My Personal Primary

This is an unseemly part of the election cycle, when states like Iowa and New Hampshire fight for the extra attention attendant on being the first voters in the nomination of the Republican and Democratic tickets. The result of all this nonsense is that bad ideas that appeal to Iowans get taken seriously, and every diner and American Legion hall in the state gets visited by men and women who would normally not touch down in Iowa unless the Iowa Air National Guard scambled both its crop dusters to force their plane down.

Iowans are the spoiled brats of American politics. I've never met an American president - Iowans meet every single candidate when they go to the grocery store, and get snippy if the candidates don't know them by their first names. Ideas like ethanol subsidies would be laughed out of a rational congress, but they are part of our political landscape because both parties' leadership wants to appeal to the farmers in overalls that serve as the face of corporate farms in Iowa.

I want that kind of attention, and I've devised a plan to get it. I am announcing that the Gonemild Primary will be held on January 7, 2008 - a full week before the Iowa caucuses. That will give the campaigns a week to spin the results (winners trumpet them, losers dismiss them, and the pack finds strengths to be built upon . . .) before the Iowans get there shot. Between now and that day, I'll be available on a first ask, first serve basis to show up at barbecues and county fairs, where politicians of both parties can fawn over me and listen to my most innane babblings.

While most regular readers have probably detected a subtle democratic bias on this site, I want to assure the national media that the Gonemild Primary will have results for both Republicans and Democrats. Some may wonder exactly how the mechanics of this will work, since I'm the only person "in" Gonemild. Well, you'll just have to trust me that the process is fair and rational, and a good deal easier to understand than the Iowa Caucus system. As for the predictive value of my results, I 100% guaranty that they will be at least as accurate as the process that nominated Harkin, Gephardt and Bush the Elder over Reagan.

Just so that nobody will question my integrity, I should announce that I will NOT be accepting direct bribes for this service. I will accept free meals, though, and I will gently hint that candidates who favor subsidies for craft brewing and tax rebates for parents with two children in college will probably do better than those who refuse to take those positions. Oh, yeah, and getting out of that Iraq thing, too.

Local TV and radio stations may submit cash gifts to express their gratitude to me for the obscene amounts of ad revenue they will be receiving.

Oh, yeah, a final hint before the process starts. My lawn needs mowing, and it would be a fine photo op for a candidate trying to lose that "Eastern elite" taint. I'm looking at you, Romney and Biden. Get on it.

YouTube Political Activism Hits Missouri

I don't know who "The Missourian" is, but somebody smart, informed and humorous has created a series of YouTube videos about Missouri politics. Spend a few minutes watching this and other efforts.

FIFA - Soccer is for Wimps

FIFA, the world governing body for soccer (football for the rest of the world), has recently decided that games should not be played at altitudes over 2500 meters - 8200 feet for those of us who call it soccer. This ban will prevent Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Colombia from hosting home games where they would normally be played.

Next up, I expect FIFA to ban games played in warm weather, or in areas with pollen, or in stadiums where the crowds are loud.

This decision does not reflect a concern for competitiveness or the integrity of the sport. Soccer's strength has always been that it is the international sport, played everywhere under a variety of conditions. When I was in Bolivia a couple years ago, I got into a pickup game with the local kids. According to FIFA, I should have whined about the altitude when they ran past me, and refused to allow them to celebrate their victory.

FIFA is dominated by the traditional power-houses of soccer, and they want to see their favored teams play in comfort. That's understandable, but they owe a higher duty to the international spirit of the sport, and their decision to restrict the international sport to European conditions is a farce. They need to rescind their decision, or cancel the next World Cup tournament. Perhaps they can substitute a "Sea Level Cup" tournament.

Local Kids Designing the Baghdad Embassy

The same people who designed Visitation Church on Main Street and the Sprint Headquarters have taken on a different kind of project. They are the ones designing the controversial, wildly expensive and anger-inspiring Baghdad Embassy - a 100+ acre, billion dollar monstrosity that is the same size as the Vatican City.

Berger Devinhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gife Yaeger is a local group, headquartered in the Uptown Theatre Building. What must it be like to design a compound that you must realize is not only going to get hit with bombs, but will inspire bombs elsewhere? How does it feel to design a compound that will serve as an emblem of American imperialism in the Muslim world?

