About Me

Name:Ed Lilly
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Olympics preparation update

From Bloomberg.com:

Olympic organizers struggling to stem an algae bloom at the sailing venue in Qingdao are turning to another threat: a plague of locusts heading for Beijing.

Uh oh.  But, the Olympics being such a hugely important event, and with the eyes of the world watching, surely the ChiComs will find a way to deal with the algae bloom and locusts using organic, earth-friendly techniques, right?  And if they don’t, the environmentalists will be in an uproar, right?

Well....


The northern Chinese province of Inner Mongolia has mobilized 33,000 people to repel swarms of locusts

Sounds good so far.  Use superior human resources to somehow “repel” the swarms.  But let’s see, the story tells us that the locusts:

have infested an area of 1.3 million hectares (5,000 square miles)

Hmmm.  Each of the 33,000 Chinese will somehow “repel” the locusts from an approximately 6.5 square mile area?  I wonder how they’ll do that.  Oh:

Locusts in full flight may not be so easy to tackle. Inner Mongolia authorities are using 200 tons of pesticides, 100,000 sprayers and four airplanes to kill the pests...

Let’s just hope that’s 200 tons of hemp-based, organic, earth-friendly pesticides sprayed by solar or bio-diesel powered, zero emission airplanes.

Perhaps there’s better news on the algae front:


The locust alert comes as 10,000 workers scoop up blue- green algae along the coast...

Sounds earth-friendly, again using immense man-hours to somehow scoop up the algae.  And they’ve already had some reported success:

About 4,000 troops are helping the Qingdao clean-up, which has removed 150,000 tons of algae since June 25...

Wow.  That's a lot of tonnage to remove in a week's time using environmentally friendly techniques.  But I'm sure the ChiComs have been environmentally responsible.  Best of luck in their continuing cleanup and preparation for the Games.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Leaving Las Vegas - For the Children!

I read a short news story yesterday on Sen. Reid's comments on fossil fuels, but it took James Lileks to craft the perfect response.  Here is the relevant section of Reid's statement (via The Bleat):

“The one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don't see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it's global warming. It's ruining our country, it’s ruining our world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.”

Taking Reid's words to heart and extending his argument to its logical conclusion, the Bard of Jasperwood opines:

There’s only one sensible response: we have to shut down Las Vegas.

Brilliantly done.  I highly recommend it.  The Vegas section is in the bottom portion of today's Bleat, but it's well worth your time to read the whole, brief piece.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Information that would have been helpful YESTERDAY!

From SI.com:

Indiana University's president told the NCAA infractions committee that the hiring of ousted basketball coach Kelvin Sampson was "a risk that should not have been taken."

Well, gosh, how fortunate for President McRobbie that he assumed his position only after Sampson was hired so that McRobbie does not have to join AD Rick Greenspan on the next Trailways out of Bloomington.

I realize that IU is not solely, or even most importantly, about college basketball.  But the reality is that college hoops is big business.  And it’s been pretty clear since Kelvin Sampson’s hiring and subsequent resignation that the IU administration has screwed up that big business in a huge way.

Hopefully, the removal of Sampson and Greenspan, the hiring of Tom Crean, and possibly sound decision-making by the administration in finding Greenspan’s replacement will mean a big turn around for the business of IU basketball.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Justin Gimelstob tries, fails to create interest in women's tennis? UPDATED

Professional tennis has had a long, slow decline in popularity over the years, but a link caught my eye the other day in the tennis headlines.  It said something about a U.S. tennis official calling women’s tennis players sexpots and bit¢hes.  I didn’t save the link at the time, but I have found the story again, from the website This is London.

From the link, it appeared that perhaps a women’s tour official was caught making some really outrageous remarks.  Turns out, it’s former men’s tour pro Justin Gimelstob, who is now an ATP (the men’s tour) director, who was shooting off his mouth.

The specifics of Gimelstob’s comments, made during a radio show interview in the U.S. before he departed to cover Wimbledon, are about what you might expect from a former professional athlete being outrageous in a radio interview when talking about female tennis players, and he has of course now apologized to pretty much all women past, present and future for his inartfully expressed comments.  I even saw one link that mentioned Gimelstob apologized to Billie Jean King, which I guess somehow makes her the women’s tennis equivalent of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton as the go-to person for apologies when the relevant minority group is insulted.

