Patrick Ruffini has a post on Hugh Hewitt's blog discussing the changing nature of media as it relates to political campaigns.  Here's the first part of his post, which I've clipped off to end at the part that made me curious (and I have highlighted the pertinent sections):

Let me throw out a counterfactual.

If we had had blogs when Bill Clinton was President, he would have been a lot less effective and his approval ratings lower.

Bloggers, who shape more and more of the coverage, deal largely in the printed word. Until YouTube, video was utterly irrelevant to our commentary. Even now, a well-informed blogger can go through an entire day without turning on the TV and watching the speech for him or herself.

On the whole, this will tend to devalue eloquence, smooth-talk, whatever you want to call it. It will reward the politician who is clear, direct, and succinct, whose words make sense in 12-point Times New Roman.

I think this is part of why Mitt Romney is having a hard time escaping the flip-flopper charge, something that also dogged Bill Clinton. Yes, he’s a Republican, so he doesn’t get media brownie points. There are also the YouTube-style ambushes you just wouldn’t have seen in 1992. (There was an amusing scene in The War Room in which Carville et al. were debating whether to use footage of Bush signs being made in Brazil that some volunteer taped off a college public access channel. That wouldn’t be up for discussion in 2008. Someone would have YouTubed it.)

But an overlooked point is that we now have an entire class of opinion leaders that look to the text-driven Internet, not television, to shape their coverage. To a large degree, these opinion leaders will be immune from the charms of a Clinton or a Romney. ...

Specifically with respect to Romney, I found this interesting.  More to the point, I listened to a podcast recently where Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, and John Podhoretz, columnist with the NY Post and I think now part of Commentary's online editorial team, were interviewed about the ongoing presidential campaigns.  Prof. Reynolds I think refers to himself as libertarian leaning, though he is also I believe widely perceived by those on the political left as being very conservative.  Mr. Podhoretz is, I think, a political conservative.  He was a long-time poster on National Review Online's The Corner.

In any event, what struck me in reading Mr. Ruffini's post was my recollection of the comments both Prof. Reynolds and Mr. Podhoretz made in assessing Romney's candidacy.  Both viewed Romney as the kind of candidate that became more UNattractive the more they were exposed to him, via ads, campaign appearances, etc.  I believe Prof. Reynolds even referred to Romney as having a certain "oily" quality that was off-putting the more he saw of the candidate.

I have certainly seen photos of Romney, and am vaguely familiar with his history, but I have never actually seen Romney give a speech or perform in a debate.  I have heard him interviewed on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, and based only on knowing his general background and hearing him talk to Mr. Hewitt, Romney seemed like a pretty reasonable guy.

It just seemed surprising to me to hear two opinion leaders like Prof. Reynolds and Mr. Podhoretz, who I expect have seen a lot more of Romney in action than I have, both react with increasing dislike for him the more they see him.  And that seems to kind of contradict Mr. Ruffini's view that television exposure is to Romney's benefit.

I guess I don't have a real point here, just something that made me stop and wonder where a conversation between Ruffini, Reynolds and Podhoretz may go on this topic.

Richard Rubin has an opinion piece in today's New York Times.  It's not a lengthy item, but it is well worth the time to read it.  Here's the setup:

BY any conceivable measure, Frank Buckles has led an extraordinary life. Born on a farm in Missouri in February 1901, he saw his first automobile in his hometown in 1905, and his first airplane at the Illinois State Fair in 1907. At 15 he moved on his own to Oklahoma and went to work in a bank; in the 1940s, he spent more than three years as a Japanese prisoner of war. When he returned to the United States, he married, had a daughter and bought a farm near Charles Town, W. Va., where he lives to this day. He drove a tractor until he was 104.

But even more significant than the remarkable details of Mr. Buckles’s life is what he represents: Of the two million soldiers the United States sent to France in World War I, he is the only one left.