To be clear, I'm not knocking the firm for taking the work. It's high-profile, probably well-paying, and somebody's got to do it. But it's weird to think of people a few blocks away from my office engaged in work like that.

On the other hand, we've had dozens of young people from this area go all the way over there and spill their blood on the streets of Baghdad. That's even harder to think about.

Update: Local blogger Spyder obviously knows how to stay on top of the latest news and research - she points out that the State Department is upset about the drawings of the compound that Berger Devine Yaeger had on its site. If you clicked through on my link here, someone from the NSA will soon be showing up on your doorstep with one of those memory-erasing-flasher-pens from Men in Black. Sorry for the inconvenience. Your right to look at pictures you are paying for of a compound you are paying for is limited by the State Department's need to be super-secretive about Iraq.

Time is Going Really, Really, Really, Really Slow

A cop bakes marijuana brownies, and hilarity ensues . . .

Welcome to the working week.

AG Race Looks Like a Republican Brawl

Jay Nixon will be leaving the Attorney General's office to win the Governor's race in 2008 (Blunt has no chance, and may even draw a primary opponent), and the Republicans are lining up to take a (remote) chance on running against likely Democratic nominee Jeff Harris. More than any other, the Republican AG primary is shaping up to be a microcosm of all that is wrong with Missouri Republicans.

First off, we have Michael Gibbons, the simian South St. Louis Senator. Plainly stated, Michael Gibbons is a nanny state Republican who wants to make us all live in his world. The Republican party has a Libertarian streak that I occasionally admire - but Michael Gibbons is the exact opposite. He has drafted a law to prosecute families that allow twenty-year-olds nieces and nephews to participate in a Thanksgiving toast. He supported anti-consumer Tort Deform and reductions in the amount of compensation that injured workers receive. As Senate President Pro Tem, Gibbons gets and deserves much of the blame that Missourians are directing toward the ineffective Missouri legislature. He has no chance of winning, but he will raise lots of money from people seeking to buy favors in the Senate. I'm thrilled he's in the race, because he is unelectable and likely to ruin the bankrolls of the other candidates.

Chris Koster is a pretty boy candidate who seemed like he was on the fast track to Republican prominence. He's a smart guy, and even tells the truth once in a blue moon. “There is a sense in this building that if an interest group brings four really bad ideas to the table, we are obligated to pass at least one of them because they are our friends,” Koster once said when the insurance companies tried to gain virtual immunity for their misdeeds. Unfortunately, Koster's conscience is up for the highest bidder. Even when his gag reflex was triggered by the insurance companies' avarice, it was only after he had started working for a trial lawyer.

Most damning for Koster, though, is that he has hired Jeff Roe. Roe has shown himself to be incompetent at anything other than self-promotion. His career is over, after he single-handedly sunk Becky Nace's campaign for mayor. Dozens of people told me that she was their favorite candidate, but they refused to vote for her because she hired him. One of the biggest fights in the Gottstein/Gamble race grew out of a rumor that Gamble had hired Roe - the Gamble people viewed that as poisonous slander. Well, Koster sunk his own campaign when he hired Roe. Neither Koster nor Roe has a discernible shred of morality.

Finally, there's Catherine Hanaway, the current US Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. This one cracks me up. Remember when holding the US Attorney position was a huge badge of honor? Remember when being a US Attorney meant that you were a straight-shooting, highly competent attorney who earned a reputation for integrity? Those were the days, weren't they? Unfortunately, though, the Bush administration's contempt for competence and pride in partisanship has turned that post into a scarlet letter on the resume. What kind of voter would vote for someone appointed by Bush now?

On top of that, she's another St. Louis county Republican. She and Gibbons will split the bankroll of Clayton and Ladue, and the votes of all the SUV drivers on the East coast of the state. Because she's much smarter than Gibbons, less dogmatic and mildly better looking, she will have the edge over Gibbons, and the race will come down to a divisive, ugly and horribly expensive contest between her and Roe/Koster. With Roe/Koster in the race, we can be assured that mud-slinging and nastiness will alienate anyone who ever thought of voting for a Republican.

In a way, it's almost a shame. Jeff Harris, the Democratic candidate, is smart, well-respected, likeable, and well-informed. He's not a good candidate - he's a great candidate. For those of us who like watching good races, it's a shame he is going to face such weak competition.