But what I really found interesting out of this whole kerfuffle was that the Gimelstob story came out on This is London’s web site on Friday, June 27.  As of this morning, June 29, even with the wave of stories about Gimelstob’s subsequent apologies (a search of Gimelstob and Kournikova, who was mentioned prominently in the article, gave me over 23,000 online hits, and it took me to about the 5th page of links to get back to the original story), the original story from This is London has ZERO comments on the web site.

How can this be?  Granted tennis is not the most popular sport in the world, but the whole point of running this story was to shock and draw attention, right?  So no comments at all in 2 days?!  My guess is they got a lot of comments from men that they didn’t want posted, and they simply haven’t allowed any posts to go up.


UPDATE:  I may have been incorrect in where I saw the original link/story.  Further down the online search results, I found essentially the same piece via the Mail website, where there are now 34 comments.  Most are taking Gimelstob to task, and a few are "supporting" him by saying he just spoke his mind and shouldn't cave into political correctness for exercising free speech.  So perhaps the lack of comments at This is London is because they don't get much traffic?  Don't know about that.  I'm a bit surprised at only 34 comments at the Mail site.

Tags: Media   tennis  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Maybe Kelvin Sampson can find him a job...

Sometimes, the right thing happens, even if it takes a little longer than you might expect.  News came over the wires this afternoon that Indiana University Athletic Director Rick Greenspan is resigning is resigning as part of the probe into the mess created by Greenspan's hire, Kelvin Sampson, in continuing his violations of NCAA rules in contacting potential recruits.

Sampson's resignation came just before the end of the Big Te(leve)n season, and it would have been better had Greenspan done the right thing at that time and fallen on his sword.  He was the one who backed Sampson for the IU position despite Sampson's previous NCAA rule-breaking.

Unfortunately, this resignation will probably result in rumors of Isiah Thomas going back to Bloomington to be Tom Crean's new boss.  But if they didn't bring back Zeke to coach, I don't think they'll want him as AD.  Breathe easy, for now, Hoosier fans.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You mean, actual lawmakers are going to keep making and enforcing laws?

Instead of just letting the self-appointed legislators on the judicial bench try to take over everything instead?  Maybe:

Unbowed, politicians vow to execute child rapists

Well, I should hope so.
Tags: law   courts  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We had a PACT!!

There have been numerous stories over the past few days about an apparent "pact" made by a group of high school girls in Massachusetts.  The girls were thought to have made an agreement to all get pregnant and have babies.  The latest link at Refdesk.com reads as follows:

Pregnant Mass. teen says there was no pact

I am reminded of this long-running dispute between Jerry and George in "Seinfeld."  At one point, George and Jerry decided they needed to grow up and make some changes in their lives.  Which led to George asking Susan to marry  him, and resulted in this exchange (h/t to the indispensable Seinfeldscripts.com):

George:  Oh, she's got the hue. So, what's going on with you and Melanie? I mean, I know you're not getting married, but uh, things are happening?

Jerry:  Well...actually, we kind of broke up.

George:  You what?

Jerry:  Well, you know, we were having dinner the other night, and she's got this strangest habit.  She eats her peas one at a time.  You've never seen anything like it.  It takes her an hour to finish them.  I mean, we've had dinner other times.  I've seen her eat Corn Niblets.  But she scooped them.

George: . . . she scooped her niblets?

Jerry:  Yes.  That's what was so vexing.

George:  Uh-huh.  Uh-huh.  What about the pact?

Jerry:  What?

George:  What happened to the pact?  We were both gonna change.  We shook hands on a pact.  Did you not shake my hand on it uh?

Jerry:  You stuck your hand out, so I shook it.  I don't know about a pact.  Anyway, you should be happy you're engaged.  You're getting married.


I always thought Jerry had the weaker position here.  It seemed pretty clear from the interaction that George's take on what happened was more accurate.  Still, it would have been nice if one of the girls at Gloucester High had had the decency to throw in a sly reference to never having shaken hands on anything.

