Author Archives: The Night Writer

Robert Naegele III, eat your heart out

Posted on by
Reply

Naegele scion and skateboard park visionary Robert Naegele III apparently, um, skated on his commitment with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to build a state-of-the-art skateboard park on the Fort Snelling grounds (as reported here in the Strib). The park won’t be built, and the Minneapolis tax payers are on the hook for paying contractors for work that’s been done on the unfinished project.



I’m just guessing, but perhaps Naegele III thought, “Why mess around with the socialists when I can work with real communists?” Here’s a photo of a skateboard park under construction near Shanghai (HT: Z+ Partners Blog):






Wired’s January 2006 issue contains a brief piece about a “planned metropolis” on the outskirts of Shanghai that features a 130,000-square-foot, $26 million dollar complex for skateboarders. It sounds impressive. The only question it raises is who is actually going to use it? As Transworld Skateboarding Magazine casually observed in one of their recent travel pieces: “There aren’t hundreds of skaters in Shanghai. In fact we probably only came across a handful at most…”



Does The Great Chairman Coleman (here, here and here) or Mao Tse Thune over in the People’s Republic of St. Paul know about this?

Where would I be without them?

Posted on by
1

Happy Birthday to:

Peter Mark Roget, born in London (1779). His name is attached to the Thesaurus, but he had a long career as a physician and a scientist before he compiled it. As a younger man, he experimented with laughing gas, figured out how to improve the public water supply, invented the log-log slide rule, and wrote a paper which was the first to describe the persistence of images on the retina, thought to have been the first step toward the development of the movie camera. In Roget’s Thesaurus you can find all sorts of suggestions for words that you want synonyms for. For “talk,” he suggests: “chatter, chat, prate, prattle, patter, babble, gab, gabble, gibble-gabble, jabber, blab, blabber, blather, blether, clatter, run on, rattle on, ramble on, run on like a mill race, talk till one is blue in the face.”

A. A. (Alan Alexander) Milne, born in St. John’s Wood, London (1882). He wrote for the humor magazine Punch, and he was the author of a successful play called Mr. Pim Passes By. But once he published Winnie the Pooh, nobody ever remembered anything else he had written. In a little verse, he lamented: When I wrote them, little thinking/All my years of pen – and – inking/Would be almost lost among/Those four trifles for the young.

HT: The Writer’s Almanac.

Democrats say, “Your Mommy…”

Posted on by
26

Not content to wait until children enter public school to begin their political slandering and unsubtle brainwashing, those kindly Democrats have come up with an enchanting children’s book to explain what otherwise seems incomprehensible: why someone would be a Democrat.

At least, I think it’s a children’s book; it might be a field manual for Howard Dean’s ground forces.

(HT: Gordon at Dog Snot Diaries.)

The web-site for the book describes its purpose:

Why Mommy is a Democrat brings to life the core values of the Democratic party in ways that young children will easily understand and thoroughly enjoy. Using plain and non-judgmental language, along with warm and whimsical illustrations, this colorful 28-page paperback depicts the Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace and concern for the well-being of others. It’s a great way for parents to gently communicate their commitment to these principles and explain their support for the party.

Aww, how sweet. But the very next two paragraphs, however, say (boldface emphasis mine):

Why Mommy is a Democrat may look like a traditional children’s book, but it definitely isn’t just for children. With numerous subtle (and not-so-subtle) satirical swipes at the Bush administration and the Republican party (in plain and non-judgmental language, of course), Why Mommy will appeal to Democrats of all ages!

Finally, a portion of the profits (such language!) will be donated to Democratic candidates and party organizations, so your purchase will help make an immediate difference!

Sample pages from the book include statements and illustrations such as:

“Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does.” (Illustration of friendly squirrels playing and sharing while well-dressed people walk by and turn their noses up at someone begging.)

“Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like Mommy does.” (Illustration of Mommy directing children away from an elephant going by).

“Democrats make sure children can go to school, just like Mommy does.” (Illustration of mommy packing backpacks for her children while rich people in the background stand with their daughter in front of a building that says ‘Admission $160,000’).

Since Democrats are so good and kind and want children to know the truth, and because they feel so strongly about their core values, I’m certain that the other pages in the book contain the following statements (you’ll have to think up the illustrations yourself):

  • Democrats think Mommy had the right to kill you before you were born, just like Mommy does.

  • Democrats say name-calling is all right, just like Mommy does.

  • Democrats don’t want you to make decisions for yourself, just like Mommy does.

  • Democrats think it’s more important to make sure the teacher’s union is protected than to make sure you get a good education, just like Mommy does.

  • Democrats think you don’t need a Daddy, just like Mommy does.

  • Democrats make sure that bullies are encouraged, just like Mommy does.

