About Us

Name: Ed Lilly
Biography
Name: Disgruntled in NY
Email: disgruntled.blogger1@gmail.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

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

As close to a correction as we're likely to see

I suppose this is about as close as the mainstream media ever gets to apologizing for lying about a Republican presidential candidate:

Rubin says in the Huffington Post that he provided "a full question and a full answer. Nothing was left out of the question or the answer. Nothing is taken out of context."

I think it was a mistake for Rubin not to have released both portions at once. It's not that McCain's second answer totally undercuts the first, but it certainly qualifies it and provides a fuller picture. I don't think Rubin was trying to be intentionally misleading, but he gave the media only part of the story.


Of course, this comes not from the editorial board of the Washington Post, or as an official “correction” of James P. Rubin’s lies about Sen. McCain.  Instead it’s buried near the end of a media column by Howard Kurtz.

Pathetic.  Doesn’t Rubin’s own statement, still refusing to acknowledge the full context of McCain’s comments, pretty much negate Kurtz’s Pollyanna-like view that Rubin wasn’t trying to be intentionally misleading BY giving only part of the story?

I guess you don’t need to have any ability to think logically to write a column for the Washington Post.  Especially when it may mean having to reach obvious conclusions about the lack of character of political comrades.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Isn't this how Nightline started?

We have now hit Day 4 with no apology or correction from the Washington Post editors to address James P. Rubin's lies in his op-ed of May 16.

Some McCain campaign staffer should probably have a "Truth Held Hostage" ticker put on the campaign website to keep track of the Post's irresponsibility.

My guess is that if someone tried to sell this to Sen. McCain as an attack on his honor and integrity, it may actually get his attention.  Seems like that's about the only kind of unacceptable personal attack he recognizes.  But as it's coming from his beloved mainstream media and not another Republican, I can see how he's having trouble recognizing it.

Hmmm, maybe if it was pitched to McCain as "McCain's Integrity Held Hostage".....

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

WaPo Fails to Apologize - Day 3

Just checked in this morning with the Washington Post to see if they have managed to stir themselves to issue an apology yet for Jamie Rubin's lies in his op-ed in last Friday's paper.  Still nothing.  Though they did manage to get one of their sports writers to correct an attribution for a quote by an NBC analyst and former jockey on whether he had ever seen a thoroughbred racehorse accelerate as fast as Big Brown did in the Preakness this weekend.  One can only imagine the volume of e-mail and telephone responses that must have poured in demanding the record be set straight.  It's probably why the tubes of the internets were so slow from the time the original story went online and it was finally corrected.

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

Is the NFL headed toward a fall like the NBA's post-Jordan years?

The Bill Belichick / New England Patriots "Spy-aquiddick" affair involving the stealing of the opposing team's signals and play calls through the use of sideline cameras has been slowly working itself out since last fall.  There are a couple of very interesting articles up this morning on this topic.  First, Geoffrey Hunt at The American Thinker pooh-poohs Sen. Arlen Specter's attempt to get a Congressional investigation going to look more deeply into what in the world Belichick and his staff have been up to for at least the past 8 years.  I have some sympathy for his position from the standpoint of wondering whether this is really something we need to throw taxpayer money at, in much the same way I have never been much of a fan of the ongoing steroid/perjury investigation in Northern California and surrounding Barry Bonds.

But reading through Gregg Easterbrook's latest piece on ESPN.com, I think Easterbrook clearly has the better argument that something is indeed very rotten in Bill Belichick's football operations, and the NFL needs to do a lot more to address this before fan reaction and disaffection has a chance to get a lot worse.  A congressional investigation may not be the way to go, but true transparency and complete disclosure seem to be the best way to get past this episode, along with some type of truly significant penalty for Belichick and his staff.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mike & Mike, and Mike, with Predictions Sure to Go Wrong

ESPN’s Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic have a recurring called “Predictions Sure to Go Wrong.”  It is usually an amusing segment where they predict the outcomes of future sporting events, which makes sense as they host a sports radio talk show during morning drive time.

