modern feminism that makes female teachers so attracted to teenage boys? All over the country, female teachers are bedding their middle and high-school students. In the latest, a middle school science teacher out east has been accused of rape.

It would be difficult to quantify the reaction of feminists were the tables to be turned; if it were men being accused of these acts on what feels like an almost monthly basis. I am certain we would have arrived at an "epidemic" problem in this country by now. One in which society allowed hateful men to take advantage of young girls at random, almost without judgement from a male dominated class system. Men in general would be chastised for either directly or indirectly condoning the behavior either through complacency or a sense of sexual birth-right.

"Predators" would be the rallying cry of the uber-feminists (unless the teacher was a Democrat and only getting head) and sensitivity classes and suspicion would be at all time highs. I daresay we would be on the brink of hysteria.

Instead the tables are turned. We are living in the midst of an epidemic that has flipped the norm on it's head. No longer is it "Hot for Teacher," but "Hot for Student." Where are the feminists? Where are those who claim to care "for the children?"

I guess what the left has been subtly saying for all of these years really is true. Boys just aren't that important.

Pay No Attention To The Crooks Behind the Curtain

Courtesy of the folks at Power line, check out this website called "Eye on the U.N." It is a well of facts regarding the hapless organization and it's handling of some of the most important issues of the day.

Do you know how many of the member states of the U.N. could be described as full-fledged democracies? Would you be surprised to learn that the number doesn't even rise to 50 percent?

How about human rights actions taken by the U.N.? With all of those dictators out there it shouldn't be hard to imagine which countries would be in the top five for having action taken against them. Indonesia? Lebanon? China? Phillipines? Somalia? Algeria? Rwanda? Cuba? North Korea?

Try again.

Given that the U.S., with it's atrocious record on human rights and penchant for violating "international law," is such a bad, bad, guy, it is almost hard to believe to what degree we actually support the U.N.

The United States has the maximum assessed contribution to the UN regular budget - 22%. In 2005 the assessed amount is $439,611,612. The minimum assessed contribution is 0.001%. The scale of assessments for each UN member for the required contributions to the regular budget is determined every 3 years on the basis of Gross National Product (GNP).

By all means check this site out. Bookmark it even. With Volcker's report fresh off the presses and "reform" the watchword by U.N. leadership desperate for us to forget exactly how ineffective and, dare I say, crooked the institution is, it is good to be informed as to the truth.

Of course, the institution has proven to be coated in teflon over the past decade. It is protected by an endless stream of leftists who are so busy fabricating charges against Bush that it doesn't have time for honest to God crooks and liars.

I would like to suggest that, following his tenure at President, George W. Bush promptly be named our ambassador to the U.N. Since only a fascist right-wing organization would have anything to do with Mr. Bush, the simple-minded left could thus be tricked into going after their own pet organization.

A Juror Without a Jury

I might as well stand up during voir dire and shout “he damn well looks guilty to me!” and save everyone time, since I’m about as likely to get on a jury as PETA is likely to endorse a line of slaughterhouse implements called Krule-Kil Pig-Stickers. What is it? My vitae? My spouse’s profession as a lawyer? My tie? The little American flag I clutch in my hand? My Judge Judy mask? It has to be something. Let’s recount.

So begins James Lileks latest installment regarding his stint in the jury pool. I'm coming into this one a bit late, but it's better than never...as they say.

Lileks, of course, is an institution in this part of the country, which is a quality that does not get one very far in the world of criminal and civil juries. And, true to form, every time Lileks even gets a chance to interview for the jury, he is aquainted with someone involved with the trial.

The result?

I am released.

Poor James. Sentenced to jury duty for a week and the only possible excitement-a chance to actually serve on a jury-is denied because he is just too well connected. It appears that his whole week is destined to look quite a bit like Tuesday morning.

Sit; wait. I am sitting in the same place I sat on Monday; it is now My Place. Others seem fluid in their choice of seats; others have staked out domains. A card game starts up at Grinny’s table; others drift off to the TV room for sedation. A retired fellow who looks destined to reluctantly assume the Foreman job eventually is discussing 1960s computer coding with a younger guy. Tape, punch cards, drums. One of those ancient unsung engineers, perhaps. Old school nerd. The fellow next to me tilts his head back and softly snores. It’s 10:15 AM.

It reminds me of in-school suspension, without the card game or the television.

Who Is To Blame For All the Survivors?

In the wake of the very good news regarding body counts along the gulf cost, which are going to turn out to be much much lower than the early predictions in the tens of thousands, Liberal Larry's niece asks a poignant question.

