October Dreams - Part 1

EXAMINER PUBLICATIONS - JULY 16, 2008

By Rich Trzupek

We’re barely halfway through the season. It’s still early. We know that. Dare we hope? Oh, what the hell. Let’s dare…

Game 1 – The Cell: White Sox 1, Cubs 0.

Ozzie was roundly criticized for starting Mark Buehrle, after the veteran left-hander finished off a disappointing .500 season. For Mariotti, this was the final sign of Ozzie’s insanity. “Not only would I rather start Gavin Floyd, I would sooner hand the ball to Floyd the Barber than give it to Mark Buehrle,” Mariotti huffed.

Yet, the next day, the headlines screamed: “One For The Ages!” This could refer equally to the thrilling one run result, or Buehrle’s masterful one hit performance, or possibly to the number of bats that survived Carlos Zambrano’s three strikeouts at the plate. Either way, it was a pitcher’s duel to remember, with Carlos Quentin’s shot to deep left the only blemish on either pitcher’s record.

There was remarkably little carnage, either in the stands or in the streets. Perhaps the impassioned pleas for calm issued by Mayor Daley, President Bush and Pope Benedict had something to do with it.

Game 2 – The Cell: White Sox 5, Cubs 4.

Another one-run thriller, with both Dempster and Floyd struggling early, before they finally settled down. The score was 3 to 3 after the second, and stayed that way until the sixth, when Soriano crushed one into the gap in left-center. A collision between Quentin and Swisher knocked both outfielders out temporarily, which might have lead to an inside the park home run, but this was Soriano after all. He pulled a groin muscle going around first, hopped into second on one leg, where he pulled a quad on the other leg, before coasting into third with the post-season’s first and only “crawl-up” triple. A pinch-runner and sac-fly later and the Cubs were ahead, only to lose the lead in the eighth when Quentin once again rescued the Pale Hose, this time with a two-run bomb off of Marmol.

Three north side fans and two south side faithful were flung from the upper deck into the lower bowl. All would claim to have been pushed, but there is still some dispute regarding the circumstances, especially given the oxygen depravation associated with being in the upper deck of the Cell. In any case, no-one was injured, the victims having thoughtfully relaxed their muscles beforehand with an average of fourteen beers apiece.

“The Cubs shouldn’t bother showing up for the rest of the series,” Mariotti proclaimed. “Not that they’ve showed up so far.”

Game 3 – Wrigley: Cubs 11, Sox 1

Harden struck out 11. Vasquez walked 7. Soriano, playing from a wheelchair, hit two homers and drove in five. Theriot stole 4 bases, including home, and DeRosa went five for five in a devastating offensive explosion.

On the streets, it was quiet.

Too quiet.

Game 4 – Wrigley: Cubs 7, Sox 2

Lou opted to bring Big Z back, while Ozzie went with Danks. Zambrano went seven strong, before getting ejected in the bottom of the seventh after breaking yet another bat, this time over A.J.’s head. Seemingly suffering no ill effects after the game, Pierzynski shrugged: “All I did was ask him how his brother in Venezuela was doing these days. Why am I always the guy to get clubbed over the head with a bat?”

“The White Sox are finished, because they’re playing like they’re Finnish – ice cold and completely disinterested,” Mariotti declared.

Game 5 – Wrigley: Cubs 17, Sox 15

It was a slugfest on the north side, in more ways that one. But it wasn’t the total of eleven home runs between the two teams that grabbed the headlines on a windy day, it was the brawl that erupted in the middle of the White Sox eight run, sixth inning comeback try.

With AJ on third and one out, the wily Sox catcher duped Aramis Ramirez into believing that there were in fact two outs. After Ramirez caught a foul pop, Pierzynski casually strolled toward the dugout, before breaking for home after the Cubs’ third baseman rolled the ball toward the pitcher’s mound. Piniella charged out of the dugout, insisting that AJ be called out for running out the baseline, while Guillen hotly insisted that Ramirez should get the heave-ho for being an idiot.

The argument escalated, first into a shoving match, then into fisticuffs, and finally into a full scale brawl, with both benches, and half the stands joining in. It took an hour and a half to restore order, and another twenty minutes for Roger Bossard to re-sod the devastated field.

Game 6 – The Cell: White Sox 3, Cubs 2

The twenty-three inning marathon – the longest game in post-season history – ended at 3:27 in the morning after Alexi Ramirez scored from first on a Cabrera bloop single. The game blew out both bullpens, leaving Jermaine Dye to finish up on the hill for the White Sox, and Jim Edmonds pitching for the north siders.

With emergency rooms full though out the city, medical teams were flown in from as far away as California and Florida.

The city braced for what was to come: Game Seven – The Mother of All Games: Armageddon in the city of Chicago.

(To be continued…)

Around the World in 1,000 Words

EXAMINER PUBLICATIONS - JULY 9, 2008

By Rich Trzupek

Spanning the globe, to bring you a constant variety of mopes…

In Asia, China prepares to host the Olympics, while world-class athletes get ready to complete in the games. Some of the competitors may bring a little extra equipment this year, stuff like gas masks, oxygen bottles and water purification tablets.

It has long been a popular myth that the United States in the “world’s biggest polluter”. That has not been even close to true, in terms of actual pollutants, for decades. We have cleaned up our act so well that enviro-nerds had to invent a make-believe pollutant – carbon dioxide – in order to continue making the assertion. However, having passed us in terms of actual pollution many moons ago, China also passed us in pretend pollution last year.

All of this came as something of a shock to the mainstream western media, who “discovered” what those of us in the biz have known for quite some time: that, environmentally speaking China is a toilet, full of belching smokestacks and algae blooms. Perhaps they may want to add a “sludge medal” to the awards? Just a thought.