From Sports Illustrated online:

WNBA club wants woman, not Rodman, to coach

Ron Terwilliger, the owner of the new WNBA team in Atlanta, wants his coach to be a woman -- not just dress like one. The ex-Chicago Bulls forward, who made headlines a few years back by dressing as a drag queen, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution he is interested in a WNBA coaching job.

You would think a team from Atlanta, home of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., would be more open-minded in judging a coaching candidate by the content of his character rather than the content of his BVDs.

So now we get the latest lie from Bill Clinton:

Former President Clinton said Thursday that he is to blame for his administration’s failed health care plan, not his wife, who spearheaded the effort.

Um.  Ok.  Whatever.  As I noted back in September on the never-ending topic of the Clinton's holiday from the truth:

Imagine my surprise in skimming through the Chicago Sun Times profile from June 2007 of Patti Solis Doyle, where near the end of the article it states:

Doyle said her toughest time while working in the White House was not the impeachment of President Clinton but the failure of Hillary Clinton's health reform plan in 1994, "because for me that was truly her thing and it was a tough time having to regroup."

Why in the world would one of George Gipp's relatives agree to have the Gipper's remains exhumed for DNA testing to answer a question of paternity?  From the story (emphasis added):

Mike Bynum, an Alabama sports author who is researching a book on Gipp, said he came across an Internet posting several years ago by a woman who believed she was a descendant of the football great. She was a granddaughter of Eva Bright, a South Bend, Ind., woman Gipp had dated for about a year before his death, Bynum said.

Bynum said he helped put the woman in touch with Frueh and other Gipp relatives. Eventually, Frueh decided to have the body exhumed. Gipp's right femur was removed and the other remains reburied, Bynum said in a telephone interview.

The DNA testing of the bone was conducted at a laboratory in Dallas. Results this week showed no link between Gipp and Bright, Bynum said.

In a statement, Frueh said he had no regrets about the exhumation and felt it had been important to learn whether Bright's descendants were part of the Gipp family.

"Helping family is the strongest act of love that we can offer each other. And if it happened again, our response would be the same," Frueh said.

Helping family?  Something tells me there must have been a money angle in here somewhere.  Earlier in the story, it is explained that Frueh's decision made some of his ACTUAL family members angry.  I think I can understand that.  After all, Gipp has been dead for over 85 years.  It's not like there is some pressing need to get to the bottom of this paternity rumor now.

Of course, I suppose there's always at least the possibility this whole story is a ruse to cover up Notre Dame's  desperate attempt to clone Gipp in hopes of getting a quality team back on the field.

Imagine your employer has a Halloween party and one of the white employees shows up with make-up to darken his skin, wearing a prison uniform, and hair in dreadlocks.  Problem?  Sure.

But now imagine it's the Department of Homeland Security having the Halloween party and this happens.  From the story:

WASHINGTON —  A top immigration official has apologized after awarding "most original costume" to a Homeland Security Department employee who dressed in prison stripes, dreadlocks and dark makeup for a Halloween gathering at the agency.

Julie Myers, assistant secretary overseeing Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division, was part of a three-judge panel that lauded the costume, worn by a white employee, last Wednesday. ...

...

The photo of Myers with the employee and any others taken by the official photographer showing the costume were discarded, Nantel said.

...

Even among the supposed Neanderthal conservatives at Fox News, the headline focuses on the offensiveness of the particular costume described.

I guess I'm just continually out of step with the news judgment of the mainstream media.  I'm much more bothered by the fact that the Department of Homeland Security would even have a Halloween party, presumably during the workday.  And I'm rather blown away by the fact that they had an official photographer at the event.

Runaway illegal immigration?  Ongoing threat of terrorism from Islamic fanatics?  Who cares!?  It's Halloween, and Homeland Security has to make sure to celebrate it, in a politically correct way, rather than keep its eye on the ball.  They'll have no one but themselves to blame when this kind of thing gets dragged back into public view after the next big terrorist attack in the U.S.

