Between the Coasts

Coulter's Sarcasm Strong Enough to Present Realistic View of the Media

I like Wednesday night's arrival of the Coulter column. Most times, it is off the wall and that makes it fun. It was off the wall tonight, but since she was talking about media bias and the drumbeat of Liberal Defeatism, it actually came out spot on -

Indeed, according to the polls, the public's feeling about the war in Iraq began three years ago with fear, skepticism and dread – and steadily went downhill.

If these poll results were accurate, support for the war should be about negative 3,000 percent by now. The public would have stormed the White House, seized the president and flogged him to death.

Here's a sample of New York Times headlines on stories discussing poll numbers since before the Iraq war began in March 2003:

– Poll Finds Most in U.S. Support Delaying a War (2/14/03)

– Opinions Begin to Shift as Public Weighs Costs of War (3/26/03)

– World's View of U.S. Sours After Iraq War, Poll Finds (6/4/03)

– Study Finds Europeans Distrustful of U.S. Global Leadership (9/4/03)

– Despite Polls, Pataki Backs Bush on Iraq All the Way (10/3/03)

– Poll Finds Hostility Hardening Toward U.S. Policies (3/17/04)

– Support for War Is Down Sharply, Poll Concludes (4/29/04)

– Rising Casualties, One Falling Poll (5/2/04)

– Polls Show Bush's Job-Approval Ratings Sinking (5/14/04)

– Bush's Rating Falls to Its Lowest Point, New Survey Finds (6/29/04)

And then – despite the fact that every single man, woman and child in America opposed the war in Iraq and despised George Bush – a few months later, Bush won re-election against well-respected war hero John Kerry.

Immediately after the election, public opinion polls showed Americans turning once again against the war and against George Bush, according to the Times...

[...]

There is, however, one poll taken by millions of Americans every day, year in, year out. Based on plummeting viewers, circulation numbers and ad rates, we can say with some certainty, the American people are beginning to loathe the liberal media.

Posted by Carl at 09:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

No Defeatist Bandwagons for Me

Taranto talks about the malaise of defeatism that is covering our society in a heavy fog.

The thing to keep in mind is that the people who complain about how terrible the war is, or who take the weaselly position that they're for the war but it's all gone wrong because the Bush administration is irredeemably "incompetent," are doing so for reasons that have little to do with the actual war. Some have always opposed it on ideological grounds. Others are seeking partisan advantage. Still others--and many of our fellow pundits fall into this category--are simply succumbing to peer pressure. They feel as though they have to gang up on President Bush because that's what all the cool kids inside the Beltway are doing right now. Perhaps one day they will be mature enough to make up their own minds about things.

Polls suggest that public opinion has of late turned decisively against the war. But it strikes us that these feelings do not run very deep, and indeed may be partly the result of the same sort of peer pressure.

[...]

Vietnam-style defeatism, it seems to us, is an ingrained impulse of aging hippies, politicians and journalists. We don't think think this bunch of losers really speak for America.

The last point is spot on. Chris Matthews, Nancy Polosi, and Tim Russert and many of the others are all about being losers. I'm tired of it because of the lack of perspective. Iraq is tough, but you'd think we were most the way through the 100 Year War. When someone shows me that disbanding the military and waiving the white flag is the right strategy, I'll jump on the wagon, but so far, despite the millions of mistakes that might be cited, I'm with the U.S. on this one. I'm even with Bush on this one. Now, if he would do something about our domestic spending maladies, our foul tax system or the doom of Social Security, I might become a fan of his again.

F1 Is the Pinewood Derby for Adults

I had a friendly back and forth with a friend at the office who is a huge F1 racing fan about last weekend's travesty of a race. He thinks NASCAR is lame. I like any race with 2 or 4 wheels - Heck, I even like the American LeMans Series, even though I can't understand all of the thrill around a diesel engine taking 1st. I am a simple-minded fan in some ways because I don't get juiced on strategy alone - I need some passing for it to be an enjoyable experience.

