Every Time I Think I Have Something Figured Out . . .

I discover yet another way of looking at it.

Submitted for your consideration: I always used to say that it was not a good thing that Americans collectively have a very, very short historical attention span. After all, it is axiomatic that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

But in thinking about the recent waves of illegals coming into this country, and the waves of sectarian prejudice gripping people of various faiths all over the world, I have decided that our notoriously short attention span is not necessarily a bad thing.

After all, it has kept America from being infected with all the ancient feuds and hatreds of the Old World. Yet those very feuds and hatreds seem poised to overwhelm us now.

To expand a bit by example: World War II seems, to most Americans with whom I've discussed it, to have taken place a long, long time ago, and is very old news. Yet in Europe, its scars are still exceedingly visible (consider the Kaiser Wilhelmskirche in Berlin, for instance). Indeed, World War I still seems to be an immediate experience to most Europeans I know. To Muslim extremists, the Crusades took place yesterday, not 900 years ago. Further, non-Muslims subjected to the hatred of Muslim extremists seem to be returning that hatred in kind.

If we are not going to let America be inundated, and thus lose a large part of what makes America unique, we must consciously stop falling into the trap of taking and giving endless revenge, retribution, and retaliation.

Go ahead, ask me how we go about doing that. I honestly have no idea. I just know it needs to be done if the idea that is "America" is to survive. I welcome your comments, suggestions, insights. This topic must be explored and the problem it poses solved if we want to restore and keep lighted the American beacon of hope for the rest of the world.

Maybe Ritual Idioting IS Just For Cricket Players After All

I was half-asleep when I heard this report on NPR, so if I get any of the information wrong, please tell me!

In a recent test between England and Pakistan (which England had already won, but you have to play out the string), an umpire named Hair (Hare? spelling was not specified) was of the opinion that the Pakistanis had somehow doctored the ball. In protest, the Pakistanis refused to come out to play the next game. So the umpire went on to declare a forfeit.

The cricket players of all South Asian countries have had a feud of sorts with this umpire for a long time, apparently--they collectively are of the opinion that he lacks respect for them and the high quality of their play--and so several Indian newspapers had a lot of fun with the headlines for articles reporting this most recent incident ("Bad Hair Day," "Hare-Brained" being amongst the best puns).

The Pakistanis are also saying the umpire was too quick to declare the forfeit, as they were just going to come out late as a protest of his previous ruling about the state of the ball.

Does the term "tempest in a teapot" occur to anyone but me? If the outcome of the entire match were in doubt, this protest would be worth a lot more, but still . . . far be it from me to chastise anyone who wishes to protest "on the principle of the thing." I am one for whom principles matter. So I say to the Pakistani team, right on!

It does seem odd that this news was reported so soon after my last posting. Doubtless, it's merely coincidental . . . but then again, the Lord moves in mysterious ways!

Ritual Idioting--It's Not Just For Cricket Players Anymore

Monty Python to the contrary, ritual idioting is not solely the province of those who play cricket.

We have plenty of idiocy to go around on this side of the pond, thank you very much.

The most recent examples, from both sides of the aisle, as it were, of which I am aware are: (1) US Senator George Allen, R-Va., calling the only person of color at a Republican rally "Macaca," and (2) Andrew Young, civil rights leader and erstwhile improver of Wal-Mart's public image, implying it's OK for Wal-Mart to drive out the "mom and pop" grocery stores, because the Jews, Koreans, and Arabs who run those "mom and pop" stores have ripped off blacks long enough.

What makes Allen's remark so heinous is that he knew the man who was its object would get the point. For Allen's remark is common slur used by French Tunisians, of whom Allen's mother is one descendant. And Allen's comment's object, one S.R. Sidarth, though born and raised in Virginia, is himself of East Indian descent. He was at the rally to videotape it for Allen's Democratic challenger in the senate race, one James Webb.

Worse, Allen has since claimed that (a) he didn't know what the word meant; (b) he fumbled saying the word "mohawk" as he was really referring to Sidarth's haircut [which technically wasn't even a Mohawk to begin with.--Ed]; and (c) that he's really sorry if Sidarth took offense, as none was intended.

Note that he never once apologized for making the remark in the first place. Further, Allen's audience at the rally seemed to appreciate greatly his use of the slur. So the rich white guys are still speaking in code to attempt to keep the rest of us cowed and so intimidated that we let them get away with their @$$%*&*^&@#@#.

Not that what Young said was any better. Wal-Mart promptly distanced itself from his remarks [if nothing else, Wal-Mart does understand the larger implications of bad marketing.--Ed] and Young had the decency to resign his position as head of Working Families for Wal-Mart. The AP report I read said Young had apologized for the remarks, but since what he said as apology was NOT printed, I have no idea whether Young acknowledged the wrongness of the stereotypes those remarks promulgated. Indeed, from what the AP article did say, I have my doubts. Young was quoted as saying "[t]hings that are matter-of-fact in Atlanta, in the New York and Los Angeles environments tend to be a lot more volatile." First, I'm not sure the racism in Atlanta that Young's quote suggests is true. Second, I'm quite sure that Young's statement also implies he thinks what he said was true, and not offensive in and of itself.

I'm no fan of political correctness, but I do believe in courtesy and accuracy. Young's original remarks were tactless and not necessarily accurate, especially when you consider the additional things he said, to wit: that the "mom and pop" stores deliberately overcharged black customers, and sold bad meat, stale bread, and wilted vegetables.

I'm not even going to get into the whole subject of whether a civil rights leader should have anything to do with a huge corporation that pays the absolute minimum in wages and benefits that it legally can get away with paying, and which goes out of its way to stifle all employee attempts to unionize.

Has air pollution wrecked our collective ability to think clearly? The whole world lately seems to think that if someone shouts something loudly enough and long enough, that makes it true, even when it most definitely is not.

One more example of that wrongheadedness is Dubya's insistence in the face of a federal judge's ruling to the contrary that his warrantless wiretap program passes Constitutional muster. I'm so sick of Dubya's take on the whole subject that I can't even address it rationally anymore, beyond crying out the warning once more that our very system of government, of putting laws before men, is in great danger . . . and I don't mean from terrorists, whether they are Islamo-fascists or not.

Gloriosky, Sandy! Arf!

Blame it on the dog days of summer. It's just too darned hot to think. Or more correctly, to think sensibly.

Ferinstance: I just saw a news headline about Fidel Castro saying, "He walks, he talks" and all I could think of was the old side show spiel: "He walks! He talks! He crawls on his belly like a reptile!"

It's even too hot to laugh, though the mental image of Fidel I got from that connection was certainly amusing. Snakes with beards. On a plane--or not. [Snakes. Why'd it have to be snakes?--Ed.]

* * * * * * * * * *

In a small act of personal political rebellion, I refused to watch the televised debate between US Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb) and his challenger, Pete Ricketts (R-Exceedingly Rich Right Wing). It's too hot to put up with all that "sturm und drang." Or, as a wit I know translated into English, "storm and dreck." Besides, I can pretty much predict what happened, based on the ads both campaigns have been running lately. Much mud was flung, started by Ricketts. When Nelson responded in kind, Ricketts claimed "Ben started it!" and flung more of his own, all the while protesting his innocence. Any resemblance between this and the behavior of very small, very spoiled children should be remembered.