This Child is Thinking About the Buzz Blog

Political Day

I'm not a particularly well-connected person, and I'm certainly not a significant campaign donor, but yesterday was a day full of local politicians. In one day, I saw Mark Funkhouser, Theresa Garza (twice), Ed Ford, Bill Skaggs, John Sharp, Cindy Circo (twice), Jolie Justus, Paul Levota, Jason Holsman, Jan Marcason, Cathy Jolly, Beth Low, Jenee Lowe, Mike Talboy, and John Burnett.

The point is that Kansas City is a remarkably open town, and the politicians do a good job of getting out and seeing people. If you get involved in local groups, you'll get your opportunities to interact with the local politicians.

(Alright, this post may be a little lame, but I felt like I needed to post something that wasn't about McCaskill . . .)

Keith Olbermann Shares my Disgust

Take 8 minutes and go watch the video here. Keith Olbermann voices the sense of betrayal and disgust that I feel toward those who have buckled to Bush's irresponsible waste of blood and money in Iraq. We voted for a change, but we wasted our votes.

Missouri Democrats must accept the fact that one of our own betrayed us and our country on THE most important issue facing us. Claire McCaskill should be forced to attend every single funeral of every single soldier killed because of her gutlessness. She should be forced to change the dressings on the missing limbs her cowardice has caused.

She and Jim Talent can laugh about it over tea.

Claire McCaskill Gives Bush a Blank Check

Claire McCaskill brought shame upon Missouri Democrats by joining the Republicans and giving Bush a blank check to continue his wreckless and feckless quagmire in Iraq. Rather than insisting upon some accountability with our tax dollars. I'm still glad she beat Talent, but, today, she was his moral twin, voting in lockstep with Kit Bond. She should be ashamed of herself. I'm ashamed of her.

Get Your Hummingbird Feeders Out!

I haven't seen any hummingbirds around yet, but according to this handy-dandy map, ruby throated hummingbirds have been in the area for a month already.

Last year, I didn't see any at my feeder until late June, but they were regular visitors after that . . .

Stupid Blogger Tricks - Attacking the Celebrities

The god of Irony gets a special chuckle when a blogger attacks a celebrity's qualifications for voicing an opinion.

I'm probably violating a union rule by pointing this out, but the fact that you have a blog doesn't make you any more qualified to voice an opinion on global warming than Leonardo DiCaprio.

And, if you're going to start throwing stones from the glass porch on your glass house, it might be helpful to pick a target that doesn't have 99% of the scientists on his side.

My Wife is a Mistress

(Shouldn't women who get Master's degrees really get Mistress's degrees?)

Yesterday was graduation, and Kansas University conferred the degree of Master of Public Health on her. Not only that, but they gave her the Analee E. "Betsy" Beisecker Public Health Excellence Award - she was selected as the best student of the program!

She started working toward this degree several years ago, taking advantage of an employer tuition plan, and has stuck with it through classes she didn't like, through distracting pressures of work and home, and hundreds of excuses to do other things with her time. Throughout, it has been pure intellectual curiosity that has motivated her - there's no direct benefit to earning the degree, such as an automatic pay raise or promotion.

She earned a perfect 4.0. She never settled for doing "okay" in a class she didn't particularly like, nor did she focus less attention on the classes taught by professors she didn't enjoy. She worked diligently on a thesis - producing original research and winning Honors.

It was interesting to see the group of fellow-graduates. Some were in their early twenties, and some were in their forties. Some were already MDs, and some were fresh from undergraduate programs. Many or most had multiple degrees, but my wife was one who launched into the program after a two-decade break from classroom education.

Obviously, I'm quite proud of my wife/mistress. She's a private person who I tend to avoid mentioning in this space, but she was awfully cute in her cap and gown!

99 Bottles of Beer on the Blog - O'Fallon Smoked Porter

My favorite librarian dropped me an email earlier today and commented on my political overemphasis and my failure to write about beer recently. I have to admit, she had a point - when the political discussions are getting heated enough that Travelingal leaves them, it's time to sit back and mellow one's self with a good beer.

Fortunately, I had a beer in the refrigerator I've been wanting to try. So, tonight I've popped open a bottle of O'Fallon Smoked Porter that I picked up on a journey to Lucas Liquors on Sunday. I met the brewers a few weeks ago at a fundraiser in Blue Springs, pouring their tasty 5-Day IPA, and they seemed like fine people. O'Fallon Brewery is yet another fine Missouri brewery deserving of support.