Having grown up about 15 miles east of Notre Dame, I've seen many of their football games through the years.  It was easy cheering them as a kid, when their teams were good.  And over time I've managed to become kind of indifferent to their sports success.  It's nice for them and for my hometown's economy, I suppose, when their teams do well.  But it's also kind of nice, from a karma perspective, to see them struggle and sometimes downright stink on occasion.

At this point, the Notre Dame football program is having a rough time of it.  Their mark for the season stands and 1-8, and they may be fortunate to win again this season.  Heck, they lost to NAVY this past weekend for the first time in my lifetime.

I was happy for Navy on hearing they finally beat ND.  The fact they did it in South Bend I'm sure made it even sweeter for them.

But I see via ESPN.com and AP that Navy has managed to turn my happiness for them into disappointment with this:

The Naval Academy canceled classes Monday, giving the 4,400 midshipmen another day to celebrate the football team's first victory over Notre Dame in 44 tries.

.....

The celebrations began in earnest late Saturday in Annapolis when the team bus pulled in. The academy gave plebes, or freshmen, free time Sunday from noon to 10 p.m., instead of a regular study period. Upperclassmen were given liberty until 4 p.m. Monday, allowing them to sleep in, study or just enjoy the victory.

The city of Annapolis has tentatively scheduled a celebration rally Wednesday afternoon, city spokesman Ray Weaver said.

Again, ND is 1-8.  They stink on ice.  This is not cause for a riotous 3 day weekend of celebration for the Naval Academy.

The perhaps apocryphal story about Lou Holtz (I think) when he coached ND's football team is that he told his players that when they scored a touchdown, he expected them to simply hand the ball to the officials.  Why?  Because he expected the players to act like they had scored a touchdown before.

Yes, Navy last beat Notre Dame when Roger Staubach was guiding the team.  A wild celebration in South Bend and simultaneously in Annapolis on Saturday and into Sunday to celebrate this win?  Ok.  But extending it another day for cancelled classes, and now having a celebration rally in mid-week?  All over the defeat of a one-win team?

It's a nice win, guys, but you didn't exactly blow out a national champion contender.

With next week's local elections in Mercer County, New Jersey, we have been somewhat inundated with campaign literature from those seeking County and State elective offices.  If you know anything about New Jersey, you may know that we are subject to some of the highest real property taxes in the country.  As a relative newcomer to the state, I can't speak to the history of New Jersey property taxes, but when we moved here almost five years ago, our property taxes, for very similar size parcels of land and pretty comparable houses, were instantly SIX TIMES higher than they had been in Delaware.  As you might imagine, we would LOVE to see a reduction in property taxes.

Politicians realize there is a lot of dissatisfaction on this issue among at least some voters.  So should I as a voter believe it when they tell me they recognize the problem and they will do something about it?  Let's consider the literature that arrived in the mail today from current incumbents Shirley Turn, Reed Gusciora and Bonnie Watson Coleman.

The banner headline in the flyer states:

We need leaders who are dedicated to reducing property taxes.

Hard for me to argue with that.  I'm certainly all in favor of reducing property taxes.  Sounds like these three might have something to say that I would want to hear.  So we read on to find:

Rising property taxes burden local families.  Seniors on fixed incomes can't afford to make ends meet.  And it's getting more and more expensive to live here.

Ok, still sounds pretty good at this point.  Moving on...

So it's crucial to support leaders with a proven record of dedication to reducing property taxes.  And we have three leaders who've done exactly that.

The red flags start to go up a little here.  Why?  That niggling qualification of "dedication to."  As a voter, I'm looking for a proven record of reducing property taxes.  Not just someone who uses it as a campaign issue so he can say he is "dedicated to" doing something.  Show me you've done it.  Admittedly, the second sentence seems to indicate that perhaps these candidates do indeed have a track record of reducing property taxes.  This would be a good thing, though I have to admit, we have yet to see any reduction in OUR property taxes in New Jersey.  But still, let's read on.