Tags: Media   culture  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thoughts of OJ...

OJ?  You mean, OJ Simpson?  Yes, indeed.  I see from the headlines this morning that singer (?) R. Kelly has been acquitted of having sex with a thirteen year old girl.  Despite the videotaped sex sessions.

So, I guess all those people who said that even if they had a videotape of OJ killing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, they wouldn't convict him, really meant it.

My lovely wife's take is a bit different.  She just saw the start of this post, learning of the acquittal, and has concluded that the court system's mandate to seat a jury of 12 reasonable people has to be viewed as an unachievable failure.  No word from her on what comes next should we abandon the jury system.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If only life were like the movies...

I think it was Steve Martin's character in "Grand Canyon" who tells Kevin Kline that he doesn't watch enough movies, because all of life's questions are answered in the movies.  I was reminded of this in light of yesterday's ridiculous ruling by 5 members of the Supreme Court that foreign, illegal, enemy combatants somehow have habeas corpus rights.

Someone needs to get the folks in the White House to sit down today and watch "National Treasure."  They just might learn something in how to respond to yesterday's ruling:


So... Here's to the men who did what was considered wrong, in order to do what they knew was right... [nodding] what they knew was right.

I know I'd have a heck of a lot more respect for an executive branch that came out and simply told the Supreme Court to shove it on this ruling.  Heck, presidential precedent is on the government's side, and the side of common sense:  "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Could George Costanza make it on the Supreme Court?

I only ask because that's who I was reminded of when I read this post at Hot Air:

The chief justice of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals[,] ...  Alex Kozinski[,] stored sexually explicit photos and videos on his personal web site, stating later that he thought no one could access the materials.

As George asked when caught when confronted with his own inappropriate sexual behavior, "Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, cause I've worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time."

At the risk of improperly mixing pop culture references, I think this could really put the Marv Albert phenomenon to the test.  Many people thought Albert was done as a broadcaster after his hotel assault on a woman while wearing ladies’ underwear and having his wig pulled off in the tussle.  Seems like a pretty difficult thing to live down.

But, Albert had the benefit of being a public figure in the age of Bill Clinton.  I predicted at the time of Albert’s fall that he would be back in broadcasting after a short time to let things simmer down.  Guys I worked with thought I was nuts and that Albert’s career was so clearly over it was laughable to think otherwise.

Turned out, Albert was gone from network tv for about 2 years, then was hired back as NBC’s prime NBA announcer, and is now doing Nets play-by-play on the Yes Network.  Who’s laughing now?

If Kozinski were one of the 9th Circuit liberals who are continually getting overruled by the Supreme Court, my guess is he would have a decent shot at still getting the call for a Supreme Court seat in an Obama administration.  But as a Reagan appointee, even if McCain wins in November, no chance in the world the media would let him survive a nomination for the Supreme Court.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How is the media playing the conviction of Obama's BFF Tony Rezko?

While the big news out of Chicago is still the Cubs and their performance to this point in the season, there has also been a verdict announced in the trial of political fundraiser Tony Rezko.  Rezko sounds like a pretty typical political operative, in that he has been found guilty of fraud, money laundering and a host of other charges.  What makes Rezko noteworthy for most people is his very close connection with Sen. Barack Obama, as well as current Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

This may be a big deal in early June, but my guess is that by Labor Day and the real start of the presidential campaign, this will all be forgotten by those who intend to drink deeply from the Kool-Aid and pull a lever for Sen. Obama.

Still, I was curious how the various media outlets would promote the story, if at all, in their online coverage of this breaking news.  What peaked my curiosity was the link at Refdesk.com, which noted simply in its "In the News" headlines:


Political fundraiser convicted in corruption trial - Jun 04 9:09 PM US/Eastern

Pretty bland stuff.  Why in the world would anyone even have an interest in reading the story on some anonymous political fundraiser?  Oh, you mean he has close personal and political ties to the now apparent Democrat presidential candidate?  Huh.  What a shock that somehow that angle didn't show up in the link to drive a little more traffic.  That's what the tubes of the internets are all about, right?  Driving traffic and getting clicks and eyeballs?  I guess when you only have 10 "In the News" items listed, there's no need to make all of them attention grabbers.