I've not had many smoked beers before, and I haven't enjoyed those I've tried. They've been all smoke and not much beer - kind of like someone dumped a bottle of liquid smoke into a bottle of Budweiser.

Pouring the beer, you get a porter that looks like many others - a tan head on top of a deep, rich, opaque black beer. The aroma is malty and smokey - a blended smell where the smoke dominates, but the sweet smell of malt promises that the beer won't taste like licking the inside of a Weber kettle.

The taste lives up to the promise. Expecting a heavy dose of smoke, I was surprised to get a much more subtle smoke flavor balanced with a darned good chocolatey porter. It reminded me a lot of Rogue Brewery's Mocha Porter, but enhanced by a very nice smokey flavor. I love Rogue's Mocha Porter, so that is high praise.

Smoked chocolate is probably the best description of the flavor - good malt balancing the smoke, and no real hop flavor, though a proper dose of hop bitterness prevents the beer from being cloyingly sweet. There is a hint of coffee and caramel, as well.

If there is a flavor flaw in this beer, it comes in the aftertaste, which is slightly tart and acidic. After such a smooth and rich beer, it comes as a bit of a disappointment.

This is another excellent beer to add to the series on its way to 99. I look forward to trying it with barbecue, and see how the smoke flavors go together. I suspect it will be at its best on an autumn evening, though, with a good sharp cheddar and a few pretzels . . .

Polar Ice and Polarization

A couple months ago, I saw An Inconvenient Truth, and thought it was excellent. It was a fact-based presentation on global warming, and it led to some frightening conclusions. Like much of the science surrounding global warming, you can quibble with a few details, but the evidence is overwhelming that something big is going on, and fossil fuels are at the heart of it.

Yesterday, NASA released data that shows a chunk of Antarctica the size of California melted in January of 2005. That's NASA, not some blogger with a vivid imagination.

Despite it all, the rightwing bloggers are almost unanimous in dismissing global warming as a fraud. Their hostility to the concept and to the science behind it is impressive in its baseless vehemence. Any contrary "evidence", even when it consists of a snowy afternoon, is trumpeted, and any outlying "scientist" who staggers out of a revival tent and rejects the scientific method becomes a leading voice. I swear I once heard Rush Limbaugh mocking global warming concerns because of a news story that the largest iceberg ever had been found floating off Antarctica - he completely mistook the import of that fact.

How did a scientific concern become a political schism? Is it because one of the leading voices of that concern happens to be a Democrat whose "loss" to W remains doubtful? It is because Bush happens to be in the White House now that concensus has formed, and action is required (if so, would it make any difference if I agreed that Clinton should have gotten on board with this, too)? Is it because contemporary rightwingers have lost their environmental way? Is it just a healthy cynicism toward scientific theory, to be expected from a group which is still struggling with the concept of evolution?

It doesn't have to be this way. It's not like global warming is a Republican phenomenon, to be blamed on the Bush Regime - it's been building even during the Golden Days of the Clinton Presidency of Peace and Prosperity. It's not like solutions to global warming are going to hurt the big business interests that control the Republicans - many of the more clever large businesses are already paying attention to how energy consumption hurts their bottom lines, and others are lining up to profit from the necessary changes. This could be as big a boon for business as the Iraqi quagmire has been for Halliburton.

In this case, the left is pretty obviously on the correct side of the science. We're listening to real scientists, not pundits. We're looking at evidence, and it's mounting.

It's time for the rightwingers drop the anti-scientific knee-jerk cynicism and join us. Come on in, the water's (disturbingly) warm.

GIVE ME MY MONEEYYYYYYYYY!!

I don't often post things like this, but what the hell . . .

Free Concerts

I know this is old, old news, but now that I have my tickets lined up, I'll go ahead and tell you about two free concerts at Crossroads KC - the place behind Grinders. On June 1, Bob Schneider will perform, rain or shine. Bob is as eclectic as Austin, the city he comes from. And he dated Sandra Bullock.

Even bigger, Cracker will be visiting on Friday, July 6. If you don't know Cracker, that means you're even more out of it than I am, and you need help.

Get free tickets to both shows here.

Time to Abandon the Funk?

