One for the grownups, one for the kids

My fascination with vintage ads, especially those promoting firearms and outdoors gear, continues. I'm especially drawn to depictions of the Winchester Model 67, of course, like the 1956 ad that I posted on Friday, and to the Winchester Junior Rifle Corps.

First up this morning is "Add a Colt to Your Motoring Equipment," clipped from a 1922 issue of Life magazine.

In the early days of the automobile Americans were learning that their new-found mobility, however rudimentary by today's standards, quickly could transport them "beyond the reach of help." What Colt called "the growing menace of auto bandits and thieves" was a relatively fresh concern for the motoring masses.

The other ad I'll share today, "Don't envy the fellows who own rifles," comes from a 1918 issue of Arms and the Man, forerunner of the National Rifle Association's American Rifleman magazine.

Even though the readership of Arms and the Man was predominantly adult males, clearly Winchester's aspirational pitch also drew a bead on young boys. This line spoke to both audiences:

"Every boy wants to own a rifle, and every boy who has the right stuff in him should have one."

What American boy, after all, doesn't believe that he has "the right stuff"? And what self-respecting father would admit that he's raising a boy who lacks it?

The two-pronged approach is reminiscent, it seems to me, of another Winchester ad that I posted here last year.

Naturally, the ad includes the W.J.R.C. spiel. It's interesting to note that the program was taken over by the NRA in 1926.

Woman, 36, wants a nanny

"If you offer me an apple and a candy bar, I'll pick the candy bar every time. I'd rather you'd only offer me the apple."

(Erin Burnett on last night's edition of CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront," expressing her personal support of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's efforts to dictate what his pliant subjects eat, drink and do.)

Regarding Sanford

When I posted "My take on Sanford" last month, I spoke too soon. In fact, my speculation about what transpired on the night of February 26th may well have been dead wrong.

I should've known better.

New information about the incident comes to light every day -- some of it's factual, some of it's legal posturing and some of it's reflexive rhetoric from the usual suspects.

The matter is in the hands of investigators. Soon it'll be presented to a grand jury and, potentially, to a trial jury. That's where it will be (and should be) decided.

I did get one thing right -- I don't believe I've ever seen such an intense siege on our constitutional right to keep and bear arms and on our human right to self-defense. Coverage of the shooting has given little time or credence to that side of the story.

All-star status (and not in a good way) goes to CNN's Piers Morgan. Not only has he followed the easy recipe, he's repeatedly spiked the punch with his British slant:

"My view from the start has been, it seems incomprehensible to me under any form of stand-your-ground law -- or any absurd law as I view it -- that somebody could shoot somebody who turned out to be unarmed and not even being arrested on the night. In Britain where I come from, that would cause a sensation the likes of which our justice system has never seen before."

"As far as British law is concerned, if this had happened in Britain, there would be no stand-your-ground defense and he would have been arrested. I'm more comfortable with the way we do things."

Last night, at least, he solicited the perspective of one Ted Nugent. Here's the complete transcript of their exchange:

MORGAN: The rally to bring justice to Trayvon Martin. The tragedy brings out a lot of emotions and everyone has an opinion on the shooting, including my next guest, Ted Nugent. Everyone knows he never holds back. And I thank him for joining me tonight. Ted, welcome back.

Last time, we were having a fairly jocular debate about all this. But this is a bit too serious for that. You've heard the attorneys on both sides there. What do you make of this case in its entirety?

NUGENT: Well, first of all, thanks for going after this very tragic situation, Piers. And thank you for having me on. But let me clarify one thing, very, very important, that you alluded to earlier in your program, that you believe that the vast majority of Americans want Zimmerman arrested.

Let me tell you what the vast majority of Americans want. We're saying prayers for the Martin family and all those other black youths that are slaughtered every week. Those are the people that we constantly cry out for.

So be very careful what you assume. Those of us that love life and respect life, we don't see any color. But we wonder where the outcry is when every week these youths are slaughtered across the streets of America. So that's the most important statement I want to make right here.