So how did other news/media outlets do in providing headlines or links?  Let's take a quick tour, moving alphabetically through the online news outlet sites linked at Refdesk.  First, here's ABC News:


Fixer With Obama Ties Found Guilty

Ok, they at least noticed the connection to Obama.  How about CBS News?

Bupkis.  Nothing on their homepage, under the breaking news at the top of the page, or further down in their links to stories on politics.  But of course, in true keeping with the traditions of Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather in providing the world with all the (mis)information it can, CBS did manage to link to the breaking story that Chicago made the short list of possible hosts for the 2016 Olympics.  Well done.


CNN?

Developer linked to Obama guilty in fraud case

Pretty similar to ABC.  Good for them.

How about Fox News?


Rezko Convicted on 16 Counts in Corruption Trial

So no mention of Sen. Obama and his ties to the story from the famously biased, right wing zealots of Rupert Murdoch's empire.  I suppose the counter to that would be that "everyone" who goes to Fox News' website or watches Fox News has been trained to know who Rezko is, so it's superfluous to mention Sen. Obama.  Whatever.

NBC?  Actually, this is from the MSNBC site, as that's apparently the online presence for NBC News:


Fundraiser Rezko found guilty in corruption case
And this was provided under a banner on Sen. Obama, so that gets some credit.  Though detracting from full points is the fact that the Obama banner under which the tiny Rezko link is located makes sure to highlight the Obama campaign's latest talking point:

Obama: GOP will attack on patriotism

So the "big" news for MSNBC is the charge of upcoming nefarious tactics by the Republicans, while actual criminal wrongdoing involving Sen. Obama's close friend, financier, mentor and next door neighbor gets buried further down.  But at least they reported the story, unlike CBS.

Moving to other media outlets, how about PBS?

Again, nothing.  Plenty of stories on the groundbreaking historical achievement of Sen. Obama "claiming" the nomination.   But no time to notice the unpleasantness from the Chicago courtrooms.

NPR?  Also nothing.


Let's check out Reuters.  Never been to their site before.  Here we go:


One-time Obama fundraiser guilty in corruption trial

Clever.  Makes it look a little like it's some fundraiser who, at one time, raised some money for Sen. Obama.  That's a little like describing Rev. Wright as a minister who, one time, spoke at Sen. Obama's church.

So kind of a mixed bag overall, but something tells me that when news broke involving Jack Abramoff, who had ties to various Republican politicans, all these news outlets who have ignored the Rezko verdict were trumpeting the Abramoff story, and his ties to Republicans, every chance they got.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

So who joined Trinity United Church first? And will it matter?

The big news from last night appears to be Sen. Obama's decision to leave his radical Chicago church.  Moreover, the news reports indicate that both Sen. Obama and his wife are leaving the controversial church.

I have been unable to find the answer online, but I am mildly curious whether Sen. Obama or his wife joined their church first.  I thought I had read something a while back that indicated Mrs. Obama was either the first of the couple to join the church, or it could have been that she was the prime reason they stayed in that particular church.

My interest in this question was prompted by several comments I have seen on the web about how Sen. Obama's willingness to cast aside anyone who creates problems for his political ambition, as now shown by his defenestration of his entire church congregation, may cause those close to Sen. Obama to become a bit nervous at wondering when their time will come to be sacrificed for his career.

Which made me think of Mrs. Obama, and how I really do not want a replay of the Clinton years with questions of what the "real" nature of the President and First Lady's marriage happens to be.

How could the church resignation bring up such a thought?  Well, as I queried at the outset, I was wondering if Sen. Obama or his wife joined the church first.  If Mrs. Obama became a member of the church before her husband, or if she was the primary reason the family stayed in that church, then it raises the possibility that Sen. Obama's political necessity of resigning from the church could create a division in his marriage.  By forcing his wife to leave her chosen church, he may have partially dealt with one problem, yet created another in the form of speculation about whether Mrs. Obama will leave over church/religious and other disagreements.  After 8 years of hearing about how the Clintons had a "sham" marriage that was really just a business arrangement, I have no real desire for a replay with the Obamas, with Mrs. Obama in the role of the wronged spouse, forced to leave the church she loved, who simply has to take whatever grief her more powerful husband gives her so that she can maintain her proximity to power.