Anyway, here was our exchange after last weekend's race - The highlighting is my reference to the Pinewood Derby:

Carl: The only thing I have to say about F1 is that it is the only sport with that much money involved where half of the machines don't last through the race. You can go to a local track here with weekend warriors and they understand reliability better than the guys in that F1 series, and by the way, the 2-race engine rule is idiotic. And what was wrong with the V-10s? OK, why can't Cosworth make a V-8 engine?? I still enjoyed parts of the race, and I am a big fan of that Rosberg guy but he couldn't even get a car that lasted half the race....I wonder what the FIA guys think the fans think when their drivers can't get in a car that will run 150 miles???? One hundred fifty miles - they can't get a car that could go to Manhattan, KS from Kansas City, KS -- Idiotic.

Friend: Yeah, they made a mistake in moving to the V-8 engines and, with that type of performance, they should only be required to last for one race. And, with the new qualifying rules, they actually have to put more miles on the engines than with the old format. Changing to V-8 engines ends up costing more when the move is suppose to save money for teams, incredible. I think the reliability issue comes from running the engines at much higher rev's than the V-10's did, and, it is within these higher revs where the engines are in the most jeopardy of blowing. As the year goes along the reliability issues will dwindle but I agree that this move to a different engine was idiotic. If they wanted to slow the cars all they needed to do was restrict the V-10 engine's air flow and rev limits as they have done in the team previously known as Minardi. (but they must switch to the V-8 by next year) If they keep monkeying with the sport too much then they will surely lose fans but, to me, it is still a great spectacle. But at least each car is an original work and it is up to the team to either get it right or fail, within the design restrictions imposed on it by the FIA, and that is part of what is fun to watch. It just adds to the drama. F1 is not really about having all of the cars working equally well and having lots of passing. It is about each team building something and then being able to evolve it through the year to be competitive. And, the fastest car doesn't always win it all, as witnessed by McLaren Mercedes last year.

Other Friend Who Was Copied: All good points. I think we need to flesh this out some more in the team meeting {ed.: we always talk about racing, dogs, and music during the team meetings}.

Carl: Friend's message is spot on. That's why F1 reminds me of the Boy Scout Pinewood Derby races - There wasn't really a race and the reliability was awful but it was quite a spectacle!

Other Friend Who Was Copied: Europeans don't like reliability - They like things that blow up.

So there you have it. I'll keep watching F1, but give me a series where the driving counts, where the machines last, where the rules are not so fouled up as to make it like a game of Bridge, where there is some passing.

Give me my Indy Racing!! I'll even take a little Bristol Bash fest this weekend.

I'll keep watching the F1 because David Hobbs, the Speed commentator, is on fire most of the time...It's fun just to listen to the commentary as cars go around the track, not passing each other, half of them blowing up. Also, I must say that the new qualifying format is the most interesting in racing right now. It would be good if all series went to something similar so that qualifying was more than some kind of parade or charade....

Everything Shall Be Free With Your Government

Setting aside sympathies for people who were truly victimized by Katrina and are trying their best to get back to normal, this entire article is astonishing to me - Read the whole thing, but check this out:

The Stafford Act indeed spells out in detail what disaster aid the federal government may provide to individuals: It basically limits help to temporary housing, to cash assistance for home repairs, and, in some cases, to funeral, dental, or other emergency needs. At Renaissance Village, FEMA initially provided more than the act required.

Taking away the extras, such as propane, has caused some of the agency's biggest headaches. Richardson remembers the joy of being escorted to her new trailer: "When I came to my trailer, there was a beautiful basket of cookies and treats and chips, and sheets and pillows. And everything was just here waiting for me. The welcome was laid out."

FEMA installed a water and sewer system for the park and provided the propane for heat, hot water, and stoves -- until February 1. Residents now have to pay for their propane, at a cost of $25 to $35 a tank. Richardson, whose four-bedroom house was destroyed by Katrina and who now shares a two-bedroom trailer with her husband and five children, says that the family burns through more than a tank a week.

When FEMA announced it would no longer pay for propane, residents went ballistic. Many are on government assistance. Some lost their jobs as well as their homes in the storm. And most came from houses or apartments in New Orleans where they had never used propane for anything but a barbecue grill. How would they know how to hook up the tanks, to use the gas efficiently? Would the senior citizens in the park survive a frost without heat?