My favorite bit of misinformation, a/k/a mud, flung by Ricketts is his trying to color Ben as being a "Clinton-Kennedy" liberal Democrat. Boo! Are you scared yet?

Anyone who has spent more than a microsecond in Nebraska knows Ben is no such thing. Indeed, the main complaint around here about Ben comes from Nebraska Democrats: he is a DINO [in case anyone out there doesn't know, DINO means "Democrat in name only."--Ed.] Ricketts has nothing but contempt for the intelligence of the average Nebraska voter, however, as he seems to think that if he scares Nebraskans enough by making that accusation, he'll not only make it true, he'll win the election.

God, I hope not!

Actually, the Nebraska Democratic Party is supporting Ben by slinging the worst of the mud coming from that campaign . . . and technically, it isn't mud because it's true. Ricketts wants his million-dollar-plus home tax valuation reduced. The valuation went up recently, based on the purchase price Ricketts agreed to pay for the home. The tax is still less than what it would have been if the valuation had been based 100% on the actual sale price--it's somewhere in the range of 90% of the actual sale price, as required by state law, and which Douglas County has been overly lax in enforcing until recently. But Ricketts says it is still too high, and the home is worth much, much less. [OK, I'll bite: then why the heck did he pay so much for it?--Ed.]

To a degree, shouting about this has backfired: Ben has tried to get the tax valuations on his DC and Nebraska homes reduced, more than once, which Ricketts' campaign team has in turn advertised in the most lurid fashion possible.

But if Ricketts believes that he can sling mud and then claim that Ben is the one doing it, I hope the voters in November prove Ricketts wrong.

Besides, Ricketts keeps saying he's not a career politician, he's a business man, who will "work for conservative change in Washington. " First, as anyone who pays attention knows, everything in the US Senate is based on seniority. Even if Ricketts were to win (now THAT'S a scary thought), he wouldn't be able to do much of anything until he became the dreaded "career politician" he claims to be running against.

Second, would you really want to trust the public's funds to someone who can't negotiate a sensible price and who thus pays too much for his own home?

Third, some of Ricketts' actual ideas to promote "conservative change" are downright nasty. As Nelson's campaign has in turn publicized, one of Ricketts pet projects is to get a national sales tax passed and get rid of the IRS as we know it. That ad has been running for weeks with no response at all from Ricketts' campaign team. Maybe none of them have figured out that most of us see that a national sales tax is a BAD idea.

Where Ben got his "it will add 30% to the cost of everything you buy, including food" figure, I do not know. But I like that his campaign staff is pointing out that (1) even Ronald Reagan's chief economic advisor thought a national flat tax was a dumb idea, (2) the present mortgage payment and home mortgage interest payment tax deductions would disappear under such a scheme, and (3) that we average folks would pay a lot more in under such a system than we do now, while the super-rich like Ricketts would pay a lot less.

Don't let the right wing fool you with all its talk about how we shouldn't be promulgating an economic class war. They already been waging war on the true middle class. They just don't want you to notice. The most horribly short-sighted aspect of their stand is that no democracy can survive or even remain stable without a secure middle class. The way things are going under current Republican-driven policies, a few are getting super-rich, a lot are getting much poorer, and the middle is literally being squeezed out of existence. I wouldn't be surprised to see a shooting war come to this country once the middle is gone. It's already frightfully insecure.

To wit: Nebraska recently adopted a concealed weapons carry law. Here's my question about that: if you must carry a gun, what's the big deal about keeping it concealed? Why not just carry it in plain sight? If you say it deters criminals when they don't know whether you are packing heat, I say that if you carry openly, there's no room for doubt. So why all this push for "concealed carry"? I don't get it.

Anyway, don't let the rich right wing extremists fool you by their definition of what is "middle class," either. I hate to inform them of this, but anyone making a six-figure income is NOT middle class. Anyone with that much income is UPPER class, economically speaking, at least. [I make no representations as to those folks' class in aesthetic or humane terms.--Ed.]

By the way, the real reason Dubya wants to let illegal immigrants get some kind of work permits to validate their status in the US is that they will work for less than a US living wage. It's still more than they could make at home. They send most of it back to their homes of origin anyway. They thus are better off taking the risk of being illegal than they would be if they just stayed home in the first place. Dubya's business buddies like the idea of very cheap labor more than they care to help their fellow US citizens. It makes it easier for them to keep their profit margins up. [I can see it now: Economic Viagra!--Ed.]

So, the only way to stop illegal immigrants from flooding this country is to make it UNPROFITABLE for the businesses that employ them to continue doing so . . . and the only way to do that is to enact some whopping fines (like millions of dollars per hire)--and even more importantly, to enforce those same fines. But business owners don't want that. Once they find themselves making 50% profits, they can't seem to scale back to even 45% profits. They all bought into Wall Street's "Greed is Good" mantra.

That also demonstrates why those who say the free market is the "be all and end all" of everything are wrong. Not everything is--or should be-- a commodity. Were you as grossed out as I was about the news reports that women are selling their breast milk to companies who are reselling it at a profit?

The fact that these women were compelled economically to do it is bad enough. That companies can and do turn a profit on it is disgusting. But we can't have stem cell research, oh no! That would be wrong! [Sarcasm most definitely intended.--Ed.]

If you had any kind of unpleasant gut reaction to the breast milk sales story, you know that society is about more than a financial bottom line. If we are to reestablish our country as a civilized beacon of light for the rest of the world, we need to relearn that.

However, as long as people like Pete Ricketts think they can get away with scaring us by wearing Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy masks [I dread Halloween this year, I really do.--Ed.], we aren't going to make any progress on undoing the damage that's been done by those who worship the Almighty Dollar. Don't let them fool you with that "prayer of Jabez" crap, either. They all have forgotten what Jesus said about it being "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven." Someday, they'll be in for as much of a surprise as they think the fundamentalist Muslims suicide bombers and their sympathizers will be.

I hope.

If You Don't Want Your Thoughts Provoked, Don't Read This

Jonathan Zimmerman, a teacher of history and education at New York University, yesterday had an op-ed piece published in many newspapers, among them the Omaha World-Herald. He challenged his fellow liberals to come up with specific instances of when it is necessary to abrogate civil liberties to wage the War on Terror successfully.

He used as his example Abraham Lincoln's actions in suspending the writ of habeas corpus and otherwise trampling on the rights of fellow citizens who were suspected of being Confederate sympathizers. And he argues that Lincoln was right to do so, even though he defied the Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) to do it.

In short, Zimmerman contends that Benjamin Franklin's admonition that "[t]hose who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" was [Gasp!--Ed.] wrong.

