Al Sharpton thinks Isaiah Thomas should apologize to black women?

Really?  Al Sharpton of Tawana Brawley, the Crown Heights riots and Freddy's Fashion Mart fame?

I was pretty much convinced that Zeke was all but beyond redemption.  But if he's somehow on Sharpton's bad side, maybe there's hope for one of the finest point guards ever to lace them up for Bob Knight yet.

Following is a message I sent to a fellow Cubs fan following the latest episode of humiliation for the Cubs.  On the off chance that any other Cubs fan might stumble across this blog, I think they might appreciate the sentiment:

had I eaten anything this morning, I think I would have thrown up by the time I read this much of the article in the Sun Times:

====================================================
Piniella pleased despite sweep

October 6, 2007
BY GORDON WITTENMYER gwittenmyer@suntimes.com

Despite the disappointment of a quick playoff exit, it's hard to imagine history judging the Cubs' 2007 season as anything but a success.

''We've done the best we possibly could,'' manager Lou Piniella said. ''Look, the amazing thing about baseball is unless you win a world championship, you're going to be disappointed. It's sad in a way, but it's reality.''

Three and out is a particularly sad ending on the heels of all the celebration and champagne the Cubs experienced after winning the National League Central nine days ago in Cincinnati.

''But to go from last place to first, to have a 19-game differential and win a division, I think you should be pleased,'' said Piniella, who took over a Cubs team that won only 66 games last season.
======================================

I suppose as a Cubs fan I should thank Lou for letting me know that winning a championship isn't on his agenda.  Saves me from thinking it might happen while he's managing the club.

Message received.  Unending misery and futility to continue as before.

Finding that silver lining....

News broke a couple of days ago that two armored car guards were shot and killed in Philadelphia during a robbery.  This morning, the update is that there has been an arrest and confession by a man named Mustafa Ali.  The linked story in the Philadelphia Daily News indicates Ali has a history of bank robberies, and has spent time in federal prison for his prior crimes.

With areas of Philadelphia becoming increasingly violent and lawless, perhaps this is nothing more than another in a long string of violent crimes in the city.

But I hope the city, state and federal authorities take a good hard look to make sure there's no connection between Ali and violent Islam in the greater Philly area.  We've already seen the Fort Dix Six from just across the Delaware River in the Cherry Hill area.  It's not too big a stretch to think there could be a reason for Mustafa Ali to want bags of cash to assist in something even more heinous than the two murders he apparently committed this week.

My initial reaction to this lawsuit by a Jets fan seeking reimbursement from the Patriots and their coach for defrauding customers is that it won't go anywhere, and certainly won't bring the plaintiff or his fellow Jets fans anything.

But it does make me wonder, given the apparent claims in the lawsuit about how the Patriots defrauded the NFL customers, whether this is simply the next warning sign for the league.  Going back to the reaction of many writers to being angry with Jets coach Eric Mangini for violating "the Coaches' Code," it doesn't seem like a big leap for some enterprising attorney to start stirring the pot by suing a team and/or the league on the basis that a particular team defrauded its own fans by failing to pursue the best coaches and/or players available on the market because of the Coaches' Code.

Again, I wouldn't expect the lawsuit to be successful, but it would another step in fan disillusionment that could undermine the overall popularity of the NFL if the perception continues to persist, and grow, that things are not on the up and up in the NFL.

Apparently this is not a spoof.  But we'll see.  Nike is about to introduce a shoe designed specifically for American Indians.  As the news story notes:

...the Air Native N7 is designed with a larger fit for the distinct foot shape of American Indians, and has a culturally specific look. It will be distributed solely to American Indians;...

Something tells me George Costanza would want the benefits of the wider toe box on the Air Native N7, along with fewer seems for irritation and an improved sock liner.  Of course, Newman would likely be the one who actually somehow obtains a pair through some shady connections down at the Post Office, leading to high comedic intrigue as George ropes Jerrry, Kramer and Elaine into helping him score a pair for himself.  They may even find a way to bring Jimmy back as a conduit to the athletic shoe world.