MORGAN: But, I mean, look, there are always, with all these cases, innumerable other cases that can be thrown in as why don't you care as much about that? The reality of this case is that, I believe, it's popped in America as a big cause because of the precise nature of what happened after Trayvon Martin was killed.

That is this particularly extreme version of stand-your-ground. You have to use that phrase, because it is in Florida. It's particularly wide-ranging. And it has allowed a situation where somebody can shoot an unarmed teenager and actually be allowed to go home that night without even being arrested.

That's why I understand people feeling exercised about why he wasn't arrested on the night. Shouldn't he have been? Even for someone like you, that believes in right to bear arms and guns and everything else, shouldn't he have been arrested?

NUGENT: You saw the tape. I saw the tape where he was handcuffed, Piers. That's arrested. He was arrested. He was questioned. The stand-your-ground law does have specific ramifications.

But I also want to clarify something else, that really you should be ashamed of, that you said earlier. You don't believe that a person should be able to stand your ground. And you referenced your homelands of England, where if someone invades your home, an English homeowner, by law, has to retreat.

Piers, I offer to you that that's anti-human, that that disrespects the gift of life, and it actually encourages recidivist criminal behavior by sending out a message that we're not going to stand our ground; we're going to retreat.

Piers, you're in America now. And in America, we have a Second Amendment right. And we value life more than sheep do. And we don't back down. So the stand-your-ground law is common sense. It's logical. And it's the right thing to do.

MORGAN: Right. I mean, American has 270 million guns, by common estimation. Britain, I think, has about two million.

NUGENT: I think more than that.

MORGAN: Well, maybe more than that. OK. The last record said 9,484 homicides involving guns in the last year that was recorded. Britain had 68. I suppose my point is this, is that I don't defend all the laws in Britain. Many of them are ridiculous. I don't defend all the laws in America or attack all the laws. Some, to me, seem ridiculous. Others seem perfectly fair and balanced.

It's a great country with a great legal system in many ways. I don't denigrate America with this. But on the stand-your-ground law, in particular, it seems to me unbelievable that a young, unarmed teenager in America today can actually be shot dead for possession of a bag of Skittles, on his way home to his father's girlfriend's house.

My point was, when they were mocking British law, by the way -- they started this. I said back in Britain, that wouldn't have happened. You couldn't do that without being arrested and almost certainly charged. Now I think many Americans -- let's not say the majority. I don't know the statistics. But many Americans feel uncomfortable that this could happen in modern America and that George Zimmerman would simply be allowed to go home that night when Trayvon Martin goes to a coffin.

NUGENT: Piers, you have expressed that you don't want to try this on television. I also do not want to try this on television. I think we both agree that there's a tragedy that it is being tried and that Zimmerman has been convicted across the media in many instances.

So let's not do that here. So let me propose to you a scenario that I think you can grasp and support. You must be aware, and if not I'll inform you now, how many professional law enforcement heroes are killed every year with their own weapon. I'm not juxtaposing this with the Trayvon and the Zimmerman situation.

But it does happen, where an assailant will start beating a person so badly that those of us that are armed, we have a responsibility to keep that new assault from taking our weapon, because if the assault escalates to that degree -- certainly the fist can go into a deadly situation if they get a hold of the gun bearer's gun.

So we have to be cognizant of that. If it wasn't for backup guns in law enforcement and in civilians hands, oftentimes, that the perpetrator and the person getting beat up is killed with his own gun. So let's not dismiss that reality that is documented over and over again across this country.

MORGAN: But do you believe that a neighborhood watch official acting in that capacity should be armed and using that firearm?

NUGENT: Yes.

MORGAN: OK. Well, Ted, we'll agree to disagree over that. I hope we can do that again in an extended way soon, because your opinions are always very interesting to hear. Thank you for joining me.