Senator Shirley Turner, Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, and Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman have already revoked unfair tax exemptions for private clubs that wanted us to pick up their tax bills.

Um, ok.  I guess that's a good thing.  I'm not exactly sure how an exemption for a private club means that I am somehow paying their tax bills.  My understanding is that an exemption means they don't have a tax bill.

But, semantics aside, I understand that what they are trying to claim is that these private clubs aren't paying "their fair share" of the tax burden for the services provided.  Perhaps.  But without specifics of how many tax exemptions have been revoked, where those private clubs are located, and what kind of actual effect on real people's tax bills are at issue here, it's a little hard to get too excited.

They've also sponsored legislation to reduce government waste and close wasteful tax loopholes.  But they know the job is far from finished.

And with our support, they'll keep fighting to reduce property taxes.

That's it?  This is the sum of their "proven record" to reduce property taxes?  They managed to get the tax exemptions for some private clubs revoked, and think it would be a good idea to cut government waste (however nebulously that may be defined) and close tax loopholes (i.e., raise the taxes somewhere else)?  Where are the hard numbers of what the government is taking in, from where, and how much they seek to cut from spending and reduce from our property tax bills?

Fortunately, there's another page with "The Turner-Guscior-Watson Coleman Plan."  Surely this will provide the specifics I'm looking for:

Fix the broken school funding system
Shirley Turner, Reed Gusciora, and Bonnie Watson Coleman are fighting to make school funding fair for all students and families, no matter where they live or how much they earn.  Shirley, Reed, and Bonnie also support saving taxpayers money by reducing school bureaucracy.

Nothing specific here.  How much money is going to the schools?  What does "fair" funding mean?  There are plenty of studies and reports indicating that the amount of money spent per student does not correlate with school and/or student performance.  What indicators of "unfairness" do we currently have with regard to funding specifically?  And if the current school funding system is broken, what's the plan to "fix" it?  How does making it "fair" somehow "fix" it?

Get taxpayer money back from companies that broke their promise to create more jobs.
Companies like MSNBC received millions of taxpayer dollars to create more good-paying jobs.  But they left New Jersey without keeping their promise.  Shirley Turn, Bonnie Watson Coleman, and Reed Gusciora will keep working to get our money back from these corporate deadbeats.

Again, where are the specifics?  Did the state actually PAY companies like MSNBC millions of dollars so the companies would create jobs in the state?  Or are these just more sweetheart deals with tax breaks and incentives for the companies, and then the investments didn't work out for the companies and their grand plans didn't materialize?

And what to make of "working to get OUR money back."  Sounds to me like this is a politician hissy fit issue and nothing that relates to real reductions in real people's property tax bills.  My guess is the politicians gave MSNBC and others tax breaks and incentives, and now they are simply trying to collect all of the foregone tax revenues.

But should we blame the politicians who gave these tax breaks and incentives, and never bothered to keep spending in check?  No!  The problem is the "deadbeat corporations" who didn't create jobs for more potential taxpayers.

Someone needs to explain to these legislators that granting tax incentives is different than signing a contract with someone.  The government made a bad call.  Admit it.  Learn from it.  Move on.

Close wasteful tax loopholes that increase our property taxes.
Hundreds of people live in tax-exempt houses owned by wealthy private schools but send their children to public schools, costing taxpayers millions of dollars a year.  Shirley Turner, Reed Gusciora, and Bonnie Watson Coleman are fighting to close tax loopholes like this to stop shifting the tax burden onto local taxpayers.

Hundreds?  How many exactly.  And where?  Which private schools?  How many children from these tax exempt properties have been in the public schools in the past 10 years?  Which schools?  Millions of dollars a year were spent on the public schools for these children in particular?  Show me the numbers and breakdowns.

Cut government waste with more aggressive audits of state agencies.
Government waste is a big reason why property taxes keep rising.  Shirley Turner, Reed Gusciora, and Bonnie Watson Coleman supported legislation to increase aggressive audits of state agencies with a State Comptroller dedicated to cutting government waste.

