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

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

Newman lives! Or does he?

While sending a much overdue Mother's Day gift yesterday (sorry again, Mom!) with my daughter, I laughed out loud at a hand-written sign posted on one of the bulletin boards at our local post office.  Perhaps as part of the USPS effort to be helpful to consumers, and perhaps as part of some of the legislation relating to consumers' ability to take their names off telemarketing and mailing lists, the sign had 2 pieces of information.  On the top of the page was an address where people could send letters to have their removed from credit card solicitation mailing lists.  Probably a good thing all in all.

The bottom portion of the page provided an address where one may send a letter to have his or her name removed from "so-called junk mail" lists.

So-called?  Well, as we all know:


Well, there really is no junk-mail...well, everybody wants to get a check or a birthday card, but it takes just as much man-power to deliver it as their precious little greeting cards...
As far as I know, there has been no word on a response from Postmaster General Henry Atkins to this potential breach of protocol here in small town New Jersey.  Though someone had taken a pencil and lined through the still readable information on taking your name off the list....

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

Finally a GOOD idea from Massachusetts

In the spirit of true bipartisanship, I think that were I in the Massachusetts state legislature, I would have no problem casting a vote for the plan outlined by Prof. Paul Caron at his taxprof blog (h/t Instapundit):

Massachusetts lawmakers desperate for additional revenue are eyeing the endowments of deep-pocketed private colleges to bolster the state's coffers by more than $1 billion a year, asserting that the schools' rising fortunes undercut their nonprofit status.

Legislators have asked state finance officials to study a plan that would impose a 2.5% annual assessment on colleges with endowments over $1 billion, an amount now exceeded by nine Massachusetts institutions.


Now, if only we could Barack Obama's pastor to recognize this type of scenario as a true instance of chickens coming home to roost, we'd be getting somewhere.


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

There's more than corn in Indiana

Or so the catchy tune promoting my native state taught me years ago.  Turns out, it may not be only Hoosiers who take this view.  Here's a description from Rashawn Biddle of the American Spectator that I never thought I would hear applied to the place of my birth (h/t Instapundit):

"The biggest mistake by Clinton was in presuming that Indiana was like just another Rust Belt state. The reality is that it is a microcosm of the entire nation, with the almost all the same socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. In some ways, its combination of rural and urban gives it more of a resemblance to nearby Illinois or New York than Ohio or Iowa. "

Unfortunately for those who are tied up in party politics, my understanding is that President Bush's good friend Mitch Daniels hasn't exactly won the hearts and minds of Hoosier Republicans.  Not sure what, if anything, that means for the fall elections, but there it is.

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

Crossover voting, open primaries, and the "Limbaugh Effect": One voter's tale

My lovely wife, a lifelong Democrat, is having a tough time of it with the current primary battle.  As a conservative who has never been much for party politics, I had never participated in a primary election before this year.  When the New Jersey primary rolled around (and I have already forgotten when it was) Romney and McCain were still the main contenders for the Republican nomination.

Because New Jersey allows anyone to declare a party at the polling station, my wife requested that I vote in the Republican primary and cast a ballot for Mitt Romney.  Being a good husband, and not really having a strong objection to Romney, I agreed to vote for him.  And for what it's worth, not long after my vote was cast, Romney dropped out of the race.  My record of backing long shots continues.

Still, did my beautiful bride make this suggestion because she wanted Romney to be a nominee or the president?  No.  She's still leaning toward Clinton as her candidate of choice, but in ranking the four leading contenders at the time of the NJ primary, she put McCain as her least favorite choice.  So she wanted me to vote for Romney to prevent McCain from getting the nomination.  Thus, she sought to manipulate the other party's nomination process.

So how did my wonderful wife react to my lifelong Republican father's crossover vote for Obama in Indiana's primary yesterday?

She decided this morning that it was ethically wrong for him to have done this, and that he should let the party members decide who the nominee will be.

When I reminded her of her own impassioned plea for me to do exactly the same thing, but in the Republican primary, she of course decided that was somehow different.

"You're SO a Republican," she explained.