  • Democrats want you to do as they say, not as they do, just like Mommy does.

  • Democrats think people from other places have just as much right to play in your backyard as you do, just like Mommy does.

  • Democrats think you will always need a nanny, no matter how old you are, just like Mommy does.

Of course, Mommy doesn’t really think and do these things. If she did she might be arrested for child abuse.

Yes, Mommy, I know, I’m not being very nice – but they started it!

Update:

David at Our House and Fuzzy Nietsche at Nihilist in Golf Pants are on the story as well. Mommy’s got some ‘splainin to do.

A million little enablers

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve never bought into the whole “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” thing or the tenets of our therapeutic culture where everyone’s a victim (which means, of course, that everyone must also be a victimizer). Yes, I’ve been married for 18 years and live in a house full of women so I do know that males and females think differently but I attribute most of the public conversation around this kind of thinking to have more to do with capitalism than revelation (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

Sometimes, however, you’ve got to wonder. I’ve had a few chuckles over the flap surrounding James Frey’s supposed autobiographical bestseller “A Million Little Pieces” that was mid-wifed into the stratosphere by Oprah Winfrey and her book club. By all accounts (I’ve not read it, nor do I have plans to do so), the book is a spell-binding read of personal degradation, exploitation of others and reclamation. The scandal, according to The Smoking Gun, is that Frey’s account appears to have more in common with the scripts of the “daytime dramas” flanking Oprah’s show than real life, though it may have exploited a couple of real-life tragedies in the process to add authenticity and pathos.

My schadenfreude at Oprah’s empire being taken in is perhaps my own weakness, but I really see Frey as nothing more than the latest in the literary line that includes Clifford Irving, Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair. It was interesting that he could cause such a sensation, but an important lesson (I thought) that the seeds of his own exposure were intrinsic in his success. I figured there’d be a splashy comeuppance once Oprah exacted her revenge, but instead (as of today) she’s standing by her man.

That surprised me, but not as much as walking into our office breakroom and hearing two women I consider to be fairly sharp discussing – in heart-rending terms – the latest trials and challenges now facing “James” as a result of all of this. I thought they’d start to rip him apart, but they were supportive of him and closed ranks when I volunteered an unsolicited, incredulous “Oh come on,” type of comment.

Amazing, but thank God (really, it is a touch of the Divine) that there’s something in the female wiring that causes them to want to see, embrace or hope for the good in the scruffiest of characters or else 98% of us guys would never stand a chance. Besides that revelation I also got a glimpse of what it’s like for the ladies to walk into the breakroom and hear us guys talking about this quarterback or that pitcher and how this just might be the season when he puts it all together.

Challenging Word of the Week: fustian

Posted on by
4

Fustian
(FUS chun) n., adj.

A strange word, fustian, in the diversity and apparent dissociation of its several meanings. First of all, fustian is the name of a thick twilled cotton fabric, or a blend of cotton and flax or low grade wool with a short nap, usually dyed a dark color, and as an adjective, fustian describes cloth so made. But fustian is now used chiefly in a wholly different sense, miles from cloth or fabric: It means “bombast,” written or spoken, “turgid, inflated language, purple prose,” and finally, “claptrap, rant, hogwash, palaver, prattle, drivel”; and, as an adjective, “pompous, bombastic, nonsensical, worthless.” Fustian is a Middle English word, from Old French fustaigne, derived from Middle Latin fustaneus , referring to cloth made in El-Fustat, a suburb of Cairo. This peculiar dichotomy of meanings suggests that the material from El-Fustat was of pretty poor value. Shall we complicate matters further? Fustian is also the name of a drink made of white wine, egg yolk, lemon, spices and other miscellaneous ingredients – a concoction with possibilities. To fustianize (FUS chun ize) is to write in a bombastic manner, and a writer who descends to that level is a fustianist (FUS chun ist). From the pen of the English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744), in the Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot, out of his Prologue to Imitations of Horace, flow these words: “Means not, but blunders round about meaning; and he whose fustian’s so bad, it is not poetry, but prose run mad.”

Shakespeare used fustian in Othello (Act II, Scene 3) when Cassio, in despair after Othello cashiers him, cries: “I will rather sue to be despised rather than deceive so good a commander…Drunk!…and squabble, swagger, swear and discourse fustian with one’s own shadow!” In Henry IV, Part 2 (Act II, Scene 4), Doll Tearsheet tells Bardolph: “For God’s sake, thrust him (Pistol) down stairs! I cannot endure such a fustian rascal!” And in Twelfth Night (Act II, Scene 5), after hearing Malvolio’s doggerel, Fabian exclaims, “A fustian riddle!” All these uses refer to bombast, prattle and drivel.