Recent coverage of Mayor Funkhouser has provided a case study of perspective. I've made no secret of the fact that I have backed Funkhouser from the day he announced, and I continue to do so. I think he'll make positive changes to our city, and change the atmosphere of "Rich developers first, common folk last" that, in my opinion, is what the Barnes administration morphed into. But this post is not intended to focus on the merits of Funk.

Now, I see the Star and some of my fellow bloggers turn on Mark, and it's odd to be in a pro-mayor mindset. He throws a free party for the city, and discloses who paid for it, and people attack him. He keeps driving his economy car instead of an ugly behemoth Barnes chose, and people attack him. He pays his Chief of Staff a typical salary, so the Star adds in money he had already earned and attacks him for it. He shows up at a George Clinton concert, and people attack him.

The thing is, I get it. It's a matter of perspective. As a contrarian, it's your habit to pick up whatever nugget of information you can get, and inspect it. Hold it up to different kinds of light. Turn it upside down. Compare it to other nuggets. And, if you can find something negative about it, scream it from the rooftops.

I just can't get there right now. Sorry.

When I began supporting Funkhouser, I thought he was a policy wonk with a straight-shooting, call-it-like-it-is approach and a quirky charisma. Nothing has happened yet to change my view. It's not that I'm being stubborn, or a pollyanna, it's just that I haven't seen anything that changes my mind about him.

But, here's where it gets interesting (well, I guess you're the judge of that). I know myself well enough to admit that, if Brooks were mayor, I might take shots at his inauguration party, no matter what form it took. I might question his choice of car, or Chief of Staff. (I wouldn't criticize him for going to a George Clinton concert, though - that's just wrong.) Maybe I wouldn't, because I genuinely like Brooks, but I sure as hell would if Barnes were somehow still in office . . .

More frighteningly, I probably wouldn't even know I was doing it. My hypocrisy would be unconscious and, thus, probably incurable. I wouldn't be taking cheap shots at Barnes - I would be exposing her corruption and wrongheadedness. I would be full of the same moral superiority that the Funk-slammers are feeling now.

And I'd think that anyone who defended Barnes was ignoring the signs of her corruption and spinning the truth to avoid facing it. Stupid kool-aid drinkers.

A part of me wants to get back onto the attack. And, I promise I would if Funkhouser really did do something that altered my view of him. But the fact that he won the election was not enough to turn me around.

Truth be told, I think bloggers are more valuable in the role of critics of power, and Funk now has some power (though not as much as the status quo). But I can't bend my view of the truth just to jump back to my preferred role.

The guy I helped elect is, in my opinion, doing a good job so far. The criticisms thus far have struck me as strained and artificial. When I read about what he's doing on the inside, I'm wildly impressed. He wants to strenghten and broaden communications between his office and regular voters - I genuinely believe that. And he's insisting that his people remember to be good people first. I know Mark, I know Gloria, I know Joe Miller, I know Ed Wolf - I trust them. Maybe I'll be disappointed in them at some future date, but I haven't been so far.

I had a lot of fun recently with a commenter who did not have his facts straight, and wanted to accuse Funk of being paranoid. One of the things that struck me in the exchange was that he felt entitled to be wrong - that if his attack was in the ballpark of the truth, it ought to stand unchallenged.

Sadly, I acknowledge that, in other circumstances, I might stand alongside him. I see people take quotations from rightwingers out of context or twist their words slightly so that they say something egregious, and then bash away, and I don't often correct them.

I'm not going to jump over and join the "gotcha" crowd on Funkhouser. I still see him as a good man with great priorities. But I hope that the experience of supporting the man in titular power forces me to be more self-critical in the positions I take in opposition to those I oppose.

And if I ever criticize someone for liking George Clinton, my son will boycott Father's Day.

Book Club

Back soon after Ali was born, back when I was practicing law and it felt like I didn't read anything that wasn't written by a judge or opposing counsel, my wife and I decided that we should form a book club. So we called up a few friends who had mentioned favorite books to us, and circulated the idea far and wide, and wound up with a group of friends and acquaintances who agreed to read (or at least try to read) a book every month or so, and gather to discuss it over drinks and snacks.

The group's membership has changed over the 18 or so years it has been gathering. One of us has died, several have moved away, others have stopped coming while others have joined. We've had births, adoptions and marriages, though, oddly, no divorces. As a group, we lean left, though we have had some rightwingers come and go. We have developed traditions, such as December being a food book/potluck and April being poetry month, where we each bring favorite poems to read aloud.

