Speed Gibson

Fraters Libertas and Shot In The Dark have already commented on the “Iraq, Niger: There was no uranium link” editorial in today’s Star Tribune, so as a rookie blogger, I must be careful. Not that I disagree, mind you. It’s just difficult to find much unsaid.

I was struck by the anger in the piece. Normally, you would first trot out a few facts and make some reasoned judgments from them before pronouncing sentence. Here, the anger is immediate, intense, and unconditional. What follows doesn’t begin to justify it, and in some ways contradicts their assertions – if you can even understand it all, as Mitch Berg notes.

Maybe that’s the problem. After another build-up, they have no substantive case against President Bush – again. We’re smarter than that ignorant cowboy they say to themselves. So why do we keep losing? Well, we’re really going to get him this time! We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore!

Remember the National Guard scandal? George Bush was AWOL we were told, and therefore was a liar. But a steady stream of documents and testimony soon satisfied the general public even as Terry McAuliffe kept moving the goal posts. Chiefs 23, Vikings 7.

Then there was Richard Clarke and his much-touted book. Soon, however, Clarke was having to explain his own earlier statements. “Were you lying then or lying now?” asked Congressional investigators. Dolphins 24, Vikings 7.

Bob Woodward was next up on “60 Minutes” with the book that would make Clarke’s book look like the proverbial tea party. Only it didn’t, and Woodward’s answers to press and reviewers’ questions were sometime at odds with his book. Steelers 16, Vikings 6.

Now it’s Joseph Wilson. He has prestige and direct knowledge, having personally investigated the Niger-Iraq uranium question. But his story unraveled even more quickly and totally than those before him. Raiders 32 Vikings 14.

Against the backdrop of the partisan 9/11 Commission hearings, this summer offensive was supposed to put Bush at least 20 points down against Senator John Kerry. But if anything, Kerry is the one stuck in neutral while Bush’s numbers creep up. Kerry isn’t catching on, Edwards helped not at all, and it’s not at all unthinkable to them even now that Bush could win 40 states. No wonder they’re upset.

Last time, it was Falcons 30, Vikings 24 in overtime. If something doesn’t stick to “W” soon, this time it could be Giants 41, Vikings 0.

ABC's John Stossel of "Give Me a Break" fame was interviewed on The Dennis Prager Show on Wednesday, July 14. (Mark Larson of San Diego's KCBQ was guest hosting.)

Mr. Stossel made a profound point in discussing the need for tort reform, such as by adopting the "English rule (loser pays)" that is actually the worldwide standard. He pointed out that for a lawyer to make millions like, say, Senator John Edwards, you have to sue the most valuable people and services in society. That's why you sue the OB/GYN doctors who allegedly make the slightest slip, not the orderly in the nursing home that allegedly forgot to check on an 85 year old diabetic who lapses into a coma and dies.

In other words, it isn't just the money per se that determines the target of all these frivolous, dare I say fraudulent lawsuits. Stossel is suggesting that the big money (as in salaries and fees for service) is naturally going to accrue to those people and professions who practice and provide the most valuable skills, such as surgeons and police officers.

So not only are these overreaching lawyers costing us money by inflating the cost of goods and services. Not only are they removing perfectly good products from the marketplace like hot chocolate from a menu (might burn a child) and silicone breast implants (now exonerated, but the damage was done). Worst of all, in the high dollar cases, they are attacking the very people and organizations that we need most.

We read every month about doctors getting out of these high legal risk professions like obstectrics. Those that remain practice defensive medicine like caesarian section, risking the mother's life in fact. And we all pay the higher health care and insurance bills thanks to avaricious lawyers.

Police officers are obviously paid much less than doctors, but it takes many of them to be an effective force. In a large city (they seldom bother Fergus Falls), the total police budget can easily reach hundreds of millions of dollars, with thousands of employees - trip wires in the eyes of those who would abuse the law for their own profit. Every million dollars paid in these large settlements would do the city and society far more good if reinvested in the police and other public works. Police can and are disciplined, even fired, when they step out of line. The threat of a major lawsuit with its unpredictable outcome does little more.

It's time to get serious about tort reform, and that will take a sizable Republican majority. As Hugh Hewitt says, "If it ain't close, they can't cheat."

I think we all know what a library is. And we all remember using the school library, from elementary school to high school and beyond. But over the past 10 or more years, many enlightened public schools have replaced their venerable old Library with something called a Media Center.

It looks the same, but educators point out that Media Center better comprehends the wide range of, well, media. There's much more than books and magazines, you see. They have videos, both tape and DVD. They have audio, both cassette and CD. And they have computers, connected to the Internet.

However, our community libraries have continually added new media types. They added LP records, 16 mm films and so on throughout the post-WWII era. The term Library is more than sufficient, as it's core concept is time-sharing of intellectual resources, not simply the amassment of them. The latter is simply an Archive.

So why change from the clearly understood and not at all limiting term Library to this fuzy concept of Media Center? Because it sounds more important! A person with a degree in Library Science must have a more important function and title than Librarian. And gullible parents happily tell their friends about the wonderful Media Center at their child's school.

Rubbish. It's old books on new shelves.

In the film “As Good as it Gets”, famous novelist and infamous curmudgeon Melvin Udall (Jack Nicholson) is asked by an admiring fan how he understands his female characters so well. He replies, “I picture a man. Then I take away reason and accountability.” It’s a great line, funny in the theatre, though it could also get a husband severely injured at home. Still, I find there are many useful corollaries, the first of which follows.

I am a fan of old time radio programs, many of which featured newspaper figures as regular characters. “The Green Hornet” was really Britt Reid, publisher of the Daily Sentinel. His crack reporters Axford and Lowry were always on the go chasing a good story, hopefully a “scoop” that beats the competition. “Big Town” followed hard-charging Steve Wilson, editor of the Illustrated Press. “Casey, Crime Photographer” did as much sleuthing and reporting as he did photography for his paper. And let’s not forget the big guy himself – Superman – in his guise as star reporter Clark Kent.

Whether a series star, cast regular, guest role, or bit part, whether in a comedy, drama, adventure, or thriller, virtually every old time radio reporter was cut from the same cloth. As they repeatedly said at the Illustrated Press, “Freedom of the press is a flaming sword! Use is justly … hold it high … guard it well.” They went after their stories with hard work, discipline, and lots of shoe leather. They understood their position of trust and the need to be accurate, complete, and timely. It was in many respects a blue-collar profession, hard-working people who largely developed their skills through an apprentice system of copy boys and cub reporters.

Look at the news business today. Television obviously prefers the pretty to the perspicacious. Radio prefers the poised to the perspicuous. Newspapers increasingly spend more time on personalities, surveys, and various forms of soft news, particularly when the hard news and facts are lengthy or detailed. Fact checking seems to be in decline in every medium. Many discredited ideas, false data, and absurd quotes are routinely cited without comment or even an attempt to obtain an opposing view. A good example of this is “the worst economy since the Depression” refrain, which can be dismissed in two words: Jimmy Carter.

Today’s journalism has evolved into a white-collar profession that usually starts with a college degree. They are now journalists and photo-journalists you see, not reporters and photographers. The reporter’s notebook is now a laptop computer. Phone calls, satellite feeds, and e-Mails replace ever more of the travel and personal interviews that used to consume all that shoe leather. With all that convenience, it gets harder and harder to leave the office air-conditioning and gourmet coffee to chase down an obscure lead. Worse, it seems increasingly important to these journalists to communicate what they think about certain issues over what actually happened and what the newsmakers actually said.

Somehow, perhaps unknowingly, you start writing more about what your fellow journalists are saying about a story, less about the story itself. It becomes increasingly important to “get along” with “everyone” to keep the pleasant exchange going. It takes years to build a good reputation, but in this environment, one politically incorrect story can make you an immediate outcast. Why take a serious look at, say, education vouchers for inner city students? Because if you’re “in with the in crowd”, it’s a career risk if your story strays, however factually, from the politically correct. And of course, these journalists and their editors deny that any of this is happening.

So Mr. Udall, how do you characterize a journalist?

“I picture a reporter. Then I take away reason and accountability.”

Those my age no doubt remember the TV quiz program, "You Bet Your Life" starring Groucho Marx. Groucho engaged in a few minutes of light banter with each pair of contestants, and if either happened to say a secret word, a trumpet sounded and a duck dropped down with a $100 prize for them.

I recently realized that I have my own secret word that immediately interrupts my train of thought when scanning the news and opinions of the day. That word is Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's former employer. No matter how many years pass since he left the company and divested himself of his holdings therein, many a pundit still thinks Mr. Cheney is nonetheless still profiting from and guided by whatever business Halliburton now conducts anywhere on Earth.

As soon as I see or hear this word, I stop reading or listening. I dismiss the entire piece as suspect and incompetent. If there is a valid point to be made, someone else will come along to make it, and without the H-word. Even articles defending Mr. Cheney are questionable as he needs no defense among grown-ups.