This selection is taken from the book, “1000 Most Challenging Words” by Norman W. Schur, ©1987 by the Ballantine Reference Library, Random House.

I post a weekly “Challenging Words” definition to call more attention to this delightful book and to promote interesting word usage in the blogosphere. I challenge other bloggers to work the current word into a post sometime in the coming week. If you manage to do so, please leave a comment or a link to where I can find it.

Animal, vegetable or liberal

Posted on by
Reply

As they used to say on the X-files, “the truth is out there.” And with a little surfing around the Web you find … coincidence, or synchronicity?

From The Borowtiz Report:

SEN. BIDEN PRODUCING DANGEROUSLY HIGH LEVELS OF CARBON DIOXIDE
Talkative Lawmaker Creating Environmental Threat, Scientists Fear
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), who has dominated this week’s confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito with his seemingly nonstop talking, is producing dangerously high level of carbon dioxide that could pose a serious environmental threat, leading scientists said today.

While many observers have found Sen. Biden’s interminable orating tedious and wearisome, few suspected that the lawmaker was producing gases that could threaten the ecological balance of the planet.

But at a conference in Oslo, Norway devoted to the environmental challenges posed by Sen. Biden’s endless nattering, scientists today said that the Delaware Democrat was producing levels of carbon dioxide that could prove harmful to many of the earth’s species.

“Carbon dioxide is a necessary part of the photosynthetic process that allows plants to grow,” said the University of Tokyo’s Dr. Hiroshi Kyosuke. “But the massive amounts of carbon dioxide produced by Joe Biden could prove to be too much for even the hardiest vegetation to process.”

Ha-ha, good parody of Biden and global warming news stories. Or maybe it isn’t a parody after seeing this real story from Yahoo News (HT: Psycmeistr’s Ice Palace):

New source of global warming gas found: plants
LONDON (Reuters) – German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change

The culprits are plants.

They produce about 10 to 30 percent of the annual methane found in the atmosphere, according to researchers at the Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany.

The scientists measured the amount of methane released by plants in controlled experiments. They found it increases with rising temperatures and exposure to sunlight.

“Significant methane emissions from both intact plants and detached leaves were observed … in the laboratory and in the field,” Dr Frank Keppler and his team said in a report in the journal Nature.

Methane, which is produced by city rubbish dumps, coal mining, flatulent animals, rice cultivation and peat bogs, is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in terms of its ability to trap heat.

Concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere have almost tripled in the last 150 years. About 600 million tonnes worldwide are produced annually.

The scientists said their finding is important for understanding the link between global warming and a rise in greenhouse gases.

The evidence is conclusive; Sen. Joe Biden is a vegetable (further testing will need to be done, but I’m guessing he’s either lima bean or rutabaga.) He must be stopped if the world is to be saved!

One blog, one vote…

Posted on by
Reply

Count me in.

An Appeal from Center-Right Bloggers

We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.

We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.

But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.

As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.

Signed,

N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com
Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!
La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber’s Corner
Lorie Byrd / DJ Drummond , Polipundit
Beth Cleaver, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Jeff Goldstein, Protein Wisdom
Stephen Green, Vodkapundit
John Hawkins, Right Wing News
John Hinderaker, Power Line
Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO
James Joyner, Outside The Beltway
Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org
Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com
Ed Morrissey, Captain’s Quarters
Scott Ott, Scrappleface
The Anchoress, The Anchoress
John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!!

Bloggers who support this statement can sign on here at Truth Laid Bear.

Where did everybody go?

Posted on by
Reply

When the Judiciary Committee finished slanderingquestioning Justice Alito it convened for an executive session and then returned to hear testimony from other witnesses – many of them fellow judges significantly more liberal than Sam Alito – testify on behalf of their colleague. At least, some of the Committee returned. Diane Feinstein was the only Democrat in attendance once the cameras were pointed toward the witnesses. Given the time her missing cohorts spent regurgitating MoveOn and NARAL accusations (see post below), one might surmise that the Democratic senators were tidying up in the Senate washroom, or visiting the dry-cleaners. Or perhaps trying to figure out how they were going to explain this fiasco to George Soros.

You’d think, however, as John Hinderaker at Powerline pointed out, that they’d take advantage or their last, best opportunity to really find out what kind of judge Alito might be.

This is truly extraordinary. Extraordinary that Judge Alito’s colleagues have turned out to defend him against the Democrats’ smears; extraordinary that the Democrats themselves couldn’t be bothered to stick around to hear what this distinguished group of judges had to say. After all, if the Democrats were actually interested in what kind of judge Sam Alito is, these are precisely the witnesses who could tell them. If the Democrats really thought that Alito’s judicial opinions reflect poorly on him, these are exactly the people who could answer their questions, and, if they are correct, confirm their fears. But the Democrats apparently knew that wasn’t going to happen. The only conclusion one can draw is that the Democrats knew they were smearing a fine man and a fine judge. But the fact that they didn’t even have the decency or respect to stay and listen to Alito’s colleagues is disgusting.