On a more serious note, I wonder what the reaction will be among the leftists to this product and the research behind it.  It's one thing for shoe companies to sell different shoes for men and women, but what if they are going to start doing physical testing and marketing research specifically for particular races or ethnic groups?  To some degree this likely happens now, as my guess is there are plenty of shoes that are more popular within "communities" like the world of rap and hip hop.  But I don't recall ever seeing a news item indicating that the shoe manufacturer specifically designed a product for a racial/ethnic group and was going to distribute it solely to that racial/ethnic group.

As George said to Elaine, "I don't think we're supposed to be talking about this."

A couple of interesting items on the recent episode involving the New York Jets and New England Patriots.  First,  Gregg Easterbrook opens this week's TMQ with a warning of sorts to the NFL that the whole episode could result in further revelations of shenanigans by coaching staffs, which could threaten the perceived integrity of the game.

On reading this last night, I wasn't entirely convinced that this episode could really turn into much more, or result in more widespread damage to the Patriots or the NFL than it already has.  But this morning I saw Peter King's comments on this case on SI.com, which was centered on the role of Eric Mangini for having broken "the coaches' code."  King outlines the code as follows:

Just what is this code? First, don't mess with a former colleague's players,...

Second, don't mess with a former colleague's coaches. ...

Third, don't snitch. ...

King also went through various examples of violations of each of these "rules" and reactions within the coaching fraternity to such violations, which were uniformly harsh and negative toward those who violate the "rules."

The problem I have with King's article, and the idea of the coaches' code, is from my perspective as a fan.  I want the coach of my favorite team to be doing everything he can, within the rules, to help the team win and bring home a championship.

But if what King writes is in fact reflective of the mind set of the coaches (at least in the NFL, from which his examples are drawn), then I start to wonder whether I want my favorite team to win more than the head coach does.  I mean, if the head coach won't go all out in his role with a new team to try to get available coaches or players that may help them win, because he is still loyal to a coach he used to work for or with, then what should I as a fan think about that coach's commitment to my favorite team first and foremost?

If what King writes is accurate, there is a whole secondary level of considerations being made by teams and coaches based on relationships within the coaching fraternity, and not based on the what as a fan I want the bottom line criteria to be:  will this move help improve the team and possibly help win a championship?  Instead, King cites Bill Parcells with approval for openly disavowing any interest in signing Adam Vinatieri, former placekicker for the Patriots, because of Parcells' connection with Belichick.

If I were a Cowboys fan, and knew the team needed a kicker, or simply that signing Vinatieri would improve the Cowboys, I wouldn't be too happy that the head coach doesn't want to do that because it would upset his personal friendship with a former assistant and violate the coaches' code.

Which brings me back around to thinking about Easterbrook's piece and whether I should be even more skeptical of the underlying mechanisms at play within leagues like the NFL.  Easterbrook's concern is more with the broader notion of league integrity and how that may be tarnished if more revelations come out about teams violating rules like the Patriots have.  My concern is somewhat secondary, but perhaps could be a more long-lasting problem if fans start to wonder if coaches are more committed to the teams they lead or to their friends within the coaching community.

Michelle Malkin pointed out another of the growing connections between felonious fundraiser Norman Hsu and the Clinton presidential campaign.  But what wound up being more interesting, and amusing, was the item linked at the bottom of Malkin's, with further background on Mrs. Clinton's campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle.

By way of background, Jonah Goldberg and others rightly derided claims floated last week that Mrs. Clinton was not actually the driving force behind the failed health care reform legislation of 1994.  As Goldberg commented on Friday in The Corner at National Review Online:

It turns out that Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan was never her plan at all. Those 8 trillion articles, speeches and books we've all seen since 1993? Meaningless! She was merely the saleswoman for "her husband's plan." Let's just assume that this is actually accurate, isn't it just a little funny that this case is only being made a decade and a half after the fact?

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."

I'm really not looking forward to another Clinton presidency and their holiday from reality.  No doubt if anyone from the campaign is ever questioned on this, all the emphasis will shift to the words "for me" as it is explained that Mrs. Doyle's personal impression of whose "thing" it was notwithstanding, the prior health care reform plan was always Bill Clinton's plan.  And we've always been at war with Eastasia...