NUGENT: Thank you, Piers. My family sends their best and our prayers are with the Martin family.

There's some great stuff in there -- thanks, Ted.

About Morgan's final question -- judging by the pause that followed Nugent's unequivocal answer (plus the look on Morgan's face), it was clear that the host wasn't quite prepared for such an affirmation of Liberty. Go figure, eh?

Welcome to America.

Was this really necessary?

Idiocy filled the air yesterday

"The Lord has blessed me and cursed me with an ability to see over the horizon." (Glenn Beck, declaring himself a prophet)

"The Democrat Party base, fringe Alinskyite, Marxist leftists that they are, are the number one impediment to progress in this country." (Rush Limbaugh, ringing bells for his mindless poodles)

"Climate change, global warming appears to be in full effect. ... It was announced today that the cherry blossom festival dates have been moved up in Washington, D.C. by a month because warm weather has caused them to blossom that much earlier." (CNN's Erin Burnett, confusing climate with weather)

"Lately, we’ve heard a lot of professional politicians talking down these new sources of energy. ... If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail, they probably would have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society." (Pres. Barack Obama, making the case for exacerbating our national economic crisis)

Yellowed pages IV

Here are two more vintage Marble's advertisements, both from 1922.

"For Campers" (right) comes from the pages of Outing magazine. It was aimed squarely at families and young couples caught up in the out-of-doors movement sweeping the U.S. during the late 1800s and early 1900s.

The products featured in the ad are familiar: Marble's Safety Axe and Woodcraft fixed-blade knife; compass, match case and fishing rod. And the company's longtime tag-line, "For every hour in the open," shows up at the end of the piece.

The second ad (below) touts "Marble's Outing Equipment, Preferred by Outdoor Men." It's a more straightforward pitch, appearing in a more narrowly focused publication (Hunter-Trader-Trapper). Again we see the Woodcraft and the Safety Axe, joined by a mechanical gaff and a gun sight.

Yellowed pages III

Until this morning I hadn't browsed Google Books' collection of vintage out-of-doors magazines in quite some time, and it's been a couple of years since I last posted an old Marble's ad here on KintlaLake Blog.

Marble's Safety Axe Co. placed an ominous pitch (right) in a 1908 issue of Recreation. It tells of a misfortunate whose broken knife (not a Marble's, presumably) kept him from repelling an attacking bear.

Oh, if only he'd had a Marble's Safety Pocket Knife!

More believable, I think, and certainly more conventional for the time, is an ad (below) for Marble Arms & Mfg. Co., found in a 1918 issue of Hunter-Trader-Trapper. It features the classic Safety Axe, along with two of "Marble's Famous Hunting Knives" -- the Ideal and the Expert.
It's worth noting that in 1918 a Marble's Ideal cost between $2.25 (stacked-leather handle, five-inch blade) and $3.50 (stag handle, eight-inch blade). The cocobolo-handled Expert, offered only with a five-inch blade, was priced at $2.25.

Ten years earlier, a budding bear-slayer would've spent $4.00 to land a Marble's Safety Pocket Knife.

Let's review (an addendum)

First of all, the list of Rush Limbaugh's fleeing advertisers, mentioned in yesterday's post, has grown by three -- Bonobos, Sears and Allstate also have pulled their sponsorship.

Limbaugh does a masterful job of raising the issues we should be debating and then obfuscating the hell out of them. He subdues relevance with red-meat rhetoric and births new bogies daily, crushing information with innuendo and ignoring facts at every turn.

In the second paragraph of his non-apology apology, he actually came close to hitting the real target:

"I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level."

After issuing that statement, true to form, Limbaugh slipped back beneath the surface of intellectual honesty.

Sandra Fluke has been misrepresented by ideologues on both the left and the right. It's been widely reported that the 30-year-old Fluke researched Georgetown University's student-healthcare coverage before enrolling, making sure that the Jesuit institution didn't cover birth control -- a committed activist, she engineered her opportunity to protest the policy from within the student body.