Meanwhile, over in Africa, Robert Mugabe, successfully used intimidation and violence to “win” what passes for an election in Zimbabwe. This was to be expected from one of the world’s most notorious thugs. What was more troubling was the fact that no African ruler spoke up in public to condemn the aging dictator. Not one.

The reason? Well, the United States and Western Europe spoke out against Mugabe, so they didn’t want it to look like they were taking “our side”. Of course. How about taking the side of justice guys? Or, perhaps, you might consider taking the side of the people of Zimbabwe, who suffer under one of the most corrupt regimes on earth.

One of the signs of maturity is the ability to be honestly self-critical. Sadly for the people of Africa, their leaders are more deficient in this regard than your average fifteen year old.

It’s the classic battle of health nuts versus dope smokers in the Netherlands. The nation is famous for its coffee bars, where patrons roll their own: a mixture of tobacco and pot, and get high while discussing the great issues of the day, or perhaps, just how that’s the bluest shade of blue on your shirt that I’ve ever seen man. Really. Man! Wait - what was I talking about?

This activity may become illegal now. The tobacco part that is. The pot part has always been illegal, technically, but not really, for reasons that your humble correspondent does not completely understand. But, while they’re not serious about pot, they are deadly serious about second hand tobacco smoke – but not pot smoke – and if that makes no sense to you, it shouldn’t. Or maybe one has to be baked to understand the logic. I’m not sure.

We are not certain how this all shakes out. But, if the coffee shops go out of business, you can be sure that the Dorito industry in Holland will take a dreadful hit. Dude.

In the good old US of A, the Best Candidate Ever twisted himself into knots over Iraq, and then blamed the media for making a big deal out of it. Senator Obama has said, as a matter of policy, the last American troops would leave Iraq 18 months after he is inaugurated. This policy pleased both liberals and Al-Quida, who are thus able to better allocate their dwindling stock of suicide bombers. (That would be the terrorists’ suicide bombers. The liberals haven’t developed that technology yet, as far as I know anyway).

Then, The Chosen One decided that he would have to confer with the commanders in the field before making any final decisions on the matter. This sensible statement (he stumbles across one every now and then) made hard-core libs foam at the mouth. Not that this is particularly hard to do, but from Barack? Golly. So he decided that he really meant 18 months – although he will confer (about what we know not) – but it’ll be 18 months and that’s it – got it? We will wait, in gleeful anticipation, for the next pronouncement from On High.

There is nothing wrong with candidates refining their positions on issues after due consideration, or when new evidence comes to light. This is not the case here. The Candidate ought to head out to Bejing, where he would be a shoe-in to take the Gold in the 100 meter backpedal.

Our most loyal ally in South America is Columbia. They are especially important these days, given the paranoia of the guy who rules one nation over, in the Peoples Republic of Venuzula: Hugo Chavez. Given that fact, and the enormous strides that Columbia has made fighting the drug cartels, you’d think that approving a free-trade pact with the nation would be a no-brainer.

Well, no. At least not for Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (herself a no-brainer, if you know what we mean). They rejected the agreement, for reasons too stupid to waste newsprint on. Pelosi’s idiocy and hypocrisy compete for the dominance in her peculiar world-view. We should engage Iran, so that they will like us – which is very important apparently – but a friendly nation in an increasingly unfriendly world? Screw ‘em!

Perhaps the most frightening thing about this situation is the fact that a lardhead like Pelosi is only two heartbeats away from the Oval Office. Yikes, and double yikes!

In Australia, guys drank oceanloads of beer, told hilariously crude jokes and called each other “mate” all the time. Situation normal, in other words.

And finally, in Antarctica, which is host to about 94 per cent of the world’s frozen water, the ice cover on the continent continues to build, angering global-warming alarmists everywhere if one should dare to point it out. So, let’s just keep that between us, shall we?

And that, friends, is the world in one thousand words.

Well, now it is.

The Guv That Shoulda Been

EXAMINER PUBLICATIONS - JULY 2, 2008

By Rich Trzupek

It is popular, among voters of every ilk, to disparage the American electorate. There are good reasons for this, for we have surely voted our fair share of Bozos into office. Yet, I still have faith in the voters. In good times, they often, but not always, make silly choices. But, more often than not, they get it right when we face an actual crisis.

It is not a coincidence that we elect a Lincoln when the nation faces insurrection, or that a Reagan comes to power when the Cold War reaches its zenith. Great events force great choices into the forefront of the collective consciousness and, in when people examine these sorts of issues closely, they usually get it right.

Electoral foolishness, in other words, is not a matter of ignorance so much as it is a matter of indifference. In a perverse way, one may take heart that we are about to elect a non-entity like Barack Obama, so devoid of meaningful opinions and ideas. Voters only elect “high-minded” empty suits when the majority of them are fairly comfortable with their own lives, no matter how they perceive the state of the state.

Two things seem clear to me, politically speaking: the nation will elect a Democrat as President in 2008, and the next Governor of Illinois will be a Republican. Both of these results are natural consequences of the principals described above.

In the Prairie State, we can measure just how bad Governor Blagojevich’s administration has been by this: at a time when Republicans brace for a nation-wide butt-kicking, at a time when dwindling red states are hunkering down in political bomb shelters; in this extraordinary time, you would need a very powerful microscope to find anyone – in either party – who supports this two-term Governor, who was, by the way, elected by a wide majority in each election.