Well, that didn't take long.  Now the guy who called the cops on OJ Simpson's armed break-in to "recover" some football memorabilia is reportedly "on Oj's side."  From the story:

"I want this thing to go away. I have health problems," said Alfred Beardsley, the collector who told police on Thursday that Simpson and several other men stormed a Las Vegas hotel room and stole memorabilia at gunpoint.

Exit question:  Is the victim this good with crafting statements on his own, or is he getting help from a professional PR type?

In fairness to OJ, once you've already killed two people and gotten away with it, it is at least plausible that you would not have to pull a gun in order to have some football memorabilia returned.  So while the Juice's quote, "It wasn't a robbery. They said `Take your stuff and go.'" struck me as odd at first, after thinking about what I might do if confronted by a man who is known to have committed two murders tells me he would like some photographs that used to be his.  If even a broken clock is right twice a day, this could be that rare instance where OJ's words at least are as close as he is capable of telling the truth.

Michael Medved comments on reports that Disney is not releasing The Path to 9/11 on DVD in part due to fear that it would harm Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.  The video apparently gives viewers a pretty good picture of the Clinton Administration's ineptitude and failure to act in response to various terrorist attacks throughout their 8 year holiday from history.  Seems to me a good forensic accountant could determine the approximate forgone Disney profit so the FEC could ding Disney for a corresponding campaign contribution.  Or if we really want to make things interesting, shouldn't we be encouraging all the class action lawyers who follow the Bill Lerach playbook to sue Disney for walking away from profits for its shareholders?

Having loosely followed the online donnybrook surrounding The New Republic's publication of a series of stories by a soldier under the pen name of "Scott Thomas," who eventually came to be revealed as Scott Thomas Beauchamp, an Army private married, somewhat recently and with a curious history, to a fact checker with The New Republic, I think in the end this whole episode will be irrelevant to the continuing ability of The New Republic to retain readers, either to its print edition or to its online version.

Various online writers such as Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard, Michelle Malkin at Hot Air, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, the bloggers at Ace of Spades, and Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee have done impressive work in documenting the veracity problems with Beauchamp and TNR in this episode.  At this point, based on the analyses and discussion provided by the noted sources, among others, it seems pretty clear that TNR ran Beauchamp's false stories with little to no fact-checking because they told a story that was consistent with the anti-war, anti-Bush political worldview of the TNR editors.  But more importantly, I think Beauchamp's false stories were consistent with the anti-war, anti-Bush political worldview of the TNR readers.

While I think Goldfarb, Malkin, Owens and others were right to be skeptical about Beauchamp's stories, and right to do the necessary legwork to follow up on them to show just how crooked the entire episode was, I am not sure it matters at all in the end.  TNR's readers don't care what The Weekly Standard, Michelle Malkin and Hot Air, or Bob Owens have to say about the validity of TNR's articles.  This is all part of the increasing divide in media sources and consumers I wrote about the other day.  As someone who is more likely to believe Goldfarb, Malkin and Owens, I have never read TNR, and I am unlikely to do so in the future.

But on the flip side, my guess is that TNR's readers don't put much stock in writers like Goldfarb, Malkin and Owens, so they don't care if these writers expose the lies in TNR's articles.  It's all just the media/information market at work.  Some consumers will choose to read the news and commentary sources coming from the right, others will choose to read the news and commentary sources coming from the left.  Exposing TNR's lies gives comfort to readers on the right, but doesn't change in any the faith placed in TNR by the readers on the left.

How often have we seen references from left-leaning news and commentary sources to the Bush Administration getting us out of the Kyoto environmental treaty?  As the right-leaning bloggers continue correctly to point out, the truth is completely at odds with this description of the world, as the Senate voted 95-0 during Bill Clinton's presidency that it would never enter into an environmental treaty like Kyoto.  So Clinton never submitted the treaty to the Senate for confirmation.  We have never been a party to the Kyoto treaty.  But this doesn't stop those on the left from harping on Bush for pulling us out of Kyoto.

It's often said that "facts are stubborn things."  Perhaps that is still true.  But it appears to also be true in the ongoing media transformation taking place that facts can be irrelevant things.  Readers are looking for confirmation as much as information.  And at least in the political realm, when those two notions are at odds, some people are more likely to be content with confirmation, regardless of the facts.