She's also on-record advocating that any healthcare plan that doesn't cover the cost of gender-reassignment surgery -- that's the politically correct term for what most people call sex-change operations -- is discriminatory and should be sued.

No kidding.

On the one hand, Fluke is neither a "slut" nor a "prostitute," as Limbaugh characterized her; on the other, she's far from the sympathetic figure she's portrayed to be by Nancy Pelosi et al.

She's an opportunist with a cause -- and her cause is, without a doubt, expanding the entitlement culture that's poisoned our society and crippled our government.

That, in case you missed it, is the issue.

Let's review

"What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps." (Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday, February 29th)


[After Limbaugh spent three days repeating and amplifying those sentiments, his radio show's sponsors began pulling their advertising. Six had fled by Saturday morning; the list now numbers nine: Tax Resolution Services, AOL, ProFlowers, Quicken Loans, Sleep Number beds, Sleep Train, Citrix, Carbonite and LegalZoom.]


"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

"I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

"My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices." (Limbaugh on Saturday, March 3rd)


"Yes, I think he should have apologized. I had said he used very crude language. And I think he gets over the top at times. But it's in his best interest. That's why he did it. I don't think he's very apologetic. He's doing it because some people were taking their advertisements off his program. It was his bottom line that he was concerned about." (Ron Paul on Sunday, March 4th)


"Our numbers suggest that Rush Limbaugh has seen significant erosion in his popularity with Republican voters over the last week. The last time we polled on him nationally [in 2009] he was at 80/12 with GOPers. But now we find him below 50% in all three of these [Super Tuesday] states: he's at 45/28 in Ohio, 46/29 in Tennessee, and 44/30 in Georgia." (Public Policy Polling on Monday, March 5th)


"I want to explain why I apologized to Sandra Fluke in the statement that was released on Saturday. I've read all the theories from all sides, and, frankly, they are all wrong. I don't expect -- and I know you don't, either -- morality or intellectual honesty from the left. They've demonstrated over and over a willingness to say or do anything to advance their agenda. It's what they do. It's what we fight against here every day. But this is the mistake I made. In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.

Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them, and I feel very badly about that. I've always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words." (Limbaugh on Monday, March 5th)


"The left, folks -- the media -- are giddy that some advertisers have said they're leaving the program. And I'm sorry to see 'em go. They have profited handsomely from you. These advertisers who have split the scene have done very well due to their access to you, my audience, from this program. To offer their products and services to you through this venue is the best opportunity that they have ever had to advertise their wares. Now they've chosen to deny themselves that access, and that's a business decision, and it's theirs alone to make.

"They've decided they don't want you or your business anymore. So be it." (Limbaugh on Monday, March 5th)


"Hey, Rush -- who's the 'slut' now?" (KintlaLake on Monday, March 5th)


[For a thoughtful, reasoned commentary on the Limbaugh dustup, I recommend "Are we being fair to Rush Limbaugh?" by David Frum]

And the Oscar goes to...

I urge readers of KintlaLake Blog to take 15 minutes to watch this video, "The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore." I find it wonderfully touching, inarguably deserving of the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film it won last night.

Iconic, ironic or patriotic?

Each of my favorite Super Bowl commercials, posted here yesterday, promotes a venerable American brand.

Chevy. Chrysler. Budweiser.

None of those corporate icons represents what it once did. Chevrolet (founded in 1911) and Chrysler (1925) survived Chapter 11 thanks to billions in taxpayer-funded bailouts and, in the case of Chrysler, because an Italian carmaker bought almost 60% of the company. Budweiser (1876) is the flagship brand of a brewer headquartered not in St. Louis, but in Belgium.

Ever since the commercials ran on Sunday, pundits have been cranking out commentary after ironic commentary. The Chrysler ad has come in for special criticism.

Pres. Obama's backers see the spot as supporting his approach to our national economic crisis. Conservative klaxons view it the same way, accusing Clint Eastwood of being a shill for the administration.

When you're a hammer, as it's said, everything looks like a nail.

Of all the perspectives I've read and heard, only three ring remotely true with me. The first came from Jay Leno:

"One of the most talked about [Super Bowl] commercials was the one with Clint Eastwood, where he said, 'It's halftime in America, and our second half is about to begin.'

"The bad news? China has the ball and we're down $15 trillion."

The second belongs to John Avlon:

"When the next Republican assumes the Oval Office, whether in four years or eight, he or she will find that the political culture is set up to destroy rather than build. Unifying the nation absent an urgent crisis is increasingly difficult, if not impossible. The organized activist class from your own party will not tolerate dissension from ideological purity, even in the face of real-world responsibilities. The opposition will have been conditioned to reflexively attack, demonizing the duly elected president almost regardless of what policies he proposes. This cannot be good for the country."

Last, here's what Eastwood himself said to FOXNation:

"I just want to say that the spin stops with you guys, and there is no spin in that ad. On this I am certain.

"I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message...just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. I thought the spirit was ok.

"I am not supporting any politician at this time.

"Chrysler, to their credit, didn't even have cars in the ad.

"Anything they gave me for it went for charity.

"If...Obama or any other politician wants to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it."

Now permit me, please, to offer my own view: Attacking Chrysler's "Halftime in America" commercial because it's somehow pro-Obama is intellectually dishonest and ideologically crippled.

There's nothing so patriotic as (to quote Avlon) "making the case for American resilience." That's what the ad did, simply and with the conviction of an independent citizen, and that's why I love it.

Bob Conners retired today

"The Morning Monarch" turned in his headphones today, ending a 33-year morning-drive shift on 610WTVN.

We'll not see his like again -- he was the best, period.

Thanks for all the good mornings, BC, and safe travels.

Meteorology vs. melodrama

While waiting for the younger spawn to emerge from school on the first day of classes yesterday, I heard Rush Limbaugh nonsensically connect the dots -- from the perceived "hype" over Hurricane Irene to the media's allegiance to the Obama "regime."

It was like listening to a drunken college freshman use what he'd learned in Psych 101 to explain nuclear physics.

Moving on, he noted that Colin Powell said on Sunday that he hasn't yet decided who he'll vote for in 2012. Limbaugh then predicted that Powell again would vote for Pres. Obama because,

"Melanin is thicker than water."

The man knows his Dittoheads, I'll give him that. "Don't doubt me!" he bellows. "The fix is in!"

And indeed it is -- just don't tell Limbaugh's simple-minded poodles.

Getting back to Irene -- I'm no meteorologist, but I'm smart enough to recognize that forecasting weather, especially tropical systems, is an inexact science. Irene, like most hurricanes, bobbed and wiggled. It threatened to follow a path that could take an unprecedented toll in lives, livelihoods, property and infrastructure.

The worst didn't happen. Perfect hindsight, however, doesn't warrant indicting the press, forecasters or public officials for warning citizens of the scientifically reasonable chance that it could happen.

Yes, the media did inject unnecessary drama into the whole affair, but that's not unusual. They do it every day. It doesn't move me.

I do have a problem, though, with characterizing some as "ignoring" or "defying" official evacuation orders. Not the true idiots, people who went swimming in the surf as Hurricane Irene made landfall -- I'm talking about prepared, independent citizens who gauged the risks and responsibly chose to shelter-in-place.

Truth be told, the vast majority of folks who stayed put were guided by sentiment or ego, not by critical thought or common sense. The unprepared now complain that they're still stranded or that their power still hasn't been restored. And yes, even they deserve the right to ride out a big storm in their own homes.

Personally (and within reason) I would've done whatever it took to avoid becoming a refugee in my own land. That choice is neither ignorant nor defiant -- it's independent.

I spent 20-plus years of my life in southern New England. Often I ventured north into Vermont, New Hampshire and the Adirondacks of New York -- for the scenery, sure, but also because I was drawn to the region's independent spirit.

The remnants of Hurricane Irene unleashed catastrophic flooding on the area. Bridges I've crossed -- swept away. Streets I walked, the riverside restaurant where I savored morning coffee -- devastated. A friend's house perched on the bank of the Mad River, the place where I celebrated Independence Day a dozen years ago -- gone.

My heart aches for these Americans, and yet I have no doubt that they'll rebound and rebuild like the People they are.

Up there, see, especially in rural communities and small villages, independence wins out over drama -- every time.

Lovable 'Madman'

Ted Nugent's music, admittedly an acquired taste, assaults the senses and seems to defy sense -- mercilessly blunt and yet expressed with undeniable precision. The same can be said of his views on politics, society and life.

Here in the KintlaLake household, we're quite fond of the ageless "Motor City Madman." We've traveled to see his live performances, and when we heard that Piers Morgan's interview with Nugent would air on CNN last night, well, we made a date to watch it.

Now we don't embrace all things Ted (he swings uncomfortably close to Caribou Barbie, for example), and we cringe when he squibs an easy shot (which happened more than once during his interview with Morgan). Still, we appreciate his unapologetic patriotism and love of liberty -- take this clip from last night's show:



Ok, so he's a passionate defender of an individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms. But for those who think he's a one-issue, suck-on-my-machine-gun guy, check out this segment from AC360° in January:



Notice, especially in that brief debate with Paul Begala, that "Terrible Ted" isn't so terrible. He articulates his views with intelligence and good humor -- always the entertainer, sure, but one who's not allergic to facts or common cordiality.

"I'm 63. I've been clean and sober my whole life. I was raised in a hard-core disciplined environment. To be the best that I can be. And not guess at things but to study evidence. Study conditions. Be aware of my cause and effect.

"And make a decision not based on what felt good or what was comfortable for me but rather what lessons of life taught me. So when I put forth what people call an opinion...I don't project opinions as much as I do share observations of life's realities and the evidence that brings either a quality of life when adhered [to] and learned from, or [destroys] life when ignored and not learned."

In that way he distinguishes himself from the demagogues dominating talk radio and populating our politics. He knows the difference between populism and principle, and he holds fast to the latter -- and that's why, around here, we like Ted Nugent.

Nose of Newt

Just in case you've been living under a rock, last week former House Speaker Newt Gingrich formally announced his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination. Aside from being an undisciplined intellectual who resigned his seat in 1998 after being re-elected, his three marriages and multiple extramarital affairs -- one of which was in full song while he was leading the charge to impeach Pres. Bill Clinton -- will be tough to overcome with evangelical Christians and similarly self-righteous Republicans.

The newly minted candidate's first interview after launching his run was with -- wait for it -- Sean Hannity on Fox News. Reminded of press reports about his personal life, Gingrich responded,

"Well, if you are a conservative, you have to start with the assumption that you are not going to get an even break from the elite media. And that's just reality."

On today's edition of CNN's "Reliable Sources," host Howard Kurtz asked Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle if the media are, in fact, "trying to tarnish Republicans." Her take:

"Well, you can't help it with Newt Gingrich. I mean, it's like Cyrano de Bergerac expecting you to not look at his nose."

For this independent citizen, that captures the problem with neo-conservative ideology in general and Newt in particular.

I couldn't possibly care less about his marriages and affairs. Sure, I recognize the perception of hypocrisy and I know poetic justice when I see it, but I'm far more interested in a candidate's demonstrated ability to make critically sound choices, to lead and, most especially, to govern. Most Americans don't approach elections that way, of course -- I know that and so does Newt.

His are self-inflicted wounds. He has every reason to expect (if not welcome) scrutiny, but what does he do? He blames the media for calling attention to (you should pardon the expression) his pickle.

It's too early for me to say that his failure to take complete responsibility for his actions -- including their consequences -- is a deal-breaker. But if I voted tomorrow, Newt Gingrich wouldn't pass the laugh test.

[snicker]

I don't waste time fretting about any dreaded "liberal bias" in the mainstream news media. Ideological slants abound, of course -- MSNBC on the left and Fox News on the right come to mind -- but they're poseurs, not credible news networks.

I'm fully capable of digging past headlines and sound bites, thank you very much, and I can form my own opinions.

That said, CNN is my primary source for TV news. Over 31 years it's developed the horsepower to be present, relevant, agile and useful. It's not 100% accurate every time but, in my experience, it gets its facts straight far more often than do most other outlets. When it screws up, it takes responsibility.

One thing that continues to annoy me about CNN, however, is the outright clumsiness of many of its anchors. Carol Costello, for example, clearly is better suited to early-morning duty at a small-market affiliate. Wolf Blitzer, though well-traveled and smart, is such a company man that his reports often become interminably awkward infomercials for the network.

The unsophisticated Brooke Baldwin took over the mid-afternoon slot last fall when CNN fired The Crazy Cuban. Late in yesterday's program, she preceded a commercial break with the following tease:

"More and more members of Congress [are] getting a look at those pictures of a dead Osama bin Laden, and those who have been invited to see these photographs sit on the House and Senate committees on intelligence and the military.

"Coming up next, I will speak with Congressman Doug Lamborn about what he saw and why one Senator suggested bin Laden was still alive in some of those pictures. I wonder what he saw. Stay right here."

The implication: Our guys photographed bin Laden before they shot him. Intrigued, I stuck around for the interview. Here's how it began:

BALDWIN: "Congressman Lamborn, thank you for coming on. And sir, let's just start with, how many photos did you see today at Langley?"

LAMBORN: "Well, when I went over to the CIA headquarters this morning, there were about six or eight photos. And some have a side-by-side showing him living, but from at roughly the same angle, so you can use that for identification and comparison purposes. He is, indeed, dead."

Ok, at that point I felt foolish for biting on the hype -- that is, I got it and laughed (at myself) out loud. Baldwin, alas, did neither.

BALDWIN: "You bring up -- and this is what we [heard] from Senator [Jim] Inhofe last night, talking to my colleague, Eliot Spitzer. So, several of these photos were of him living. Can you explain more specifically how -- how those photos were shot?"

LAMBORN: "Oh, they just had on-file photos of him over the years, and they only do a side-by-side to show the same angle and for ID purposes for, like, the forensic people.... He is dead."

There was a brief-but-delicious pause.

BALDWIN: "I see. So the living photos were not shot in the [Abbottabad, Pakistan] compound...."

Behind every inept anchor is a whole team of doofuses -- the detached producer, the clueless director and an army of wet-behind-the-ears interns. Take a look at what Sen. Inhofe said on Spitzer's program the night before, words that formed the basis for Baldwin's on-air idiocy:

"Three of the first 12 pictures were of [bin Laden] when he was alive. And they did this for the purpose of being able to look at those and seeing the nose, the eyes and [their] relationship for positive identification purposes."

Sen. Inhofe's description seems crystal-clear to me. It didn't send host Spitzer careening into the ditch, either, but it exposed the gulf between Baldwin and common sense.

For me, this won't prompt a rant about incompetence in the media -- there's incompetence in every profession -- but I was glad for a chance to chuckle at chuckleheads.

(Excuse me)

My unambiguous dismissal of Donald Trump in yesterday's post may remind regular readers of my low regard for the former Mayor of Wasilla. Although this country will be better off if neither is elected to national office, these public figures are very different.

I sat through John King's interview with Trump last night. It was painful to watch, but it crystallized for me the critical distinction:

Sarah Palin is out of her league; Donald Trump is out of his mind.

If we're looking for a comparable character, in my opinion, it's not Caribou Barbie -- it's Charlie Sheen.