I hope that all this speculation is needless.  But if anyone has a clue on the answer to which of the Obamas joined their church first, I'd love to check out the citation.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Whose is the most recorded voice in history? REVEALED!!

I read a fascinating book over the weekend by Mark Frost titled The Match: The Day the Game of Golf Changed Forever.  Frost tells an amazing and true story about a 1956 best ball golf match played at Cypress Point ostensibly to "settle" the question, still unresolved at that time, whether top flight amateur golfers or professional golfers were better.  What does this have to do with the title of this post?  I'll get to that in a minute.  Here's the quick and dirty synopsis of the book:

Eddie Lowery, who started his rise to fame and fortune as Francis Ouimet's 10 year-old caddy when Ouimet won the U.S. Open in 1913, backed a team of amateurs, comprised of a young Ken Venturi and another young player named Harvie Ward.  Lowery claimed there were no two golfers in the world who could beat his team of amateurs.

George Coleman, a wealthy industrialist, avid golfer, and long-time friendly golf rival of Lowery's, made Lowery put his money where his mouth was and put up a professional duo made up of Byron Nelson and Ben Hogan.

From Frost's description of the match, there isn't a golfer alive who wouldn't record the broadcast had there been cameras on the course.  Thankfully, Frost was able to get the story from Ken Venturi (the only surviving member of the foursome) and others who were at Cypress Point that historic day, as well as friends and family of the deceased golfers.

Frost also wrote The Greatest Game Ever Played, about Ouimet's 1913 U.S. Open championship upset of Harry Vardon.  This story may not translate as well into a movie, but it was a first rate golf, human interest, and popular history story just the same.

So who has the most recorded voice in history?  This was just one of the almost throw-away pieces of information I found in the book.  For whatever reason, it stuck in my head.  Certainly the answer was someone I and probably every person over the age of 30 in this country will have heard of.  But I never would have come up with the right answer if I had been given 100 guesses.

I'll update this post with an answer, but figured I would leave it hanging out there for now to see if anyone happens to drop by and wants to take a guess, or perhaps already knows who it is.


UPDATE:  Some excellent guesses, certainly from the right time period, and the Mel Blanc guess is, in it's way, very close.  According to The Match, and from taking a quick look online I see that the Wikipedia page for this person makes the same claim, though that's certainly not an exhaustive search, the most recorded voice in history belongs to....

Bing Crosby.

Crosby started the celebrity pro-am golf tournament with his Crosby Clambake, which moved up the coast from Rancho Santa Fe to the Monterey Peninsula after WWII.  It was during dinner at Crosby's house at the start of festivities surrounding the 1956 Crosby that the wager creating the fabled match between Hogan, Nelson, Venturi and Ward was made, and during the practice rounds the next day that the fabled match took place.

I knew about Crosby's connection to his own tournament, of course, but didn't realize the depth of his  passion for golf.  He was a caddy at a young age, and was a single digit handicap, taking his tournament invitations and golf matches very seriously.  And if I knew it I had forgotten that Crosby died of a massive heart attack suffered walking off a course in Spain after finishing a round of golf.

Between his radio, film, television and recording careers, Crosby's voice is apparently the most recorded ever.  Kind of surprising.  I thought perhaps a long-time broadcaster, like Winchell, Cronkite, etc., might have the distinction.

How is Mel Blanc related?  Well, there are several Looney Tunes cartoons in which Bing makes an appearance, along with other Hollywood stars of the 30s, 40s and 50s.  Blanc did the voices for the Looney Tunes characters, though I'm not sure if he also impersonated the stars who appeared in the cartoons.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thoughts on injured soldiers on Memorial Day

Are injured soldiers returning from the war against Islamofascism getting poor medical treatment?  According to this piece at Bloomberg.com, the answer is yes:

U.S. soldiers returning from the Iraq War with physical or psychological wounds are getting poor treatment from the military and veterans' health care systems, say a majority of Americans polled by Harvard University.