Two very different pieces this morning made me think of something I believe James Lileks has referred to on multiple occasions as the growing tendency of those with opposing political views to have different sources of information when it comes to news and opinion.  Lileks I believe had a good phrase to describe this (something along the lines of "asymmetrical sources of information" or "orthogonal sources of information" - unfortunately I cannot seem to find a linked "Bleat" or "Screed" that defines the concept so I can link to his reference.  In any event, my recollection of his writings on this is that conservatives and liberals have increasingly come to rely on and use distinctly separate sources of news gathering outlets when it comes to political news, foreign affairs, and the like.

Thus, speaking in broadly general terms, for conservatives and libertarians, internet sites such as Townhall, National Review Online, The Weekly Standard, Powerline, and the like are among those that are seen as reputable and trustworthy.  Similarly, liberals  are more likely to obtain their political news and opinion from Daily Kos, Glenn Greenwald, The New Republic, etc.  So along with political division, the readership of various sources of news has apparently tended to become increasingly polarized.

On the National Review Online home page this morning, Victor Davis Hanson wrote a short piece centered on asking what the response will be among war opponents in the event of another terrorist attack in the U.S.  Professor Hanson's comments add to the long line of online commentary addressing the deep disconnect between supporters of the war efforts against radical Islamists and those who oppose such efforts.  Hanson rightly points out that there is a difference between thinking that the failure of the radical Islamists to have carried out another attack like that of 9/11 on U.S. soil in the past 6 years is not the same thing as proof that such terrorists pose no threat or that we have somehow obtained long-lasting peace.  Moreover, he is addressing this deep divide between those who believe it is necessary to wage war against radical Islamists, and those who do not.

In a very different context, Hugh Hewitt writes this morning about the continuing developments in the Norman Hsu / Hillary Clinton fundraising story.  Mr. Hsu was apparently a wanted felon, avoiding a conviction in California, while somehow raising and donating large sums of money to Democrat politicians over the past 10-15 years.  Hewitt notes a story from the Los Angeles Times this morning that indicates Mrs. Clinton has decided to return (to whom it is unclear) the funds donated to her campaign by Mr. Hsu, while at the same time keeping campaign funds bundled by Mr. Hsu from other, alleged, donors.  Writes Hewittt:

If the dirty money had been funnelled to a GOP candidate, would the MSM take Howard Wolfson's stonewall and bury it on the jump? 

Every contribution Hsu bundled and sent on to Hillary is dirty, and will paint a map for the press --if it was interested-- of who Hsu is and what he was attempting to gain.  If one or more of his bundled contributions come from other felons or con artists, we'd get a picture of one part of Hillary's core support team.

But she is a Clinton after all, so the MSM won't be pushing for the names anytime soon.

But what about public corruption officials at DOJ and the FEC?

The question of "MSM" non-interest in the story ties into the idea of how different news sources are likely to treat this latest Clinton fundraising scandal.  And it will come as no surprise to anyone that outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. will all find a way to ignore this story as much as possible, and when they do cover it, do so in a way that is as favorable as possible to Mrs. Clinton.  Similarly, news sources like Hotair.com, The Weekly Standard, National Review Online and Pajamas Media will likely continue to probe for the relevant information on the bundled donors.

The more interesting question could be whether officials at DOJ and the FEC will pursue this matter.  However, in thinking about this question, the issue of the continuing political divide needs to be considered.  At a common sense level, it is reasonable to conclude that potential political corruption should be thoroughly investigated and anyone convicted treated accordingly.

But with the history of the Clinton and Bush II presidencies, and the behavior of the political opposition in each case serving to further exploit the political divide, the most likely outcome of a thorough investigation by the Department of Justice or Federal Election Commission that leads to corruption charges against the Clinton campaign would be that liberals would essentially ignore the entire matter as a political witch hunt in an effort to destroy her candidacy, while conservatives would simply add this to the list of Clinton corruption issues and take it as an article of faith that the Clintons cannot be trusted for anything.