He is despised not only by the opposition, but by those who ought to be (and once were) his friends. He’s the purported target of multiple criminal investigations, he’s been beaten mercilessly by editorial writers across the state and he has been even considered for recall. It’s a simply remarkable state of affairs, for a man who was, not so long ago, the rising star among Illinois politicians.

We might reflect about how we got here and what we lost in making this journey. There are many fine candidates, or at least better candidates, in both parties whom we might have chosen. I had the chance to sit down with one of them for an interview a couple of week’s ago: former State Senator Steve Rauschenberger.

The interview, which you can listen to or download via The Examiner’s website (“Examiner Radio”), reveals the kind of mind that we should have in the Governor’s Mansion: agile, creative and decisive, mixed with just the right amount of pragmatism. This is not news, of course. Rauschenberger was always the darling of the editorial boards across the state when he made his aborted runs for Governor. How could he not be? I have never spoken to anyone who knows more about the way government actually works, and how it ought to work.

But, sadly, his candidacy never had traction with either of the two groups that counted most: the (in my opinion, bloated) Illinois Republican establishment, or the voters who might have overruled the party elite. Rauschenberger was never quite sexy enough, in the political sense. Yeah, he might be smart, but what’s his “Q rating”? These are the things that matter today.

So, instead, we elect guys like Blago; nice hair, good looking, but bereft of new ideas and full of arrogance.

Good Lord - we elected Ted Danson!

When you listen to Rauschenberger talk about health care, it’s hard not to wonder why his ideas don’t get more play. He understands the real roots of the problem: that the entire reimbursement system, public and private, rests on price structures set by Medicaid and Medicare, and these structures are terribly outdated and – worse - they encourage rampant inefficiencies in the system. And, since so much of the high-cost of health care may be traced to inefficiencies created by a single-payer, government-run system, does it make any sense to expand this system, as so many Democrats – and even some Republicans – propose?

Why not reform what we have instead, before we ask taxpayers and beleaguered employers to dig deeper in their pockets to reinforce failure? But then, let’s not use quite that strong of a word. “Failure” implies that some of us have no access to health care. This is an unfortunate, and incorrect, perception. The uninsured do have access to health care, they simply do not have the many choices of health care providers that the insured do. Is the answer to this problem, Rauschenberger reasonably asks, to limit choice even more through a single-payer system?

We know what the uninsured would answer, or at least how a great many of them would answer, by observing the abject failure of the Governor’s “All Kids” program. As has been widely reported, Illinois families are avoiding using the program in droves – as many as 50% of eligible families don’t use it, according to published reports – because it suffers from the very kinds of deficiencies that Rauschenberger points out.

This interview is fascinating stuff, and health care is only one part of the discussion. Rauschenberger not only lays out the problems, but he presents creative, provocative ideas to fix them. It’s not “sound bite” material, but then real, reasoned analysis has never been the stuff of slogans. And we can plainly see where electing the candidate with the best PR firm, instead of the best ideas, has gotten us in Illinois. Hopefully, we’ll do better in the future.

We missed out on a Steve Rauschenberger twice. Hopefully, we’ll find another one out there, next time around.

How to Judge the Man?

EXAMINER PUBLICATIONS - JUNE 25, 2008

By Rich Trzupek

What are we to make of this President?

He came into office at a time of crisis, or – more properly – the crisis followed closely behind. At first, he was applauded for his leadership, as all Presidents are during the first throes of national emergency.

But, as is almost always equally the case, the applause soon settled into a stony, impatient silence that evolved into mumbling and grumbling, followed quickly by the inevitable cries of despair and, above all, rage.

He was universally reviled by the opposition party and by many of his fellow Republicans as well. What were once electable virtues became, upon further examination by his many critics, damnable failings.

He was transformed (almost overnight it seemed) from a plain-spoken, inherently honest everyman, full of common sense, into something at best laughable and, at worst, sinister.

The nation lamented for not seeing it sooner. The opposition reveled in his discomfort, or rather, what they assumed to be his discomfort, for it was never clear that he cared about popular approval. He had a mission and he was single-minded about achieving it. Nothing would dissuade him from his goal, a fact that he would freely admit. His critics saw this as vanity. His supporters, few as they were, called it perseverance.

The media had a field day with this President. He was routinely mocked by editorial writers and opinion makers. They mocked his manner of speech, his dress, his wife, his faith and his birthplace. They questioned his military service, with some writers openly wondering if he had even served at all.

He never claimed to have been in combat, and this was further evidence of his arrogance. How could he send young men to die when he had never been close to a battlefield himself?

Cartoonists sometimes portrayed him as a primate, and although every public figure is surely fair game for caricature (with the exception of a certain middle-eastern prophet, of course), there was something especially mean-spirited – sadly so – in these drawings.

He was variously portrayed as an imbecile and as a huckster, sometimes both, which is an impossible combination, at least in my book. He was criticized as a speaker as well, and many Americans were embarrassed to have such a boor quoted in overseas capitals.

Others said that he was in fact clever, in his own way, but that this cleverness did not equate to wisdom. Rather, his was a mean, sniveling shrewdness; he had both the skills and morals of a con-man, they said. Just look at the way he surrounds himself with other darkly shrewd men. His bumbling “country boy” persona was all an act, they assured us. It was just cover for the calculating evil that lay within.

He routinely flouted the Constitution, as part of combating the crisis. People were imprisoned, though they had not been charged with a crime. The Supreme Court ordered him to produce writs of Habeas Corpus or let these prisoners go. He ignored the judges. He employed a cadre of spies to determine the intentions of his enemies and, in some cases, of his friends.

His told his critics that a President had both the right and the duty to bend parts of the Constitution in order to protect liberty in desperate times. They despaired to hear it. His actions, they were certain, would not protect freedom, but were the first step on the road to a totalitarian state.