Occasionally we plumb the depths of a book's meaning, but, much more frequently, we spend a brief time talking about the book and move on to whatever other topics are on our minds. If it seems the book could be made into a movie, we may discuss how we would cast it. In other words, we are a shamefully light and nonintellectual book club compared to those I've heard of that distribute discussion questions and begin with a lecture. We begin with a glass of wine or beer, and go from there.

Somehow, gathering 10-15 people in our living room to chat about a book has become a constant in our lives. Here is a list of what we've read. Is there anything you would recommend?

Foul Ball Fairness

Ancillary Adams reminisces about his appreciation of Rickey Henderson, but the story which provoked it raises a serious issue.

Be forewarned, little kids. If I catch a foul ball at a baseball game, I'm keeping it. I've wanted to do that since I was a little kid myself. When I see little kids going into the stadium with baseball gloves, I recall the disappointment and embarrassment I felt when one of my older friends told me it wasn't "cool" to bring my glove in anymore.

I've never caught one - I've never even come close. (When Sam was a little boy, a screaming line drive missed him by inches at a minor league park in Utica, NY, but I didn't even see it coming.) So, if I ever catch one, it will satisfy a wish I've carried inside me longer than I can remember. And if you come up to me with sad eyes and a baseball glove, don't expect me to put the ball in your glove. It ain't gonna happen.

At the Scene of the Crime - The Funk's Inauguration

I was there. I saw it with my own eyes, and, now that it's attracting media attention, I might as well come clean. I was at the Inuagural Ball that the Star reports is drawing criticism for its expense. I'll even admit that I was at the more restricted pre-party, where the drinks were free and deals were being cut in the dark corners of the room.

It was awesome. By virtue of being there, I have a municipal judgeship lined up for myself, my wife is getting 10% of the action on the next Briarcliff expansion, my daughter has a summer job lifeguarding at the Miller Nichols fountain, and my son has received a lucrative commission to write a play about the election, with Adam Brody playing Joe Miller and Yao Ming in a breakout role as the Funk. All that, plus the turkey sandwiches were good and the Boulevard Pale Ale was cold.

Just as the critics of the party have pointed out, that is exactly how it works. The Star, in its almost-helpful manner, lists the $10,000 sponsors, but hides the complete list of donors behind the wall at PrimeBuzz, where absolutely nobody can see it.

The list of donors is crucial to understanding why this party was so important. If not for this party, such entities as the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce and JE Dunn Construction and DST would not have any opportunity whatsoever to influence policy in this city for the next four years. Bill Dunn, Pete Levi and Tom McDonnell would be stuck waiting for an opportunity to try to get through on one of Funk's upcoming call-in shows for their voices to be heard at all if they had not sponsored the party.

I share with the critics a certain nostalgic yearning for the good old days, when Mayor Barnes threw her party for only $30,000, and stuck taxpayers with the tab, without inviting the entire city. Ahh, yes, those were the days, when the city administration was above influence by wealthy donors. And she didn't pack Union Station with a bunch of commoners who picked up their tickets for free at a community center - instead, she limited access to those who could afford to pay for a ticket. It was so much nicer then - you didn't have to worry about seeing poor people at the inaugural ball and you got to make taxpayers pay for most of the party. Wine tastes so much better when it's paid for by those unsophisticates who don't know how to get TIF status.

Yes, I was there this time. I was one of the couple hundred people jammed into a concrete room where I could barely hear anything. Let me tell you, it was a bacchanalian carnival of power and influence.

Though, frankly, I prefer the old way, when those $10,000 donors simply met quietly and privately with Mayor Barnes in a cozy booth at the Capital Grille, and nobody had to know about it, and no list of donors appeared in the paper.

Quandary

I just got an invitation to a fundraiser for Jay Nixon at Boulevard Brewery. Hmmm. The state's least appealing democrat at the state's most appealing brewery.

I've stated my feelings about Nixon here, here and here.

I think I'll stay home and drink my homebrew.

Top 5 Myths About America

I stumbled across this piece of writing, and I thought it worthy of drawing to your attention. While I would rephrase a few things, these are important points to be rescued from the Right Wing Noise Machine . . .