While I don’t get to listen to Mike & Mike very much anymore (for some reason the local radio station that used to be an ESPN affiliate switched format a few months ago), I was reminded of their segments when I read through Michael Goldfarb’s (hey, another Mike!) comment at The Weekly Standard’s blog on an apparent “controversy” involving former Clinton Administration official Jamie Rubin and presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain.  Rubin wrote a column in Friday’s Washington Post accusing McCain of hypocrisy and saying that McCain’s position with regard to meeting with terrorists such as Hamas is the same as presumptive Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama’s, so it’s unfair for everyone to think that only Sen. Obama and his fellow Democrats are appeasers.

In a somewhat surprising turn of events, the mainstream media actually did their jobs and corrected Rubin’s editorial lies.  Of course, the media only did so after having had the relevant facts put in front of them by Sen. McCain’s campaign.  But still, at least the truth did eventually make it out.

So where does the story go from here, if anywhere?  Here’s Goldfarb's post:


CNN Reports: Jamie Rubin Lied

Here's the transcript:


    CNN'S DANA BASH: "You remember these interviews were done shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian elections. Lou, the McCain campaign just in the past couple of hours, found a link to more of Jamie Rubin's interview from back then. In it, I'll read you a quote from the rest of or at least more of the interview, In that quote Sen. McCain says, 'I think part of the relationship will be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.' Now the McCain campaign, as you can image, says that this is proof that Senator McCain has been consistent all along, and I should tell you that CNN asked Jamie Rubin earlier today for the rest of the interview or at least for a transcript and he said he didn't have it. He said he only had this particular quote he said that was e-mailed to him."

    CNN'S LOU DOBBS: "Well that seems, certainly to, as you report, to substantiate precisely what Senator McCain is saying."


Yes, it does seem to substantiate precisely what Senator McCain is saying. Rubin initially claimed that McCain "was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government." But the full transcript shows that any business with Hamas was contingent on Hamas meeting certain conditions, i.e. renouncing violence and recognizing Israel's right to exist. This is no different than his position today.

Rubin now offers a pathetic defense of his smear at the Huffington Post, complete with the exculpatory response from McCain that engagement would depend on Hamas, not the United States. But does anyone believe that he had not seen the full transcript before writing his piece in the Post? Or that the paper's editors would have allowed him to publish this smear if they'd seen the full transcript themselves? The Post got hoodwinked, and they must be furious. It's hard to imagine they don't rebuke Rubin with a prominent correction in tomorrow's paper.


Let's focus on this last (highlighted) part.  A prominent correction in tomorrow’s paper?  Really?  Should we truly expect the Washington Post editorial board to be so outraged by Rubin’s antics that they will address it in the way Goldfarb anticipates?

Color me skeptical.  So, I figured I’d fire up the tubes of the internets and see what the Washington Post has to say in today’s (Goldfarb’s tomorrow’s) paper.

Naturally, I am as shocked, shocked as Casablanca’s Captain Renault to find that the Post has not followed through in the manner predicted by Goldfarb.  Here are today's corrections, in full:


· A listing in the May 16 Weekend section incorrectly said that a program at the Arlington Planetarium is for ages 7 and older. "Larry, Cat in Space" is for ages 2 and older. Also, admission is $3, not $2.50. For seniors and children 12 and younger, it is $2, not $1.50.

· The Working item in the May 15 Business section mischaracterized Charmaine Ruppolt's commute. She bicycles to Washington from Alexandria, not Arlington. Also, she said she skips about three weeks of bike commuting a year because of vacations and bad weather, not simply because of weather.

· The Alexandria-Arlington Community Events section on May 15 incorrectly said that the Del Ray House and Garden Tour's sponsor is Del Ray Artisans. It is Del Ray Citizens Association. Tickets for today's event are available at A Show of Hands and Del Ray Farmers Market.

· The nutritional analysis for the Honey Double Gingerbread recipe in the May 14 Food section gave an incorrect amount of fiber. It is 0 grams, not 26 grams.

· A May 13 Health-section item about chocolate and pregnancy incorrectly said researchers tested women's blood in their first and second trimesters. The tests were done in the first and third trimesters.


Pretty hard hitting factual errors, no doubt.  And I can see where it was much more important for the editors at the Post to make sure the correct ticket prices for “Larry, Cat in Space” make it to their readers.  After all, there’s only so much newspaper space and bandwidth in the world.  Tough decisions have to be made in allocating resources.

I guess it wasn't so hard to imagine not rebuking Rubin's lies after all.


UPDATE:  As of Sunday morning, it appears that the Washington Post (at least in their online edition) has still failed to issue a correction to Rubin's lies about Sen. McCain.  Good luck to Sen. McCain in his ongoing love affair with the mainstream media.

SECOND UPDATE:  Just to make sure, I sent the links to Mr. Goldfarb's and my blog posts to the corrections@washpost.com e-mail address.  I won't hold my breath waiting for the correction.

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

Say what you will about Obama and appeasement...

... but you have to admit that he's done what he probably intended, which is to get all of the focus at this point on an argument between himself and President Bush, who obviously isn't Mr. Popularity right now.  So Obama kicks a sitting president when he's down in order to bolster his campaign and his image as the inevitable Democrat candidate.  At the same time, he has rendered Clinton's latest primary victory completely irrelevant in terms of media coverage and sucked all the air from the Democrats' room, in a rather surprising turn of the tables on the Clintons as that was a frequent complaint about President Clinton when he tended to leave no room on the liberal side of the aisle for anyone but himself.

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

Pork chops and applesauce, ok, but grape jelly?

There are a few slightly unusual foods in any family's repertoire.  One of my favorite breakfasts as a kid was cinnamon toast and hot cocoa.  My sister and I would dip the toast in our cocoa and devour the soggy toast.  I have no idea how that became a breakfast hit for us, and I have never met anyone else who thinks it sounds good.  My kids still won't even agree to try it.

Another odd food item that I never questioned is putting grape jelly on the top of a grilled cheese sandwich.  As my kids now know, my dad (Papa) did not like cheese as a boy.  So to get him to eat a grilled cheese sandwich, his mother (Nana) put grape jelly on the top after she grilled the sandwich.  My guess is it was some of her homemade grape jelly which all the grandchildren hoarded as one of our special Christmas gifts.  In any event, my dad learned to like grilled cheese sandwiches, and eventually cheese.  But more importantly, he passed on the tradition of putting grape jelly on top of a grilled cheese sandwich.  I was probably in college before I realized that the rest of the world didn't eat them that way.

Tonight at dinner, I grilled some pork chops that had been marinating in a sauce my lovely wife made for some kabobs that we grilled on Mother's Day.  I forgot to baste the chicken kabobs with the extra marinade, so I figured I would throw some pork chops in so it wouldn't got to waste.

Of course, grilling dinner meant having to face the now familiar complaint from our 7 year old that she HATES things that are grilled.  I'm not sure why she keeps pointing this out to me, because it hasn't changed the likelihood of whether something will be cooked on the grill, and she winds up eating it when we tell her the alternative is for her to simply be hungry and stop complaining about it.  So onto the grill went the pork chops.

Which then brought the added complaint from Miss I-Hate-Grilled-Food that she also hates pork.  And of course, that really isn't going to get her very far, as she typically is a good eater when we have things like pork roast.

Well, tonight she decided to try to hold out on eating grilled pork chops.  Admittedly, I probably overcooked them a little.  I'm funny about not wanting my pork on the medium rare side.  Flavor was good with the marinade, but the chops were a touch toward the dry side.

After our daughter finished everything else on her plate, we had to figure out an approach to getting her to eat at least some of her pork chop.  My lovely wife thought that applesauce would be perfect.  A little applesauce, a little pork chop, all in one delicious bite.  It worked well for her, as she made her way quickly through her pork, and then shared some of the applesauce with our 4 year old, who was delighted to make little pork chop and applesauce sandwiches and tell us how delicious it was.

No such luck with our daughter, who has never been a huge applesauce fan.

So what did my wife suggest?  Grape jelly.  Just dip a bite and eat it.  If you like it on a grilled cheese, it should work for a marinaded pork chop, too, she said.

Somewhat surprisingly, our daughter tried it.  Apparently the first bite tasted pretty good.  But by the second bite, she was done with that taste combination.

At that point, she asked for something a little more reliable, ketchup, and finished her pork chop, leaving her small pile of grape jelly undisturbed for the rest of the meal.

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