They were especially incensed when he seemed to play a shell game with the very reason for entering into the conflict in the first place. At first he said that the safety of the nation was at stake. Then, a couple years into the conflict, it wasn’t that at all. He now explained that this war was a crusade to bring freedom to an oppressed people.

“See what a liar he is!” the critics cried. “He can’t even decide why we’re fighting. He’s a fraud!” The President patiently tried to explain that the two goals were not mutually exclusive – that the spread of freedom would better secure the foundations of the nation – that the latter goal complimented the former, it did not supersede it. Few people paid attention to such convoluted logic.

It was war time and, as they always do in war time, merchants got rich. Many were honest, some were not and, inevitably some of the dishonest ones had ties of this sort or that to the President or his inner circle. There were military failures, as there are always are in a protracted conflict, and there were bad generals, incompetent advisors and mistakes in strategy. There were, in other words, all of the usual impediments and mistakes that democracies face when they go to war and, as they always have been, these failures and perceived failures were placed – justly – at the feet of the President.

He corrected what he could and endured what he must, knowing that the one contribution that he had to make, that indeed he alone could make, was to exert his will to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion, no matter how long it took. He was indifferent to the cries of party, the nation and the heads of state across the seas who all assured him that the bloodshed could end, and should end, if only he would stop fighting. Once America withdrew, America would have peace.

This he would not do, and he was hated for it.

Elected by a minority of the electorate in his first term, he was not expected to win a second, so badly had he mismanaged the conflict, in the eyes of his many, many critics. Somehow, he was re-elected though, to the amazement and despair of his legions of enemies.

We will leave his story there, for you probably know the rest of it. And I’m not sure how you feel about this particular President but, in my opinion, this man – Abraham Lincoln – was one helluva leader.

“No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.” Ronald Wilson Reagan

They’re not called “Yahoo” for nothing

So, we get this from Yahoo today:

“Anti-Kerry book publisher?” Really? I thought the name of the company was “Regnery”. Nobody told me that they had changed their name to The Anti-Kerry Book Publishing Company, LLC. Not that I necessarily object to this name, but it doesn’t exactly roll trippingly of the tongue.

“Conservative publisher” would have been OK. “Publisher” or “author” would have avoided any partiality altogether. “Anti-Kerry book publisher” pretty much tells the reader that it’s OK to read this story, if you must, but don’t pay much attention to it, because it’s about a bunch of right-wing nut jobs. Sweet.

Liberal media bias? Not here. Nope.

The Oceans, Trembling in Fear

And then we have this line: “…this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow”.

It was uttered by the Democrats’ candidate for President of the United States, as part of his acceptance speech. A remarkable thing this; that a mere presumptive nomination can drive the oceans into retreat. Who knows what will happen when he is officially named heir to the throne? Will the moon spin off into space? Will Everest crumble? We mere mortals can not presume to guess.

I am not aware of another ruler, or ruler-to-be, claiming dominion over the seas since Canute the Great made the attempt almost 1,000 years ago. Of course he was jesting, in a pointed sort of way, demonstrating to his courtiers that there are limits to even a king’s power.

Obama was not joking. Of this I am sure. He sincerely believes that he will able to reverse the tides, a seemingly noble – but pathetically futile – delusion. Mankind may have some ability to manipulate bits of nature, even to annoy portions of natural splendor from time to time, but authority over the sea? This is surely beyond the pale, even for an accomplished community organizer and freshman Senator.

We do not, have not, and will not cause the seas to rise or to fall. It occurs to me that there is an enormous arrogance at play here, an arrogance that fits in neatly with this candidate’s over all demeanor. For the implication that man can affect the oceans’ rise and fall requires a bigger leap of faith still; it implies that mankind’s power rivals that of the sun. Infringing on solar authority is never a good idea. Just ask Phaethon.

This is dangerous territory, as my brother has pointed out previously in his brilliant essay “The Evolutionary Gravity of AGW Alarmists”. It is a bastardization of science, in which our only obligation is to identify the “what”, without ever having to ask the many “whys” that naturally follow – which is (or used to be, and still should be) the whole point of science.

Politicians dabbling in science, much like scientists who meddle in partisan politics, want us to believe that it is heretical, irresponsible and downright stupid to pose the question “why” these days, particularly about this issue. We used to say that asking “why” was an indispensible part of critical thinking. These days, this robust, intellectually stimulating road to discovery – to which the world owes so much of its progress – has somehow become “denial”, “stubbornness” and “ignorance”.

One can accept the concept that evolution occurs, but it is then – in certain quarters – not acceptable to wonder what the causes of the phenomena might be, or that a benevolent Higher Power might play a part in it. Gravity exists, as my brother pointed out, but we do not yet know the “why” for this natural force. Should we abandon the search for the answer and simply tremble at the result, much as a caveman would look up in the sky at a solar eclipse and wonder if the world was coming to an end?

There is one label that all those who question AGW should bear proudly, and that is the title of “skeptic”. I am a skeptic, about all things, at all times, albeit in varying degrees. Skepticism has lead me to discover what I believe to be great truths, many of which my brothers and sisters in conservative thought also accept as truths, and some of which they would not. I value all of these revelations and I am certain that I would not have arrived at them without the gift of skepticism.

This does not imply that one should either have no absolutes, or - conversely - that every seeming absolute ought to be chiseled in stone. It rather means that there ought to be a standard, a test, which determines how skeptical one might be regarding a particular truth. I would never dismiss an argument that the earth is, in fact, flat, but it would have to be an earth-shaking argument (both literally and figuratively) to sway me. The best standard for skepticism is the one that Jefferson set forth, albeit in the political sphere rather than the scientific; the proposition that truths ought to be “self evident”. AGW theory, in its current form, does not come close to the mark.