Zimmerman goes on to note that Dubya's actions to date in riding roughshod over civil liberties are not justified--so far. His weightiest reason for the difference between Lincoln's actions and Dubya's? Lincoln was in a 19th century war--a war requiring the taking of the enemy capital--and Washington, D.C., was geographically surrounded by Confederate sympathizers. Yes, Maryland did not secede, but Maryland was a slave state and a great many Marylanders hoped (and acted to fulfill that hope) that the Confederacy would win. Virginia, forming D.C.'s fourth border, had seceded . . . and took many of the best American military men, such as Robert E. Lee, with her.

Their loyalty was to their states. Lincoln's loyalty was to the Union, as a whole.

Since we are no longer in a war whose winning will be defined by the capture and contol of geography, Dubya cannot ride Lincoln's coattails to justify his wholesale stomping on civil liberties.

I for one do not disagree. But Zimmerman has challenged all his readers to iterate when Dubya's actions would become justified. Despite the historical concensus that Lincoln, as a matter of law, was in the wrong, Lincoln, as a matter of fact, was right. He saved the Union. Ultimately, he freed the slaves. He breathed life into the concept of the United States. Before the Civil War, people spoke of "the United States are . . ." After, people spoke of "the United States is . . ."

As a practical matter, we can either become martyrs to our belief in civil liberties or we can fight as dirty as we need to in order to survive . . . and restore those liberties once the immediate threat to them and to our survival is gone.

What an uncomfortable moral place in which to be! If we sink to our enemies' level, how are we any better than they are and thus more deserving of survival? Yet if we don't, and we fail to survive, our ideals will die with us. But how can we claim them to be our ideals if we do not live in accordance with them?

"Forgive us our trespasses, O Lord, as we forgive those who trespass against us" cuts two ways. We are human, thus by definition imperfect. It is not merely understandable, but expected, that we fail to live up to our stated ideals. But if we don't forgive those who trespass against us, and we instead wipe out those who trespass against us, have we not sunk too far below our ideals to justify claiming them as our own?

Mess O'Potamia

(And with apologies to Jon Stewart for borrowing his pun . . .)

I am in serious curmudgeon mode today, it seems. I have had the exceedingly politically incorrect thought that what we really ought to do about the Middle East is this: we should sneak in and disarm/steal all the nukes on both sides (for our own protection), and then get out completely. Let the Arabs and Israelis fight it out amongst themselves until no one is left standing.

That's what they really want to do, anyway, it seems. We are never going to have lasting peace in the Middle East until the people there realize that revenge is NOT sound political policy. So far, for more than 7,000 years, that hasn't occurred to many people there, and I doubt it will become a popular concept there any time soon.

So let them kill each other off. Without nukes, no one there can destroy or even set off the rest of the world to destroy itself . . . if they can't learn to play nice, the heck with them.

Now, I know this is totally unrealistic. For one thing, it would be impossible for us to go in and safely take out all the nukes lurking around; for another, it's a terrible abrogation of our responsibility as a leader of the so-called Free World to help others (who want our help) to live in peace and some semblance of security.

But we can't just spank their bottoms and send them to Time Out in the corner, now, can we?

And there is no good solution without changing the fundamental mindset of both sides. Until they all learn that revenge is not the way, there's no hope for lasting peace.

Besides, our attempts to "help," like by invading Iraq, haven't done much except tip the balance of power to the more extreme Arabs in other countries like Syria . . . and Iran. So we're probably making things worse overall, not better.

It has been wisely noted that politics is the art of the possible. So far, Middle East peace seems impossible. And this is why I am not ever running for public office. I know what I'd like to say and to do, and I know what I'd be able to say and to do. There's no overlap.

The ultimate lesson is this: Ronald Reagan's push to end the Cold War is going to go down in history as Not A Good Thing. For, whether you liked the USSR or hated the USSR, you have to admit that the USSR was able to keep a lid on the Arab/Islamist fundamentalists and their desire to destroy the world if they couldn't have their own way. [I note this last in light of Hezbollah's stated desire to start WWIII.--Ed]

Better the enemy you know than the enemy you don't know. Better the enemy who understands certain basic concepts (such as "we are all on this Earth together, and we have to learn to live with one another even if we don't like one another, if we ourselves are to survive") than the enemy who couldn't give a damn about anything but glorious martyrdom and immolation.

I never used to want to die, ever, because I always wanted to see how everything turned out. [Yes, I sometimes read the last page of a novel first.--Ed] But I am beginning to think I no longer want to know.

Will someone please explain to me what the heck is so wrong with "live and let live"?

Sometimes You Win, Sometimes You Lose, And Sometimes, It Rains

Those of you who know me know that I am not a hot weather person. While all the sun-worshippers are out cultivating their personal melanoma patches, and while all the BBQ fans are grilling their hearts out, increasing fire danger and adding to global warming, I am in semi-hibernation, curled up as close to the coldest air conditioner vent in the house as I can get. Nevertheless, I come out of my summer doldrums when the occasion warrants. Several things have been bugging me for a week now, so the occasion must warrant.

Thanks to an unsigned unanimous opinion by the Nebraska Supreme Court last week, University of Nebraska Regent David Hergert is now an ex-Regent. [This is an ex-Regent! 'Allo, all you Monty Python fans!--Ed] He was convicted (after having been impeached by the state legislature) of committing fraud to get reelected. He did not file required campaign spending documents on time, he included misinformation in those same documents, and he lied about it all to cover it up after the election. It's only the second time in Nebraska history that an impeached public official has been convicted, and the last one was over 100 years ago, so this is pretty big news.

The Court condemned all of Hergert's actions, and chided him for his internally contradictory defense arguments (he had such a messy desk that things were always late/lost/messed up; he didn't do anything wrong because the Nebraska election laws are written in such a way that no one can be impeached for what he did to GET into office). But it based its decision on the coverup, as what Hergert did in that regard took place after Election Day. Nebraska election laws absolutely covered that situation. The Court stressed how close a thing it was that Hergert could have been found not guilty, however, in an effort to get the Unicameral to rewrite the election laws so that this unseemly scenario would not repeat. Here's hoping the Unicameral gets the message . . . and does something about it.

Of course, the folks out in western Nebraska have condemned the whole thing as naught but a plot by the big, bad, urban eastern parts of the state to pick on them . . . talk about paranoia! I don't think anyone gives a damn that Hergert was from the western part of the state. If a Regent from one of the more easterly districts had done the same things, he, too, would have been impeached and then convicted. Hergert broke the law, people. He deserves what he got (none the less because he was and is an arrogant SOB who tried to cow and bully [now that's an interesting turn of phrase.--Ed.] first the state senators and then the members of the Court into letting him off. He paid a fine to the State Board of Elections in exchange for its promise of no criminal prosecution--before anyone else noticed what was going on--so he thought he was in the clear.

Which might have been the end of it had Hergert and the election commissioners involved the state attorney general before the fact. But the AG was not consulted. And he took umbrage. AG Jon Bruning correctly perceived what Hergert did as an improper attempt to work the system, so he got the Unicameral to vote to impeach Hergert. The rest is history.

Good thing, too. Sometimes, you win.

But sometimes, you lose. The Cubs have been playing execrably this year [toss in a chorus of Tom Petty singing Freefallin'.--Ed.]--until today, that is. Right now, they are beating up on the Mets 9 to 2 in the bottom of the 7th inning. But they aren't getting out of the cellar any time soon. Like maybe for the rest of the 21st century. Worse, the entire National League is in the same boat, given the way the NLers lost the All Star game on Tuesday. The AL was losing in the bottom of the 9th with 2 out and two strikes on the batter . . . one pitch away from victory, the NL wound up giving it away to the AL. Again. This is the 10th time in the last 11 tries that the NL has lost the All Star Game. The only game the NL didn't lose was the game that ended in a tie after all the players on both teams had been used and the game had already gone many extra innings. Thank you, Commissioner Bud Selig. [I hope you can hear my sarcasm here.--Ed.]

Also losing this past fortnight was the public in general, and the defrauded former employees and shareholders of Enron in particular, what with the death by heart attack of former Enron CEO Ken Lay. No one gets to see Lay behind bars. No one gets to see even an iota of justice being served. No one will recoup the immense financial losses Lay's criminal behavior caused. Nor will anyone get the satisfaction of forcing Lay to recognize and admit that what he did was wrong. Even after his conviction, he maintained his innocence. I think he really believed it, too. And that is scary. What's even more scary is that Dubya still called Lay a "good man and a good friend," refusing to recognize the way Lay screwed over Enron's employees and the rest of us to boot. People who claim to be "born again" the way Lay did and who yet do the kinds of things Lay did give true followers of Jesus a bad name. Holy hypocrites like Lay deserve all the Hell they can suffer.

One can but hope that at least one "Lesson Of Enron" is that deregulation of public utilities is NOT a good thing. How people can study American history and not notice that it contains waves of financial scandals and swindles EVERY TIME business-related laws, rules, and regulations are relaxed, is beyond me. But then again, I have always maintained that the people running businesses and trading on the various stock exchanges these days all would have been pirates in the 18th century[and with apologies to Johnny Depp, who isn't that kind of pirate--Ed.], so maybe there's no way to stop them in any event. Sometimes, therefore, you lose.

And sometimes it rains. You can do everything right and still get a bad outcome. Here, I am thinking of this year's Kentucky Derby winner, Barbaro. Shocking enough that he shattered his right hind leg in the opening strides of the Preakness Stakes. Frighteningly hopeful that he seemed to be doing so well after getting a metal bar and 27 pins put in his leg. Devastating when his veterinary surgeon announced this week that Barbaro had developed laminitis in his other hind hoof and that his prognosis was now exceedingly poor.

Nevertheless, when it does rain, it eventually stops. Late yesterday I heard that Barbaro is still eating well, does not seem to be in pain, and is coping amazingly well with the additional cast and other medical procedures undertaken to keep him alive. His owners and his doctors are doing everything right. Their barometer is "how is the horse coping?" As long as he's coping well and seems to be in good spirits, they are going to do everything they can to keep him alive and pain-free. They won't give up until and unless he does. Good for them! Here's hoping that the rain stops, the flowers bloom, and Barbaro heals.

OK, so I'm still a child of the 60s. I still believe [clap for Tinkerbell!--Ed.] that individuals can contribute to changing the world for the better, that it's worth doing so, and that hope is alive. Not an easy belief system to maintain in the face of crushing 21st century angst, but I'm hanging on to it anyway. Where there is no hope, there is no real life. I prefer to live.

B.C.? B.C.E.? It's All BS

The latest ugly manifestation of political correctness is hitting historians big time. Apparently, the use of "B.C." and "A.D." to indicate when something occurred is becoming taboo. Why? "B.C." stands for "before Christ" and "A.D." stands for "Anno Domini" ("in the year of the Lord"). Secularists and non-Christians find this less than polite, apparently. The use of "B.C.E." and "C.E." (for "Before Common Era" and "Common Era" respectively) is increasing in both written and televised parlance about all things historical.

What a load of crap!

Hey, I am all for treating people of different beliefs with as much respect as possible. However, "B.C." and "A.D." comprise a long-standing convention which is no longer of overtly religious significance. If you disagree, consider this: changing what one calls the time periods without changing the dates merely begs the question. What the heck happened that was so momentous that we made it a true dividing line in history in the first place?

Like Jesus or not, believe in Jesus as the Son of God and the only way to Eternal Salvation or not [and anyone who knows me knows I have my doubts.--Ed.], use "B.C." and "A.D." or not, or use "B.C.E." and "C.E." or not, you are still using the conventionally accepted date of Jesus' s birth as your dividing line.

Changing the names without changing the reason for them makes NO sense. Especially when "B.C.E." and "C.E." are more clunky on the tongue than "B.C." and "A.D." The suggestion of some historians, to use "B.C./B.C.E." and "A.D./C.E." is even worse, for obvious reasons.

Furthermore, and most telling for me, is this question: when will it stop? Will we have to recalculate the dates to compensate for the fact that historical evidence now suggests that Jesus was born in either 4 or 7 B.C., depending on whom you believe? How do you decide which of those dates to use as your dividing line to begin with?

And will we have to change the names of the days of the week after that? After all, unless you are a Viking (and I do not mean a Minnesotan or a Minnesota NFL team's player or fan), doesn't honoring gods like Wotan and Thor and Freia distress you?

C'mon already, people! Get your brains in gear, take a deep breath or two, and let it go. The system we have in place now is fine. You can keep your own calendar for your personal use--which I think the Chinese and the Jews already do, do they not? Isn't it presently something like the year 5700+ on either of their calendars?

But we need to have a standard frame of reference when dealing with one another, and "B.C." and "A.D." work well--and are used all over the globe. They are cultural artifacts. They tell us no more than what people in former times took as Truth. Doesn't mean we have to share those beliefs now--but we cannot change the fact that they believed it. The names of the days of the week we use illustrate exactly the same concept.

Remember: if your true concern is not offending someone else's religious sensibilities, you can't just change the names. You have to change the reason(s) behind choosing those names, too. We live quite well with the names of the days of the week as we have them now, and until recently, we have also so lived with "B.C." and "A.D." If it ain't broke, there's no need to fix it.

Besides, it would work a real hardship on Johnny Hart to stop using "B.C." now.

La Tour de Farce Continues

Lance Armstrong, cancer survivor and 7-time winner of the Tour de France, is being dogged yet again by allegations that he admitted to doping in 1986, three years before his first Tour win in 1999.

He, of course, emphatically denies the allegations.

French newspaper Le Monde says that Armstrong's former teammate Frankie Andreu and his wife Betsy testified under oath that they heard Armstrong admit to doping in response to his doctors' questions while he was in the hospital in 1986, after undergoing brain surgery to remove tumors that had spread there from his testicular cancer.

I am of two minds about this. On one hand, NO competent doctor would ever ask such a question in anything other than a confidential setting. There is nothing to suggest that Armstrong's doctors were not competent. There is nothing in his medical records confirming that the doctors ever elicited such information from him, or that he volunteered such information. If Armstrong ever had made such statements, they would have been included in his medical records because such information would be critical to the course and nature of his treatment and recovery.

Besides, the man had just undergone brain surgery. I have a suspicion that his speech may not have been totally clear or coherent given what he'd just undergone. Who knows what it may have sounded like he said?

On the other hand, testicular cancer is a known risk of using steroids and other illegal doping agents. It is also a relatively rare cancer--and, I suspect, its presence played a role in outing Jason Giambi's past steroid use in major league baseball (but that's a story for another day).

In addition, the testimony from the Andreus came as part of the defense against a suit Armstrong brought against a company which was refusing to pay Armstrong a multimillion dollar bonus for his 2004 Tour win. The company lost the suit, and had to pay Armstrong the bonus plus an additional two million dollar penalty. The arbitration panel did not believe the Andreus' testimony in light of all the other evidence to the contrary.

So why would the Andreus make such questionable allegations? Armstrong says that they all at one time were good friends, but that Betsy now hated him and Frankie felt he had to support his wife. [Who knows? Maybe the company trying not to pay Armstrong promised them a lesser, but still substantial amount of money for their testimony. This is PURE speculation on my part, but someone ought to look into it.--Ed.]

I know the French press has it in for Armstrong. I know that people are capable of lying about things to an absurd degree for whatever perceived personal justifications they may have. I know that normally, one can deduce that the person who is lying is the one who has more to lose if the truth be revealed. But I cannot get past the fact that competent doctors would never ask a patient for such information in a non-confidential setting. So for now, I remain in Armstrong's corner in the face of this latest round of vitriol.

Questions For Which I'd Really Like Some Sensible Answers

The Supremes are at it again. In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court just said that the police do not have to "knock and announce" before implementing a search warrant. If the cops went right on in, any evidence they found pursuant to the warrant would not be excluded just because they didn't first let the occupants know they were coming. Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, and the newest justice, Samuel Alito, apparently was the swing vote. The case had been argued twice, once before Sandra Day O'Connor retired, and once after. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the dissent. [So we also get a clearer picture of how the balance of power has moved to the right on the Court.--Ed.]

My question pertains to Scalia's logic. He asserted at one point in the majority opinion that since the police had a warrant, it simply didn't matter whether they "knocked and announced." If it makes no difference, why not just do it? The only answer I can come up with is that this opinion is an early volley in the extreme right wing attack to end the exclusionary rule and eviscerate the Fourth Amendment. That is an answer I do not like and of which I am deeply afraid. I have to agree with Justice Kennedy in his dissent, who asserted that the exclusionary rule is settled law. Changing it now is blatant judicial activism.

Nevertheless, I'll bet the right-wingers who froth at the mouth at activist judges won't bat an eye at Scalia's opinion in this case. After all, the results agree with their predilections. So that's my next question: why can't people just be honest about their prejudices instead of hiding behind so-called "higher principles"?

Or do people really not see the contradictions in their claimed beliefs vs. their actual behavior? Are we really collectively so imprecise and uncaring? Or so dumb?

* * * * * * * * * *

This brings another subject to mind. I heard a Spanish radio announcer on NPR yesterday railing against the idea to make English the official language of the United States. His argument seemed to be that since Spanish was here already anyway, we cannot stop it, so we shouldn't even try. Besides, he claimed, no one is going to stop anyone from speaking Spanish at home, in their cars, at restaurants and grocery stores, and the like.

But that's NOT what the "English as official language" notion is about. It pertains strictly to official business, like dealings with the government at every level. An official language means only that the government's business is done in English. People in their personal lives are free to speak as they wish. What is wrong with that?

One of my uncles says it's unfair, because it takes a full three generations for immigrants to assimilate. But I'm not talking about assimilation. I'm talking about simple, basic transactions. When I lived in Germany, I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to force the Germans to deal with me in English. My German, bad as it was, would have to do. After all, I was a guest in their country. If they spoke English to me because their English was better than my German, so be it. But it's always the host's choice, not the guest's.

Don't get me wrong. I continued to use English in my personal life--it is, after all, my native tongue. Besides, I do have some heartburn about the fact that my great grandparents were so eager to assimilate that they lost their native Irish and didn't pass it along to their children and their children's children and their children's children's children. I'm as proud of my ethnic heritage as anyone. But I am an American first.

Too many people in this entire debate seem to forget that for a nation to survive, it needs a fundamental unified identity. Traditionally, language and ethnicity did the trick. But we are in the "melting pot" (personally, I prefer the idea of a "salad bowl," because the contents are diverse and clearly identified individually, but exist in harmony with the other ingredients). Language is what's left. That, and the dedication to the American ideal as expressed through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Being an American is being in a certain state of mind . . . and to an awful lot of us, forcing official multilingualism on us takes away that state of mind. It makes us no longer America.

Please do not misinterpret me. I am all for multilingualism--the better we can understand each other, the less likely we are to have a world-demolishing war. But we also need to preserve the core of what America is if we are to preserve America. There are no easy answers. I do know that insisting we must yield American English is not the best way to foster understanding or to come to an answer that satisfies everyone. Or that satisfies no one, entirely. That's the genius of compromise, and that, too, is part of the essence of being American. Of course, a lot of Americans don't get that, either, so I guess I should not be surprised.

* * * * * * * * * *

I see that Tom Delay is now officially gone. Thank goodness! Not only is he corrupt. He also is one of the Americans who doesn't "get it." In his farewell to Congress, he was as defiant as ever; he said if he had it to do all over again, he'd be even less willing to compromise than he was before. For him, "compromise" seems to be a dirty word. Where the heck was he during civics classes? Not paying attention, obviously.

This whole "my way or the highway" approach to government is why we are in a lot of the mess we are in at the moment, with gridlock, deadlock, and partisan acrimony. So where are true statesmen when we need them, anyway?

Just Because You're A Super-Bowl-Winning QB Doesn't Mean You Have A Brain

I am relieved to learn that Ben Roethlisberger, the youngest quarterback to take his team (the Pittsburgh Steelers) to a Super Bowl victory, has not in fact injured his knees in the motorcycle accident in which he was involved yesterday. Early news reports said it wasn't just his face that got smashed when a car turned into the lane in which he was riding his Suzuki--and if those news reports had been correct, Roethlisberger's career may well have been over. As it is, his injuries were nothing to pooh-pooh. He broke his jaw, had several facial fractures, and lost some teeth.

All this because he wasn't wearing a helmet. Pennsylvania has no mandatory helmet law. He doesn't "feel free" when riding with a helmet on, so he won't wear one when he doesn't have to do so. And no one who is not his boss will ever tell him what to do. [Ah, excess testosterone! It can be wonderful--on the football field, ferinstance--and it can be bad news indeed--nearly everywhere else.--Ed.] Ben actually said these things on camera in an ESPN interview last year, after Kellen Winslow crashed his motorcycle and suffered probable career-ending injuries.

Ben, Ben, Ben! At the age of 24, you've achieved fame and fortune few ever experience . . . and you've mastered a complicated play book and obviously are good at making snap (pun intended) decisions on the football field . . . but you sure haven't applied your brains to your off-the-field behavior.