The conclusion regarding the quality of treatment may be correct, but are “Americans polled by Harvard University” able to accurately and correctly make this determination?  Typically, polling is done with a random, representative sample of the population.  So I take this result with a grain of salt.

But maybe there is a subset of data involving injured soldiers that more accurately answers the question, right?  According to the story, there’s this:


People with a close family member now in the military, or who served in the past, had an even dimmer view of the quality of care offered to soldiers and veterans.

This is at least potentially helpful and informative.  Presumably those with close family members currently serving in the military, or who served in the past, may be expected to have a more in depth knowledge of the medical treatment being given to currently injured service members.  But that’s still going to consist of a lot of anecdotal evidence that should not be relied on too heavily in making a general conclusion.

So what’s going on with this story?  Looks to me like it’s a case of the media telling us that perception is reality.  And since they have already told us in prior reporting that medical treatment for wounded soldiers is poor, the survey results are largely a reflection of the success of their prior reporting in getting people to believe it.  Hence, the following:


“There is a sense that this system has failed people who are wounded in Iraq,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard professor who directs the university's program on public opinion and health and social policy. “More than six in 10 Americans believe that people are not receiving high-quality care.”

The survey follows highly publicized reports on inadequate treatment for soldiers who have suffered physical and mental injuries in the war, including a series of articles about decrepit conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington that won the Washington Post a Pulitzer Prize.


The Bloomberg story is interesting, but not entirely convincing as a measure of the quality of medical treatment being given to injured soldiers.  To the extent the American public wants to see this type of medical treatment improve, the story does have this interesting comment:

The survey also found that of the presidential candidates, Republican John McCain is viewed as most likely to improve veterans' health care.
Hmmm.  So will the Democrats start urging voters to switch allegiance and support McCain?  After all, it's for the troops!  And a lot of those injured soldiers have families.  So it's also for the children!

William Katz, at his excellent blog, Urgent Agenda, has another interesting post on a different aspect of medical care for injured soldiers
.  He cites extensively from an article posted by the AARP.  Here’s the setup:


At that moment, Cynthia became one of a growing number of parents who are, by necessity, stepping back into the role of caregiver for their children who are returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with debilitating and often long-term injuries. According to officials from three national organizations—the Wounded Warrior Project, The Military Family Network,, and the Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes— an estimated 10,000 recent veterans of these conflicts now depend on their parents for their care. Working unheralded, these parents have quit jobs, shelved retirement plans, and relocated so they can be with their injured sons and daughters. Many have become warriors themselves, fighting to make sure this new wave of injured veterans gets the medical care and rehabilitation it needs.
The portion of the article quoted by Katz goes on to note that the survival rate for injured soldiers in the ongoing fighting is very high.  Apparently there are approximately 6 deaths per 100 injured soldiers in the current conflicts, compared with 28 per 100 in Viet Nam and 38 per 100 in WW II.  Clearly, advancements in treatment of battlefield injuries has improved dramatically.  But as the article also notes, and the statistics above would indicate, the fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan have become “a war of disability, not a war of deaths.”

Sobering stuff as we pay tribute to those who serve to protect our country's freedoms.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The post in which I pretty much become Andy Rooney

Byron York has a post up at The Corner that reminded me of something that I’ve meant to post before and I don’t think I ever have.  Getting back to the intersection of language and politics, the section of Sen. Clinton’s statement quoted by York contains the following blurb:

...I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York...

Whenever I see references to “President ‘X’ has nominated Judge ‘Y’ to fill Justice ‘Z’s’ Supreme Court seat,” or some reference like Sen. Clinton’s above to “holding ‘A’s’ seat in the U.S. Senate,” I want to kick something.  I understand that there is perhaps a succession of people who may serve in the same job, but my admittedly neanderthal view of our republican democracy and the Constitutional framework is that there is no such thing as a particular person’s seat anywhere in our government.  It’s like hearing Freddie Kreuger’s metal claw dragged across a classroom blackboard for me when I see government office holders or journalists lapse into the convention of referring to a person holding someone’s seat.  Ann Landers’ old call for 50 lashes with a wet noodle is the least we should do in these cases.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive