“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right
to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

- George Orwell

As I've mentioned here a couple of times I've been considering — and testing — the possibility of making use of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Hiawatha Line for a part of my daily commute. I've ultimately decided to do this starting in August (more on that in a minute). On a micro-level (e.g., my checking account) it makes sense/cents because I can save about $80 bucks a month. I've had my doubts about the macro-savings, both in dollars and energy, of the current public transportation options, but haven't taken the time to dig into it. Fortunately, Bike Bubba did so last week, referencing a report from the Cato Institute:

Metro's buses [Note: St. Louis, MO area. NW] today consume more energy and emit more greenhouse gases, per passenger mile, than a typical sport utility vehicle. Its light-rail lines do better, but consume almost as much energy, and emit almost as much greenhouse gas, per passenger mile, as the average car.

Moreover, even where rail operations do save energy, this savings almost never makes up for the huge energy cost of rail construction. Highway construction also consumes energy, but because highways are more heavily used than rail lines, their energy cost per passenger mile is far lower.

If we ignore construction costs, many rail operations do consume less energy than the average auto — but almost none consume less than a Toyota Prius. As Lave suggested in 1979, to save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is far more cost effective to encourage people to drive more fuel-efficient cars than to build rail transit lines.

Transit agencies that want to save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions should focus on increasing bus loads or reducing the size of their buses. The average Metro bus has 39 seats, yet averages less than 10 passengers. Concentrating service in areas where loads are higher, and using smaller buses in areas or times of day where loads are lower, will do far more to save energy than building rail transit.

So if it's more economically, environmentally and energy-efficient to get people to drive more fuel-efficient cars than it is to get them to build and ride rail transit, how do you "get" them to do so? If only there were some invisible hand that could get people's attention and cause them to act in a more enlightened (or just self-serving) manner! Something like, you know, the marketplace!

While the cost of gas has been driven up due to the oil supply being deliberately restricted, it does create the motivation to look for alternatives. Even as math-averse as I am I can still do it (the math) when I have to, and spending $50 for a tank of gas will get me reaching for a calculator. I think most folks are capable of doing a basic cost/benefit analysis, which brings me to why I'm not going to start my full-time LRT commuting until August.

My parking contract at work requires a 30-day notice to terminate, and can only be given at the first of the month; even if I stop using the ramp I still have to pay for July. Now, if I could get the $39 a month Metropass through my employer it would still be about a push on the savings to pay both parking and transit fee; however I can't get the pass from my employer until the parking comes off the books. I could buy a MTC "GO" pass (actually, recharge the one I've been using) but the rush hour commuting charges would add up to $80 for the month. That means the parking, gas and train fees don't come out in favor of the transit, especially when you add in the extra time and hassle it takes as opposed to driving. So, it's easier on my budget and simpler to drive another month while I satisfy the parking contract, regardless of whatever benefit I perhaps bestow upon the planet (especially dubious given Bike Bubba's revelations). Similarly, in the future if the monetary savings of using transit diminish, or the inconveniences get too big, I reserve the right to change my mind again.

OK, so I guess that it's all about the money for me when it comes to saving the planet. Of course, as Speed Gibson points out, the same goes for the Metropolitan Transit Commission as well.

You've probably heard that transit fares will be rising, probably about 25 cents, probably around October 1st. A number of public hearings are scheduled in July.

Most of us will be paying more for transit July 1, however, when the sales tax goes up 0.25% in Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Dakota, and Washington Counties. Also starting July 1, you'll be paying a $20 Transit Improvement Vehicle Excise Tax when you sell a vehicle registered in these Counties.

But that's already figured into the projected $15 million shortfall in the fiscal year starting July 1. As I posted earlier, that amount is suspiciously similar to the Light Rail subsidy. Increased business for an enterprise with such high fixed costs should more than cover the rising fuel costs.

So what does Metro Transit do? Raise bus fares, which will reduce ridership by pushing some back into their cars or carpools. And not just this fall, and not just a quarter, mind you. The resolution also would grant authority for another increase of up to fifty cents in 2009.

What else can we do to discourage ridership? Let's expand the morning rush hour to start at 5:30 AM, not 6:00 AM, so we can charge 50 cents more for these early birds. Isn't the purpose of off-peak fares to encourage off-peak ridership?

Oh, and let's make it complicated again, with the return of suburban fare zones to nickel and dime quarter and dollar us further.

All of this of course is just a double shuffle to secretly get more Light Rail subsidies. They're going to need still more money to run the Central Corridor and the Metropolitan Council is willing to further degrade the bus service to get it.

Keep your calculators handy!

A few weeks ago my wife and I were playing golf with some folks from New Jersey, lifelong East-coasters enjoying a little of the Midwestern experience. During the round a tornado siren went off, startling and somewhat confusing our guests, who wanted to know what the siren was for.

"It's either a tornado warning or lightening in the vicinity," I said, as I matter-of-factly dialed the clubhouse on my cellphone to get more details since the day was still clear and sunny. Ultimately it turned out that this warning was related to the storm that delivered a deadly tornado on the town of Hugo, MN, a dozen miles away from where we were. As we played golf we saw the skies darken and the ominous clouds coming, remarkably, from opposite directions. It was pretty much standard summer fare for my wife and I (we didn't know until later that evening of the net effects of the storm), but our friends from Jersey seemed to find it rather amazing that people live in a place where deadly storms are a routine part of your existence.

Of course, Nature (as far as we know) hasn't sworn to wipe us out.

I thought of this example the other day as I read Yaacov Ben Moshe's post from Breath of the Beast entitled Welcome to Sderot.

Sderot is an Israeli town within range of Hamas rockets and the victim of the leadership policies of both the Israeli government and that of Hamas that requires a macabre calculus of acceptable losses that keeps both groups of leaders in power ... while killing Jewish civilians. Hamas knows that launching rockets on a slow but steady basis, but killing only a few at a time will maintain its political power base with the jihadis, satisfy its foreign sponsors, while not seriously exposing itself to all out countermeasures from Israel.

Simultaneously, Israel's government tacitly accepts a handful of deaths as being below the threshold of requiring dramatic and deadly response, knowing that it will be pilloried by foreign public opinion and seen as the aggressor if it does so. Ben Moshe cites JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) Report 781:

“For Hamas, the key is to keep the rocket attacks below an understood threshold and Israel's response will be tolerable, precise and produce minimal collateral (Palestinian) damage. The Hamas pattern is to fire one, two or three rockets at Sderot. Wait a few days and do it again. Injure two, three, four Israelis. Kill one or two, but not more than that - this week. Increase the range and accuracy of the rockets incrementally. Hit Ashkelon, but just once. Then wait. Hit a shopping center, but if no one is killed, the Israeli response is unlikely to threaten Hamas rule. If Israel does retaliate, the world will probably be more annoyed by the "disproportionate response" than the original rocket attack.”

Ben Moshe continues:

As I was reading, though, something was bothering me. I was still stuck on the seemingly more limited issue of the terror involved. Who are these people who are being killed by the rockets? How do they live knowing that, only if some, unspecified number of them of them are killed and maimed, will their government be moved to do something about the terror under which they live? This dangerous and painful situation is only partially a product of the Arab/Islamist dream of annihilation of Israel. It is made possible by a combination of ruthless internal enemies (e.g. the far left peace movement), clueless dupes (e.g. Olmert, Livni, et al) and shortsighted erstwhile foreign “friends” who do not understand the reality of the threat. This motley assortment of fools and instigators hold Israel’s defense establishment, her regard for her own citizens and, indeed, her very moral, civic, ethical and intellectual integrity hostage.