Beyond the actual cost of propane, FEMA's announcement upset residents because it contradicted what many say they were told. According to Richardson, "They said to me, 18 months free. No utilities, no nothing. Free." That's a common refrain in Renaissance Village. Residents believe they were promised 18 months of free living, with all expenses paid. FEMA is now reneging on the deal, they believe, although everyone has a different story about how this promise was made, and no one seems to have proof of it.

Cosbar insisted that FEMA never promised any such thing. Even though the Stafford Act says that FEMA is not to pay for utilities, the contractor FEMA hired to build the park initially provided propane through a subcontractor because "it was an emergency situation," he says. The residents were never promised that the propane would last forever, he stresses.

The free food service is likewise coming to an end. The Keta Group, the contractor that helps manage the site for FEMA, has been serving three meals a day out of a double-wide construction trailer. That service is scheduled to stop on April 6. FEMA typically does not supply food when it provides housing, but the government made an exception, Cosbar said, because Katrina "was considered an emergency situation. People had lost their homes; thousands and thousands of people had lost their homes. They didn't have money; they didn't have anything, so the food service was put in, initially."

In the beginning, Keta served 3,000 meals a day, Cosbar said, but that number had dropped to 600 or so by the end of February, because people had begun using the kitchens in their trailers. Nicol Andrews, a spokeswoman in FEMA's Washington headquarters, points out that people living in other FEMA trailers around the state do not get food or propane and that FEMA's mandate does not extend to providing a full range of human services. "Our goal is to get people back on their feet," she said "not to make them whole again."

FEMA provides EVERYTHING for these folks without asking them to go do anything for themselves, but bans the one thing that they may need in order to build some character:

At Renaissance Village, a massive emergency trailer park on the outskirts of Baton Rouge that houses some 1,600 evacuees from New Orleans, FEMA briefly banned religious services last month. That seemingly callous move speaks volumes about some of the challenges that the Federal Emergency Management Agency faces: It's trying to run a makeshift town that it wants to shut down after 18 months, and it's providing services to people who it hopes will move away even sooner.

Where Are the Real Conservatives When You Need Them

Via Powerline, unbelievable statistics in USA Today -

A sweeping expansion of social programs since 2000 has sparked a record increase in the number of Americans receiving federal government benefits such as college aid, food stamps and health care. A USA TODAY analysis of 25 major government programs found that enrollment increased an average of 17% in the programs from 2000 to 2005. The nation's population grew 5% during that time. (Related: Federal entitlements have changed)

It was the largest five-year expansion of the federal safety net since the Great Society created programs such as Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s.

Spending on these social programs was $1.3 trillion in 2005, up an inflation-adjusted 22% since 2000 and accounting for more than half of federal spending. Enrollment growth was responsible for three-fourths of the spending increase, according to USA TODAY's analysis of federal enrollment and spending data. Higher benefits accounted for the rest.

The biggest expansion: Medicaid, the health care program for the poor. It added 15 million beneficiaries over five years to become the nation's largest entitlement program.

When will we once again have politicians who try to carry out the mission of the country's founders? The US is gradually sinking to the lows of the sickly Socialism of Europe, and that's with Republicans in control. Some people are right, there is not much difference between the two big parties, and that is why I am tired of the whole charade...

Dangerous Usage of Big Lumps of Metal Beggars Belief

I wish we had the same kind of cops as they have in England:

A woman was caught on police video putting on her make-up while driving at 32mph has been fined £200.

Donna Maddock, 22, from Mold in north Wales, was pictured with both hands off the steering wheel putting on her eye make-up.

Magistrates in Pwlhelli fined Ms Maddock £200 plus £55 costs after she pleaded guilty to a charge of careless driving.

She was also given six points on her licence. A spokeswoman for North Wales Police said the incident "beggars belief".

She said: "A car is a dangerous lump of metal in the wrong hands.

"You need to be in control at all times and Miss Maddock's actions beggars belief."