If Bush is to blame for such a high death toll, then shouldn't he also get the credit for the number of casualties being so low?

Well...no. Not when you are desperate for any tragedy and large body counts to pave the way to a becoming a majority party once again.

Has it escaped anyones attention that, over the past five years, being a Democrat means hoping this country will fail in everything it does? How sad that the party has to cross it's fingers and hope the economy goes south, the war goes bad, and a hurricane wipes out thousands, just to score a few more tallies from the electoral college.

With good news starting to trickle out of the south, Democrats like Liberal Larry are starting to get a little worried that they may not have this tragedy to exploit much longer.

...with the number of casualties significantly lower than the 10,000 we had counted on, many of us are left wondering where it all went right.

Granted, 279 dead is nothing to sneeze at. Democrats might be able to milk it for a few votes, but nowhere near what they need to repeal Bush's tax cuts and put the Hillary-Obama ticket over the top in 2008. Sadly, we soon may have to face the undeniable truth that a good deal of people survived Hurricane Katrina.

Wouldn't that be a shame.

New Orleans Was a Disaster Waiting to Happen

Tom sent me this phenominal read about the recent history of New Orleans, via Tim Blair, and it's effect on current events in the beleagured city. It is hard to believe that their crime rates have been so high or that they have been so lacking in any kind of leadership.

Author Mac Johnson notes that New Orleans is not even considered one of the most violent cities in the country, but only because it's population doesn't qualify it as a "major city."

Were it not for this actuarial accident, Washington, D.C.. wouldn’t even have a shot at the murder title. The per capita murder rate in New Orleans is 16% higher than in “Murder Capital” Washington, D.C.; and nearly 10 times the national average. To have a murder rate equal to that of New York City, New Orleans would need to reduce its murders by 86%. No, that’s not a typo.

Johnson proceeds to discuss at length the problems with the New Orleans police department, it's inability to patrol the city adequately, and the rates at which good cops leave the city before concluding:

There is no wonder the place went chaotic. There should be no mystery. It is barely under control on a good day.

Johnson puts together a shocking collection of facts that leaves the reader with the impression that New Orleans has been on the edge of chaos for a long time coming. All the hurricance accomplished was to get what little police the city has off the streets.

Still, the hurricane and the problems of rescue and aid are being attributed almost solely to the president, in a critical mass of simple-minded political nonsense that chalks the entire event up to global warming, racism, and the fact that a Republican holds the highest office in the land. Johnson takes note of the most interesting anomoly of our times early in the article:

Nobody has any power in this world other than George Bush. Nobody has any responsibility. George Bush is now the navel of the world for his enemies. If a butterfly flaps its wings in Central Park, it’s George Bush’s fault. And the butterfly is racist. And it was blown there by Global Warming.

The nuanced politics of the left. Everything has a simple answer. Wacism, Wepubwicans, and weather. As Tom would undoubtedly note, the party is fat and ripe for someone, anyone, to roll in with a bit of common sense and a moderate tone, and absolutely take over the party.

Listening to the radio today though, I don't think Cynthia McKinney will be that person.

Agassi Wins. Incredible!

Just watched Andre Agassi break James blake's serve to go 5-5 in the fifth set at the US Open quarterfinals. What a great match of men's tennis this has turned out to be.

Agassi just served to go up 6-5 after being down 5-4.

Both guys are dropping blistering first serves in with very few faults, the pace is unbelievable. It's hard to know who to root for: Agassi is my age and playing some of the best tennis of his life. Blake is the cinderalla man coming back from a terrible neck injury and looks like an up and comer with a stunning forehand.

What to do.

Blake goes up 40-0 on the serve, but Agassi just dropped a lob to go 40-30 before Blake serves an ace to force a tiebreaker. This is frickin' awesome.

Agassi hits the net. 1-0 Blake
Blake serves, incredible volley, Agassi hits low 2-0.
Blake serves, killer forehand 3-0.
Agassi serves, catches Blake running 3-1.
Agassi serves, Blake has great speed, but Agassi is so accurate 3-2.
Blake serves, Agassi fudges an easy one 4-2.
Blake serves, Agassi wins 4-3.
Agassi serves, faults, Blake returns second serve low. 4-4
Agassi serves, Blake wins a close one 5-4.
Blake serves, Agassi's return is awesome 5-5.
Blake serves, hits a return into misses back corner, 6-5 Agassi.
Agassi serves to save his match, hits the net, serve two is good but Blake crushes it 6-6.
Agassi serves, gets Blake running, kills him with a lob. Unbelievable, 7-6 Agassi.
Blake serves, Agassi (the greatest returner of the game) hits it to the far opposite corner and wins the match.

What a great match. Seriously. What fun. Congrats to Agassi. I never thought he'd keep up with Blake, but he did, and looked young again doing it.

Thanks to both gentlemen for a memorable match. Blake just noted how much fun it was to lose to Agassi. Called him a true champion. I would have to agree.

Two great American athletes, magnanimous and honest. Agassi says he wasn't the winner, "tennis was." Again...I agree.

I'm off to bed. I highly recommend catching the replay of this match if it's out there.

Mommy Sheehan

As most regular readers know, I am a sucker for good satire. On occasion I will attempt it myself; more often I will draw attention to the masters, such as Iowahawk and Liberal Larry at Blame Bush.

Capcomm sent me a link today to a new satire sight called Mommy Sheehan. Here is a taste:

With no A/C, it's like the Superdome in here. Rev. Al stopped up the toilet with a toxic spill from his hair process. Michael Moore is getting that look, like when he hasn't eaten in 10 minutes. Celine Dion keeps singing If I Had a Hammer; she's lucky I don't have one. Sean Penn keeps shoving a mike in my face, going Is this working? Maureen Dowd is hitting on David Brock - pathetic.

And another:

Thousands of people have written asking, Cindy, what was your life like before you became the Duchess of Peace? Well, for many years, I was a hostess at the world-famous, beloved Nut Tree in Vacaville, CA, located on scenic interstate 80. People came from all over to use our sanitary facilities, browse our gift shoppe, & ride the legendary Nut Tree Railroad.

I remember one time the Queen of England came in for some tea, & the manager wanted to seat her entourage in our largest booth. It had a nice view of the Candy Kitchen, but I said "Rae, you CANNOT make the Queen slide into a booth! Especially in a skirt!" And the others agreed, because even then I had absolute moral authority.

The site promises to be timely and hilarious as long as Sheehan can keep herself in the spotlight. And, for the very first time, I am actually hoping she can do just that.

I Get the Coolest E-mail

I received this e-mail in response to one sent out by a film-maker buddy of mine. Judging by the return e-mail address it appears to have come from another film-maker, and was a rant worthy of publication. Either he is clairvoyant, or like many of us he is all too familiar with the process of American politics.

I was in Panama when the Hurricane hit. Flying from DFW to Miami we passed by the north edge of Katrina as it was heading west into the Gulf. Two days later, when we learned of the disaster, I wondered aloud to my fellow travelers how long it would take for CNN to blame President Bush for the hurricane. My answer came within hours.

I just love it when liberals, propose more government as the solution to all social ills. Instead of taking on responsibility themselves, they cry and whine about the ineffectiveness of the very institutions they insist upon creating. And at that point, in a stunning illustration of how they just don't get it, they propose even more government to solve those bureaucratic shortcomings.

This is an example of the main public-policy tenant of Liberalism. I've identified the process. It's consistent 100% of the time whether it's welfare, education, agriculture, Medicare, or FEMA. Here's what you can expect from liberals and most moderates:

1. Identify a problem.
2. Conclude it's the government's responsibility to fix the problem.
3. Set up an agency, bureaucracy, or committee.
4. Appropriate funds to fund the agency, bureaucracy, or committee.
5. (And here's the key to the whole process) Create a government PROGRAM that APPEARS to address the problem, but which stops short of actual success. (Translation: waste the money.)
6. Identify some level of ineffectiveness ranging from complete failure to very limited success.
7. Complain that the PROGRAM is under funded.
8. Repeat steps 1-7.

There is no doubt in my mind, that when the current disaster is in the rearview mirror, or sooner; liberals and moderates will be wanting to enlarge the scope and power of the federal government, to prevent a similar occurrence. Unfortunately, some conservatives will go along with the ruse. These people fall into two categories: Either they are well-meaning but inane and gullible enough to believe that government bureaucracies can effectively and efficiently manage programs, or they are malicious, power-hungry demagoges, willing to sacrifice the good of the country for their own personal benefit.

Liberal to the Rescue

Kudos to Sean Penn for trying, but perhaps next time he should find a boat with a working motor, check the drain plug, and leave the entourage on the beach.

What can we learn from this? First off, Penn seemed more concerned about bringing along the yes-men (check the GQ stud in the background of provided photo) and his official photographer than keeping any room in the boat for victims. A situation, by the way that was not lost on witnesses to the Penn circus.