"No, I'm a conservative, but I'm NOT a Republican," I pointed out.

I think she realized she wasn't going to get very far trying to parse a distinction that would sway me, but it didn't make her any happier with the thought of Republicans crossing over and mucking around in the Democrat primaries.

But it's an interesting question.  Apparently my mother, also a long-time Republican voter, declined the opportunity to vote in the Democrat primary, and instead cast a ballot for Huckabee.  She presumably thought it would be wrong to vote in the other party's primary.

Clearly, my father sees it differently, and I essentially agree with him in practice.  My own reasoning is probably more cynical than his, in that I figure there's no ethics in politics anyway, so it's silly to cite a moral or ethical prohibition against such type of scheming with one's vote.  His view was a more pragmatic one, seeking to put an end to the Clinton era once and for all by supporting a candidate who at least talks the talk of trying to bring people together to solve the country's problems.  Of course, he's also enough of a realist to not have very high expectations that, should Obama actually take office, he will deliver anything near the unity and healing he has touted in the primaries.

And for what it's worth, in talking to my father this morning, he indicated that he thinks there must have been a huge crossover vote in the Democrat primary in my hometown county.  He must have read the local papers already this morning, because he cited the following general numbers to indicate his point:

2004 presidential primary:  23,000 total votes / 15,000 Republican / 8,000 Democrat
2008 presidential primary:  43,500 total votes / 16,500 Republican / 27,000 Democrat

It's hard to know how much of the increase in turnout for the Democrat race is due to young, first-time voters and just generally higher interest, and how much may be Republicans crossing over.  But the county as a whole has voted consistently Republican as far back as I can remember, so it would be hard to believe that in the last four years there has somehow been a demographic and/or political shift of such significance that it took a predominantly Republican county to an overwhelmingly Democrat one.  Should be interesting to see what the vote totals show in the general election by way of comparison.

As for my wife's concern with crossover votes?  I keep trying to tell her it's up to the parties to make the rules.  If they want to only allow party members to vote and prevent voter shenanigans, they better change the rules rather than somehow try to deny human nature.


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

Where have you gone, Gale Sayers?

Actually, I know where Gale Sayers has gone.  Unfortunately, da Bears are still stuck with the buffoonish Cedric Benson at running back rather than a classier, more exemplary type of person such as Sayers or the late, great Walter Payton.  Why is Benson a buffoon?  Well, aside from his completely uninspiring on-field performance, we get the latest on the hard work he's been doing in the off-season to justify his multi-million dollar salary:

Chicago Bears running back Cedric Benson failed a sobriety test while operating a 30-foot boat, then resisted arrest before being hit with pepper spray and dragged ashore by officers.

If Benson were to never play another down for da Bears it would be ok by me.  Unfortunately, the brain trust at Halas Hall doesn't exactly have a great track record to fall back on in providing confidence that they understand how to put together a competitive offensive scheme and/or personnel, so the only upside to dumping Benson would be the satisfaction of ditching a bad character guy who sets a terrible example for young fans.

Guess I better enjoy this brief portion of the early baseball season while the Cubs have not yet been mathematically eliminated from winning the division.  August, and reality, will be here soon enough.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'm not holding my breath waiting for Universities to divest themselves from this source of funding

Perhaps a forward thinking approach to university evaluations by magazines like U.S. News and World Report would include a requirement that the universities provide transparency in disclosing the sources and amounts of all financial gifts, grants, endowments, etc., and universities should also have an office that has complete records, freely available for review online by those who may be interested, that details all correspondence, notes to the file, and program evaluations for the various projects that are funded by these gifts, grants and endowments so that the “buying public” knows exactly what kind of environment their high school graduate may expect when they get to campus.

What prompts such a sweeping suggestion of reform and full disclosure from our higher education system?  Here’s the background from The Australian (h/t Instapundit):


THE cheque from the Saudi Government for $360,000 was enclosed in an envelope.
It was a donation, a gift, a part payment to subsidise the construction of a building that would become Sydney's Muslim heartbeat: Lakemba mosque. More than 35 years after Sydney cleric Khalil Shami received the cheque, he insists it came with no strings attached. But while the cheque had no tangible conditions in the form of written instructions or binding contracts, the cleric received a message from his donors several months after depositing it.