More sophisticated AGW alarmists will sometimes use the (now settled) debate over the hole in the ozone layer as “proof” that the skeptics are foolish. Their argument, such as it is, says that skeptics back then “denied” that chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, were damaging down the earth’s protective ozone layer. Additional research rather convincingly proved that CFCs were having this effect and – thank God (according to the alarmists) – we banned the offending substances just in time.

The alarmist crowd does not seem even remotely aware that this tale weakens their arguments, rather than strengthening them. I was, back when the CFC issue first came up, a skeptic as well. Not a denier – I simply needed to see solid proof. Eventually, that proof was forthcoming and I supported the CFC ban, as did a great many of my fellow skeptics. Today, we don’t hear much about the “ozone hole” (more properly: “ozone thinning over the Antarctic”) any more, because it’s simply not a problem on anybody’s radar any longer. These particular alarmists were correct in once sense – CFC’s were causing disproportionate damage to a segment of the environment – but they were equally wrong in another, equally important sense – for nature proved far more resilient, and more able to repair itself, than the alarmists ever imagined possible.

A sober critical thinker would come away from this episode understanding that it’s OK to be proven wrong, that it’s OK to question a theory and that mankind’s power is still pathetically puny combined to that of the natural world. None of these are lessons that should require teaching, but as a case-study in the value of critical thinking, the CFC episode was certainly an affirmation of sorts for many skeptical scientists.

Alarmists, on the other hand, walked away knowing only two things: that they were “right” and everyone else was “wrong”. The fact that we all got it right in the end didn’t really matter. They wanted a victory, and weren’t interested in discovery. And it was about time they got a victory. They had been wrong so many times before. They were wrong about global freezing. They were wrong about running out of oil and natural gas before the turn of the century. They were wrong about unchecked population growth and global starvation. They were wrong about the Great Lakes “dying”.

And, in reviewing this dubious docket, there was an element of truth in each of the propositions listed above, but alarmists aren’t interested in shades of grey. It’s Armegeddon or bust. Alarmists (albeit of a different stripe) were outed when Y2K turned out to be entirely “OK”, and they became a laughing-stock as a result, but it’s rare to have that kind of opportunity to trash the Chicken Littles of the world. Milleniums only come around every thousand years or so.

Emboldened by the CFC episode, and other “victories”, the environmental extremists who make up such a large part of institutionalized AGW apologists are feeling well nigh invulnerable these days. And, to be sure, the media and compliant politicians are as guilty too, for they perpetuate the myth that the science is “settled” and that there is “consensus”, when any objective observer could not possibly make such an absurd statement.

Anyone who questions them is “sticking his head in the sand”, and/or is on the payroll of Exxon-Mobil, and/or is simply an idiot. I spend way too much time reading and researching both sides of AGW to qualify for the first label; I have yet to receive any sort of check from big oil, so I must disqualify myself from number two; and – aside from my bride (on a bad day) and my daughter (most every day) I don’t believe that there are many people who would place me in the last group either.

I am simply a skeptic, and I will not apologize for it. And, before we launch the most costly environmental program – nay, program of any kind – in the history of the planet, one that will have untold, painful consequences for the impoverished people of the world who will be most hurt by the inevitable economic consequences of treating AGW theory as “settled” science, it might not hurt if our Presidential candidates were a little skeptical too.

Fantasies Unfulfilled

EXAMINER PUBLICATIONS - JUNE 17, 2008

By L. Stanley Trzupek

News item: Supreme Court rules against Major League Baseball’s suit against fantasy leagues’ use of players’ names and stats. But – oh! – what might have been…

(The Bay Area, sometime in the near future):

Ralphie!  Ralll – Phieeee!!

Yes mom . . .

There’s a man at the door to see you – a Mr. Zito.

Mom, I don’t know any Mr. Zito.

He’s wearing a baseball uniform, one with a big “S” and “F” on it.

You mean Barry Zito?  Barry Zito’s here?!

Hi fella – are you Ralph Ferguson?

Ah, yes, yes sir – that’s me – Ralphie Ferguson. Wow, Mr. Zito, what’re you doin’ here? Can I have your autograph?

Hah hah. Well, Ralphie, don’t worry; before I leave, you’ll have a piece of paper with my signature and I’ll have your autograph too – on the same paper!

So what’s this all about Mr. Zito?

Ralphie, are you a member of the Hillcrest Elementary School 4^th grade fantasy baseball league?

Oh, yeah. I sure am!

And did you draft me as one of your starting pitchers?

Well kind of. See, I’m an A’s fan, so I really didn’t know too many people to pick, but my best friend, Lumpy Larson, said I should look up on the internet who had the highest salaries, because those guys are going to be really, really good. So anyway, when I found out you had a contract for $126 million dollars, I figured I had to draft you.

Your pal Lumpy gave you good advice, Ralphie In all humility I must hand it to my self: I am in fact one of the highest paid professional athletes in any sport. So why did you say I was “kind of” one of your starting pitchers?

Well, Mr Zito, I kind of – like I sort of ended up benching you – it’s not that I don’t like you or anything, but you do have a 1 and 8 record, with a 5.50 ERA.  I was getting my butt kicked with you in the rotation.

Ralphie, you have to realize all world-class athletes go through some tough spells. I think you acted a bit prematurely there.  But the important thing is, you did pick me for your fantasy team, right?

Oh yes, I sure did.  Why?