...one bystander taunted the actor: "How are you going to get any people in that thing?"

The boat he is using appears to be a duck-hunting boat which couldn't possibly be his, and given the black paint job on what is visible of the motor, it appears to be a Mercury. That it wouldn't start comes as no surprise to any of us in the land of ten thousand lakes.

A few words of advice for Mr. Penn: When attempting to rescue people via watercraft it is better to leave room in the craft for said rescue-ees. Also, when faced with an emergency situation such as trying to make a good show for the media, rent a boat with a Johnson motor. At the very least, it will start.

The only thing sadder than liberals complaining that no one else is helping, is liberals actually trying to help. Still, this image of him in his designer sunglasses, sporting a soul patch and his cup from last night's kegger is truly priceless and may have brought something that is sorely lacking in New Orleans right now.

A sorely needed dose of humor.

What Kind of Idiot?

Randall Robinson reported at The Huffington Post two days ago that African American survivors of the hurricane were eating the dead to survive...after only four days. Apparantly even a racist old Republican me has a higher opinion of my black brethren than Robinson because I never would have believed it for a second. For God's sake, it took soccer players crashed into the Andes weeks before they were willing to even entertain those lengths to survive, and they weren't even white!

In fact, one must ask if Robinson is a racist himself to have such a low opinion of his own people. Somehow it made sense to him that black Americans could last only a few days without creature comforts such as food, before they were willing to go cannibal.

Robinson uses the cannibalism rumor as an excuse to launch into a blistering attack on his country for it's blatant racism, as if the hurricane was steered to a black region by the Bush administration and the federal government was relieved then because no action was needed. After all, it was only black people.

Of course, the cannibalism rumor turned out to be blatantly false, which Robinson acknowledges now. But he also stands by the angry and ridiculous remarks that resulted from his idiotic belief that the rumors were true.

My hand shakes with anger as I write. I, the formerly un-jaundiced human rights advocate, have finally come to see my country for what it really is. A monstrous fraud.

But what can I do but write about how I feel. How millions, black like me, must feel at this, the lowest moment in my country's story.

I would bet that millions of blacks in this country are horribly embarrassed today. Embarrassed by Mr. Robinson's willingness to believe that his countrymen would start eating human flesh after four days. It is a low point indeed. Not for our country, which appears to be doing everything it can in a massive disaster, but for Mr. Robinson's career and credibility with the very people who he can no longer claim to think very highly of.

Vikings Rule, Packers Drool

We are just one week removed from the commencement of hostilities in the NFL, and Sports Illustrated this week projected division winners.

In the NFC, SI projects the Eagles in the east, the Rams in the west, the Vikings in the north, and the Panthers in the south. In fact, the brain trust at the magazine picked the Panthers to win the Super Bowl. I guess I will never understand the media love affair with Carolina. A solid team with great defense and a fierce running back to be sure, but Super Bowl Champions?

We'll see?

The Eagles have peaked in my opinion and will not see another Super Bowl, and perhaps not another NFC championship. Terrell Owens is a destructive force, and I know destructive force having endured the Randy Moss bi-polar years here in Viking Country. In fact, the Eagles played some of their best games last year when Owens was hurt.

In the AFC, the predictions are the Patriots in the east, which should come as no surprise, the Ravens in the north, the Colts in the south, and the Chiefs in the west.

I like to see the Ravens do well because I like Billick. As an OC here he engineered the Vikings record setting 1998 season, which shattered records for yardage and points. It was Moss' rookie season and it was a trip. It will probably be the only NFC championship game I will ever get to see in person and despite the loss to the Falcons, it was quite an experience.

The Vikings are struggling with penalties in the pre-season and I expect they will struggle to a lesser degree through at least the first half of the season. But my impression of the defense is that it is vastly improved and QB Daunte Culpepper is as strong as ever. His accuracy is spot on and he appears to not be missing Moss at all. To the contrary, he is facing more normalized defenses and does not have to contend with rolling coverages and tricky formations.

So. Will it be a battle between the Colts and Pats in the AFC? Probably so. The Steelers are the wild card I think. They could be a force if Roethlisberger can surpass his strong rookie season. San Diego could also come of age this year.

In the NFC, I think the Rams are over. The Panthers will peter out and the Falcons won't stay healthy. All bias aside, I think the Vikings are going to surprise alot of people this year. They might even make the big dance, but their division is weak and will not go far in preparing them for the playoffs.

Then again, who knows? The NFC is wide open and the Vikes have as good a shot at the Super Bowl as any other team.

Does a man dare dream?