MYTH 1: The US was founded on Christian principles.
MYTH 2: US Conservatives tend to be patriotic, ethical Americans; liberals tend to hate America and are immoral.
MYTH 3. The US has a liberal media.
MYTH 4. The US doesn’t need improvement compared to other countries; it is the greatest country in the world.
MYTH 5: The US government loves to help other countries.

Building a Bigger Blog

A few of my friends have started blogs lately, and have asked advice on how to build an audience, what software to use, what hosting to buy, etc. Since I'm pretty much worthless for technical advice, I'll do what I can, and give a few suggestions on building an audience.

Be Interesting and On Point: All bloggers fail this test sometimes, but think about why anyone else in the world would want to read what you're writing - think about your audience. If you're trying to build a political audience, then don't write about gardening too often. If you're trying to build an audience of knitting enthusiasts, you shouldn't spend too much time writing about Roe v. Wade. This doesn't mean that you need to be unidimensional, and it doesn't mean that every post you put up needs to be aimed at building your audience. But, if you want more traffic, decide on your niche and work it.

Update often: If you want to attract regular readers, you have to give them something regularly. Once a week won't cut it. Most of the giants do multiple posts a day. Personally, I try to fit a post a day into my schedule, and I fail to meet even that goal. If people click over and see the same old stuff, they'll stop visiting.

Comment Elsewhere: List your website in your profile, and comment elsewhere. If you say something interesting and relevant in a comment on someone else's blog, that blogger and some of his/her readers will look at your profile to see who you are. If your site interests them, you'll end up in their bookmarks.

Include Others on Your Blogroll: One of the keys to getting traffic is to wind up on a bunch of blogrolls. The best way to do that is to add others to your blogroll - you'll often get added to their's in an informal reciprocity. Don't expect instantaneous recognition, but I know that blogs that link to me are more likely to get added to my own blogroll than those that don't.

Don't Shy Away From Controversy: A long time ago, I posted something on gun control, and I still get hits from people who have stumbled upon it - it even wound up mentioned in Wikipedia. If it's attention you want, stick your nose into a controversial topic and watch the partisans flock to your site.

Promote Yourself: Earlier this week, a bunch of local bloggers got an email from the proprietess of Kansas City Daily Photo with a kind compliment and a request to be added to the blogroll. Clicking over, I see that she's been posting some cool photos, so she goes onto the blogroll. Why not?

Have Some Patience: In 2004, this blog drew maybe 10 or 20 unique visitors a day. And that was fine with me - I was doing it mostly as an experiment and an outlet for my impulse to write. Now I average a thousand or so unique visits a day, and I appreciate the attention, but I'd happily trade half those visitors for 20 more thoughtful, regular commenters.

Does anyone else have any advice? Any thoughts about joining all those circles and groups that I see posted on other sites?

I Might Have to Start Watching Malkin

Home early from the inaugural ball, I channel-surfed for a while last night and happened upon Michelle Malkin hosting O'Reilly's No-Spin Zone. Honestly, it was one of the funniest shows I've seen, because she was soooo bad at it. At least two of the guests completely demolished her in debating points, despite her heavy-handed use of the mute button so that she could screech over their voices. In one particularly funny moment, she closed off with the "final word", but she mis-timed it, so the guest was left with a few seconds to respond, and he made her look completely foolish.

I would love to post links to the segments, but they aren't yet available. I'll update when they are, and I'll encourage you to watch the demolition.

(Update: Apparently, someone within the O'Reilly/Malkin machine has decided that I was right - they are not posting the clips from that day, though they have the previous program and the next program available. Someone didn't want her to suffer further embarrassment on the internet.)

Cops in Context

Over the years, I've lost the sunny attitude about police officers instilled in us during school years. "Mr. Policeman is your friend" has melted away as I've seen too many cases of corruption and violence.

Watching early video of the Ward Parkway shootings, in the background I saw a police car speed up, stop, and out hopped a middle-aged, heavy-set police officer - and he was the perfect picture of what I would assume to be a cocky, arrogant Reno-911 wannabe if he pulled me over for speeding. But not this time. Hand on his gun, he ran full speed into the mall. He couldn't know what could be waiting for him in there - though I'm sure he knew that one of his fellow officers had already been shot. There was no strutting, no smugness, no cockiness. Just total focus on getting to the scene and doing whatever he could to help, even if it meant facing injury or death. That guy was there to protect and serve.