Well, Ralphie, the Supreme Court just ruled that fantasy baseball participants cannot use the names or statistics of professional baseball players without permission or just compensation. You see, our names belong to us, and our stats belong to us. If you use them without asking, that’s kind of like stealing. It’s part of something called intellectual property law. It would be like if I used your bike without asking you.

So am I going to go to jail or something?

No, no, nothing like that. The court just set a monetary fine that applies to all fantasy leagues. You just owe me some money.

Gosh, Mr. Zito, how much?

Well, according to my accountant, if you take the portion of the fine that applies to your 4^th grade league, and divide it by all the league members, and divide it again by all the major league players you guys drafted, the share that you owe me comes out to 79 cents.

Now what you’ll have to do is sign this consent form here, agreeing to the court’s settlement – you’ll see I’ve already signed it – and pay your 79 cents to me, and everything will be fine.

I guess that’s okay, Mr. Zito, but I just don’t have the money with me now. I will get it to you by Friday, when Mom gives me my allowance.

That’ll be okay Ralphie, but you’ll have to sign this promissory note, and agree to pay an interest penalty. We’ll keep the interest at prevailing pay-day loan rates and then you need to make sure you get the total amount to me by Friday. Try not to forget. My cousin Guido is in charge of collecting late fees, and sometimes he’s kind of impatient.

I’m not sure I understand all that Mr. Zito, but I will be sure to get you your money.  But I don’t understand why I have to pay for your statistics. What if I just wrote them down from the newspaper?

Ralphie, you don’t understand. You’re allowed to read my stats, but that doesn’t mean you can do something with them without asking me.  They are after all mine. If I don’t play the game, and if I don’t give up the runs, there’s no ERA, right?  So that part’s only fair.

Okay, Mr. Zito. Here’s the paper you wanted me to sign.

And here’s your copy of that form, Ralphie.  You’ll notice that it’s got my signature on it as well. It’s the autograph I promised you! And by the way, you should think of that signature as my intellectual property as well. So if you decide to sell that form as an autograph, that’s okay, but you do have to give me half the proceeds of the sale. You’ll see that’s something you agreed to in the consent agreement; paragraph 3, section b, sub-section iv, I believe.

Okay, that’s good to know, Mr. Zito.

Well, Raphie, I’ve got get moving. Lot’s more work to do today.

Are you going to see Lumpy and collect from him now?

No, no – I got Lumpy earlier this morning. No, I’ve got to meet with my legal team, and see if I can sue some wiseacre newspaper columnist for using my name in a parody without my permission. After all, the court ruled my name is my intellectual property.  Newspapermen aren’t as lucrative as 10 year olds, since they have almost no net worth, but it’s still a lot of fun trying to squeeze something out ‘em. You take it easy now Ralphie. Keep up your enthusiasm for the game, and work on hitting that slider.

The Evolutionary Gravity of AGW Alarmists

In response to AGW alarmists comparing skepticism on this issue (like that expressed by yours truly) to skepticism about the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution, my crabby older brother weighs in. He has a PhD in Chemistry from MIT, teaches at a leading university (which we will not name, in order to protect him from the thought police) and is not - to my knowledge - funded by Exxon-Mobil, although I’m reasonably certain that he’s funding his local Exxon-Mobil gas station quite nicely these days…

One of the reasons it’s so easy to label many proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as religious fanatics who base their hysteria on belief rather than science is the lengths to which many of them go to avoid arguments based on facts and logic.

We see that tendency illustrated in a variety of ways. One of my personal favorites is when AGW apologists associate the “theory of gravity” and the “theory of evolution” in relationship to criticisms of the “theory of global warming” (more specifically, anthropogenic global warming), and the casual dismissal of any arguments from individuals associated (financially or otherwise) with the fossil fuel industry.

They will claim that AGW is established, scientific “fact”, on par with the theory of gravity. “I suppose you don’t believe in gravity either,” they’ll sneer. Easier still, they’ll dump skeptics into a big bucket labeled “Shills for Exxon-Mobil”, which can then be ignored.

The latter first. The ideological Left, especially, likes to use this tactic, partly because so many of them are intellectually lazy, but also (at least in the case of AGW), because for so many of them the issue is not one of intellectual curiosity, but rather an affirmation of their belief system.

One can make inferences (which may or may not be correct) on another’s motivations based on a funding source, but those motivations have no necessary relationship to the truth or falsity of the claims made by an individual.

The lengths of sides of a right triangle are going to relate to each other according to the equation x² + y² = z², no matter who‘s responsible for funding Pythagorus. The proposition “2 + 2 = 4” is equally valid whether put forth by Adolf Hitler or Mother Theresa; and however ideologically pure and divorced from financial influences Orwell’s Comrade O’Brien might be, “2 + 2 = 5” doesn’t get any special consideration from an objective observer as a result.

Similarly, the whole business related to the “theory of gravity” and the “theory of evolution” is equally bogus, albeit at a more subtle level.

The intellectual sleight-of-hand performed here is the illegitimate conflation of “gravity” with the “theory of gravity” and “evolution” with the “theory of evolution”.

I’m assuming alarmists recognize gravity as a real phenomenon – if not, I’ll be happy to ask any doubters to accompany me on a very short plane flight in which I bring my parachute and they leave theirs at home. Similarly, it’s well-accepted by those with a bit of education that the gravitational attraction, at a practical level, can be expressed via Newton’s “f = ma”.