Audits?  This is the best you can do?  There are no programs in the entire state that should simply be eliminated or cut back?

And still no specifics on how much government waste there is.  If it is a big reason why property taxes KEEP RISING ... oh, wait, what about that dedication to reducing property taxes?  You mean property taxes have been RISING in New Jersey?  Just like I've seen in my property tax statements?

Yeah, that figures.  Make a little noise about how much you want to change things.  Hope to hit a hot button issue for voters in your target demographic, and move on.

I'm already looking forward to next year's property tax increase.  At least I've been warned by the incumbents that it's coming.

CNN.com's lead story on their home page is a piece on a hijacked Japanese ship off the African coast.  The story is 21 paragraphs long (some of them albeit single sentence quotes).  There are several generic references to pirates and their activities in the waters off Somalia.

Then, finally in paragraphs 19 and 20, we get this (emphasis added):

Somali pirates are trained fighters, in some cases linked to powerful Somali clans, outfitted with sophisticated arms and equipment, including GPS satellite instruments. They have seized merchant ships, ships carrying aid, and once even a cruise ship.

The United States also has supported efforts to quell an Islamic insurgency in Somalia.

So, are these pirates somehow related to the Islamic insurgency?  The story doesn't say.  Curious.

Many of the crew on the Japanese freighter are apparently Filipinos who were recruited to serve on the ship.  And my recollection is that the Phillipines did us no favors a while back by paying ransom to Islamic terrorists for the return of other kidnapped Filipinos.  We shall see.  The old dictum of "that which is rewarded gets repeated" may soon become applicable.

Apparently Barry Bonds is saying he'll boycott the Hall of Fame if they display his "record breaking" home run ball with an asterisk on it.  From the story:

NEW YORK -- Barry Bonds would boycott Cooperstown if the Hall of Fame displays his record-breaking home run ball with an asterisk.

That includes skipping his potential induction ceremony.

The winning bidder for the ball apparently had fans vote on a web site for what to do with the ball, and the decision was to put an asterisk on it and send it to Cooperstown.

Mike and Mike, the ESPN radio morning team, went back and forth on whether the Hall of Fame should accept the ball and display it if it has an asterisk.  Mike Greenberg took the position in favor of accepting the displaying the ball.  Mike Golic took the position that the right thing to do would be to decline the ball if it has an asterisk.

I don't completely understand the logic of not accepting the ball if it has an asterisk.  For all those who say Bonds should still be in the Hall of Fame when his time comes, they typically acknowledge that some explanation of the apparent circumstances surrounding his "breaking the record" should be included.

So why isn't that perfectly acceptable for the stupid ball?!  Take it, asterisk and all, and include the explanation there as well.  If Bonds wants to have some say in his "rebuttal" in that explanation, then that can be addressed as appropriate.  But the ball is history of some kind.  It's silly to decline it because it might hurt Barry's feelings.

General Paul Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay, has died.  Thank you for your service General, and rest in peace.  Mark Krikorian's post on The Corner at National Review Online did a marvelous job of tying together the sad news of the General's passing with another interesting link about Justice Stevens and his World War II experiences as it relates to helping to defeat the Japanese.  Krikorian's full post is as follows:

Gen. Paul Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay, that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, has died. He "had requested that there be no funeral or headstone, fearing it would give his detractors a place to protest." Detractors? Protest? He helped win the war and — oh, by the way — saved hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of lives (both American and Japanese), but the left-wingers couldn't stand the fact that he wasn't a self-hater like them. Because, as he said, "I sleep clearly every night." You go on sleeping clearly, general.

Too bad he didn't go to law school, because I'd rather have a man like Tibbets on the Supreme Court rather than Justice John Paul Stevens, who recently told an interviewer that he was "troubled" by the fact there was "so little apparent deliberation or humanitarian consideration" before deciding to kill Adm. Yamamoto in 1943 — the head of the Japanese navy and architect of the Pearl Harbor attack. Humanitarian consideration? We're supposed to wring our hands before killing an enemy commander, on a warplane, in the middle of a war? I don't follow closely the sophistries of the Supreme Court, but if this is the quality of the man's reasoning, no wonder we're in such trouble.

The only thing I would add by way of further commentary is that Justice Stevens not only expressed his concerns about the lack of humanitarian consideration in the successful operation to kill Yamamoto, but as the excerpt posted on the link above indicates, he went further in his comments to indicate those concerns were part of what drove his views of the death penalty in cases he has reviewed as a jurist.  Specifically, the NY Times story provides:

Stevens said that, partly as a result of his World War II experience, he has tried on the court to narrow the category of offenders who are eligible for the death penalty and to ensure that it is imposed fairly and accurately. He has been the most outspoken critic of the death penalty on the current court.

While I am thankful of Justice Stevens' service in helping to break enemy codes in World War II, I think Krikorian is quite right to question the quality of Stevens' reasoning as a jurist.

AN UPDATE CONSISTING OF COMMENTARY FROM MY DAD ON THE PASSING OF GENERAL TIBBETS.  My dad is old enough to recall World War II as a small boy, and passed along these thoughts relating to the news of General Tibbets' death and Mark Krikorian's comments about Tibbets:

I have never been a fan of revisionist history. I'm not sure any of us know how we would have reacted if we had been living in the context of another age. I think most people forget that it wasn't a given that we would win the war. Early on, it could have gone either way, and history books would be much different. Anyone involved is allowed to have the deepest feelings about killing, and I'm sure most all did. But I think few doubted the seriousness of the threat or what needed to be done to preserve a world that made sense. Hair-splitting in the middle of a war is an exercise in futility. Oh yes, and military personnel are not given the option picking and choosing their assignments or following orders. Rest in peace indeed.

ESPN.com updates the Martina Hingis story.  This story was posted at 2:31 p.m. Eastern time, and it now appears Hingis is denying cocaine use, despite a positive test result, and is retiring rather than get mired in the controversy.  So it looks like I was wrong about possible conflation of cocaine allegations and steroid allegations.  I hope that allegations of cocaine use are the only issue in play here, and that, if they are true, Ms. Hingis gets whatever help she may need.  I will miss watching her play and hope that she has a long, happy and fruitful retirement.

Relevant portions of the updated ESPN story:

Hingis said she was accused by "an outsource testing company" of taking cocaine during Wimbledon. She said she was "shocked and appalled" when notified that her urine sample came back positive after the loss to Granville.

"They say that cocaine increases self-confidence and creates a type of euphoria," she said in a statement. "I don't know. I only know that if I were to try to hit the ball while in any state of euphoria, it simply wouldn't work.

"I would think that it would be impossible for anyone to maintain the coordination required to play top class tennis while under the influence of drugs. And I know one other thing -- I would personally be terrified of taking drugs."

Hingis said she later underwent a privately arranged hair test which came back negative for cocaine. The official backup "B" sample test on her Wimbledon urine sample, however, tested positive for the drug.

Hingis said she hired an attorney who found "various inconsistencies" with the urine sample taken during Wimbledon.

"He is also convinced that the doping officials mishandled the process and would not be able to prove that the urine that was tested for cocaine actually came from me," she said.

Hingis said it could take years to fight her case and decided it was time to retire.

"I have no desire to spend the next several years of my life reduced to fighting against the doping officials," she said. "The fact is that it is more and more difficult for me, physically, to keep playing at the top of the game.

"And frankly, accusations such as these don't exactly provide me with motivation to even make another attempt to do so."

UPDATE:  I see from a comparison of the ESPN.com links in this post and my previous post below that they are the same - so you won't find the original, shorter story in my previous post.  I believe the substantive difference between the stories is reflected in the section posted above, which expands and clarifies what appears to have happened with regard to Ms. Hingis' retirement.