A couple of the reader comments were juicy:

This story reminds me that my father always maintained that when a lady driver gave hand-signals she was merely drying her nail varnish!

- Philip Jones, Banbury UK

I'm not a bit surprised by this story. Asking a woman to concentrate on driving is a bit like asking a duck to tap dance.

- John Ball, Bristol, UK

And what about the civil liberties crap?

Can anyone smell "Brave New World"? Seems to me, the pink elephant in the corner of this story is the intrusive Big Brother aspect of surveillance cameras. Also, doesn't a £255 (approximately $500US) seem a bit excessive? And 6 points on her license? Wow!

- Ben, Los Angeles, USA

Well, Ben, driving is a privilege, not some sort of natural right, especially when you are driving on public streets, helping create a healthy survival situation for other citizens by focusing on what you've been licensed to do - Drive the damn car safely! Bring on the freakin cameras!

Hating My Love of Minimalism

I found this article in the LA Times intriguing. Sometimes I feel guilty about my enjoyment of minimalism. This excerpt captures an interesting view of the shock that it created in the late-60s serious music scene:

But I learned fairly early on what a mess musical Minimalism — for all its no-muss, no-fuss mentality — was capable of making. This emotionally cool approach, I discovered, could be as effective at raising tempers as at raising consciousness.

It happened in 1969 at Berkeley. The campus was roiled by the Vietnam era's antiwar unrest, but that made little difference in my anti-counterculture counterpoint and fugue class. Even if we walked in coughing from the tear gas canisters that the National Guard had exploded outside to disperse demonstrators on Sproul Plaza, the atmosphere in the music building was monkishly directed toward another time and place.

The textbook we used was "Treatise on the Fugue" by André Gedalge, who had taught at the Paris Conservatory in the early 20th century. Absorb it all and you too could write like 19th century French opera composer Gounod. Our professor had been glazing over the eyes of uninterested little Gounods with the confining rules of species counterpoint for far too many years. We knew enough to take classes from him in the afternoon, after he had had a leisurely lunch at the local watering hole.

Then one day I walked into class ostentatiously carrying the new Columbia LP of Terry Riley's "In C." The jacket opened up to reveal the score of 53 short, melodic modules meant to be freely repeated against a continual pulse, defying every law of counterpoint ever concocted. When I showed that to the genially aristocratic professor, he went uncharacteristically ballistic.

Riley had studied in the department a decade earlier, and it was there that he and his classmate La Monte Young first began exploring the conceptual ideas that led to the rebellious, repetitive, nondirectional music that would ultimately be dubbed — because of what it seemed to have in common with the art movement of the '60s — Minimalism. Three years after Riley got his master's in composition from Berkeley in 1961, he put Minimalism on the musical map when he premiered "In C" in San Francisco.

"He betrayed Berkeley," my red-faced professor shouted. "He betrayed music. He betrayed Gedalge. He betrayed everything this department stands for. I will not allow that album to be brought into my classroom. This has nothing to do with Vietnam. It is about preserving civilization."

Once he calmed down and an avuncular twinkle had returned to his eye, the professor fondly recalled Riley's talent for counterpoint. But an old-school traditionalist did have cause for concern. The headline above the San Francisco Chronicle's review of the "In C" premiere had been "Music Like None Other on Earth." The liner notes on the record jacket I held in my hand, by architect and new music patron Paul Williams, began: "I'm not here to justify this record, or to explain it, or to in any way connect it with anything else that already exists on the face of this earth." Revolution was in the air, and nothing was safe.

Music and Berkeley's music department have survived Minimalism's onslaught just fine. By now, the movement has long been part of the mainstream, from popular culture to academia. Its most famous composers are celebrities. Philip Glass is a household name. More than once, Steve Reich has been hailed as America's greatest living composer. Richard Taruskin, the musicological star of Berkeley's music department today, put on the cover of the fifth volume of his extraordinarily erudite "Oxford History of Western Music" a photograph from Glass' "The Voyage," which the ultraconservative Metropolitan Opera had commissioned.