Sadly, it is hard to see how, if at all, the left/right divide can be improved given the current situation.  The threat of radical Islamists is not going away any time soon, but will be attributed by leftists to George Bush and the Republicans forever after.  And if Mrs. Clinton is elected president, conservatives will never believe or trust her.

I wish that presidential politics were like Henry Kissinger's famous observation:

University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.

But so long as the federal government continues to be a behemoth with a massive budget, and the United States is the preeminent nation in the world when it comes to advancing freedom and Western Civilization, it seems to be our fate that we will have to endure politicians, and political parties, that continue to trade in distrust and division in attempt to be in control of the federal government.

National Review's Media Blog* notes that the BBC is making a television drama about Margaret Thatcher in which the writers are proposing a scene with a young Mrs. Thatcher yelling "F*&$ing establishment!"

Friends and family of Mrs. Thatcher have lodged complaints and indicated that Mrs. Thatcher did not use such language, even with the pressures of her role as Prime Minister.

Call me crazy, but while the BBC claims it is cutting the scene, and that it is making a program that will portray Mrs. Thatcher in a positive light, when I see these claims are being made by the BBC's "controller of fiction," I have a hard time believing Mrs. Thatcher will get a fair shake.

* Townhall's Hyperlink Manager is balking again - I will provide a link to the cited posted when the software is working again.

Gregg Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback column, now on ESPN.com's Page 2, cites a recent report from the Congressional Research Service indicating that each of former Presidents Carter, Bush and Clinton have requested full pension payments of $191,000 each, despite their own personal wealth and continuing significant earnings through writing and speaking.

Small potatoes in the scheme of things when the overall federal budget is as bloated as it is.  But symptomatic of the government mindset that none of these exorbitantly wealthy men have the common sense and good grace to simply decline a government pension.

Easterbrook really hits it out of the park on the $79,000 Clinton is requesting for phone service:

To top it off, Clinton requested $79,000 for telephone service. It is impossible, physically impossible, to spend $79,000 on telephones! If Clinton had a 10-cents-a-minute long-distance plan, he could talk long-distance 24 hours a day, 365 days per year -- and you can imagine Clinton doing this -- yet fail to burn through $79,000. The most expensive package offered by Verizon Wireless is an international super-phone with unlimited texting and four hours of talk time daily; this sells for about $3,000 per year. Clinton could purchase two dozen of the most expensive cell accounts available in the United States for the tax-subsidized telephone budget he requested. Is Clinton's $79,000 phone request fraud, or is Clinton planning to use the money to buy phones for staffers working on his private speaking business?

Glenn Reynolds linked to a posting by Theodore Dalrymple on recent news reports that hospital staff in Scotland have been ordered not to have lunch at their desks during the upcoming Ramadan season for fear of offending Muslims who are fasting during that time.

Reynolds notes that Dalrymple's comments are apparently based on incorrect media reports.

Really?

Dalrymple notes the following:

Glasgow’s public hospitals have decreed that henceforth no staff may eat lunch at their desks or in their offices during the holy month of Ramadan, so that fasting Muslims shall not be offended by the sight or smell of their food. Vending machines will also disappear from the premises during that period.

The Lothian hospital press release counters (?) with the following:

There is no question - despite reports in the national and local media - that staff in NHS Lothian have been ordered not to eat at their desks for fear of offending Muslim colleagues. Nor is there any question that NHS Lothian will be moving vending machines.

So according to both Dalrymple and the hospital, staff have been ordered not to eat lunch at their desks during Ramadan.  And the only apparent disagreement between Dalrymple's comment and the hospital's press release is the degree to which the vending machines may be moved.  And even that may not be a disagreement.  Dalrymple states the vending machines will disappear from the premises.  The hospital aknowledges the vending machines will be moved.  It seems reasonable to conclude that, in effect, the vending machines will have disappeared from public / staff view during Ramadan.

To the extent there have been news reports that lunch trolley routes have been ordered to be changed during Ramadan, or that staff have been ordered not to schedule working lunches during Ramadan, the hospital's press release does indicate that these were merely suggestions and not set forth as official policy.

But in any event, the central items cited by Dalrymple have in fact been confirmed by the Lothian hospital.  I hope that Prof. Reynolds acknowledges this.