His point, or part of it, is that the Israeli government has decided that the greater good for the country, or for itself, is to sacrifice a few for the perceived benefit of the many. Ben Moshe's thoughts as he dwelt on this lead to a chilling analogy:

When Shirley Jackson's famous short story The Lottery was first published sixty years ago in the June 26, 1948 edition of The New Yorker magazine, it set off the most violent reaction the magazine had ever experienced. In the story, the reader is gradually drawn into a nightmare- as what seems to be a “normal” American farming village gathers for some sort of annual community gathering. There is a lottery involved and little by little it becomes apparent that it is a “selection process”. The reader’s curiosity gives way to bemusement as the author quietly seeds in ominous details that build a sense of foreboding. Then, near the end of the story there is a sudden shift to horror when we realize that the “slightly too” nonchalant dialogue and mysterious references have been leading up to the revelation of a sacrificial rite. One person in the community is chosen by lottery to be stoned to death- sacrificed for “the good of all”.

It is little wonder that the story caused the explosion of controversy that it did. A scant three years after World War II, the cataclysmic battle against totalitarianism, here was a story that hinted that the enemy was not dead, but could lie ever so close beneath the surface in the most unlikely of places. Is this lottery totalitarianism? I think it is. It is a society that holds itself hostage in a suicide pact. The eerily believable rationalization that the lottery must be carried out because the welfare of the group is everything- the individual is nothing- is the brutal signature of fascism.

The weird, unconvincing quality of the “reason” that stoning one member of the community to death is “for the good of all” is also a dead giveaway. It is true that an oblique reference to the sacrifice having a good effect on the corn is made but there is a dispiriting vagueness about it and nobody seems to endorse it convincingly. In fact, the agricultural pretext is really irrelevant. The central drama of The Lottery is the absence of individual human value. In my post about Islamofascism, I quoted Louis Menand (ironically, writing in the New Yorker), “official ideology can be, and usually is, absurd on its face, and known to be absurd by the leaders who preach it.” This is another hallmark of totalitarian systems. These lottery victims are the moral equivalent of suicide bombers, human shields and hostages. They have no power to achieve anything. Their own genuine emotions and aspirations are anathema to the system in which they live. Only their annihilation is of value. Every one of them is a martyr- most of them just aren’t dead yet. They are, in every sense imaginable, dead men walking.

...The people of Sderot listen for the sirens all day and all night 365 days a year and all must wonder if today is the day that a rocket will come through the ceiling in a busy dining hall or a kindergarten classroom or a high school auditorium and finally be “enough” to force the government to use the power it has always had- but may not always retain- to eliminate the threat. They wait for the government to act. They pray for the rest of the world to recoil in horror. They face each day with bravery and hope. Just like the people in Jackson’s story, they are hostages.

Ben Moshe goes on to remark on Muslim mathematicians having developed the concept of zero, observing with grim irony that, "...at least under the most fundamental application of their religion-as-political-system, zero is the human condition."

If there was outrage in 1948 over the publication of that short story, how could there not be outrage today when an Israeli government dares Hamas to kill one more Israeli and see what happens and when they do, dares them to kill another one. Over and over again the children of Sderot draw lots and when one of them is torn apart by ball bearings or has a leg blown off, what happens? Is it somehow “for the good of all” that they suffer?

Is it too far a leap to suggest that, of all the grim ironies, the most insidious is that of the West's blindness to its own willingness to trade blood for peace, to cutting off fingers and feeding them to dogs under the table so as not to upset the place-settings?

Do you believe that it is about The Nakba or The Occupation or The Settlements? Do you allow yourself the fantasy that there is a way to stop the madness- a sacrifice big enough to satisfy this ravenous cult?

Then what did the innocent victims die for on 9/11- or Madrid- or London- the Darfur? This is part of the same grotesque lottery that has been going on for 1500 years. In spite of the sacrifice of the innocent victims of 9/11, it is all too easy for us to deny that we are hostages too, but those “zero beings” from the Islamist void will not be happy to delete only Israel. They have "selected" them for annihilation first but it is nothing personal, you understand, just a sacrifice to prove there is no value to human life. There is no value to anything that does not affirm the spiritual vacuum of Islamism. It is not because they worship Allah, nor is it is that they believe Mohammed was a prophet. It is that they believe that he was the only prophet, that they know the absolute truth and that it is their mission to ignore (and destroy) all evidence to the contrary. If you believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they will not rest until they destroy you too.

The Jihadists are not interested in cease-fires or peace. They are happy to tell you what they want. They want the world to live under Shari’a law. They believe that anyone that doesn’t want that is sub-human and deserves to be killed. This is nothing less than another confrontation with the evil of fascist, totalitarianism, and that is a beast whose hunger cannot be sated with souls, nor can its thirst be slaked with blood. The lottery they are holding is to determine not if you will be destroyed but when you will be destroyed. We are all citizens of Sderot- its just that most of us don’t know it yet.

This type of post is hardly my forte. Grasping the political, economic and military realities of this situation is something my friend Jeff Kouba does much better than I. I know, however, that Yaacov Ben Moshe is hardly an unbiased observer, or without his own agenda. Even discounting for his perspective, I still finding myself counting my fingers.

[Closed circuit to the Reverend Mother: this is one you're not going to want to read.]

This is a pretty grim topic, but I saw a stunning story on CNN today about a man who beat a toddler to death as onlookers tried unsuccessfully to get him to stop; ultimately the man had to be shot and killed by police called to the scene. Further details from later reports indicated that it was a 27-year-old Turlock, California man who beat, kicked, shook, threw and stomped on his two-year-old son.

The first people who came upon the scene were an elderly couple in their 70s who couldn't physically intervene though they tried to confront the man. Another man who drove by on the rural road was a 52-year-old volunteer fire fighter, who said he was pushed away by the father. Someone called the police and a helicopter happened to be already in the air in the vicinity and it landed in a cow pasture near the assault. Unfortunately the chopper landed on the wrong side of an electrified and barbed wire fence. A deputy who got out of the helicopter was able to get within 10 feet of the attacker and ordered the man to stop. When the man gave the deputy the finger and continued to kick the boy the deputy shot him in the forehead.

The story is certainly bizarre in terms of the savageness of the attack, but there are other unusual circumstances as well. The place where this occurred was on an a rural road, late on Saturday night. Police said it was unusual so many cars drove by the rather isolated spot, and I have to wonder how common it is to have a helo already up and in the area when the calls came in.

I think just reading this has to leave you shocked and outraged so I have to imagine that those on the scene had to be especially off-balance and sickened by what they were seeing. I want to be clear that I place no blame or criticism on anyone but the "father" in what happened, but I also can't help but wonder what could possibly have kept me from rushing in and using whatever force I could muster to stop such an onslaught. Of course, most of us will never know how we'd react in a sudden and desperate situation unless we were suddenly dropped into it. I know I've been in my share of scrapes and physical confrontations in my life in which I'd gotten pretty angry, but nothing near as dire as this. I know I'd been in a crisis situation before and had kept my head, but never in circumstances so evil.

When it comes down to it, I can't say what I would have done in this situation. I know what I would have liked to have done, however.

An AmericInn in Moorhead, MN ended up unexpectedly hosting a "convention" of cleaning products salesmen who thought, perhaps, that they were rock stars. From the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

Moorhead motel boots 40 salesmen for 'very, very rude behavior'
Associated Press

MOORHEAD, Minn. — About 40 traveling salespeople were thrown out of a Moorhead motel for "very, very rude behavior," a motel manager said.

The salespeople, mostly in their mid-20s, were peddling cleaning supplies, but they sure left a mess behind, said Derek Crockett, front desk manager at the AmericInn Lodge & Suites.

Crockett's staff started getting complaints about the guests less than two hours after they checked in Monday night. The guests were drinking, partying and smoking in nonsmoking rooms, he said.

When staff told them to leave, they "just started getting a little irate" and made threatening comments to housekeepers and security staff, he said.

Police were called but just went there to keep the peace and made no arrests, Deputy Chief Bob Larson said.

Crockett said the guests also punched holes in the walls, ripped a toilet paper holder off the wall and pulled out a couple of window screens. The rooms were still closed off Tuesday so the staff could assess the damage, he said. The guests will be charged for the rooms and the damage, he said

"It's going to be over $1,000," Crockett said.

It kind of reminds me of a true story my grandfather wrote involving a couple of salesmen, the Hotel Madison in Madison, WI, too much alcohol and a strong-willed goose. Not for the squeamish.

"I'd feel like a caveman, if they existed ... and they didn't."
— Ned Flanders


A Boston University sociologist is undertaking a study to learn more about the "evangelical intelligentsia".

Study to crack evangelical stereotypes
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- For decades, Boston University sociologist Peter Berger says, American intellectuals have looked down on evangelicals.

Educated people have the notion that evangelicals are "barefoot people of Tobacco Road who, I don't know, sleep with their sisters or something," Berger says.

It's time that attitude changed, he says.

"That was probably never correct, but it's totally false now and I think the image should be corrected," Berger said in a recent interview.

Now, his university's Institute on Culture, Religion and World Affairs is leading a two-year project that explores an "evangelical intelligentsia" which Berger says is growing and needs to be better understood, given the large numbers of evangelicals and their influence.

"It's not good if a prejudiced view of this community prevails in the elite circles of society," said Berger, a self-described liberal Lutheran. "It's bad for democracy and it's wrong."

My heavens, "...barefoot people of Tobacco Road who, I don't know, sleep with their sisters or something..."?

"That was probably never correct..."?

Gee, Mr. Berger, did somebody beat you to the studies of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster? Oh well, I suppose that wasn't very Christian of me. Perhaps it makes me appear as sensitive as those cavemen in the Geico spots. After all, it's not as if anyone's ever done a commercial saying, "It's so simple, even an Evangelical can do it." So, okily-dokily, I'll just bite my tongue and be happy that someone is taking an interest.

If you need me, I'll be studying my the(ist)saurus, working on them big words. You know, just in case.

As long as you rub it with rosemary or rosemary extract, that is.

To Block The Carcinogens, Add A Touch Of Rosemary When Grilling Meats
ScienceDaily (May 24, 2008) — Rosemary, a member of the mint family and a popular seasoning on its own, also has benefits as a cancer prevention agent. Apply it to hamburgers and it can break up the potentially cancer-causing compounds that can form when the meat is cooked.

J. Scott Smith found out about rosemary’s strength against the compounds while researching ways to reduce them as part of a long-term Food Safety Consortium project at Kansas State University. Smith, a KSU food science professor, has been looking into the carcinogenic compounds known as HCAs (heterocyclic amines).

“Put a little bit on the surface,” Smith advised grillers. “Rosemary extracts shouldn’t have much of an aroma to them. Most people don’t want a rosemary-flavored burger. So if you get the extract you don’t really know it’s there.”

The full article has details on the research and how and why the natural anti-oxidant properties of rosemary break up the formation of HCAs (heterocyclic amines), thought to be linked to cancer.

Similar studies have shown that marinating steaks with common, high anti-oxidant herbs and spices such as basil, mint, sage, savory, marjoram, oregano and thyme also reduces HCAs. These herbs and spices are on your grocery shelf, while rosemary extract is reportedly available on the internet.

I think this news definitely calls for some grilling this weekend; all in the name of science, of course!

HT: The Evangelical Outpost.

Q: What do these three events have in common:

• Golf on April 28.


• Golf on May 13.


• Softball on May 19.

A: At each event I wore three layers of clothing and gloves that had nothing to do with the sport at hand — and I still froze.

Also, this past weekend I went into Cub for few groceries. They had corn-on-the-cob for sale on a big table. In the past, in high season, you could buy a dozen ears here for $2; last year you could buy 8 for $2. Yesterday the price for bag-your-own, unshucked corn-on-the-cob was 5 ears for $3.

I'd say it's time to cut back on the ethanol and kick-start that global-warming again.

Another great one from Scrappleface yesterday:

Feds to Raid Isolated, Black-Robed California Sect
by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace ·

(2008-05-16) — Federal agents and National Guard troops surrounded the gleaming white temple-like San Francisco enclave of an isolationist sect after the black-robed “high priests” of the group yesterday declared themselves to be above the laws of the state of California.

In a move reminiscent of recent raids on polygamist compounds elsewhere, authorities prepared to seize documents and computers, and to rescue any young interns or clerks who might have fallen victim to the cult’s bizarre, extra-legal rituals.

Yesterday, the “Supreme” leaders of the sect briefly emerged from hiding to issue a declaration overriding two state laws and loosening the definition of marriage to include “any practice or lifestyle the prohibition of which might make one feel discriminated against.”

“We’d like this siege to end peacefully,” said a Justice Department spokesman, “but these people need to know that this is still the United States of America. You can’t set up your own sovereign nation within its borders, and make up your own set of rules that counter the will of the people and violate the law of the land.”

OK, this is more of a Jroosh post even though he's into movies more than automobiles lately, but I have too much integrity to claim to be a real motorhead. Nevertheless, these new VWs will catch your eye.

And they're not electric - they're turbo-diesel.

One thing you can’t question is the unbeatable fuel economy of this new line-up.

We’re talking 74.3mpg for the VW Polo, more than 60mpg for a Golf and more than 55mpg for the Passat, thanks to new aerodynamics and turbo-diesel engines.

The Polo and Golf models escape new London congestion charges this October and are at the bottom of the new road-tax bands.

...

I’ve just had a first drive of the new Passat BlueMotion and the fuel economy is sensational.

Combined economy jumps 5mpg from the standard model to 55.4mpg, giving a maximum range of 851 miles – which means you could drive from London to Glasgow - AND BACK - on only one fill-up of the 70-litre tank.

Engineers have tweaked the 1.9 diesel engine, making the car much cleaner. Carbon dioxide emissions fall 15g/km to 136g/km, which drops the Passat’s company car tax band from 19 per cent to 15 per cent.

And while the Passat’s body is already fairly sleek, it has had some aerodynamic updates, too.

The brake discs and rear suspension components have been covered, while the car has been lowered 15mm at the front and 8mm at the rear, allowing it to cut through the air more cleanly.

Too bad they're only available in the UK for now. Furthermore, having driven on many of the British "Motorways", I can tell you that regardless of mileage, driving 851 miles from London to Glasgow and back will still take you week.

All across the country tonight, and right here in the state of Minnesota, parents played with their children, tucked them in, listened to their prayers, kissed them, and told them they loved them. And tomorrow they'll do it all over again, even though it never makes the newspapers.

I have to believe that.

I have to because the stuff that does make the papers is enough to make you despair of the madness in this world. A "hunter" father who stocks up on beer and pot for a hunting trip but can't be bothered to buy a hunting license and forgets, apparently, what a turkey looks like, shoots and kills his 8-year-old son. A mother puts her 2-year-old son and 11-month-old daughter in a bathtub full of water and leaves them alone while she shops on-line for new shoes, needing the 2-year-old to come and tell her "something's wrong" as the infant girl drowns. A massive professional football player decides to play a game of "let's see if you can get out of a plastic bag" with his two year old son, who is fortunately rescued by his mother. A couple of weeks ago I read about a mother in Chicago who drowned her baby girl in the bathtub because having to care for the baby was cutting into her partying.

In the first two cases, anyway, the reports are that the so-called adults are devastated by what happened, and some people even suggest that the legal sanctions be limited because the perpetrators are already suffering. And to that a little piece of me deep down inside says, "Good," even though I know I should be compassionate and prayerful.

What I don't know is what happened to the parental wiring in each of these cases to short-circuit certain instincts. I know that kids can be very frustrating and time-consuming and can wreak havoc on your neat little existence. That is not a capital offense, however, even if it seems as if our culture treats being able to do what you want to do as a sacred thing.

You know, I like doing my own thing too, but I knew the first time I held my first-born that I would willingly die for her; literally if called upon and figuratively every day as I adjusted my life in countless ways big and small to make a place for her (and later her sister) in this world. And I don't say that to suggest that I'm exceptional in any way; in fact, I think that that is or should be the norm even though the headlines increasingly suggest that that is not the case.

Every so often, however, another headline proves the opposite.

CHICAGO — Chicago police say a man died as he tried to shield his four-year-old daughter from an auto allegedly driven by a man under the influence of a controlled substance.

Joseph Richardson was walking his daughter Kaniyah to a McDonald's for burgers late Monday when a car jumped the curb. Police say the 39-year-old Richardson grabbed his daughter and held her up out of harm's way just before the car slammed the two into a fence.

Richardson was pronounced dead at the scene. Kaniyah was taken to Comer Children's Hospital in serious condition.

Police say the driver of the car, 32-year-old Angelo Thomas of Chicago, was charged with two felony counts of aggravated DUI. Witnesses say the man was driving erratically before the accident.

Richardson, a church musician, was the father of three, two girls and a boy, all under the age of 10.

Now that's a father, willing to leave himself in the path of danger in an effort to move his child out of harm's way. In fact, he probably didn't even have to think about it, he just did it. The sad irony is that this little girl will grow up without getting to know this man, while in 3 of the other cases the parent is still here and it is the child that is gone.

Tomorrow, do this in their memory, and in honor of Joseph Richardson: play with your children, tuck them in, listen to their prayers, kiss them. Tell them that you love them.

There's been a lot of discussion on the radio the last couple of days about whether NBC should or shouldn't show the video of Eight Belles breaking down after crossing the finish line (and being euthanized right on the track) at the Kentucky Derby. It's almost a quaint discussion in this age of YouTube, which probably had the footage up before the filly's body was moved off of the track.

I hadn't watched the race, but assumed the replay would show the incident in its entirety when I got around to watching SportsCenter that night. I was a little surprised but not disappointed when ESPN didn't show it. In fact, I was a little relieved. Thinking it was coming up had me steeling myself kind of (but not as intensely) in the same way I had prepped myself for the opening moments of Saving Private Ryan the first time I watched that movie. I knew it was an important news story, but I don't typically get a lot of entertainment value out of seeing animals suffer.

The discussions the next day reminded me of 1978 when I was in Journalism School at the University of Missouri. It was right after Karl Wallenda had fallen to his death during a high wire stunt in San Juan. The fall had been taped and the networks showed him falling but cut away before impact. A group of my fellow J-schoolers and I were sitting at the Old Heidelberg, arguing over whether or not they should have stayed with the image all the way down (I was on the side of cutting away). Some argued that it was "news" and therefore legitimate to be shown, no matter how grim. Others of us said the point was made and the story was told without the final moment and that to show the ending was gratuitous and sensational. Yet another person suggested that the whole reason a news camera was there in the first place was because of the chance that he might fall. Nothing was resolved then (do college arguments ever resolve anything?) but I think I could feel myself already withdrawing from what I thought was going to be my profession.

It's not as though I, and my generation of television viewers, hadn't already been sensationalized with a number of startling scenes. Already I'm sure we'd seen Evel Knievel break himself a couple of times on Wide World of Sports, and I also remember living in Indianapolis in 1973, during what was perhaps the grimmest year in the history of the Indy 500. That May we saw Art Pollard crash during practice or time trials, his car flipping and sliding upside down along the back straightaway, killing him. The start of the actual race that year saw another crash in the front rows, with Salt Walther's car driving up over the wheel of another racer and flipping into the air, losing it's nose cone and it, too, landing upside down near the infield with Walther's legs and feet sticking out of the remaining shell of the car (Walther would live, but endured a long and painful rehabilitation). Even more dramatically than that, later in the race, driver Swede Savage crashed off the outside wall then the inside wall and his car literally disintegrated around him leaving him sitting in the middle of the track, beating at the invisible alcohol flames with his arms and hands while rescue workers raced to his side, with one would-be rescuer being hit and run over by an emergency vehicle driving the wrong way out of Pit Row. I remember seeing that man's body laying crumpled in the infield as well. (Savage would ultimately die nearly a month later from complications arising from his injuries). All of these images were brought into our homes, over and over, via the magic box.

Still later in my life I would be watching the night Joe Theisman's leg was snapped on live television, and I've seen things done to Moises Alou's and Robin Ventura's legs that legs aren't supposed to do. I wasn't watching these events in the hopes of seeing these things, but there they were and I couldn't look away.

I suppose there is a percentage (likely a small one) of auto-racing fans that go to races hoping to see a crash, just as there are those who go to (or watch) hockey games hoping to see a fight (or a player nearly be decapitated by a skate such has happened earlier this year). Similarly, I know that "gawker slow-downs" around a traffic accident scene don't have much to do with drivers suddenly becoming very attentive and careful with their driving and there are probably cave paintings somewhere of slow-running hunters being trampled by mammoths, too.

There's just a vicariousness, and sometimes empathy, about us that draws us to the unusual and even painful. Sometimes it can ultimately be helpful. The '73 Indy crashes led to dramatic safety changes in the engineering and fuel capacity of the cars and there's talk that last weekend's events at Churchill Downs will spur greater strides in horse safety ranging from breeding to more use of synthetic track surfaces that are easier on the horses' legs. The one thing that wont change is that we'll still like to look.

From an article in The Scotsman:

THE cost of Scotland's flagship free elderly care policy will soar more than threefold to £813 million a year by 2031, a new report has revealed.

A dramatic growth in the number of pensioners over the next three decades will send costs, put at £256 million in 2006, spiralling, Lord Sutherland's report shows. And the author warns that Scotland must wake up to the huge impact the country's rapidly changing age profile will have on public finances and services.

Free personal and nursing care was introduced to a fanfare in 2002. It has been hailed as one of the biggest achievements of Scotland's devolved government, and is the envy of many south of the Border. But the independent review, commissioned by the Scottish Government last summer, reveals the price that such a popular policy will have in years to come.

The report says the bill will far exceed initial predictions – costing hundreds of millions of pounds more – due to the number of elderly people rising more rapidly than was expected.

Lord Sutherland insists the policy, which has attracted widespread political and public support, will be "affordable" in years to come.

The number of over-65s is expected to rise from 837,000 in 2006 to 1.36 million by 2031.

Read the whole thing. Note, however, that no mention is made that it is likely that the number of taxpayers available will also be decreasing as these costs are increasing.

Update:

Katherine Kersten has just visited Scotland and wrote today on some of her impressions of the Nanny State.

In one of Garrison Keillor's Lake Woebegone Halloween monologues he reminisced about how the wild imaginations of he and his young friends could get taken with the scary thought that cougars were hiding in the low-hanging branches of the trees along their trick-or-treating path. Of course, he said, you knew that cougars were more afraid of you than you were of them, but what if it was an old, sick cougar...an old, sick cougar with nothing to lose?!

I thought of that today when I saw the Fox story about Chicago police shooting and killing a 150-pound cougar on the city's North side. I guess a 150 pound cougar doesn't sound like it would be too old or sick to me, and if it really had nothing to lose it would have gone for the South side of Chicago and the baddest part of town. Still, it's something to keep in mind if you're ever out trick-or-treating again.

The University of St. Thomas has yet another speaker controversy on its clumsy hands. Just months after inviting, then disinviting, then re-inviting Archbishop Desmond Tutu (he respectfully declined) to speak at the school, the University has now blocked another speaker from appearing: author and pro-life advocate Star Parker.

Enough people (see the links above) are covering this latest development that I really didn't feel the need to cover it here. That doesn't mean, however, that I didn't have an unction to apply the needle a little bit to the young woman who works for me as I left the office today. She's a St. Thomas grad. "What's with your old school and it's treatment of would-be guest speakers, anyway?" I asked. She wasn't up on the news of the day (I work her too hard for her to peek at headlines).

"What now?" she asked, with a roll of her eyes.

I gave her the quick rundown, and wondered why a Catholic university would block a pro-life advocate from appearing on its campus, especially after the Tutu hoo-doo. "Don't they have PR people over there, or at least someone who'll tell them that if you try to play in the middle of the road you get run down by both sides?"

I don't have her exact quote, but she showed the kind of keen mind and insight that caused me to hire her in the first place. The gist of it was, "It's not the politics, it's the money." She said she used to work the phone bank on campus, calling alumni to ask for money. "So many times I'd call and get someone who was angry about this speaker or that speaker who had come, or a book that was selected for a class, and they'd say they weren't going to give any money because of that." She finished by saying something to the effect that St. Thomas was more concerned about the money drying up rather than, say, the same thing happening to free speech.

Wow — here I was, thinking that St. Thomas wasn't interested in principle, when it turns out that principle and interest are pretty important to them after all!

Both the blogs and the MSM have been featuring Obama's estimation of why just plain folks seem to not be warming to him in Pennsylvania:

"So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

[Image HT to Gino, via The Lumberjack, who really knows how to get his whacks in.]

While the blogs tend to feature the entire quote, the MSM (or the apologists offering commentary in the MSM) tend to focus on the "bitterness" part of the statement while ignoring the rest of Obama's ignorant statement. I say "ignorant" here not in terms of "stupid" but according to the "lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified" meaning of the word. Essentially, Obama's statement is an ill-informed assumption on his part, based on his experience or world-view. I say it's ignorant because I was reminded of a Pew Research Center study that I blogged about back in 2005 after reading about it on Craig Westover's blog. My post read, in part:

The study suggests that the old political party stereotypes of rich and poor, educated and less-educated no longer hold up as the two major parties now have similar demographics in terms of the distribution in these categories. The primary difference is now along the lines of attitude. From the Washington Post article:

The most striking differences between lower-income Republicans and lower-income Democrats come in their perceptions of the power of the individual. Both Pro-Government Conservatives and Disadvantaged Democrats include a substantial number of people who consider themselves to be struggling financially. Overwhelming majorities in both groups say they often cannot make ends meet.

But where they part company is in their overall sense of optimism, with the Republican group expressing much greater faith in personal empowerment. Three-fourths of the Pro-Government Conservatives agreed that people can get ahead by working hard, and four-fifths agreed that everyone has the power to succeed. Just 14 percent of Disadvantaged Democrats agreed with the first statement, and only 44 percent agreed with the second.

Meanwhile, this faith in one's ability to overcome may be rooted in a greater faith:

For all their similarities on income and education, Enterprisers on the right and Liberals on the left diverge on religious habits and cultural attitudes. For example, almost half of Enterprisers attend religious services at least weekly, while just a fifth of Liberals go to religious services that often. A fifth of Liberals are classified in the Pew study as secular - defined as atheists, agnostics or those who say they have no religious affiliation - compared with about one in 20 of the Enterprisers.

So, the way I put this together is that even though they are about the same in terms of income and education, the group with the more positive view of the future is the one that puts its faith in God and in themselves. The group with the most pessimistic outlook puts its faith in the government.

Which group do you figure already knows who its Savior is, and which one is most likely to turn, in their bitterness and hopelessness, to the next one that happens to come along?

Nevertheless, Obama has proven himself to be nothing if not resilient and adaptable. I expect that once he leaves the high-falutin' San Francisco fund-raising circuit and returns to campaign in Pennsylvania his next quote will be, "Git 'er done!"

In general I'm not a big fan of disruptive protests, seeing them as typically producing more inconvenience than enlightenment. That said, I've taken an untypical satisfaction in the multiple protests around the world seeking to shame China in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics. While I'd personally feel more of a connection if the protesters were trying to call attention to the persistent persecution, monitoring and attempted intimidation of Christians instead of Tibetans by the Chinese government, any ridicule that can be heaped on that totalitarian regime is ultimately in the service of a good cause.

To be clear, I don't support or endorse any violent or destructive protests, but I am amused by the daring ingenuity of the protests that have made use of international landmarks in London, Paris and San Francisco. The Chinese government's objective of using the Games as an image booster is blowing up in — and causing it to lose — face.

When China was first awarded the Games I found it regrettable that a country with such a heinous record on human rights and of suborning it's capitalist partners such as Google had received such a boon. Surely they would use the opportunity to present a more enlightened face to the world while continuing to betray the truth and it's own people. If nothing else, the protests have shown Beijing that not everyone is buying it or is willing to kowtow or look politely the other way.

(On a related note, last Sunday I heard a man from the Gideons relate how the organization had been granted the privilege of bringing Bibles into the country and placing them in Beijing hotels for the Olympics — on the condition that they would subsequently be removed from the country as soon as the Olympics are over. We prayed that there won't be a single Bible to be found when the Gideons go back because the guests and staff will have — safely — taken them all).

I know some say embarrassing the host country is improper and rude and that the Games should transcend politics and be about the spirit of athletic competition. Others say the protesters are depriving the torch-bearers of a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Well, if you're concerned about the athletic spirit and the ideals of fair-play, sportsmanship and a level playing field then I would suggest that China itself has already thrown these principles to the dragons, and it's only fair to call them on it. I do feel some sympathy for those of good faith looking to honor the Games by carrying the torch who are being deprived of this opportunity, but on a lesser scale than those deprived of liberty and even their life for trying to uphold the light of freedom.

Embarrassment is too mild a price for the Chinese government to pay for its abuses; at the very least I would that they be mortified.

TechnoChitlins directed me to the story and PHOTOS from Zombietime.

Back in the day, and I mean really back in the day when I had an Apple IIe computer and a computer game called Castle Wolfenstein. The game was on a 5" floppy disk and was essentially a puzzle maze where you were a WWII Allied prisoner trying to escape from the lowest dungeons of an old castle turned Nazi fortress. Graphically it was about as crude as it could be, and by crude I mean laughably simplistic by today's standards. It was a one-color, two-dimensional, third-person shooter where the game characters were essentially stick figures whose arms would only extend at 45 and 90 degree angles to shoot at other characters. To "kill" a Nazi guard you had to maneuver around the screen and try to plink him before he got you. If you succeeded, your victim fell over like a tree in the forest. Nevertheless it was hours of fun as you worked your way through various rooms, traps and puzzles while searching crates for keys, ammo, grenades and bullet proof vests.

A few years later I was using a company laptop and one day in a clearance bin I saw an updated version of "Wolfenstein" on a diskette advertising new, 3-D graphics. "Cool," I thought, and plunked down the $5, took the game home and loaded it up, finding myself in a full-color dungeon, armed with a Luger. I worked my way around a corner and a uniformed guard came rushing at me. I raised my gun and fired and — HIS HEAD EXPLODED! Blood, meat and brains went flying and I actually felt a little ill. In this case the graphics were, well, graphic and unbelievably "crude" but not in the same way as the first game. I later learned that the updated game was based on the "Doom" game engine — quite a leap forward from the tin-man stick figures of my old game. I decided it was too intense for me and turned it off, never to go back to it.

Even then, of course, the "new" graphics were still not as realistic as they are now; the game, after all, was on a little 3" diskette, running on a computer with a processor that would embarrass a calculator today. Today's games and game engines are highly advanced, technically, but some are still as base as they can be in their renderings of violence. I've changed, too, of course and I don't mind a little of the ultra-violence in a game as long as it's not too real. I've hacked and slashed my way through orcs, trolls, bug-bears, goblins and fire-breathing demon dogs without flinching (Baldur's Gate II) or sniped German storm-troopers (Brothers In Arms) while still looking forward to lunch, but while these games are well-rendered the "dead" aren't excessively gory and they thoughtfully disappear soon after falling. I've even played these with my youngest daughter, a sweet-natured girl who used to cry if someone fell off a horse in a TV show, but who now snickers if she gets the drop on a mummy and dispatches it with a spinning kick.

Perhaps this isn't the nicest daddy-daughter activity we can engage in, but I know that there are games out there that are much worse and that strive to outdo each other in replicating the most realistic dismemberments. These games typically have "M" for "Mature" ratings. These games do not come into my house. I was thinking of this today when I read the news story that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals had struck down (how violent!) a law banning selling "mature" or "adults only" video games.

Minnesota may not enforce a law restricting the sale or rental of "adults only" or "mature" video games to minors, according to an opinion issued Monday by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A three-judge panel said the court previously has held that violent video games are protected free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution. For that reason, the law can only be upheld if it is proven "necessary to serve a compelling state interest and ... is narrowly tailored to achieve that end," the panel ruled.

As I read it I was also thinking about the day a few years ago when I went into the video arcade at Valley Fair and watched an expert player using both pistols on the big-screen "House of the Dead" game to mow down realistic, nearly life-sized zombies and monsters. He was fast and unhesitant. He was accurate and stylish, often using the turn-the-gun-sideways grip so popular in today's action movies. He was about eight years old. I wondered then if maybe something inside a young person doesn't get seared a bit from playing a game as graphic as that (or even an older person for that matter). Could you "play" enough so that the real thing wouldn't seem like that big of a deal?

About 15 years ago I was at a conference where we were all taken out to a dude ranch for the evening's entertainment. One of the things you could do was engage in a quick-draw contest with a friend. In this you each had an authentic style and weight double-action revolver in a leather holster. You actually faced each other from about six feet away and when the cowpoke "referee" gave the signal you'd draw, work the double-action, aim at your opponent and pull the trigger. Sensors determined who fired first, while the referee determined if your gun was pointed in an "effective" manner. My friend Nick and I faced off three times; each time he won. The ref looked at me and shook his head. "Dude," he said (it was a dude ranch, after all), "you're clearing leather and cocking the gun ahead of him every time, but you don't pull the trigger fast enough.

"Really?" I said. "I don't feel like I'm hesitating." We tried three more times, each time I focused on pulling the trigger with grim resolution. Three more times I died. I just couldn't overcome the split-second hesitation, even though I knew the gun was fake and the action wasn't for real. The ref just shook his head. "You're a cold-hearted bastard, Nick," I told my partner. He rather enjoyed that.

Somehow I don't think the little kid I saw playing the game at Valley Fair would hesitate. This is a good thing, perhaps, if you're under zombie attack for real but since that doesn't happen much when the legislature isn't in session I wonder if, all in all, it's not such a good thing. I also wonder at the bizarre reasoning of the 8th Circuit Court which based it's ruling in large part that graphic violence is protected as free speech and therefore can't be restricted, even by age. Which, in turn, makes me wonder if the Court will now repeal motion picture ratings and allow over-the-counter sales of pr0n magazines to 10-year-olds under the same logic.

I'd like to be just as sophisticated and blasé about the potential impact of the CG-enhanced violence in games available to kids and the TV shows and movies that are so accessible. The scientists, after all, assure us that there's a negligible effect. "Tosh," I'll think to myself, "the schools and parents are doing an excellent job of teaching manners, respect and impulse-control to today's young men. What's the worst that can happen?" And then I'll turn from the comics page to the local news section.

A young man upset about a girlfriend issue takes a rock in a sock to a knife fight and is killed by two other young men. Another man beats his friend to death with a baseball bat. A five-year-old boy takes a knife to school in order to threaten his gym teacher. A 15-year-old boy points a replica gun at police officers, who respond with real bullets. The last article appeared in the paper two days ago, the first three articles, along with the story about the court ruling, were all in today's paper. I'm sure it's all just coincidence.

Let's play two.

Update:

Then there's this: Five arrested with weapons outside St. Paul school. Three of the five are minors.

Some are concerned that buying military air refueling tankers from a foreign power will have a harmful effect on our national defense and security. It certainly raises some interesting issues for consideration, so let me see if I've got this straight:

We import the oil from foreign powers so we can make the jet fuel our planes will use.

We borrow money from foreign powers so we can buy the oil from other foreign powers so we can make the jet fuel our planes will use.

And now you're concerned about our national security?

The Highway 35 bridge over the Mississippi was one that I was pretty familiar with, but didn't have to drive on too often in recent years. When it fell I had little trouble picturing it in my mind — or imagining the sensation of being one of those trapped on the span when it fell. I was very glad that I wasn't on that bridge and that it wasn't part of my direct commute.

Later, as we heard what was known about the condition of the bridge, I also thought about human nature and whether I would, if I knew the bridge's condition, have continued to drive that bridge if it was the fastest way to work. How difficult would it have been to rationalize saving 10 or 15 minutes in order to drive on a bridge that even with its deficiencies was still considered safe to drive by experts? And how stupid would I have then felt when I felt the first tremor? I was glad that I hadn't had to try and work that one out.

Or so I thought.

Over 100 state bridges rated worse than 35W
(Article and graph from St. Paul Pioneer Press, August 5.)

Before the Interstate 35W bridge collapsed into the Mississippi River, state engineers viewed another Twin Cities bridge as a more serious threat: the Lafayette Bridge in downtown St. Paul.

The span over the Mississippi River is scheduled to be replaced in 2011 - many years before the I-35W bridge would have been - and suffers the same key defect that experts say contributed to Wednesday's disaster. It was built with an outdated design that doesn't prevent the entire structure from falling if one component fails.

"Drive across the Lafayette Bridge in rush hour sometime," said Ramsey County Commissioner Tony Bennett. "It shakes. I won't drive on it. That bridge is in dire need."

The Lafayette is one of about 100 bridges in Minnesota considered to be in worse condition than the I-35W span that crumbled during rush hour Wednesday, according to a review of inspection records. The collapse has left many wondering how one of the state's most heavily traveled bridges could have simply succumbed during normal, everyday traffic.

...

MnDOT engineer Chris Roy, interviewed before the collapse of the I-35W bridge, said the Lafayette has structural flaws and called it a "high-maintenance" bridge. It received a "poor condition" rating for its superstructures (I-beams, girders) and a "fair condition" rating for its deck. The substructure is in "good condition."

The bridge also suffers the same inherent flaw as the I-35W bridge - it was built without structural redundancies.

"It's a type of bridge design that we wouldn't build anymore," Roy said.

The Lafayette Bridge is part of my commute, and I've driven it at least twice a day for ten years, plus countless other trips into St. Paul. I have felt it bounce and vibrate at times, and I have looked over the edge (especially when south-bound) at the long drop that makes my knees tingle at the prospect, even before the recent and dramatic demonstration that bridges can fail.

Hearing that the Lafayette Bridge was considered to be in more immediate need of replacement than the (when it was still standing) Hwy. 35 bridge, I had to ask myself another question: "Do you feel lucky, punk?"

So today I took 35E to Ayd Mill Road and got onto Hwy. 94 east of Hwy. 280 where the congestion was really starting to back up. It took 45 minutes to get to my office, which is about what it's been taking "normally" this summer with the effects of all the other road construction in the system keeping traffic clogged during a time of year that is usually pretty free-flowing due to significant parts of the workforce taking vacations any given week. I also have the choices of the Wabasha and Robert Street bridges (lovely bridges, but you have to crawl through downtown St. Paul to get to the highway).

I understand that "deficient" doesn't mean "defective" and that in engineering terms the Lafayette Bridge is still considered adequate. The story I cited above also reports that the old Wabasha bridge had a "4" rating before it was ultimately closed and rebuilt in '96, and that the Stillwater Lift Bridge has a 2.8 rating and people are still driving over it. I understand that there are bridges with lower ratings still being used. I also, however, understand that "fracture critical" means that the Lafayette Bridge, like the 35W bridge, has no safety redundancies if part of it starts to go.

You know, the scenery is really rather nice along Ayd Mill Road.

Update: Another story in the Strib today describes more concerns with the Lafayette Bridge, including an incident when a large crack in the main beam led to a 7" dip in the roadway.

Wednesday I left my car at home to have the windshield replaced after the little bit of excitment I described on Tuesday. This meant I commuted in my wife's car, which does not have a radio antenna. While I have used the Hwy. 35 bridge before to get in and out of downtown, my drive typically takes me through the University and I bypass the ramp leading to the span. This summer I've avoided this route altogether because of the construction related to the new Gopher stadium. Out of touch and out of the way, I didn't hear about the collapse of the bridge until about 6:15 when I got home, switched cars and decided to go out to Culver's for dinner before church. Hearing the news was an eerie recollection of getting the first reports on the morning of 9/11.

Just like then it was a brilliant, sunny day and I was driving and listening to the radio and just like then I had to scramble mentally to convert the unreal into reality. It wasn't hard, however, to create a picture in my mind of the all-too-familiar bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic on the span and the sickening sensation of having the roadway tremble and fall beneath you. Those were my first thoughts, and then I started to inventory my family and friends. I was obviously safely out of the area, and my wife and youngest weren't even in the country. My oldest daughter would still be at work in Roseville and wouldn't take that route home anyway, but might find unexpected disruptions, so I used my cell phone to call hers and leave a short message on what had happened and what to expect. Then I thought of my parents in Missouri and their penchant for keeping the tv on and I knew that this wasn't going to be just a local story, so I tried but couldn't reach my mom's cell, and then got my brother on his. He lived here for several years and knew the bridge; I told him we were all accounted for and fine.

As I waited for my food at Culver's I remembered that my friend Ben would be on the bus heading this way for church. He lives near the bridge but his bus route wouldn't logically take him that direction. Still, best to make sure. I called him on his cell and started to feel some relief when he answered. I asked, "Are you on the bus?" He replied, "Yes, and it's horrible..." as my heart started to thump.

"Why, what's going on, where are you?" I said with what what may have sounded to him like unwarranted agitation.

"Oh...some people...can be so clueless and rude sometimes," he began.

I quickly filled him in on what was going on and determined that he, too, was well clear of the area. Driving to church I thought of my friend Harvey who is a bridge inspector for MNDOT and mused about how busy he was going to be. Just as I pulled up to the building the radio announced that a MNDOT bridge inspection team had been working at the site when the bridge collapsed. Uh-oh. I trotted inside. Our pastor was speaking and people were already praying; our pastor's wife met me in the back of the room. "Harvey was there, but he's all right." The congregation continued to pray. I ducked out a couple of times during the evening as my cell phone vibrated, people trying to get a hold of me. When I got home there was a message from my folks. They hadn't been watching the news that evening, but my grandmother had. She had called them, they had called me.

The next day I tried to get in to work early because my job would put me in the middle of creating and distributing any communications that might need to go out to our employees or clients. Our offices are very near the bridge and many of my co-workers could have been on it as they tried to get home. Traffic was predictably slow Thursday morning, so I called in to my new employee as I made my way west to see if anything was buzzing yet. I was a little embarrassed by the relief in her voice when I got through; it hadn't crossed my mind earlier to let her know I had gotten safely across the river the night before, and I hadn't yet thought to give her all my contact numbers.

Once I was in the office I was again reminded of 9/11. Back then we had had a number of clients and business contacts in the WTC, and many of our own staff were flying on business that day, some of them on the East Coast. Everyone was trying to get information; spouses were calling in, asking for itineraries or to find out if we'd had any word, a constant crowd of people was gathered around the small black and white monitor in the conference room as we hoped for new information every five minutes. Thursday we'd all already seen the pictures and it was very quiet as people almost whispered their conversations between the cubicles or kept to themselves, waiting for news. Given our proximity, could we, would we, escape unscathed? I called HR and I called our communications team in the Atlanta headquarters. As yet there had still been no word of anyone from our campus being hurt or missing. We were, however, already receiving countless phone calls and emails from our clients around the country, offering their concern, support and prayers.

As the day went on it seemed more and more likely that we hadn't lost anyone from our Division or from the Minneapolis campus, which in fact turned out to be the case. Remarkably, we had been unaffected. That is not to say that we were untouched.

I was driving home from the grocery store tonight when I sustained a frontal assault. Driving past the ballfields in West St. Paul I suddenly heard and felt a loud thump just as my vision immediately got very blurry.



