Thursday, October 30, 2003

Where's Carville?

If you wonder why the Democrats have stopped talking about the horrible economy and have instead criticized Bush for the war they voted for, look no further than this:
The U.S. economy rocketed ahead at its fastest pace in more than 19 years in the third quarter of 2003 as consumers, their wallets fattened by tax cuts, went on a buying spree, an unexpectedly strong government report showed on Thursday.

U.S. gross domestic product surged at a 7.2 percent annual rate in the July-September period, the Commerce Department said. It was the steepest climb since the first quarter of 1984 and more than double the second quarter's 3.3 percent rate.

Dude was Right.

I was in Virginia at a wedding with Trish. Tuned into the 5th inning just in time to see the Marlins score. I can only be happy that I have Josh Beckett in the IBL.

It wasn't a bad letdown like 2001 when MO was human in game 7 or even 2002 when the Yankees got booted in the first series. The Yankees have either won the World Series or were beaten by the eventual winner every year since 1996, except when Cleveland beat them in 1997. And Cleveland could have and should have won that series as well.

The Marlins weren't the best team in baseball, but neither were the Yankees, I think. The Red Sox and Cubs may have beaten either of these teams in another 7 games series. Maybe no team was the best this year. It was really about how pitching match ups were laid out and curses took hold.

It wasn't a bad series to lose. It was much more fun to be beat Boston. And I did get to take dad afterall.

Friday, October 24, 2003


It would benefit us to consider why people choose to enslave other people and we should be disappointed that our country was once guilty of the practice. What I don’t understand is why American slavery is somehow treated as if it were an anomaly of human history. Not only did it happen from biblical times until the Civil War, it still continues in many places around the world with little acknowledgement. In fact, you can witness human slavery 90 miles south of Florida.

Cuba is nothing but a gigantic plantation where deserters are hunted down, tortured and sometimes killed. Economic fortunes are tied to the whims of the communist rulers who dole out the goodies to allies while depriving the masses who were supposed to benefit from the revolution. Underground railroads of makeshift boats are created for escape, but few actually do. And those who do get most of the way are sent back to the plantation where they face the wrath of the system.

Books continue to be written about our treatment of the slaves and reparations continue to be paid in the form of set asides and quotas, although no living American legally owned any other living American. Many proponents for racial justice will tell you that fighting a war to end slavery wasn’t enough. America is still culpable.

Ironically, Castro, in their opinion, is a misunderstood genius that is under a tyrannical U.S. boot. Somehow Castro’s rivalry with us excuses his actual behavior. Cuba has the greatest medical care and literacy in the world according to them. Even if we took Castro’s own figures for gospel, do you think for a moment that leaders Jackson and Sharpton who have praised Castro, would have accepted southern slavery if the overseer had educated each slave in the liberal arts and had a doctor on the premises?

It’s no surprise that some fools would point to a free people and label them victims and point to victims and label them lucky. What’s amazing is that we have a supposed objective press that doesn’t even question these inconsistencies. You shouldn’t be able to pick and choose the kinds of slavery you like and be treated as a rational voice by a curious media.

The only thing these inconsistencies have in common is that they both support the goal of a bigger central government. Amercia’s problems need government intervention the first argument goes. Cuba’s problems were solved by government intervention the second argument goes. A media that likes bigger government doesn’t question the hypocrisy.

That kind of intellectual dishonesty should be enough to make one question the rationality of the nanny state.

Thursday, October 23, 2003

World Series Game 5

FLA 6 NY 4

David Wells needs to lose some weight. Bernie Williams long fly in the 9th would have tied it in any other ballapark. In fact, the Yankees mounted a comeback that almost won in every game they lost. Are the Gods laughing in Mount Olympus? Or is this a chance for the Yankees to win it in grandest fashion back in the big apple?

FLA 4 NY 3 (12 innings)
The Yankees didn't win, but my first World Series game made up for it with some spectacular moments:

1) Clemens recovered after a shaky first inning and he threw goose eggs for the next 6 frames.

2) The standing ovation by the (mostly) opposing crowd after Clemens struck out Luis Castillo (probably his last batter) in the 7th inning.

3) Ruben Sierra's game tying triple 3-2 with 2 outs in the 9th.

4) (though in conflict with the inner Yankee fan) Alex Gonzalez' walk-off homer in the bottom of the 12th.

These events all hold significance that go further than the moment. First, I didn't think I was going to see Clemens when I bought the tickets. Torre's talk to the media about how he doesn't like to mess up Roger's routine coupled with the fact that Roger had a short outing last Thursday led me to believe that Clemens would pitch game three. I thought the idea of seeing Clemens last game in a world series, no less, made game three a good choice. But when I heard that Beckett was pitching game three, I figured that the Yankees would be more likely to get beat in that game than game four where Mussina would probably oppose the shaky Pavano.

Steve W. and I had been bitten in June when Mark Prior beat the Yankees on Sunday Night baseball in what were the best seats I will ever have in my life. We were compensated for the loss that night by meeting Ernie Banks. But the idea of going up against Beckett reminded me of the Prior(pun) game.

I also figured that the Yankees could get lucky and sweep and game four would be the clincher.

The sweep didn't happen and the Yanks had a great comeback on Tuesday night, but getting to see Roger was not a bad trade-off.

It was also significant that Ruben Sierra would show up in time to tie it. Kevin the Dude and I bought a ton of now worthless Ruben Sierra rookie cards in 1989. We must have bought over a 100 between the two of us. Ruben went from sensation to bomb a few years later and then turned up again as a dusted off journeyman. Almost fitting that he would turn up one last time just so I could remind myself of those days when Dude and I did little but collect baseball cards and watch $1 movies.

And Alex Gonzalez was intriguing because when I drafted him a few years ago for the IBL, Dude immediately chimed in with "scrub." Every dog has his day and today that scrub won the game by hitting a homer off Jeff Weaver (owned by Dude in the league). Why couldn’t you be right, Dude?

There were a couple of non-baseball interesting moments.

The guy married to Jessica Simpson sang the national anthem, which was funny, because Tricia has been telling me about this show for around and month and I hadn’t seen it until the other night when the Tuna Fish show repeated. It was worth a laugh for the both of us. Funny watching this guy singing the national anthem in front of the world and thinking he’s holding his ground about getting his spoiled wife a maid.

After the national anthem, four Air Force jets flew over in formation and I really felt the goose bumps just knowing that citizens were risking their lives to protect our freedom. The jets gave me such confidence in our country to do the job. That we can fly those jets over a country like Iraq and yet offer the people food instead of a gulag is a testament to moral nature of our nation. The guys sitting next to me with Marlins caps high-fived me after the jets went over. We were Americans even before we were baseball fans.

The most important part of the night was being able to take my dad to a World Series game. Dad took me to my first baseball game when I was six years old. The Yankees and the White Sox were playing in the old Commiskey Park. I didn’t know anything about baseball, but I remember him saying years later that it was a high scoring game and Rick Dempsey, who is really remembered for his years in Baltimore, caught for the Yankees instead of Thurman Munson.

The only thing I remember about the game was the popcorn. It came in a cardboard container that was shaped like a megaphone. I was actually more interested in the megaphone part because it the same prop used by Rita Moreno on the Electric Company when she yelled “Hey You Guys.” Or it’s at least the way I remember it. Anyway, I was tired of holding my megaphone and I put it on an empty seat next to me. A little girl around my age sitting in the seat adjacent took my megaphone a few moments later and started playing with it. I didn't know what to do. Her father didn't make her put it down and my father didn't care either. I was so jealous. I was sure I lost my megaphone.

Near the end of the game she got tired of it and put it back down on that seat, but I was sure that she still coveted it. When dad said it was time to leave I had to make a split second decision. The megaphone was mine. Did I take it or leave it? What would the girl do if I yanked it away? I decided not to take it and stood up. But before my feet could move a step, I reached back and yanked the megaphone out of the seat before the girl could think to stop me. We made eye contact, and a look of horror came on her face. She quickly made a plea to her father to stop me, but I was already moving away with the toy. Her tapping on her dad and her pointing at me did her little good. I don't know if that Megaphone ever made it out of Uncle Larry's car and back into our house in Indiana, but the memory of how I lost it and got it back with quick thinking has never left me. I was too young to define a base hit, but I will never forget going to that game.

Dad was so excited when I told him I bought us World Series tickets. He said he never dreamed that he would see a World Series game, much less a Yankee World Series game. I can say that I never thought I would either. To be able to share that experience with my dad who took me to my first baseball game is beyond words so I will stop this long essay right there.

Wednesday, October 22, 2003

World Series Game 3

NY 6 FLA 1

Josh Beckett pitched as well as anyone could have expected, but the Yankees just waited him out and feasted on the bullpen. Derek Jeter continued his big game plays doubling and scoring the go ahead run in the 8th inning.

When Grady Little left Pedro Martinez in, the Yankees came running back. Today, Trader Jack removed his best pitcher for Dontrell Willis and they beat up on him too. There is no right answer in the late innings against the Yankees. They have been to the big game so many times that they don't buckle in late inning pressure situations, but they expect the opponent to buckle and are rarely disappointed. Derek Jeter will not make the Hall of Fame on his raw numbers alone, but he should get consideration for the many times he made a difference in the playoffs.

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

Dennis Miller's conversion to the right has been a lot of fun. I'm surprised how many different jokes he can make from world events. Because no other commedian is shooting from the right, all of his material seems brand new. Here's an excerpt from a recent interview by American Enterprise.


TAE: How would Americans respond to Senator Clinton as a Presidential candidate?

MILLER: Forty percent of voters would probably support her. I’d like to think there’s 60 percent who wouldn’t. Most people know that the Clintons are just career politicians, but it’s amazing to me that some people really believe in them. Bill and Hillary’s marriage couldn’t have been any more about convenience than if they’d installed a Slim Jim rack and Slurpee machine at the base of their bed.

TAE: Do you dislike Senator Clinton’s political ideology, too?

MILLER: I have an across-the-board disapproval of her. In 1998, when Bill was first accused of having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary went on NBC’s “Today” show and attributed the allegations to a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” That seemed extremely stupid to me. Name the people. She can spend 30 years of her life apologizing for her husband’s indiscretions if she wants to, but at the same time she shouldn’t champion herself as the ideal woman. In 1992, Hillary told the press, “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas.” That statement really bugged me. She’s in essence as “cookie” as one can get because of the kind of treatment she’s accepted from her husband. I think most women would have said, “Quit screwing around on me or I’m out of here.”

TAE: What do you think of the Clintons reinventing themselves as New Yorkers?

MILLER: I view Hillary as an inverted carpetbagger. I’m convinced that Bill Clinton put her up there because he knew New York was a community property state, vis-à-vis divorce settlements.

TAE: Is it safe to say you were not impressed with how she handled 9/11?

MILLER: Well, Rudy Giuliani, who is often portrayed as an unfeeling, Hitler-like guy by the liberals, attended scores of memorial services for the victims. He exhibited great sympathy for people. Hillary, on the other hand, didn’t go to a single one until it became an issue and then I think she probably hit a couple just to get her record square. She didn’t belong in New York in the first place.


TAE: What are your thoughts on the current state of Democratic candidates running for President?

MILLER: I haven’t seen a starting nine like this since the ’62 Mets. They lost 120 games.

TAE: What about North Carolina’s Senator John Edwards?

MILLER: There are enough litigious people in this country. I don’t need the Commander in Chief serving papers on our enemies: “You will be deposed, Mr. Hussein!”


TAE: How do you think the country would have been different had Al Gore been President on September 11, 2001?

MILLER: Gore doesn’t have a real sense of self. He probably would have invaded Afghanistan –but almost anyone would have done that. But go into Iraq? I doubt it. Hans Blix and the Scooby Doo van would still be driving around looking for weapons, like something in a Mack Sennett silent film. You could hear that music where Blix goes in the front door and the weapons come out the back. That’s what I used to imagine when I saw Blix.


TAE: You’ve become more conservative over the years. How do you explain this shift?

MILLER: I’m not as sure of my guesswork anymore. To be on the Left, you have to be amazingly certain about things you’re guessing at, and I felt like a phony. I was looking for ideas, and all I was getting from liberals was, “We’d like a little more of your money, and we’re kind of reticent to protect you from bad guys.” Really? That’s all you’re offering? I gotta go! I can’t stay anymore. Also, when I kept hearing liberals equating Giuliani with Hitler—that’s when I really left the reservation. Even before 9/11, I’d travel to New York and say, “Wow, this city certainly seems to be running better.” Giuliani is the kind of leader I admire. When it’s five degrees below zero and you arrest somebody to get him inside and off the street—that’s not something Hitler would do. It made me realize that I was with the wrong group if that’s what Hitler looked like to them.

TAE: Where do you see the danger in that?

MILLER: I always wondered how Hitler happened. I even went so far as to read William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I read all 1,200 pages and at the end of it I remember thinking, “Yeah, but how does Hitler happen?” Part of it has to do with the Left mislabeling people as Hitler. It’s like Pierce Brosnan at the end of the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair. He dressed everybody up in the same Bowler cap and overcoat, and then he walks right through the middle of them without being noticed. The Left is so busy saying John Ashcroft is Hitler, and President Bush is Hitler, and Rudy Giuliani is Hitler that the only guy they wouldn’t call Hitler was the foreign guy with the mustache who was throwing people who disagreed with him into the wood-chipper.

Monday, October 20, 2003


I was interested to learn that asthmatic kids are made to keep their inhalers at the Nurse’s office in some school districts. It has something to do with the no tolerance drug policy. Recently a kid, who kept his inhaler on his person anyway, offered the inhaler to his girlfriend when she was going through an attack. I don’t know what an attack is like, but I doubt it is easy to get to the nurse’s office every time. The school nurse decided that the girl’s attack was not life threatening and the principal suspended the boy for giving her the medicine.

Are we so shallow in this country that we cannot differentiate between a person using drugs for a condition and a person using drugs for recreation? Aren’t schools the place where teachers are supposed to be teaching children how to think and understand the differences between two different applications of knowledge?

It’s more evidence that we’re not educating children, but training them to function repetitively according to learned stimulus. Any deviation is not judged on the merits, but punished for merely being a deviation.

If you wonder why tobacco companies have such an easy time marketing to children, it's because critical thinking is not a priority in their schools. If you wonder why political candidates can rely on deceptive ads, it’s because kids are punished for challenging authorities, even when the authorities are wrong. Kids are soon conditioned to accept whatever they are told. The box cutter arrest is an example of how this continues into adulthood.

Laws exist to solve certain human problems not create them. By loving the law for the sake of itself we marginalize the human beings for whom the law was supposed to protect.

I haven’t had time to comment on the MPAA decision to ban screening copies of movies, but the Los Angeles Film Critics Association has responded by canceling their annual awards. They don't think they can view enough movies to make valid choices with the ban in place.

The whole ban idea is nonsense. If movie owners think that screening copies are being pirated they can choose to not to send out their movies. Since the film owners are the ones who face the economic perils of piracy, why should anyone but them make this decision? There is no industry wide argument that can be made. It doesn’t hurt Warner Brothers when Miramax has a film being duplicated. But the argument that smaller films will be hurt by this ban makes pretty good sense.

The idea the MPAA can step in a prevent a movie owner from distributing his movie in any way he chooses reeks of the Washington D.C. mentality of knowing better than the rest of us. Someone should take the MPAA to court.

UPDATE: Roger Simon gets his screening copies.
The former Saddam International Airport now houses Iraq's first Burger King. Part creature comfort, part therapy for homesick troops, its sales have reached the top 10 among all Burger King franchises on Earth in the five months since it opened. The shiny metal broiler spits out 5,000 patties a day.

The takeout stand is open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and offers six sandwiches; a normal menu has 16. There are no milkshakes. But even with the limited menu, and with competition from the Bob Hope dining facility at the airport -- which is free and serves 8,000 meals a day -- Burger King's daily sales are between $15,000 and $18,000, military officials say.

If John Edwards doesn't win this presidency thing, he'll be hopping a plane to file some obesity lawsuits in Iraq.
Man to Face Charges in Box Cutter Case
A college student who the FBI believes hid box cutters and other banned items aboard two airplanes will face federal charges, a law enforcement source said Monday.

The charges against Nathaniel Heatwole, a 20-year-old junior at Guilford College in Greensboro, N.C., will likely deal with carrying prohibited items aboard a plane, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

A Bush administration official has said the suspected perpetrator last month sent the government an e-mail warning of his intention to conceal suspicious items on six planes and provided dates and locations for the plan.

I guess we'd all be better served to pretend that security is finding these items in those laborious searches. That guy risked getting caught just to prove the current security configuration is nothing but a show. I don't see how his actions were any less than a public service.

Our government is about the least proactive organization I can imagine. The crackdown on box cutters is too little too late. No one is ever going to hijack a plane successfully with box cutters again. It only worked because the passengers complied not knowing the fate of the planes. If the cockpit doors are locked and the pilots are armed, it will take a bomb to do damage the next time.

The smuggling of bleach and clay proved that airport security spends too much time swiping leathermans and toenail clippers and not enough time searching for the items that pose the greatest danger.

Sunday, October 19, 2003


I was watching Hardball Sunday afternoon and Presidential Candidate, John Edwards was asked some tough questions:

Favorite Movie? Favorite Book? Favorite Philosopher?

After spending the entire episode explaining why Bush was out of touch with the American people, Edwards couldn't for the life of himself name a favorite movie. Does he not watch movies? Was he afraid that his answer would offend a constituency? He finally came up with that prison movie. Chris Mathews had to intervene and say. "Shawshank Redemption?" Edwards said Yes.

On favorite book, Edwards said he just read the DaVinci Code and that was good. Does that mean that DaVinci was immediately his favorite, or that he couldn't think of a favorite either.

On favorite philosopher he didn't have an answer, but still considered himself philosophical.

Are today's candidates so coached that they have trouble answering even simple things off script? Maybe it would have been easier if Mathews had asked Edwards to name some favorite movies and favorite books and favorite philosophers. Maybe it’s easier to name numerous things you like, but hard to single out a favorite.

Edward’s basic argument throughout the show was that if Bush were more in touch he would realize that the American people want more government services and they think that rich people should pay for them. Bush, of course, is a tool of the rich. Edwards, who is rich, has learned important lessons about the downtrodden in country clubs and courtrooms where he use to take big chunks of their tort winnings. Come to think of it, do we tax big tort settlements? Does Edwards favor taxing the people he makes rich or just the ones that get there through inheritances and work?

Edwards implied that Bush’s politics were self-serving his own wealth, while Edwards learned the right lessons about being rich. It would seem to me that we should be wary of any politician that tells you his policies are against his own best interest. The only time I know people to do something intentionally against their own best interests is when another of their interests are served in doing so. You might sacrifice for your friends or family, the people you love. You might sacrifice a small gain for a bigger gain later. But rational people never say, “I just have it too good. I need to set up some barriers to my future success.”

John Edward’s accumulation of wealth has always depended on taking advantage of defendants with deep pockets so it’s not inconsistent for him to expect those same deep pockets to fund his compassion now. I suppose this is also consistent with the semi-popular idea that rich people never gain their money through providing things other people want. Instead they greedily squeeze profit out of people. They don’t employ people who want to work for them, but enslave people by paying them less than they want. It’s no one’s responsibility to gain a skill-set and get a job that pays a desired wage, but it’s the employer’s responsibility to pay that wage at whatever job a person may choose to work.

Now Edwards has always feasted off the rich, but how do we explain guys like Kerry and Dean whose wealth was made the way Republicans make it? Unless you believe that these guys are so compassionate and love people so much they are willing to place barriers in front of their own success, you would have to think there is another reason for their “compassion.” If it were simply that they have no use for money then they would be giving it away or at least not attempting to make more. If John Kerry doesn’t win the presidency he could at least as a consolation give away the bulk of his fortune to those causes he is so ready to have you pay for. But rich Democrats never seem to be in the giveaway business when their own money is at stake.

Usually by the time they come to politics they have the money and their salaries are only a small percentage of their net worth. Their own fortunes will not be in peril with higher income taxes, because their incomes are not that high. It will be people who have to work long hours to earn that money that get to pay for these great ideas.

You ever notice how even regular guys who go to Washington and have to pay high living expenses and taxes seem to return home millionaires. Maybe when you’re in politics you get rich or stay rich regardless of how you try to social engineer productive people. Maybe that is the real trick. These guys aren’t self-hating at all, but trying to get a piece of the Washington pie. Although they might be rich, there is a whole consistency that wouldn’t be pandered to if the rich didn’t use class warfare arguments against their own. Has any rich politician ever left politics broke because his/her compassion got the better of him? How many businesses do you think have gone under when intrusive legislation mandates an entire level of new taxes and regulations?

Maybe Bush is just a tool of the rich. At worst, he is trying to defend a group of people who already pay for the bulk of government every way you cut it. But he argues that what benefits the rich also benefits all of us through job creation and growth of the economy. Do the Democrats ever argue that higher taxes benefit the rich? Do they ever stake out a position that argues that everyone benefits from their policies? They’ll claim Clinton’s tax hike on the belly of Bush 41’s tax hike created a bunch of new jobs, but they never actually explain how taking a higher percentage of money from us actually accomplishes that. Since Reagan’s tax cut also led to the creation of new jobs are we to expect that only static tax rates cause job loss?

Liberal politicians present themselves as tireless representatives of the downtrodden, but when these great men retire they leave with wealth in the 99 percentile of all Americans. They’re making no sacrifice bringing forth this socialist agenda, but they are gaining power.

I’ve been waiting for years to hear their theories on how large amounts of government spending allows businesses to create private sector jobs and provide high salaries. I’d like to know at what point do they think that more taxes and government spending will actually lead to fewer private sector jobs or if businesses will thrive at even higher rates when the government takes all the money.

This whole Democrat campaign seems to rest on the fact that Clinton showed the greedy rich who was boss by raising taxes in 1993. Wait! That actually helped the rich, because the economy improved in the 1990s, the story now goes. I remember this happening in the 1980s too, but that was the decade of greed. Why wasn’t the 1990s a decade of greed? People were abusing their credit cards in the 1990s, weren’t they? The whole point of their policies was supposed to be that poor people would gain at the expense of the rich people who really didn’t need the money. But instead, it seems that a rising tide lifted all boats. Was it trickle up economics?
World Series Game 2

NY 6 FLA 1

Andy Pettite was brilliant and the Yankee hitters were more patient. Matsui's 3-run homer in the first gave Pettite enough cushion and Florida really never had a chance. Game 3 will be key, because Mussina has been having trouble winning his postseason starts, although he gave a brilliant performance in relief in game 7 of the LCS versus Boston. By going in the third game, Mussina is in line to pitch game 7, so he is going to have to win now or win later or both. So much depends on him. Clemens could have gone on Tuesday, but I don't think Torre wants to throw him twice in the series after he looked so ineffective against Boston.

My dad and I are going down to see Game Four in Miami and will get to see Roger Clemens last career start. I couldn't decide which game we should see, but when I heard that Josh Beckett was going in game three, I thought that I should choose a game the Yankees have a better chance of winning. I didn't realize until tonight that we'd get to see Roger. Last time Dad and I saw Roger was in 2001 in his last start of the year against the Tampa Bat Devil Rays. Although, Roger won the Cy Young Award that year, beginning the season 20-1, he was totally shellacked inn his last two starts one of which we had the benefit of paying for. In fact, the Devil Rays swept the series and the Yankees headed into the playoffs looking like hell, eventually turning things around after they were down two games to zero against Oakland. They would have even won the World Series that year if God didn't insist on proving that Mariano Rivera is just a human being like everyone else. His save opportunity in Game Seven was blown and with it the 5th World Series title in 6 years.

Saturday, October 18, 2003

World Series Game 1

FLA 3 NY 2

What, no Yankee comeback!?

Wells pitched a good game, but trader jack worked the bullpen just right. It broke the Yankee streak of 10 straight home wins in a World Series. The Marlins are a good team and proved it tonight. The whole game seemed anti-climactic after the Yankees beat Boston in glorious fashion on Thursday night. I wonder if the players can re-build the emotion after such a dramatic win?

Friday, October 17, 2003

I found this at the Blog Jessica's Well, a Life Magazine article shortly after World War II.

Priceless quotes. . .

Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American.

Never has American prestige in Europe been lower.

When the British and American came the Viennese felt that at last they were in the hands of civilized people. But instead of coming in with a bold plan of relief and reconstruction we came in full of evasions and apologies.

The taste of victory had gone sour in the mouth of every thoughtful American I met.

We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease.

Sound familiar?

War is never easy. No plan is perfect. Reconstruction and frustration go hand in hand.
Mickey Kaus is still mining raw ore from the Arnold Election
This Scruz Bustamante good! Three questions:

1. Doesn't California governor Gray Davis blame his lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamante, for costing him the recall election by entering the "replacement" race? (The argument would be that Bustamante's Democratic fans didn't vote "No on Recall" as instructed--they voted "Yes" on the recall in the hopes of getting Bustamante, but would have voted "No" if he hadn't been on the ballot.)

2. Can't Gray Davis really screw Bustamante by resigning a few days or hours before Arnold Schwarzenegger takes office, thereby making Bustamante governor for a few days or hours, after which Bustamante would (under one statutory interpretation) not return to being lieutenant governor but instead be completely out of a job?

3. Isn't Gray Davis rumored to be a wee bit vindictive?

I also like Kaus' take on a recent statement by New York Time Columinst, Mark Barabak.
While the campaign may be over, Barabak said, the story of Schwarzenegger's past is not. He said the Times is investigating potentially more damaging charges against the governor-elect.
KAUS: Do reporters usually say they are investigating damaging charges before they are proven? It seems permissable to me--but if a Times reporter announced that the paper was investigating unspecified 'potentially damaging' but unproven charges against, say, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, I suspect the editors of the Times might come down somewhat hard on him.

Maybe Barabak and the Times lean a little leftward.
Who can really be elected President asks Jonathan Rauch.
With only one exception since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, no one has been elected president who took more than 14 years to climb from his first major elective office to election as either president or vice president.

George W. Bush took six years. Bill Clinton, 14. George H.W. Bush, 14 (to the vice presidency). Ronald Reagan, 14. Jimmy Carter, six. Richard Nixon, six (to vice president). John Kennedy, 14. Dwight Eisenhower, zero. Harry Truman, 10 (to vice president). Franklin Roosevelt, four. Herbert Hoover, zero. Calvin Coolidge, four. Warren Harding, six. Woodrow Wilson, two. William Howard Taft, zero. Theodore Roosevelt, two (to vice president). The one exception: Lyndon Johnson's 23 years from his first House victory to the vice presidency.

Once you take out the crank candidates like Sharpton and Kucinich, Rausch believes that only Edwards, Dean, Clark and Bush can win the thing.

Assuming Hillary chickens out, I think articulate Dean will eventually beat the neophyte Clark for the nomination.

I just ran across John Derbyshire's Devil's Dictionary. Here are some fun examples.
Arab street, the, n. The cab driver who took your correspondent from Amman airport to the Hilton Hotel.

controversial, adj. (Applied to a nominee for any cabinet or judicial position requiring congressional approval.) Conservative.

discrimination, n. Formerly known as “freedom of association.”

gun lobbies, n. People opposed to the idea that the only armed civilians should be bank robbers.

inappropriate, adj. True, but unmentionable for political reasons.

judiciary, n. A body of citizens charged with making those laws that Congress has omitted to make.

simplistic, adj. Predicated on the belief, or apparent belief, that good and evil differ from each other in some fashion.

social change, n. Higher taxes to sustain more government employees.

warmonger, n. A person who wishes ill to his country’s enemies.

More Thoughts on the Game. . .

It's an automatic now that Grady Little stayed with Pedro too long. But he's their best pitcher and maybe the best in the American league. Joe Torre took a gamble that a short rested Mussina, and Wells could keep the game close. He also ran Mariano Rivera out there for 3 innings, a decision that could have cost them with one swing of the bat. There is no right answer with who to pitch in what situation. The Yankees are a comeback team that plays better than the opposition when it comes to pressure situations.

The Yankees even came back in Game 7 versus the Schilling/Johnson Diamonbacks and only lost because the perfect Rivera wasn't that night. To win the big game you have to concentrate when the other guy is distracted. The Yankees have done this better than anyone in baseball since the Joe Torre era. It's always a different guy who steps up and makes the big play, but the comeback usually happens. The loss of Tino, Brosius and O'Neill make this a different team, but Bernie, Jeter and Posada are still doing it. Last night, Hideki Matsui caught the bug, doubling off Pedro and setting up the tying run.

The Yankees do the little things in the right situations. The Angels ability to do that brought them the World Series last year. Good baseball isn't about having Barry Bonds or Pedro Martinez. It's about having a .260 hitter who has the patience to wait for the right pitch. It's about believing that you can wear the other team down. Teams sink hundreds of millions into guys like Alex Rodriguez for their production numbers, but the Yankees have won these World Series without ever having the league's most valuable player.

Aaron Boone couldn’t live up to Robin Ventura’s numbers until last night. He was pressing to get a big hit and swinging at bad balls all through the playoffs. Last night, he became a Yankee.

Money can help you get into the playoffs, but you have to have heart to win the World Series.
The News that Wasn't

The New York Post accidentally ran the wrong editorial. The one they had written anticipating a Yankees Loss.

But we weren't disappointed by the expected rioting.
Yankees Sweet Yankees

All the rest of my teams in the rest of those sports can lose and lose as long as my Yankees bring home to trophy. After suffering the long draught in the 1980s and early 1990s, I'm grateful to live through this era. I don't think the Yankees will match this success again in my lifetime.

Tuesday, October 14, 2003

Democracy begets democracy. . .
Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy, has announced it will hold its first council elections, in a move seen as the kingdom's first real political reform.
The government decided to "widen the participation of citizens in running local affairs through elections", the state news agency SPA reported.

Half the members of future councils will be elected under the reform.

The desert kingdom has never had political elections at any level since its creation in 1932.

It's just a start, but would it have happened without the war in Iraq?

Monday, October 13, 2003

Thomas Sowell breaks down the recall vote. . .
In San Mateo County, where the average home costs more than half a million dollars and the environmentalists reign supreme, keeping the vast majority of the land off-limits to building, 63 percent of the voters wanted Gray Davis to remain in office. In even more upscale Marin County, 68 percent of the voters were for Gray Davis. And in San Francisco, the furthest left of them all, no less than 80 percent voted to keep Gray Davis as governor.

There is a certain irony here, since the Democrats like to portray themselves as the party of the working people, with special solicitude for "the children" and for minorities. But working people, families with children and blacks are precisely the kinds of people who have been forced out of these three affluent and politically correct counties.

All three of these ultra-liberal counties have been losing black population since the previous census. Kindergartens in San Mateo County are shutting down for lack of children. The number of children in San Francisco has also gone down since the last census, even though the population of the city as a whole has gone up.

Out in the valleys to which those who are not as affluent have been forced to flee, in order to find something resembling affordable housing, the vote was just as solidly against Davis as it was for him among those further up the income scale. Out where ordinary people live, the vote against Governor Davis was 64 percent in Merced County, 72 percent in Tulare County and 75 percent in Lassen County.

The time is long overdue to get rid of the outdated notion that liberal Democrats represent ordinary people. They represent such special interests as trial lawyers who keep our courts clogged with frivolous lawsuits, busybody environmentalists who think the government should force other people to live the way the greens want them to live, and of course the teachers' unions who think schools exist to provide their members with jobs.

Sunday, October 12, 2003

It's long been said that baseball is a business and the players aren't as competitive as they use to be. Yesterday's game between the Yankees and Red Sox was an example of how both teams are doing their best to put the other away.
The Yankees were pounding Pedro Martinez on Saturday and he does not take losing lightly, and so Martinez made his stand, throwing a fastball behind the head of right fielder Karim Garcia in the fourth inning. There was little room for sanity in Fenway Park thereafter.

Ramirez led off the bottom of the fourth, and Clemens' fourth pitch was inside and high -- not close to his head, but close enough to set off Ramirez, who pointed a bat at Clemens and started screaming. The benches and bullpens emptied, and after Clemens took a couple of steps toward Ramirez, Jeter pushed him away.

Martinez was the last player to come out of the Boston dugout, and Zimmer -- a grandfather -- circled the mass of bodies in the infield and went right at Martinez, stepping forward and trying to throw a punch with his left hand. Martinez grabbed Zimmer, who was moving forward, and tossed him to the ground.

Zimmer stayed on the ground, dazed, a small cut on the bridge of his nose, others pushing and shoving on the field around him. Yankees trainer Gene Monahan tended to Zimmer, and the umpires met and talked; the incident delayed the game 15 minutes. No one was ejected.

As Rivera prepared to pitch the bottom of the ninth, a nasty altercation broke out in the Yankees' bullpen. According to Nelson, a member of the Red Sox grounds crew -- Paul Williams -- had waved a towel repeatedly and when he told Williams to stop, Williams came at him and started the fight.

A Red Sox spokesman issued a statement later saying that Williams had merely double-pumped to the crowd, and was taken down by members of the Yankees' bullpen. "It seems to be an attack and a beating unwarranted," said the spokesman.

The grounds keeper was taken away in an ambulance to be examined, and shortly thereafter, Zimmer was strapped onto a stretcher and put into a different ambulance. If the nurses manage to keep the Yankee and the member of the Red Sox nation separated, they would be the first on this day.

It wasn’t the rational voice of your typical millionaire at the office. Nobody wants to be on the losing end of this series. Boston wants to break the curse and the Yankees want to break Boston. I have a feeling that the team that can best handle their emotions will walk away the victor.

FURTHER THOUGHT: Can the Hall of Fame really insist that Roger enter Cooperstown with a Red Sox cap after incidents like this?

Friday, October 10, 2003


Rush Limbaugh today issued the following statement on his radio program:

"You know I have always tried to be honest with you and open about my life. So I need to tell you today that part of what you have heard and read is correct. I am addicted to prescription pain medication.

"I first started taking prescription painkillers some years ago when my doctor prescribed them to treat post surgical pain following spinal surgery. Unfortunately, the surgery was unsuccessful and I continued to have severe pain in my lower back and also in my neck due to herniated discs. I am still experiencing that pain. Rather than opt for additional surgery for these conditions, I chose to treat the pain with prescribed medication. This medication turned out to be highly addictive.

"Over the past several years I have tried to break my dependence on pain pills and, in fact, twice checked myself into medical facilities in an attempt to do so. I have recently agreed with my physician about the next steps.

"Immediately following this broadcast, I am checking myself into a treatment center for the next 30 days to once and for all break the hold this highly addictive medication has on me. The show will continue during this time, of course, with an array of guest hosts you have come to know and respect.

"I am not making any excuses. You know, over the years athletes and celebrities have emerged from treatment centers to great fanfare and praise for conquering great demons. They are said to be great role models and examples for others. Well, I am no role model. I refuse to let anyone think I am doing something great here, when there are people you never hear about, who face long odds and never resort to such escapes. They are the role models. I am no victim and do not portray myself as such. I take full responsibility for my problem.

"At the present time, the authorities are conducting an investigation, and I have been asked to limit my public comments until this investigation is complete. So I will only say that the stories you have read and heard contain inaccuracies and distortions, which I will clear up when I am free to speak about them.

"I deeply appreciate all your support over this last tumultuous week. It has sustained me. I ask now for your prayers. I look forward to resuming our excursion into broadcast excellence together."

Do serious people engage in nonsense arguments just to win votes?
Kerry last month accused Dean, the former Vermont governor and current front-runner for the Democratic nomination, of being a Yankees fan.

Dean, a New York native, called the accusation insulting, and insisted he backs Boston.

"Howard Dean has a relationship with the Yankees that goes way back so we hope he is willing to put some chowder behind his childhood team," Kerry spokeswoman Kelley Benander said.

Hypersensitive Red Sox fans take New York-Boston stuff seriously. The Red Sox last won the World Series in 1918 and a year later sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees. As the Yankees have gone on to win 26 World Series titles, some Red Sox fans have come to believe their team has been undermined by the "Curse of the Bambino."

John Kerry and Howard Dean are officially the “Bread and Circuses” candidates.
Slate's Democratic Debate Drinking Game

I wish I had seen this yesterday before the debate:
Take one drink if:
A candidate mentions an ordinary American by name
A candidate mentions Bill Clinton
A candidate mentions John Ashcroft
A candidate mentions John McCain
A candidate mentions Enron
A candidate mentions Halliburton
A candidate mentions a member of his or her family
A candidate gives out his or her campaign Web site URL
A candidate flourishes a printout of a strategy paper or a bill he or she co-sponsored
A candidate looks into the wrong camera during introductions
A candidate speaks Spanish
A candidate refuses to answer a hypothetical question
A candidate evades the question of whether they'd vote for Bush's $87 billion
A candidate uses the phrase "when I'm president"
A candidate promises to "support our troops"

Take two drinks if:
A candidate says a rival is "wrong"
A candidate says he or she is "surprised" by something a rival says
The camera catches an audience member in mid-yawn

Drain your glass if:
You laugh out loud at a candidate's joke

Finish the bottle if:
The candidates get into a fistfight

There will be other debates. . .

One of the biggest dangers of political correctness is that many people forget the importance of context. When you ban words you also strip yourself of an effective way to object to the ideas behind those words. Here’s a great example:
Columbus East High School has canceled its student production of "To Kill a Mockingbird" because of concerns over a racially sensitive word in the play's dialogue.

The school's drama teacher asked the play's publisher to let the students take the "N-word" out of the dialogue, but the publisher refused, Principal William Jensen said.

Before the play was canceled, the drama teacher asked Gwendolyn Wiggins, president of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, what she thought of using the word in the play. Wiggins said she didn't want students to hear it.

"That would be giving another reason to say, 'OK, if they use it in the play, we can say it outside the play.' And that's not right," Wiggins said.

They can use the word outside play anyway. It's the context of the play that humanizes the people that are called that. The play is a lesson in why not to use the word. Gwendolyn Wiggins would rather just forbid people from using it, and we know how well that works with kids.
A senior official of the International Committee of the Red Cross said on Thursday that the holding of more than 600 detainees here was unacceptable because they were being held for open-ended terms without proper legal process.

Christophe Girod, the senior Red Cross official in Washington, said on Thursday in an interview at the United States Naval Base here, "One cannot keep these detainees in this pattern, this situation, indefinitely."

Mr. Girod spoke as he and a team of officials from the international organization were completing their latest inspection tour of the detention camp. Although he did not criticize any physical conditions at the camp, which houses 660 detainees, most of them captured in the Afghan conflict, he said that it was intolerable that the complex was used as "an investigation center, not a detention center."

No word from the Red Cross on how long Castro can hold his millions prisoner on the rest of the island.

Thursday, October 09, 2003


Harry Wu, the Chinese dissident, is disputing passages from “Living History,” including ones that were censored in China. He contends the former first lady exaggerated her role in winning his freedom.

Mr.Wu told The New York Sun he believes Mrs.Clinton overstated her influence on China’s decision to release him on August 24, 1995, creating what he calls a false impression that she was at the “center of everything.”

In his view,Mrs.Clinton saw him as an obstacle in the way of her participation at the U.N. women’s conference, which was jeopardized by his detainment.

“She never said,‘I am very concerned about Harry Wu’s fate.’ She never cared.” said Mr.Wu, who spent 19 years in a Chinese labor camp before moving to America in 1985. A naturalized citizen,he now heads the Washington,D.C.-based Laogai Research Foundation.

One of the censored passages from her book refers to an August 9 letter that Mr. Wu’s wife, Ching-Lee Wu, sent to Mrs. Clinton, urging her not to attend the U.N. conference.

Mrs. Clinton wrote that the letter “troubled” her. Mr. Wu says it was ignored.

“The letter was the kind of wife-towife, woman-to-woman, written with tears from a distraught woman begging another powerful woman for help,” Mr. Wu said. “My wife never received a word from Mrs. Clinton.”

Mr. Wu does give the Clinton Administration credit for his release, but he doesn't credit Hillary personally for it.
Mr. Wu said his freedom hinged on other factors, including statements from the Clinton administration that it would block a meeting between President Clinton and President Zemin until he was released.

The problem Hillary has writing a book like this is that she has no real personal accomplishments. Her gains have always been those attached to her husband. Her Presidential ambitions are a tightrope of being her own woman and at the same time not outwardly saying that Bill won't actually be making the decisions if you elect her.

Wednesday, October 08, 2003


Those of us in Orange County, Florida sent some bad news to local politicians on Tuesday as well. The county was slick last year and got a half-cent sales tax hike for “the children.” They whined that without the tax they wouldn’t be able to build new schools. By planting a bunch of signs of cute children in yards all over town they pulled at enough heart strings to win.

This time they want more money for roads, but they had no cute kids to put on the signs. Instead they decided to put it up for vote on October 7th, a time when many citizens wouldn’t be expected at the polls. There was very little debate about the need the for the money or its actual use. They had just hoped that they could sneak it in.

They spent $1.2 Million of tax payer money in order to get more tax money from us. A little group called “Ax the Tax” raised $20,000 in private funds and defeated the measure.
Crotty blamed poor voter turnout, just under 23 percent, for Mobility 20/20's failure and the proposed Interstate 4 express lanes. Crotty said some media outlets reported what he called "the opposition's distortions" about toll lanes as fact. He believes that also hurt Mobility 20/20.

That’s rich. They hold the election in an off year in October and then complain that low voter turnout hurt their genius idea. I’m sure they were expecting around 12% turnout.

Crotty also blamed “Opposition’s distortion.” Nobody ever says we won the elected because of distortions. You win it was because your truth was heard loud and clear. When you lose it’s because of distortions.
Orange County Chairman Rich Crotty told reporters that voters blew an opportunity to do something about gridlock. He also called Ax the Tax representative Doug Guetzloe to wish him congratulations and tell him if he has a better idea about solving gridlock that he would like to hear from him.

I’ve got an idea. How about manage the money you already have wisely? Better roads will create a better tax base. If you spend less on your pet projects now you will have more money to spend on other things in the future. It’s always easier for politicians when you give them more money to solve the problems they create. It’s much more fun making them actually cut government waste to achieve their goals.

The turnout last night for the California Election was 70% or more. That is amazing when you consider that Presidential elections these days get about 50-55% of the people to the polls. For years we've heard that an indifferent electorate is the ruination of democracy, usually from the people so hell bent on keeping Gray Davis in office. This election proves what so many foreign elections with unstable governments and large turnouts have proven in the past. A great many people will not bother going to the polls if they feel their lives won't change all that much either way. But in a state like California that is getting uninhabitable with taxes and welfare programs for illegal aliens, the people will stand up and be heard if you treat them poorly enough. Too many people who are tolerant of individual behavior have been afraid to vote for conservatives, because of social issues. Their vote for Gray Davis wasn’t supposed to be a wholesale giveaway mandate, but a live and let live outlook. Davis proved that you can win the people over initially with soft talk, but you cannot be all programs to all people and survive as the Governor of even the most leftwing state in this country.

Tuesday, October 07, 2003


The Progressive Orange County Weekly endorsed Tom McClintock for some interesting reasons. (Coutesy of Arnold Steinberg at NRO)

You should know that McClintock is the only politician in California with enough integrity to do all of the following without reservation or fear of retribution from his own party’s less principled bosses:

1. He blasted the backroom deal that forced a multibillion-dollar ratepayer bailout of the state’s Republican-dominated private utility monopolies.

2. He publicly chastised the disgraceful ethics of Chuck Quackenbush—at a time when the Republican insurance commissioner was still backed by Republican leaders.

3. He launched the fight against the regressive car-registration tax that hits the poor and working class hardest.

4. He has displayed 15 years of almost vicious political independence in attacking massive tax hikes and corporate giveaways no matter who proposed them—whether Republican governors Wilson and George Deukemejian or Democrat Davis. Consider his showdown with Wilson just after the governor’s 1991 tax hike of $7.4 billion. McClintock objected, and the then-governor backed the defiant McClintock into a corner and angrily called him "fucking irrelevant." McClintock, however, refused to be intimidated.

"I place principle over party," McClintock recently told Orange County Register reporter Martin Wiskol. "The party is only as good as its devotion to their principles."

I'm frankly surprised that so many Democrats have come to the defense of the inept Davis. He's a liability. Soon they can blame Arnold for the shaky California economy. It's working moderately well against Bush.

And Instapundit says that the L.A. Times story is nothing but a huge campaign donation to Governor Davis, which by the way, would be exempt from campaign finance reform laws.

Mickey Kaus says it's plausible that Arnold was behind the whole recall in the first place.
Why would I think that this might not have been the biggest streak of favorable coincidence since Eddie Murphy wound up as a U.S. Senator in Distinguished Gentleman?That Schwarzenegger might from the start have been somehow behind the whole recall movement that was his only plausible route to power and might well lead to his election tomorrow? I mean, it's not as if one of the attorneys for Rescue California, Issa's group that gathered signatures to put the recall on the ballot was also Schwarzenegger' attorney in the controversy over his B-1 visa. ...Oh, wait! ...
It makes one wonder. . .

Monday, October 06, 2003

Tim Graham from NRO's The Corner wonders why Tom Brokaw suddenly thinks the mistreatment of women is newsworthy.
Tom Brokaw to Arnold Schwarzenegger, the spouse of a long-time colleague, last night on Dateline NBC (and again on Today this morning, and let's safely assume, NBC Nightly News this evening): "Part of the problem for a lot of people is that a lot of these women have made very specific accusations about grabbing them sexually and making lewd suggestions. You've described it as playful and rowdy, and the kind of mischief that you engaged in when you were a younger man. But based on their descriptions, in many states, what you did would be criminal, it would be a sexual assault of some kind."


Tom Brokaw on why the Paula Jones allegations, which became a very large legal problem for Bill Clinton: "Why didn't we put it on earlier? It didn't seem, I think to most people, entirely relevant to what was going on at the time. These are the kinds of charges raised about the President before. They had been played out in the Gennifer Flowers episode. The American public had made a kind of decision about his personal conduct and whether it had relevance in his personal life. And it seemed at that time it didn't have the news weight." That's Brokaw on the CNBC show "Tim Russert," May 9, 1994, on avoiding the Jones allegations for three months.

And Brokaw is the least leftwing of the three nightly news anchors.

Friday, October 03, 2003


With the ESPN turmoil and drug accusations on top of that, I don't think I'm alone anticipating Rush's comments at noon today.

I've been prescribed pain pills a couple of times and it scared me how easy the pain subsided at first, but how ineffective they were by the 4th day. It would be very easy to up the dose to relieve the pain and continue to do so until a person is addicted. Being aware of this, I didn't take any when I had my wisdom teeth pulled. Brett Favre went into rehab in the 1990s because of a pain pill addiction. Being an athlete, it must have been easy for him to get as much as he needed.

Rush is always articulate and I usually agree with him on Economics or National Security, but I have always wondered why he supports a drug war with guys like Ted Kennedy. Should society really imprison and support people whose crimes are only against their own person? The continual imprisonment of Robert Downey Junior is the essence of a puritan mindset put forth on the population.

The things about the story that seem untrue are the amount of pills Rush was asking for. The side effect of these pills is lethargy and loss of alertness, which would have ruined his effectiveness on the radio. If he were truly an addict it would have been hard for him to be sober long enough to do the show, wouldn’t it? But there must be some truth to the story or otherwise he would have denied the whole thing when confronted. Instead he said he didn’t know of an investigation and would cooperate.

When Bill Clinton said, “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” Rush immediately said Clinton was lying because Clinton only denied the charges, whereas an innocent man would have immediately characterized the actual relationship with the intern. The key to Rush maintaining his credibility is to come clean and admit the nature of what he was doing. The tough part is being honest without saying anything that would incriminate him in a court of law.

If he was illegally buying these drugs he faces a Hobson’s Choice. He either admits what he did and risk prosecution, or he doesn’t come clean and the evidence ruins his reputation for truth. I bet he will admit to having some kind of problem with drugs without admitting any illegal activity. I wish he would instead defend his right to be the master of his own body.

I’m rooting for him to survive this. Whereas the American people couldn’t impeach Clinton themselves, the American public can impeach Rush by not listening anymore. I hope he shows the integrity to be honest with the public and not make the Clinton mistake of stonewalling. I’m encouraged that he has decided to speak today instead of hiding throughout the weekend.

UPDATE: Rush makes case for his ESPN comments, but punts on the drug issue. He promises to be thorough and honest when he understands the charges. I'm glad he didn't lie, but he must have done something he shouldn't have done or else he would have spoken specifically.

Thursday, October 02, 2003


The media is going to have to decide whether womanizing is a disqualifier for public office by being consistent on the issue. Either Bill Clinton broke down the barriers of decent behavior and anything goes or both he and Arnold are discredited as human beings. If the former is the case why does the L.A. Times go to the trouble of listing every accusation against Arnold? If the latter is the case, why does the L.A. Times continue to treat Bill Clinton as anything better than a predator?

It seems like roguish behavior is a good knock on candidates they don't like, but off limits on their heroes.
Rush Limbaugh's ouster at ESPN is great example of the hypocrisy of the media.
“I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,” Limbaugh said on Sunday’s show. “There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.”

This is controversial because it's territory that the media is uncomfortable to be challenged on. Their attacks were a good way to spin a criticism of them into racism. Instead of refuting his comments with arguments that support their objectivity they reject Rush's claims wholesale and then attack him personally. Rush didn't say that blacks couldn't be good quarterbacks, but that the media has given too much praise to a particular quarterback, because it fits their social concerns.

The media attack is a good demonstration that he hit a nerve. A good example of this is the Philadelphia Daily News attack of Rush done without refuting the actual charge he made.
I have to believe that to McNabb and his family, the world always has seemed pretty much the opposite of what Limbaugh outlined. When they moved to mostly white Dolton, Ill., from the South Side of Chicago, for example, and their house was vandalized while they were getting ready to move in, the McNabbs probably didn't see this as one of the benefits of being black.

If this is the best rejoinder that Donovan’s hometown newspaper can conjure? How does this disprove Rush's charges against the media? Is the Daily News equating the actions of vandals to the actions of the media? Here’s another chance.
And Donovan recalled yesterday that he didn't feel terribly privileged when he was looking for a college and kept hearing from Midwestern schools about what a fine running back or defensive back he would make - guess those coaches weren't in step with the master plan of the media and the NFL to boost black QBs.
Again, what college programs want has nothing to do with what the media wants. To refute Rush by saying that some people outside the media haven’t been nice to McNabb isn’t a counter argument to Rush’s charge. In fact, if the best defense the paper can make is that Donovan hasn’t had it easy, it sounds like an argument for treating McNabb with kid gloves. Wouldn’t that support Rush’s charge?

An Objective look at McNabb reveals that he is 1-2 this year and his 7-3 last year. 7-3 is a great record, but compare that to 3rd string quarterback A. J. Feeley who started during McNabb’s injury last year. Feeley was 4-1. 2nd string quarterback Koy Detmer was 1-0 during McNabb’s injury before he too was hurt and yielded to Feeley. McNabb 7-3 and the reserves were 5-1. There is at least circumstantial evidence that the Philadelphia system made these quarterbacks look better than their independent ability last year. At the least there is nothing that makes one think that McNabb was essential to the team. There is certainly nothing essential about losing your first two home games of the year like McNabb did this year.

Rush's comments were a repudiation of the media and not blacks, but why let the facts get in the way of a prime opportunity to discredit him. Rush represents real diversity of opinion and the media watchers have been waiting for a statement to misrepresent. They have now created something controversial to ruin him with. The media talks about diversity and respect for differences all the live long day. They go out of their way to respect free speech for pornographers and war protestors, but there is no diversity for the critics of the dominant politically correct media.

UPDATE: Slate Magazine breaks down Donovan McNabb's numbers.
McNabb has started for the Eagles since the 2000 season. In that time, the Eagles offense has never ranked higher than 10th in the league in yards gained. In fact, their 10th-place rank in 2002 was easily their best; in their two previous seasons, they were 17th in a 32-team league. They rank 31st so far in 2003.

In contrast, the Eagles defense in those four seasons has never ranked lower than 10th in yards allowed. In 2001, they were seventh; in 2002 they were fourth; this year they're fifth. It shouldn't take a football Einstein to see that the Eagles' strength over the past few seasons has been on defense, and Limbaugh is no football Einstein, which is probably why he spotted it.

The news that the Eagles defense has "carried" them over this period should be neither surprising nor controversial to anyone with access to simple NFL statistics—or for that matter, with access to a television. Yet, McNabb has received an overwhelming share of media attention and thus the credit. Now why is this?

and his conclusions . . .
Limbaugh is being excoriated for making race an issue in the NFL. This is hypocrisy. I don't know of a football writer who didn't regard the dearth of black NFL quarterbacks as one of the most important issues in the late '80s and early '90s.

So far, no black quarterback has been able to dominate a league in which the majority of the players are black. To pretend that many of us didn't want McNabb to be the best quarterback in the NFL because he's black is absurd. To say that we shouldn't root for a quarterback to win because he's black is every bit as nonsensical as to say that we shouldn't have rooted for Jackie Robinson to succeed because he was black.

Consequently, it is equally absurd to say that the sports media haven't overrated Donovan McNabb because he's black. I'm sorry to have to say it; he is the quarterback for a team I root for. Instead of calling him overrated, I wish I could be admiring his Super Bowl rings. But the truth is that I and a great many other sportswriters have chosen for the past few years to see McNabb as a better player than he has been because we want him to be.

UPDATE #2 - Wall Street Journal cites a Duke University Study that supports Rush's NFL/MEDIA claims.