Weird.  Breitbart.com is reporting, via an AP story stamped 1:59 pm Eastern time, that Martina Hingis has DENIED allegations of cocaine use, and has also announced her retirement.  The relevant portions of the post are as follows:

ZURICH, Switzerland (AP) - Martina Hingis said Thursday she has been accused of testing positive for cocaine at Wimbledon, but she denied using the drug. She also announced her retirement from professional tennis.

"I find this accusation so horrendous, so monstrous that I've decided to confront it head on by talking to the press," she said. "My weapon on the tennis court is and always was one single thing, the game, the ingenuity on court and, for this style of tennis, there's only one performance enhancer, the love of the game."

...

WTA Tour chief executive Larry Scott said the tour had not received any official information about a positive test and "as a result we are not in a position to comment on the matter."

"However, it is important to remember that in the area of anti-doping, all players are presumed innocent until proven otherwise," Scott said.

...

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Almost simultaneously, ESPN.com is reporting, in a post credited to contributions from Reuters and AP and stamped at 1:55 pm Eastern time, that Hingis has ADMITTED to testing positive for cocaine, and announced her retirement.  Relevant portions from that story:

ZURICH, Switzerland -- Former world No. 1 Martina Hingis said on Thursday she had tested positive for cocaine during Wimbledon this year.

The 27-year-old five-time Grand Slam champion from Switzerland told a news conference she was retiring from professional tennis.

"I have tested positive but I have never taken drugs and I feel 100 percent innocent," Hingis said in a brief statement.

...

"The reason I have come out with this is because I do not want to have a fight with anti-doping authorities," Hingis said.

"Because of my age and my health problems I have also decided to retire from professional tennis."

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

For what it's worth, 660 AM WFAN, in their 2:20 pm update during Mike and the Mad Dog, reported the Breitbart / AP shortened version of the story of Hingis' denial of cocaine use and retirement.

Stay tuned.  My guess, based on the phrasing in the stories, is that Hingis may have tested positive for cocaine, and may have admitted to using cocaine.  She may also have been accused of using steroids, and perhaps tested positive for them.  Perhaps she's denying the steroid accusations.  Hard to tell from these two stories, but that's just my guess - poor editing and reporting by conflating alleged/possible cocaine use and alleged/possible steroid use.

Sad if it turns out Hingis tried steroids to help her comeback.  She was always fun to watch for her ability to work a point rather than just smash the ball so hard her opponent couldn't get it back.  Her style of game will be missed.

...to find all of my old G.I. Joe toys.  Clearly my son will need them.  Here's an excerpt that makes my head spin:

Hollywood now proposes that in a new live-action movie based on the G.I. Joe toy line, Joe's -- well, "G.I." -- identity needs to be replaced by membership in an "international force based in Brussels." The IGN Entertainment news site reports Paramount is considering replacing our "real American hero" with "Action Man," member of an "international operations team."

Paramount will simply turn Joe's name into an acronym.

The show biz newspaper Variety reports: "G.I. Joe is now a Brussels-based outfit that stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity, an international co-ed force of operatives who use hi-tech equipment to battle Cobra, an evil organization headed by a double-crossing Scottish arms dealer."

I'd also better print a hard copy of this story for the fire-safe box of "things to remember" so my son understands the history behind those G.I. Joe toys.

John Edwards' presidential campaign has apparently set up its headquarters in a swanky area of Chapel Hill, North Carolina.  Some are questioning why Edwards, another self-proclaimed "Man of the People," didn't choose a location that might bring some media coverage to the less well off that Edwards claims to champion.

In this news video posted on Breitbart.tv (and which the Drudge Report is saying the Edwards Campaign is trying to get taken down from You Tube), near the very end of the approximately 2 1/2 minute story, we get the very definition of a Freudian Slip from an Edwards staffer and UNC student, who commends Edwards for his "commitment to poverty."

Truer words were never spoken in describing the mindset of a Democrat trial lawyer presidential candidate.