"They said: 'Please, can you mention the tragedy of the Palestinian people and what's happened to them in your sermon?"' Shami tells Inquirer. "Which is really a very noble cause, a very noble cause, I couldn't see a negative in their request."

The message Shami received from Riyadh brings into question the influence petro-dollars can have on their recipients, whether the money is bankrolling a religious centre, a clerical allowance or Queensland's Griffith University, which was exposed by The Australian last month for seeking a $1.37million Saudi grant, of which $100,000 was received, and offering to keep elements of the deal a secret.

The Saudi Government - largely through its embassy - is believed to have funnelled at least $120 million into Australia since the 1970s to propagate hardline Islam, bankroll radical clerics and build mosques, schools and charitable organisations.

But the Saudi cash that has flowed into Australia, that also allegedly has paid the allowance of hardline Canberra cleric Mohammed Swaiti, who has publicly praised jihadists, is dwarfed by the $90 billion Riyadh is believed to have pumped into promoting Islamic fundamentalism internationally.


Ninety.  Billion.  Dollars.  So how much have American universities received?  What has been funded by it?  Who are the professors and staffers who have applied for and received grants from the Saudis?  What kind of academic work have those people done with that money?  Just a few of the many, many questions that need to be asked and answered.

I’m not sure I follow Daniel Pipes’ argument here:


US-based Middle East expert and author Daniel Pipes says it is wrong to presume that all academics would follow their donor's line merely to keep the stream of funds rolling.

"Academics have a distinct point of view and are not about to be bought and change their point of view for any sum of money," he tells Inquirer. "But they are willing to shape their work and their views. So you can't buy them but you can rent them. So someone who might have been inclined to ask tough questions will do something else. It's subtle. It's not like the Saudis come to town to buy up academics who grovel before them, as was the case with Griffith University."

Last month, Britain's MI5 director-general Jonathan Evans reportedly told his Government that the Saudi Government's multimillion-dollar donations to universities, along with other funds from Muslim organisations in countries such as Pakistan, had led to a "dangerous increase in the spread of extremism in leading university campuses".

You can’t buy them but you can rent them?  They won’t change their point of view, but they will stop asking tough questions?  Sounds to me like it, contra Mr. Pipes, it is in fact entirely correct to presume that academics who are receiving significant funding from the Saudis are in fact following the Saudis’ line in order to keep the funds rolling.  I understand that Pipes has probably forgotten more about terrorism than I may ever know, but if he is somehow trying to argue that we should still trust American academics who are getting funding from the Saudis, I think he’s about as wrong as can be, and he’ll need to expand significantly on these comments to convince me otherwise.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

As Emily Litella would say, "Never mind...."

About that urgent need for $775 million for the UN to help with the impending food crisis, here's the latest from Fox News:

 Just weeks before it announced the onset of a global food crisis and the urgent need for donors to provide at least $775 million in additional funding, the World Food Program was sitting on a cash and near-cash stockpile of more than $1.22 billion.

H/T Instapundit.

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

When worlds collide...

I'm waiting for a return phone call on a document review project that was supposed to come at 12:30 (we'll see), the kids and I just finished lunch, so I figure I'll turn on a kid show to get them settled for a few minutes.

Turning on the tv and cable box, the default channel on startup is channel 8, which I think is a Comcast produced channel.

It's apparently time for "Daily Cafe," which must be some kind of interview show.

As the tv warms up and I get the picture, who do I see on the program?   Col. Oliver North being interviewed on his new book.

And who is the host of this show doing the interview?

Fred "Gopher" Grandy.

If someone in 1987 had mused on the possibility of an interview 20 years in the future conducted by "The Love Boat's" Gopher, after his time in Congress of course, and Iran Contra celeb Oliver North, they would have been laughed out of the room.

Perhaps I should look at the up-side.  As the Chinese wish for us, we live in interesting times.

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

Mixed messages at the school library?

I have been doing some substitute teaching lately, and many of the assignments the past few weeks have been in our local middle school.  During planning periods I often spend time in the school library catching up on news and other things.  Near the bank of computers in the library are a set of posters designed to appeal to teenagers and let them know the wide variety of things they can find and/or learn in the library.

The posters build on the fundamental idea of using the "Five W's."  Thus, we have:


Say Who?  Find Biographies Here!
Say What?  Find It Here!
Say When?  Find History Here!
Say Where?  Find Your Way Here!
Say Why?  Find Answers Here!
Say How?  Find Out Here!


And centered in the display area is a poster reading:

Teens Say READ!

I'm certainly in favor of improving kids' literacy and research skills.  So I was a little disappointed to see the tagline at the bottom of each of these posters:

The Library is WHERE IT'S AT.

I understand that may be very common phraseology.  But shouldn't we do students a favor and try to use proper grammar?

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

UN wants to help with global food crisis?

Via Urgent Agenda, here’s the intro to a story on the developing "food crisis":

VIENNA, Austria - A sharp rise in food prices has developed into a global crisis, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Friday.

Ban said the U.N. and all members of the international community were very concerned and immediate action was needed.


And since the UN has done such a bang up job of solving every other problem it has deemed worthy of immediate action, we should definitely look to them in the event of a global food crisis.  Which reminds me, there’s been talk of starting a communal garden in our yard for our family, the neighbors, and my wife’s sister’s family.  Smart money says any garden we may plant has a better shot at helping address any hunger than the UN.

Of course, that’s not to say there isn’t a ray of hope buried within the article:


He spoke to reporters at U.N. offices in Austria, where he was meeting with the nation's top leaders for talks on how the United Nations and European Union can forge closer ties.

Just off the top of my head, I’d suggest they could have saved themselves the cost of traveling to Austria, and all the contributions to the “climate change crisis” such international flights may have made, and skipped the face-to-face meeting on how to force closer ties and just take the following approach:  relocate the UN to the European Union.  Brussels would be a perfect location for them.  Then when the Islamists complete their demographic transformation of Europe, we can finally be rid of the UN once and for all.

Finally, we get the unsurprising news that the UN wants money:


"This steeply rising price of food — it has developed into a real global crisis," Ban said, adding that the World Food Program has made an urgent appeal for additional $755 million.

Perhaps if the UN opens its books for a full audit, including the Oil for Food scam it ran for Saddam Hussein, and actually helps do something about the billions of dollars it has laundered in such operations I would be more sympathetic to their appeal.  There must be hundreds of honest international aid operations that would be better targets for such funding that could do more to help those who need food rather than filtering it through the UN.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Origin of the droopy pants fashion statement?

The current fashion of wearing baggy pants that hang down below the waist, exposing the wearer's boxers, butt crack, or worse, has been the subject municipalities trying, and now states, trying to enact legislation to subject such "fashion outlaws" to fines.  The latest attempt, in Louisiana, has apparently failed.  From Breitbart.com comes this AP report, but what is confusing me is the explanation given at the end of the story for the origin of the fashion trend:

The style is believed to have started in prisons, where inmates are issued ill-fitting jumpsuits but no belts to prevent hangings and beatings. The look was popularized in gangster rap videos.

I have seen this explanation of prison as the origin for baggy pants before, but in reading this explanation and thinking about it, it makes no sense.  If inmates are issued jumpsuits, that means they are not getting pants.  Sure, they aren't getting belts that can be used as weapons or for hangings, but they also are not getting separate, ill-fitting pants and shirts.

So how do we get from a jumpsuit to avoid having to wear belts to inmates preferring baggy pants?  How can the layers upon layers of editors and fact checkers at AP not have thought this through and explained the incongruity?

On a related note, I have also seen stories online about law enforcement actually liking the baggy pants look, because it is sometimes an added bonus for them in chasing suspects who wind up being tripped by their own pants.  I don't entirely believe this, but I suppose it's at least theoretically possible. Perhaps someone with law enforcement experience or connections can confirm or debunk it.

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