But just because everyone accepts gravity as an experiential reality does not mean that everyone accepts a specific theoretical basis for gravitational attraction - a “theory of gravity”. In fact at the most fundamental level no one understands gravity. Physicists of a certain stripe have a great time battling over details like gravitational waves and gravitons and other such arcane concepts – according to the implications of alarmists’ argument, such discussions are out-of-bounds, since we all (supposedly) accept the “theory of gravity”.

Similarly, there are unassailable facts associated with the reality of evolution (mutations at the level of nucleic acids leads to physiological consequences through the expression of altered proteins, and the magnitude of differences in protein structure between two organisms corresponds to the closeness of their taxonomic relationship - to specify just two). But even for those who accept evolution unequivocally, there are plenty of questions remaining as regards theory (“Which came first, nucleic acids or proteins?”, to name just one).

In the same way, when it comes to AGW, there are facts everyone (of any relevance) accepts, and there are aspects of theory that continue to be in dispute.

Among the most relevant of the former are these two: atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased over the past 100 years, and CO2 absorbs infrared energy, the ultimate effect of which is to raise global temperatures. Those are actual scientific facts (not some nebulous “scientific consensus”).

Among folks who actually have expertise in these areas, the salient points in dispute include the following:

Is anthropogenic CO2 the main driver of global temperature change over the last decade – century – whatever (pick your time frame), or is warming due to increased CO2 essentially negligible compared to the “natural” forces which have driven global temperature oscillations for eons? (Or - is the contemporary reality somewhere between those extreme positions?).

And

Are modeling programs the best way to substantiate the magnitude of effects of CO2 on global temperature, or are climate systems so complex, and our models so primitive that it’s dangerous folly to base decisions with economic consequences in the tens of trillions of dollars on such exercises?

Now if one is unable to address the technical details in those aspects of “AGW theory”, that’s perfectly understandable – the science involved is complex and difficult to present to a general audience. But to blow off those arguments by saying, in effect, “So I suppose you don’t believe in gravity” is an example not of an argument, but the lack of one.

In summary, IMHO using financial ties or disparaging comparisons to disbelief in gravity as tactics in this debate are examples of intellectual laziness, intellectual dishonesty or intellectual naiveté. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But if alarmists insist on relying on cheap rhetorical gimmicks like those, they shouldn’t be surprised if more and more people view their efforts as an expression of some heart-felt belief rather than an application of reasoned analysis.

Tribunal of the Century

EXAMINER PUBLICATIONS - JUNE 11, 2008

By Rich Trzupek

Last week witnessed the Trial of the Century, although – to be fair – it wasn’t actually a trial and it hasn’t been much of a century so far. Still, we must be grateful for what we have.

It was a classic battle, pitting freedom of the press versus oppressive government. What was most surprising was not the fact that this “trial” did not occur in a country ruled by a totalitarian regime, like Iran, Cuba, China or any of the other usual suspects. Rather, it took place in that bastion of democracy, that liberal-haven to our north: Canada.

This was a not a surprise, because the trial was part of a logical, liberal progression that started under the country’s ultra-liberal, ex-Nazi sympathizer premier: the late, not-so-great and entirely unlamented Pierre Trudeau.

What was most surprising was the fact that a trial this important was ignored by so many for so long. Last week’s events in the Great White North are a harbinger of things to come in the States – of things that are already have come to pass to some extent – and that will only get worse under the Brave New World that our new Dear Leader, Barack Hussein Obama promises to impose on us.

If a group of our fellow countrymen dare to exercise their constitutional right not to listen to crappy music by boycotting the Ditzy Chicks, excuse me – the Dixie Chicks – because the Chicks have exercised their constitutional right to have a dopey opinion, well then there is no shortage of pundits, politicians and pathetic panderers to puerile privilege prepared to pummel the protesters. (Sorry, there has been a tragic outbreak of alliteration in the Chicagoland area…). “This is censorship!” they’ll cry.

Similarly, if the government suggests that it might be worthwhile to attempt to tap into communications between Osama bin Laden and Ali bi Krazy, because it’s 2008 and we have this little communication tool called the internet and, much to our surprise, internet communications also pass through the United States, this plainly won’t do either. This is “domestic spying”! This is the first step in taking away our ancient right to surf disturbing porn sites in peace! If the Continental Army didn’t suffer though Valley Forge so that we could anonymously oogle nude, bisexual, Amish cheerleaders, then what was the point?!

But, just across the border, the government of Canada, through its bizarre mind control ministry, otherwise known as the Human Rights Commission, tries to muzzle free speech and we hardly hear a word. Where are outraged pundits? Where, Sweet Jesus, are the outraged liberals? If freedom of the press is not a liberal virtue, then what’s left?

Canada’s biggest news weekly, Macleans, published excerpts from Mark Steyn’s best seller “American Alone” back in 2006. (A book that the brilliant, and brilliantly satirical, Steyn advertises thus: “Best seller in America – Hate crime in Canada”).

In his tome, Steyn presents a carefully thought out, convincing and amusing case that radical Islam represents a dire threat to western, Judeo-Christian civilization. He points to increasing Muslim birth rates, combined with decreasing birth rates in the west, along with a substantial minority of fanatics in the Muslim population who – by their own admission – do not approve of western culture. His conclusion? The west is in for some very tough times.

A small, yet terribly aggrieved, group of Muslims complained. That’s fine, but in Canada you can complain to the Humans Rights Commission, which operates official, yet oddly extra-legal, tribunals designed to ensure that no one gets their feelings hurt – ever.

The persecution (yes, yes, I know what this word is supposed to be – I’m simply being accurate) admitted that Steyn noted that the majority of Muslims are not nut-balls, but that wasn’t good enough. Apparently Steyn should have made the point in ALL CAPS, or added a couple of “really, reallys” to satisfy them.