Call me paranoid, but I’m struck by the fact that none of the news services seem to have taken a picture of the Senate panel, denuded of Democrats during the judges’ testimony. When Alito was testifying, there were countless shots of Kennedy, Schumer, Leahy, et al.; now, mysteriously, there are no pictures of the Senators.

On a related note, Sisyphus at Nihilist in Golf Pants has his final verbosity index scorecard, compiled from hearing transcripts published in the Washington Post, showing how many words each Committee member used in “questioning” Justice Alito and comparing it to the number of words the nominee used to respond. Check it out.

The Dems and the great technicolor yawn

Posted on by
1

Laura Ingraham was asking callers this morning to offer one-word descriptions of the performance of the Judiciary Committee Democrats during the Alito hearings. “Atrocious,” “disgusting” and “vile” were offered, along with a word that I thought was particularly apt, though Laura wasn’t sure what it meant: execrable.

The word that popped into my head, however, was “bulimic”. Sure, “vomitous” would work nearly as well, but bulimic is the choice because all of the wretched retching by Teddy “Mr. Creosote” Kennedy, Up-Chuck Schumer, Blow Biden, et al, was entirely self-induced. Gorged by the cheers (and money) of their far-left masters, bloated by the rhetoric and war chants leading up to the hearings predicting a beating for the nominee, burping the emetic threat of a fili-gut-buster, they sought to poke a finger in the eye of the Bush administration and ended up sticking it down their own throats instead.

Not only that, but they threw everything they had at Justice Alito and it had all the stopping power of a blueberry thrown against a locomotive. Yeah, it will leave a stain, but mostly on their own shoes. This was supposed to be the battle to show the administration that it couldn’t get a conservative, white male, pro-life nominee past the Watchdogs of (In)Decency and it failed. It does make you wonder what they can possibly do if there’s another SCOTUS vacancy in the next year and a conservative, pro-life black woman is nominated. You’d like to think that an important lesson has been learned, but you also know how it is with dogs returning to their vomit.

Friday Fundamentals in Film: U-571

Posted on by
4

The point of the Fundamentals in Film class was to help a group of young men see examples of “manly” behavior beyond just pro wrestlers or Homer Simpson. The World War II submarine movie U-571 fit the bill, having the requisite non-stop action and examples of strong character under stress (true of most films in the series). The special lesson from this film, however, also dealt with being able to control your face and emotions when things don’t go your way.



This was a good lesson for the group of young men in my charge who were prone to expressive outbursts, eye-rollings and other body language if they felt an injustice had been done unto them.



At the beginning of the movie young Andy (Matthew McConaughey) is the executive officer of a submarine who has just been passed over for promotion to captain of his own sub, due mainly to his own captain rating him as not being ready for command.



He finds this out just before their sub is sent on an urgent, secret mission to try and capture a damaged German submarine and its priceless Enigma decoding device. Andy knows he’s a good officer and can’t understand why his captain (Bill Paxton) thinks he is lacking. The captain explains that Andy is still too much of a friend to his sailors and not a commander, ready to make hard decisions and give orders that might get some of them killed in order to preserve the rest or the mission (so guess what’s going to happen in the movie).



Indeed, when Andy is forced to take command under pressure he is uncertain and his lack of confidence threatens to lose him control of the ship as his lack of leadership creates a vacuum that threatens chaos. Another great example in the movie is how the sailors cope with the stress of their constantly deteriorating situation, even as one seemingly unfair thing after another happens. The men aren’t happy about it, of course, but go about doing what has to be done.



U-571 is an excellent movie simply from an entertainment perspective. If you add in the examples of character under extreme circumstances it also becomes an especially meaningful movie.



Themes:


  • The qualities of leadership.


  • The meaning of sacrifice (“Greater love has no man but that he lay down his life for his brother”).


  • Having a perspective of the greater good, beyond yourself.


  • Showing respect and being obedient even if you are upset or feel wronged (controlling your face and your emotions).


  • The necessity at times of having to make hard decisions, using imperfect information, that have significant consequences in other peoples’ lives.



Questions to answer:


  1. Why did the captain think Andy was not prepared to be the captain of his own sub?


  2. Did Andy’s disappointment affect his obedience and discipline? Contrast Andy’s behavior with Mazzola’s.


  3. What are the burdens of authority?


  4. What was the over-riding principle Andy had to use in making his decisions?


  5. Would it have done any good for Andy (or anyone in the crew, to protest being in an unfair situation?





Great quote:

“A sea captain is a mighty and terrible thing.”