There happened to be a guy sitting in the back seat along with the Mall Diva, and I thought at first that maybe Kevin had launched a preemptive strike on the poor boy. Once I pulled over and determined that everyone in the car was alright and that the reason I couldn't see out the windshield was because of a series of concentric circles and cracks right in front of my face, I looked over and noticed several large guys standing in a nearby ballfield, studiously looking in the other direction.

I pulled into the parking lot and drove a ways over to the backstop where a large and rather sheepish looking guy was rubbing his head. "Heckuva poke," I said, with some admiration.

"Thanks."

"Got any insurance?"

"Uh, yeah."

Fortunately he had all of his details with him and I got everything I needed.

I think I'm still going to have him tested for steroids, though.

I have this picture in my mind of Barry Bonds frantically peddling a racing bike through the French Alps as he's chased by pit bulls, all while an NBA referee uses his cellphone to check the scores before deciding whether to call traveling or not.

There are so many crash and burns going on in sports right now you'd have to be a NASCAR fan to keep track of them all. This year in the Tour De France the yellow jersey isn't given to the leader, but to the guy who collects the urine samples.

At least there the teams have the decency to shove their disgraced cheaters over a cliff. In San Francisco Giants fans embrace Barry Bonds — or they would if they could get their arms around head, that is. I've had my differences with MLB Commissioner Selig over the years (though I thought his son-in-law was a real nice guy when he was with the Twins and I worked for the Sports Commission), but I give Bud credit for not wanting to be anywhere near the stadium when Bonds breaks the record.

The only reason I would go would be for the chance to catch the record-breaking ball — so I could call a press conference the next day, use a big ol' hypodermic needle to inject the ball with gasoline and then set it on fire. (Sure, I'd miss out on a lot of money, but on the plus side I'd never have to buy myself a drink for the rest of my life). I know, you can't "prove" that Bonds is a juicer (though his post-career endorsement options may be limited to Hamilton Beach and the Waring Company) but who are you going to believe — Barry, or your own lying eyes?

I remember 30-some years ago when Hank Aaron was closing in on Babe Ruth's record and how much hate mail he received from folks who didn't like the idea of a black man breaking the mark. Those fears seem even more ridiculous today when a cheater is about to do it.

As for Michael Vick, I have no doubt the Feds put a lot of heat on his lower-level associates in order to bag him and I think he's (justifiably) in serious trouble and in for serious jail-time...unless he now becomes the key to blowing the whole dog-fighting sub-culture in professional sports wide open by naming names. Somehow I just don't think he's the only young athlete with a lot of time and money on his hands and a taste for violence and gambling. I remember an article in Sports Illustrated a couple of years ago that focused on how a number of NFL players loved raising pitbulls. It was all positive on how much they loved these dogs, but now you've got to wonder.

If there's anyone who's got to be sweating about tips of icebergs, however, it's Daniel Stern and the NBA. In a game who's rules have always seemed rather whimsically officiated, the reactions I've seen to the fact that a referee will be indicted for fixing games has been less, "You stink!" and more, "Ya think?" No worries, though, Mr. Stern; Pro Wrestling is still packing them in and they've got the trifecta: steroids, mad dogs and pre-determined outcomes!

Not too many people were shocked when Al Gore III was pulled over last week for speeding, drug possession and having a trunkload of counterfeit carbon credits. What was surprising was that he was clocked at more than 100 mph in a Prius! I'm not a motor-head like Jroosh, but that's a speed I thought was approachable only if the car were dropped very high from a crane at the Sturgis Bike Rally.

Obviously there are a lot of easy jokes that can be (and were) made. I appreciate it when someone works a little harder for the humor, which is why I especially liked Nancy's musical treatment at Away With Words:

I feel a song coming on (in the spirit of the Beachboys, the Daytonas, and Jan and Dean):

Hybrid Synergy Racin' Machine

I was cruisin' downtown in my Toyota Prius
- Cruise, little Prius! Whoosh! Whoosh!
Doing 50 mpg, just like they guarantee us.
- Conserve, little Prius! Whoosh! Whoosh!
When a big bad Hummer came up alongside
Said, "Hey, Granola--ready to ride?"

I said, I know what you're thinking--I'm an herbal-tea wuss.
- Rev, little Prius! Shush! Shush!
And I'll never catch up in my Toyota Prius
- Glide, little Prius! Shush! Shush!
Yeah, my engine is silent--but it's deadly, too
So buckle up, baby, 'cause I'm gunnin' for you.

Girl's voice: "No, Al! No, Al! No, Al! Nooooooo!"

[refrain]
Well, I run on electric and I run on gas
Ain't nobody here gonna kick my ass.
Prius is green--yeah!--but Prius is mean,
It's a hybrid synergy racin' machine.

I push-button-started and began to roll
- Go, little Prius! Zip! Zip!
Passed the Hummer, a Porsche, and the Highway Patrol.
- Fight, little Prius! Zip! Zip!
I was doin' a hundred on the southbound 5
Lost the Hummer on a curve, more dead than alive.

[refrain]
Well, I run on electric and I run on gas
Ain't nobody here gonna kick my ass!
Prius is green--yeah!--but Prius is mean,
It's a hybrid synergy racin' machine.

Whoa - talk about your little juiced coupe! I wonder if there's any coming back from Dead Man's Surge? Oh well, I guess Al III will have fun, fun, fun 'til Daddy takes the Prius away!

Now even a half-dressed Paris Hilton, carrying a bottle of Grey Goose and a chihuahua while eating a ham sandwich will be able to get a cab at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.

In a rare display of Minnesota resolve the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) voted unanimously to take a hard line in imposing stricter sanctions on cab drivers who refuse to accept fares from passengers carrying alcohol. While the policy calls for penalties for any driver refusing a fare unless the would-be passenger is drunk or disorderly, it was enacted in response to some Muslim cabbies refusing, on the basis of their religious beliefs, to transport passengers carrying alcohol. A first offense calls for a 30-day license suspension and a second requires a two-year suspension (the previous penalty was that the driver had to go back to the end of the cab-line, which might be as much as a two-hour wait for another fare).

While this policy was written primarily in response to refusals to transport passengers carrying booze —more than 4800 "refusals of service" in the last five years — there have also been incidences of Muslim cabdrivers refusing passengers with service dogs (service pigs would be right out). I think it's likely the MAC was also concerned that if it permitted refusals-of-service based on alcohol and dogs that it might next be dealing with religious refusals to transport unescorted women, Jewish passengers and arbitragers dealing in pork-belly futures. Therefore the line was drawn, and it's a hard one.

It's not clear to me whether the MAC has the authority to keep a cabbie from plying his trade anywhere other than at the airport. There is also the usual talk about this decision being challenged to the Minnesota Supreme Court on the basis of the MAC, being a government organization, is required to make "reasonable accomodation" for religious beliefs. I'm not a lawyer, but I think they have to take it to court first before a case can go to the Supreme Court. Also, the MAC is a customer, not an employer, of the cabbies; don't know if that makes a difference.

If it goes to court it might make for an interesting ruling that could affect policies such as other governmental organizations (e.g., cities) being able to set terms for prospective vendors on the paying a "livable" wage or having a certain percentage of minority employees and/or owners in order to receive contracts.

As I've written before, I have a certain admiration for people sticking to their religious principles on the job, especially if they are prepared to pay the "market price" for their choices. Ultimately if a cabdriver perceives permitting alcohol inside his cab to be on par with, say, selling booze then it might be time to prayerfully consider another career.