If in fact they could be satisfied, which I doubt. All they wanted, they piously explained, was editorial control over Macleans for a week in order to print a 5,000 word counter-argument. Oh, and they get to design the cover too. That’s all.

Since the magazine wouldn’t surrender to these very reasonable demands, the complainants took the only step they had left to get their message out: they took Macleans to kangaroo court. And when I say the “only step they had left”, I am of course discounting letters to the editor, interviews on the television and radio, articles in other publications, access to the entire internet and shouting across the fence to their neighbors, for none of these other modes of communication are available to them, apparently.

They sniffed that Steyn’s book (no matter the disclaimer about the reasonable Muslim majority) had incited hatred and violence against the Muslim community in Canada. One must acknowledge that there have been peaceful, democracy-loving Muslims who have been the target of unreasonable violence and hatred in North America. However – and this may be a stretch – I think that the fact that their crazy co-religionists blow up embassies, office buildings and each other in the name of religious revolution has a little more to do with eliciting this reaction than the musings of an accomplished, insightful author.

We should not excuse violence and hatred that harms an innocent. Of course. Do we even need to say this? We should, however, be realistic enough to admit where said violence and hatred comes from, and – no matter what – we should not assume that the situation will be improved by stifling the free exchange of ideas.

Can’t happen here you say? It’s already happening here. Just last week, the City of Bloomington arrested a young man who got into a verbal (non-physical) confrontation with another young man. One of these young men happened to be gay. The other was not. One of them was not arrested. The other was, and was charged with a “hate crime”. Care to guess which young fellow was arrested? And that’s not the first time that the Thought Police have used “hate crime” statutes as a means to impose their will in this country.

Tell me that we won’t see more of the same once “President Touchy-Feely, We All Have To Respect Each Other” assumes office. “We all have to respect each other” is classic liberalspeak for: “you better start thinking like I do, or there WILL be consequences”.

Or, to quote William F. Buckley Jr.: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

God help us.

Time for a Change

EXAMINER PUBLICATIONS - JUNE 4, 2008

By Rich Trzupek

Congratulations to you, Class of 2008. As you head out into what is commonly described as “the real world”, you have been told that you have the ability to change that world. You do indeed. But, before you begin moving things around, let’s talk about this “change” thing a bit.

It’s an interesting concept; “change”. It is, arguably, the most over-used and abused concept in the history of American politics. Probably the only President elected without having to invoke the magic word is John Adams, who had the good fortune to succeed George Washington. Even then, people knew that there was no point in breaking what the father of our county had fixed.

You have undoubtedly heard the word used by your parents, generally when they’re beside themselves with anger, as in: “things are going to change around here!” Restaurants try to change their atmosphere, companies hire consultants to change their image and boozing Hollywood starlets promise to change their habits.

You may have observed that, while people constantly talk about change, things really don’t change all that often. But you, my dear graduates, you will be different. Your parents and teachers look at you and see fire and energy in your eyes and they think: “yes, they can do it. They can really change the world.”

And well you might. Actually, no - you will. Every generation leaves a mark on the world, although it takes a long time to figure out what kind of mark it is. But, before you jump out there and start making all these changes, I would challenge you to do something else first: don’t change a thing.

This is not to say that some things don’t need fixing. Some things need to change, have to change, if mankind is to grow and if we want everyone in the world to enjoy the blessings of liberty and freedom from want.

But there are also things that shouldn’t be changed, for changes are not always for the better. The French Revolution promised change, and it delivered, but it was bloody change that would, in time, throw Europe into a war that would span over two decades. Stalin, Hitler and Mao all promised change when they came to power, but their changes would bring more misery, to more people, than any other regimes in the long, sordid history of man’s inhumanity to man.

Many good people supported all these agents of change, for they honestly believed that the changes would make their lives better. The average French peasant who cheered the revolution wasn’t hoping for a government-sanctioned murder in the streets, to be followed by a never-ending conflict that would destroy the youth of their nation. They saw a different future, a richer future, a future where there were no class distinctions and no shortage of plenty.

Germans voted for change in 1933, believing that they were electing a chancellor who - though he was rather strange - would restore German honor and solve its economic woes. The number of ordinary German voters who could envision the death camps and a world war to come was very small.

Change is not always positive in more mundane parts of life either. When I was your age, Coca Cola’s makers decided to change the taste of their product. This was not a change well-received. In a very short period of time, it was decided that this particular change ought to be changed.

And the point here is that there is value, as you find your place in life, to doing nothing but observing for a while. Don’t worry: there will be plenty of time to make all those changes, but won’t you be better prepared to make them if you know what is worth preserving as well? At the very least, you should understand the price that change exacts.

Consider the Civil Rights movement of in the 1960s. It changed America forever, and few would dispute that it was the price, but we should recognize that there was a price, one that was often measured in terms of broken bones and blood, and sometimes, in terms of lives.

Do not, as our politicians (of both parties) so often do, promise change and assure us that there will be no consequences. As you move forward with your lives, you will become experts in at least one thing, and perhaps in many things. You will be in a position to understand what is worth preserving and you will know what changes are worth the price and which exact a toll too dear. It will be your duty, in a world that grows more complex each day, to communicate what you know to the rest of us.

That doesn’t mean that you have to write a letter to the editor, or start a blog, although blogs are certainly fun. How you communicate is up to you, but if all you every do is to chat over the fence with your neighbor, you will have done the rest of the world a service.

For there’s nothing wrong with shaking things up and I have no doubt that you can. But, this time, before you start making changes, let’s make sure that we understand exactly what it is we’re changing.

Now that would be a change.