I don't need pure minimalism, but I sure like it in my music...Some pop musicians are getting very good at it, but if you asked them, they would never confess to working in the minimalist environment. There is a very good minimalist song on the latest Nine Inch Nails effort. Also, there is a string of three songs in the Queens of the Stone Age latest album, Lullabies to Paralyze, the string I like to call the best middle three songs on any rock album in the last 10 years, and they are immersed in a certain unobtrusive minimalism. My favorite minimalism is in some of the music of today's neodisco groups, and yes, I am a slight bit embarassed to be listening to 21st Century Disco.

I'm glad I'm not a music critic - I don't grasp these two paragraphs from the end of the article:

"Repeating Ourselves," a riveting new account of Minimalism as cultural practice by UCLA musicologist Robert Fink, reveals the movement's connections to disco music, to consumer culture, ambient music and even the repetitive techniques of the Suzuki method for teaching schoolchildren to play instruments. Fink's arguments are ingenious and persuasive, but they certainly don't explain why I care about Minimalism.

Instead, an astonishingly prophetic sentence leaps out from the liner notes of the original "In C" LP. I don't remember reading it when I first bought the album, but now I see that it explains Minimalism's great glory and my own identification with it.

"A music critic, if there can be such a thing," Williams wrote in explaining how listening to music can make us feel whole, "must be more concerned with men than notes."

In the plastic arts, Minimalism lasted at most a decade and is now a historical period, like Impressionism. Minimalism in film and literature had its moment, also brief. Consumer culture has made Minimalism a cliché.

Speaking of minimalism, I only have a touch of it (John Adams) in this week's MP3 list -

NASCAR Does Nothing About Its Darling Asshole

Tony Stewart was up to his spoiled brat, asshole antics again - Third race in a row, and NASCAR won't do anything about it.

"What I was upset about was that with about 80 laps to go we were sitting there for 15 or 20 laps behind him tyring to get by and he was holding us up for no reason," Stewart said. "We all had another pit stop to make. Work on your car and go on. There's just an etiquette. I am frustrated with it and I honestly think I have every right to be."

Instead of racing for positions, people are supposed to play dead and let him roll by? Wrong, Tony, race for the positions.

It was nice to see Tony fail at wrecking Kyle Busch. Kyle is a punk, but there's no reason he should pull over, and he didn't.

"Maybe it's because I am 20 years old and I will aceept the blame," Busch said. "I can't see what I am doing from inside the car...but I don't remember running into his door today or getting under his rear bumper at all. I will have to go back and figure out what I did.

"But the track is not only theirs, it's mine, too. Mark Martin and I raced just fine today. Matt Kenseth and I raced fine. And so did Jimmie Johnson and Kasey Kahne and everybody who I was around. With 30 (laps) to go I don't let Tony pass me and for some reason I have a problem?"

[...]

"That's the perfect amount of laps to go where it's time to dig in deep and get after it and start going," he said of the restart on Lap 228. "There's no more rolling over and playing dead and letting guys go. It's time to race and time to get after it, and that's what I was doing.

"If I might have aggravated Stewart a little bit, I apologize to him for that. But if I give up one spot to him, then I get tight behind him and I am going to fall back five, six or 10 spots.

"If I slipped up and slid in front of him one time or whatever, it was my mistake. But all I can do is go out there and drive my race car to the best of my ability and to the best it's capable of doing for me. And that's what happened today."

Karma was in play again on Sunday - Tony got his flat and finished in mid-pack and Kyle finished 3rd. There was some justice, but it is about time we see some justice from NASCAR.

Speaking of justice, Jimmie Johnson's substitute crew chief loves the justice that has been administered to that team:

Darian Grubb, who now has two wins and one second-place finish in his three-race career as a Nextel Cup crew chief, thanked NASCAR for suspending crew chief Chad Knaus after the No. 48 Chevrolet's win on Sunday.

"I guess I have to thank NASCAR for this, because Chad is home seven days a week prepping cars and making them faster," Grubb said.

Knaus was suspended for four races for violations found after Daytona 500 qualifying, but the team had hardly missed a beat.

"I talk to him at night about the changes we're making at the track," Grubb said, "but it makes it pretty simple when you have a car that good and a driver this good."