There are two vital things you've forgotten to consider in your need to "feel free," to wit: (1) concrete has a 100% record. It always wins. (2) You cannot control what the other people on the road are doing. You can say you are a safe and cautious rider and that you don't take chances, but you share the road with vehicles which are much heavier than your bike, and which may well be driven by drunk, drugged-out, or otherwise distracted drivers--who might not even see you before they plow their SUVs [Jay Leno once called them SubUrban assault Vehicles. He's not just funny--he's smart.--Ed] into you and your unprotected head and body.

Let's all hope that Ben learns something from what happened to him. Let's all hope that Ben doesn't take the lucky break (pun intended) that he suffered relatively minor injuries, considering, as a vindication of his need to "feel free" and ride without a helmet. Let's all hope that we never again hear the name Roethlisberger connected to news reports from outside a hospital of a horrible accident he suffered on his motorcycle.

In fine, let's all hope that Ben literally got some sense knocked into him.

Ain't Vindication Grand?

I just heard on NPR's Marketplace Morning Report that General Nutrition Centers (GNC) will stop carrying televangelist Pat Robertson's protein shake . . . because the powers that be at GNC have determined that Robertson is lying about being able to leg press 2,000 pounds.

As anyone who is reading this thing knows, I surmised last week that he was making that absurd claim in order to sell his concoction. And that's before I knew that GNC was the retailer doing the merchandising!

Pardon me while I "pat" myself on the back. (Actually, I am gloating, but I try not to be too obvious!)

Weighty Matters

"Christian" evangelist Pat Robertson recently posted a picture on his CBN website of himself allegedly leg pressing 2,000 poounds. The Christian Broadcasting Network claims the feat was accomplished in 2003, though a date stamp on the photo itself clearly says "1999." [A Robertson CBN lackey suggests that whomever took the picture did not know how to set the date function on the camera. Right. I believe that, don't you?--Ed.] In video also posted on the CBN website, Robinson appears to leg press 1,000 pounds.

First, I cannot for the life of me figure out why Robertson would even want to claim he could leg press a ton. Second, I cannot figure out why, if Robertson really did do it (at the age of 73 assuming his 2003 date is correct), even the record-setting football players at NCAA Division 1 universities like Florida State can leg press a maximum of only 1,335 pounds. Third, neither CBS SportsLine.com commentator Clay Travis nor I can figure out where the heck Robertson got a machine capable of holding 2,000 pounds in the first place.

Has Robertson finally gone too far around the bend for real? Or is he just trying to sell people his "age-defying protein shake"? Is there no money-grubbing low to which this charlatan will not sink?

I Certainly Hope So!

Former US Senator John Edwards visited Council Bluffs, Iowa, last week, and admitted he's considering running for the Democratic Party nomination for president in 2008. Oh, God. please let it bo so!

As much as I agree with Hilary Clinton's stand on many issues, I do not think she can win election to the presidency. She's too polarizing a figure. I can introduce you to any number of people who would vote for someone else saying the same things she says, but who would rather die than vote for HER.

Edwards is a superb alternative. I don't think Al Gore would run again, or that he could win even if he did choose to run, though he's been vindicated about many things, including global warming. Once someone has lost a presidential election, even if it had been stolen from him, when he does run again, he loses again. Consider William Jennings Bryan, Harold Stassen, and Adlai Stevenson, just to name three. Richard Nixon was an abberation in that regard (as in so many other things). Nor would Nixon have won in 1968 had either George Wallace not been running or had Bobby Kennedy not been killed. Edwards has immunity from this observation becuase last time he was the vice presidential candidate. The curse does not extend to potential veeps, at least as far as my research has indicated. If I'll need to stand corrected, I'll stand corrected. Just show me what you've got.

At this point, my personal dream ticket would be John Edwards and Barak Obama. But we have to get through the 2006 congressional elections first. So I'll apologize for jumping the gun on 2008 (and increase the frequency and urgency of my prayers to whatever Power(s) That Be which have any influence over politics).

Randy Newman Would Love This

"Short people got no reason . . . short people got no reason . . . short people got no reason to live . . ."

Way out west, in the town of Sidney, Nebraska, a state District Court judge last week sentenced a convicted child molester to probation because he was so short (5' 1") that he'd be in danger if placed in a prison environment. The outrage across the state is palpable. A very large number of people are calling for the judge to resign.

The Judge, Kristine Cecava, will not comment outside of the courtroom. In court, at the sentencing hearing, she said the convict did not appear to be a "hunter" and that sentencing him to probation with an electronic ankle monitor and constant supervision would be enough. [For whatever light it may shed on that opinion, he was convicted of two counts of molesting the same 13-year-old-girl.--Ed] Nebraska State Attorney General Jon Bruning disagrees. He has promised to file an appeal of the sentence on the grounds that anyone convicted of molesting children must do prison time. Steve King, a spokesman for the Nebraska Department of Corrections, said that Nebraska prisons are safe even for convicted child molesters, and that any time a prisoner felt threatened, he could request protective custody.

Frankly, I agree with the people chastising the judge . . . but my reasons include one that I've seen no one else mention so far. One of the first things any law student learns about trials and trial law is that no rulings are to be made based on speculation or opinion or on a fear of what might happen--the facts, as elicited at trial, are supposed to be the sole criterion for judgment.

Being concerned that someone of short stature might be injured (or worse) if sentenced to prison most egregiously violates this basic principle of trial law. For that alone, the judge ought to be put out to pasture.

The principle is not dissimilar to that behind First Amendment law on publishing: you cannot stop something from being published. Once it IS published, however, you can sue for damages if you suffer any injury as a provable result of the publication. In this case, fear of the convict suffering harm cannot preclude him from doing prison time. If he is harmed after he's in prison, he can seek any and all remedies available under the law (protective custody, damages from the state for failing to insure his safety while in custody, and so on).

But what I'd like to know is how that judge got appointed and how she retained her position during subsequent elections. In Nebraska, voters are periodically asked whether "Judge ______ should be retained in office." This ruling by Judge Cecava is so aberrant and abhorrent that I cannot believe it's the first weird thing she's done.

And what I'd really like to know is how the heck I can get appointed to a judgeship. I am quite sure I could do a better job, even with my physical limitations.

Da-Do-Ron-Ron-Ron-Da-Do-En-Ron

Jeffrey Skilling and Ken Lay have been convicted (Skilling on 19 of 26 charges--or was it 28?, and Lay on 6 of 6--plus a separate conviction in a bench trial for personal bank fraud) in the collapse of Enron! Hooray! Toss the confetti, toot the tooters, bang the drums! The jury system works.

I never could take seriously Skilling's and Lay's contentions that even though they held positions of great power and authority in Enron, they were clueless about what was going on.

Get real! Anyone could see from their demeanor that they both were "I'm in control" kind of jerks. They knew exactly what they were doing, and did it anyway, because they were arrogant enough to think they could get away with it.

But what really ticked me off was the behavior of their attorneys, both inside and outside the trial. One of Skilling's attorneys made the ludicrous claim that since no one could point to a meeting where a conspiracy was created that no conspiracy therefore took place. I know it was closing ARGUMENTS, but misstating what the law requires to get a conviction on conspiracy is not an argument--it's stupid.

I salute the jury for seeing through it. Justice is not always done in this country, but it's done often enough in the big cases to keep my faith in the system mostly intact. Now if we could only get justice done in the small cases as well as the large . . . we'd be onto something!

A Modest Proposal

Barry Bonds hit career home run # 714 last night, tying him for second on the all-time list with Babe Ruth. While it is quite an accomplishment, it pales in comparison to Ruth's overall impact on the game. Ruth far and away is still the greatest single baseball player ever. For one thing, Ruth became the all-time home run leader when he hit his 137th big fly. The next 577 were superfluous. Also, entire teams hit fewer home runs in any given season than Ruth hit by himself the same year. For yet another thing, Ruth began his career as a pitcher, and his name is still sprinkled liberally throughout baseball's collection of pitching records, too. No one before or since has performed at a level so far beyond everyone else in the game as has the Babe.

Besides, there is absolutely no whiff of steroids or other performance enhancers anywhere near Ruth. Indeed, one wonders how much more he could have accomplished than he did if he'd lived a less "party hardy" life.

So what do we do with Bonds's records, especially once he hits his # 715 and beyond? And what do we do with the records of other baseball players who've been touched by the steroids scandal still simmering in baseball?

My modest proposal (thank you, Dean Joanathan Smith) requires consideration of the following: first, that the single most difficult feat in all of sport is to hit "squarely" a spherical object, the baseball, with a conical object, the bat (it's not a cylinder because it tapers at the handle) when the ball is moving toward the batter at upwards of 90 mph. Second, that steroids do not so much change one's abilities as they enhance them (by about 10% according to the talking heads on ESPN).

We thus should go back and remeasure every home run hit by every player who has been at all touched by the steroids scandal. For the players who have either confessed to using steroids or who have been confirmed to have used steroids, take 10% off the distance of every homer they hit, compare the new distances to the dimensions of the ballparks in which each homer was hit, and continue to count each hit as a home run if it still exceeds the distance to the applicable outfield fence. If the adjusted distance is the same as the outfield fence, go ahead and give the player the home run. (The ball could have bounced off the top of the wall and beyond the field of play.) If the adjusted distance is shorter, subtract the hit in question from the player's home run totals. No asterisks required. A parenthetical notation after the player's name that the totals were adjusted (and by how many) because of confirmed steroid use will suffice.

For the players who have not been proven to have used steroids, use the same procedure, but place an asterisk by the player's totals to indicate that X number of home runs may or may not count if the allegations/suspicions/implications of steroid use by the player in question are ever confirmed.

This will clarify the situation in the record books, honor the dignity of the game, and yet recognize that some of the things that have happened in the past several seasons may not be entirely on the up-and-up. Of course, all this becomes moot if someone proves that steroids do not merely enhance performance, but change/improve it.

In that case, there's no other answer but to force the players involved to eat their children [no comments, please. If you do not get the reference to Swift's A Modest Proposal, go read it before you castigate me for this made-in-jest suggestion.--Ed.].

A Quick Miscellany

According to the post-election analysis of votes, one other reason Dr. Tom Osborne lost the GOP gubernatorial primary to (unelected) incumbent Gov. Dave Heineman is that Dr. Tom supported the Omaha Public School District's bid to take over the west Omaha suburban schools, while Gov. Heineman came out firmly against it.

Dr. Tom did win Douglas County, but he lost the precincts of the county where OPS would have taken over the schools--and he lost them badly, something on the order of 65% for Heineman to 35% for Dr. Tom. That was enough to counter Dr. Tom's advantage in winning overall the most populous, most urban counties in the state.

He says he is going fishing. I wish him a great catch.

* * * * * * * * * *

So now the NSA is creating a nationwide database of "who called whom" by getting the telephone companies to give up their calling records. AT&T, Bell South, and (if memory serves, which it not always does) Verizon gave up their data . . . but Qwest did not.

I never liked Qwest. I had phone service from them for a time--and I was on their service plan--but when I had a problem with some of my house's phone wiring, I got hit with a $70 service charge. For which the tech who came to my house did exactly nothing. It seems that this wiring was not included in the service plan, because Qwest hadn't installed it. Well of course Qwest hadn't installed it. My house was built about 30 years before Qwest even existed. What really stunk, however, was that I asked the tech whether there'd be a charge, and he said "no."

I guess I am going to have to change my mind, now that Qwest has been the only company to show visible backbone in resisting this Big Brother behavior by the NSA. OK, maybe I still don't like Qwest, but I appreciate the company's legal staff's advice to just say no to the NSA.

I do have a question, however. So far, none of the news reports on this that I have seen, read, or heard have mentioned the stand of the cable companies which also provide telephone service. I'd like very much to know what they did--did Cox, for example, cave into the NSA's demands, or not?

Does anyone out there know?

Please tell me if you do!

* * * * * * * * * *

Tell me I am not the only person who is amused by the suggestions provided by the computer's spell checking function. I laughed out loud at this one: for "NSA's" (as I used the possessive form earlier in this post), the computer suggested I substitute "Nazis."

Res ipsa loquitor.

* * * * * * * * * *

Trish Lanphier, erstwhile employee of the Douglas County Treasurer's Office, has her job back. The Douglas County Civil Service Commission, after a long (12+ hours) hearing, said that Treasurer Lynn Haney was wrong to fire Lanphier, and that a 3-day unpaid suspension was punishment enough for her actions in signing and passing on a sympathy card for a convicted embezzler from the Treasurer's office.

Among other things. Haney had also accused Lanphier of insubordination and other unsavory behavior . . . after Haney had yelled so loud at Lanphier about the sympathy card that people down the hall from Haney's closed-door office could hear her.

Lanphier came across at the hearing as being contrite and surprised that her actions had caused anyone in the Treasurer's office (besides Haney, one presumes) distress. Haney came across as petty and shrewish.

Lanphier returns to work next Tuesday. She'll get back pay for all but the 3-day suspension period for the workdays she missed. She acknowledges that she and Haney have some fences to mend, but says she is eager to return to her job.

Nonetheless, Haney may not have to suffer Lanphier's return for long. Lanphier won the Democratic primary vote for Clerk of the District Court for Douglas County--and if she wins the general election in November, she can shake the dust of the Treasurer's office off her shoes and move on with a clear conscience.

Haney is up for re-election, too. I cannot help but think that she may not be long for the Treasurer's office herself if the majority of Douglas County voters got the same impression of her from the Civil Service Commission hearing that I did.

Good thing, too.

It's Deja Vu All Over Again For Dr. Tom Osborne

Do the results of yesterday's Nebraska gubernatorial Republican primary vote remind you of the 1984 Orange Bowl? They should. In 1984, Dr. Tom Osborne led the Cornhuskers to a 31-30 DEFEAT at the hands of the Miami Hurricanes. It was a real heartbreaker for the Husker faithful everywhere, even though Dr. Tom did the right thing by going for the win instead of a tie at the end of the game. Of course, Dr. Tom later parlayed that agony in the Husker Nation into 3 national championships before he retired from coaching, citing heart problems and the need to reduce the stress in his life as his reasons.

After a short absence from public attention, he thereupon ran for and won the US House of Representatives seat for Nebraska's Third District. He kept the seat for 3 terms, winning by gaudy 80-90% plus margins of victory each time.

He apparently got tired of being in Congress, however, for he threw his hat into the ring for this year's race for the Nebraska governorship. [Much better to be 1 out of 1, and to be totally in charge, than 1 of 435. It's a coaching mentality.--Ed] Early predictions had him winning by a wide margin (after all, he's a god in this college-football-mad state), especially once sitting Governor Mike Johanns accepted Dubya's offer to become US Secretary of Agriculture. That in turn made Lt. Gov. Dave Heineman the unelected incumbent governor. The "smart money" in the urban areas of the state figured Heineman had further reduced his choices of winning an election to that post after he picked a lame design for the Nebraska state quarter (Chimney Rock) instead of doing a superb and original thing by picking the Chief Standing Bear design. On the other hand, the Chimney Rock design did pander to the voters in the mostly rural Third District, Dr. Tom's own stomping grounds.

Geuss what happened? I can hear Keith Jackson now: "Whoa, Nelly!" Heineman just beat Dr. Tom in the Republican primary. It wasn't particularly close, either. The most recent results I saw had Heineman leading by over 12,000 votes.

What the heck happened? Well . . . for one thing, Dr. Tom ran a totally uninspired campaign. His broadcast ads came down to "I've been in Congress; I know the issues; I'm a true fiscal conservative; I have a plan; I have integrity; you can trust me." Yawn. Even though these claims may all be true, I am sure I am not the only person whose response was: (1) what the heck does having been in Congress have to do with being Nebraska's Governor? (2) what the heck IS your plan? Details were never revealed in the ads. Since I couldn't bear to watch the pre-primary debates, I never did find out precisely what Dr. Tom intended to do once in office.

Dr. Tom's campaign staff also screwed up. Dr. Tom pledged more than once that he'd not say anything bad about his opponents in the primary [the most enlightened and useful promise he made.--Ed] but someone on his staff hired an out-of-state telephone polling company which did not know that. It used "push polling" questions in its calls to well over 1200 Nebraska Republicans--questions that cast Gov. Heineman in a very negative light according to the unappreciative recipients of the calls. Dr. Tom apologized and fired the company once he learned about it, but damage had already been done.

Gov. Heineman also ran a virtually flawless campaign. He timed the majority of his broadcast ads to air within the 10 days or so before the election; he stressed the fact that he was the incumbent [never underestimate the power of incumbency . . . which bodes well for Ben Nelson this fall in his US Senate race against multimillionaire Pete Ricketts, who spent around $5 million of his own funds in the run-up to the primary alone, and who is the phoniest "man of the people" I've seen in a long time.--Ed]; he stressed the things he'd accomplished already during his short time in office, like getting TAX CUTS passed; and he looked friendly and at ease with everyone, unlike Dr. Tom, who tends to come across as being somewhat aloof, even when he's at his most personable. Furthermore, many people questioned Dr. Tom's ability to carry out the duties of the office, given his history of heart problems.

There was also a great backlash, in my humble opinion, from Nebraska Republicans who resented the number of prominent Nebraska Democrats (like Warren Buffett) who said they were switching their party registrations to Republican precisely so they could vote for Dr. Tom in the primary. [There are no open primaries here. In the partisan races, you are allowed to vote only among the candidates of the same party as your registration . . . and if it's a partisan race, and no one from your party is running, you're SOL.--Ed] No one else that I know of has mentioned this yet, but I am sure the diehard Nebraska Republicans resented the impression that their primary was being hijacked . . . and they voted for Heineman just to keep the Nebraska Republican Party of "true" Republicans, by "true" Republicans, and for "true" Republicans.

I shouldn't be surprised, though I am. Nebraska, for all its vaunted "red state-edness," more than once chose Bob Kerrey to be first its Governor and then one of its US Senators (until he bailed out on us, that is), and in the past has voted in other noted Democrats from William Jennings Bryan to Frank Morrison to Edward Zorinsky.

Nebraskans aren't so much Republicans as Populists. And they do like to confound the pundits. So for Dr. Tom it must feel like January, 1984 all over again, and that can't feel good. For him.

But now the real fun begins . . . because does anybody give the Democratic candidate, David Hahn, a snowball's chance in Hell? Does anyone other than some of us Democratic party junkies even know who he is?

Crocodile Tears And Goat Cheese

Zacharias Moussaoui now says he was only kidding. He wants to take back his guilty plea to being a terrorist member of Al Quaida and in on the 9/11 plots. He says all the outlandish claims he made about being set to fly a plane into the White House with shoe-bomber Richard Reid were lies. He says he didn't really believe the jury would cut him a fair shake until after he read its answers to the required findings in his sentencing trial. He says he thought his trial would be nothing but a show and a sham. He claims that he was truly astounded that the jury could put aside its hatred of him and make rational judgments.

But "It's too late . . ." Thank you, Carole King.

Under the applicable laws, no guilty plea can be rescinded after sentencing--good thing, too--or else we'd have nothing but "do-overs" clogging up an already overcrowded court system. Moussaoui had his chance. He had plenty of chances. He just doesn't want to give up the spotlight. He finally realized just what being sentenced to life in prison without parole means. Poor baby! I shed crocodile tears for thee.

* * * * * * * * * *

Now for the Goat Cheese: the curse on the Chicago Cubs lives. The Cubs managed to win a few more games after first baseman and spark plug of the Cubs' offense Derrek Lee got his wrist broken about two weeks ago. But now the Cubs have lost something on the order of 8 in a row, with no end to the freefall in sight. They were 4 games above .500; now they are 3 games and counting below it. "Notice how they do not so much fly as plummet." Thank you, Graham Chapman.

[This is why I take the stand that if you have to choose between good pitching and good hitting, take good hitting. The best good pitching can get you is no runs scored against you--and while you do not absolutely need hits to win, it's much easier to score runs when you get hits than it is when you don't. And without runs, the best you can hope for is a 0-0 tie.--Ed.]

So the curse of the billy goat lives. For those of you who don't know the story, during the Cubs' last World Series appearance (in 1945, if memory serves--the last time the Cubs won one was in 1908), a local fan wanted to bring his billy goat into the stadium with him to watch a game. He even bought the goat a ticket. But the Wrigley Field staff would not let the goat on the premises, so the owner cursed the team, and the Cubs have been losing and otherwise breaking hearts ever since.

Now is the (spring and) summer of my discontent. Apologies to William Shakespeare. Methinks that despite both the Boston Red Sox and Chicago White Sox ending their respective curses by winning the last two World Series Championships, the Cubs won't win one until Charlie Brown's team wins a game by other than a forfeit. And that just will not happen. Damn. It would have been glorious. I don't think that even the impending return of Kerry Wood will rescue the Cubbies. However, I will reserve judgment for at least a few more weeks . . . even though that little voice in the back of my brain is already whispering "wait'll next year!"