This week, I've given a friendly wave to the cops running radar.

Yesterday was MA Day

When I grew up, we celebrated May Day with May poles and an outdoor celebration. It waas kind of like a day-long recess . . .

Four years ago, Bush seized that bucolic day and made it into MA Day - Mission Accomplished Day - the day he stuffed a sock in a flight suit and acted like he could land a plane on an aircraft carrier without a few toots of coke to steady his nerve (while many people think he landed the plane, it's a lie - a real pilot landed the plane). The "liberal" press responded with fawning worship.

One can only wonder how the 25,000 American troops who have been wounded since May Day became MA Day viewed their future back when Bush told us we had been victorious. One can only wonder how the more than 3200 troops who have died since Bush declared our mission accomplished spent that day, or how they could have spent yesterday, if they were still alive.

MA Day was four years ago. May Day was in another era.

KC in the New Yorker

I love the New Yorker. Check out this article about the additions to the Nelson. And don't miss the slide show.

The US Attorney Scandal - From the Beltway to I-70

The KC Blue Blog is doing a great job of staying on the US Attorney scandal and how it played a role in Missouri. I haven't written about it before today, though the story has all the elements I seek in a story. Corrupt republicans playing slimy politics under the cover of National Security to oppress poor people. Classic stuff.

The problem I've had writing about it is that the bigger lesson I draw from it is difficult to articulate. The lesson is that the Republicans are fouling the nest of government - turning the very workings of government into corruption. And even though it's a matter of degree, it's a matter of degree to such an extent that it changes the very nature of things.

Brad Schlozman was not the first US Attorney for the Western District of Missouri to be appointed with an eye toward politics. Take, for example, Steve Hill. When he was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993, he had been out of law school for all of 7 years (a year behind me at Mizzou) and had no significant prosecutorial experience. He had worked as a staff member for Ike Skelton. But everyone, on both sides of the aisle, knew that Steve was a solid lawyer with great judgment and a sincere desire to be the best US Attorney possible. Hill was hired because he would play it straight, and I've never heard anyone complain that he didn't do that.

So, no, Brad Schlozman was not the first US Attorney for Missouri's Western District chosen because of political connections. As far back as you care to look, you'll see the the office has been filled by lawyers with political connections - during both Republican and Democratic administrations.

But here's where it gets tough to explain. Schlozman was different. Never before have we had a political goon hired into the position. Where we've had lawyers with political connections appointed in the past, they have always been good lawyers with able intellects and a mission of doing their job as fairly and competently as possible. While I was no fan of Todd Graves, the republican appointee prior to Schlozman, my disagreement comes in the area of politics, not in the area of how he sought to do his job. But Schlozman was chosen partially because he was willing to back the unconstitutional Texas redistricting scheme. Better to be far-right than right.

I knew John McKay, the US Attorney who got fired in Seattle. John is one of the most conservative lawyers I know - he sincerely believes the government ought to be trimmed as much as humanly possible to defense and a court system - but he was so competent and effective that he was elected chair of the ABA Young Lawyers Division, a group which tends to be dominated by left-leaning folk (with some notable exceptions). Again, while I could disagree with John's politics, I respected his fairness and competence. He's the sort of person who has traditionally been appointed to the US Attorney's office. Bush/Gonzalez fired him.

That's the pattern I've seen in so many instances during this administration. Political ties have always been important, but it's new and different now. During the tenure of Bush I, and Reagan, the republican administrations were filled with what they thought were the best and brightest of the conservative ranks. Now, they seek the most thuggish and extreme.

During prior Republican administrations, the College Republicans at places like Dartmouth and Princeton would flow into the ranks of the staff. Bush/Gonzalez has hired 150 people from Regent University School of Law, an academically weak but far-right stronghold founded by nutcase televangelist Pat Robertson. 150. That's incredible.

Not only is it incredible, but it is a shift in the rules of the game. I can't adequately express how sad that is. The US Attorney of the Western District of Missouri has always been a politically-connected lawyer chosen for his or her competence. Now, we have an administration which is filling the ranks of the US Attorneys office with people whose competence is shaky, but whose loyalties are not. And that, my friends, is a very bad thing - a diminished US Attorneys office will hurt us all, Republicans and Democrats.