I'm baffled that Trump's disciples are, by and large, the same people who decry dishonesty and corruption in government. They express distaste for "elitists" and "the ruling class," rightly calling for a return to constitutional values and government by The People.

It would make more sense to me if an arrogant real-estate mogul with a long track record of deceit was their villain, but no -- inexplicably, he's a freakin' hero.

Yes, the Constitution gives the inarticulate Trump the right to thump his chest -- "I've done a great service to [sic] the American people" -- and fool the foolish. But I, for one, hope that the media continue to exercise their First Amendment rights as well, mercilessly riding his megalomaniacal ass and exposing him as the fraud he is.

Yes, officer, that's my carbon footprint

It's Earth Day 2011, for what (little) it's worth, our annual reminder that we're doing more to destroy the planet than we possibly could do to save it -- unless, of course, we accept onerous regulations and pay higher taxes (and higher prices) for the privilege of being regulated.

(That must be what Earth Day Network means when it asks us to commit "A Billion Acts of Green®" today.)

Browsing related news this morning, I saw a story on 24/7 Wall St. about the "environmental friendliness" of each U.S. state. Tiny, non-industrial Vermont took top honors as the "most green" [sic] state.

And the "least green" state? Ohio.

The ranking doesn't move this Buckeye one way or another. What 24/7 Wall St. calls "analysis" is nothing more than statistical goulash, and I can't help but notice that four of five bordering states -- Indiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky -- join Ohio in the bottom ten.

Here in the old Rust Belt, my neighbors and I don't feel too terribly guilty about that. We don't consider ourselves backward or somehow inferior, either, even though a bunch of pointy-headed New York journalists say we are.

Y'all go and have your big ol' Earth Day party without us, 'cause we've got a whole mess of irons in the fire right now -- like keepin' our jobs, payin' our taxes and pretty much just tryin' to stay afloat.

It doesn't get much better

Lately I've been treating myself to (or torturing myself with) 20 minutes of Rush Limbaugh each weekday, going so far as to impose the experience on my 15-year-old during the ride home from school. We find it entertaining, in a disturbing sort of way.

Shortly after 2pm today, Limbaugh began yakking about holding one particularly hot story until the final hour of his show -- and then regretting the move, because,

"...I realized that while people have heard [the story], they probably don't really know what to think about it totally 'til I've commented on it."

That, right there, tells us all we need to know about talk radio.

Anyway, the aforementioned hot story had to do with National Public Radio fundraising VP Ron Schiller getting hoodwinked by a couple of guys hired by right-wing slimeball James O'Keefe, the pair posing as members of a phony Muslim group. And I was listening to the Prince of Pomposity prattle about the Duke of Deception duping a Lord of Liberalism. Entertainment-wise, that's just about as good as it gets.

On Limbaugh's website, the headline blares, "NPR Executive Caught on Tape Being an Ignorant, Arrogant Liberal." The transcript captures the host highlighting Schiller's greatest hits:

"The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamental Christian...and I wouldn't even call it Christian. It's a weird, evangelical kind of movement.

"The current Republican Party is not even the Republican Party. It's been hijacked by this group that is...not just Islamophobic, but really xenophobic. I mean, basically...they believe in sort of white, middle America, gun-toting. I mean, it's pretty scary. They're...seriously racist, racist people."

"It feels to me as though there's a real anti-intellectual mood on the part of a significant part of the Republican Party. You know, in my personal opinion liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced. I am most disturbed by and disappointed by in this country, which is that the educated, so-called elite in this country is...too small a percentage of the population, so that you have this very large uneducated part of the population that...carries these ideas. It's...much more about anti-intellectualism than it is about [politics]."

"Republicans play off of the belief among the general population that most of our funding comes from the government. Very little of our funding comes from the government, but they act as though all of it comes from the government. ... Frankly, it is very clear that we would be better off in the long run without federal funding."

I'm hard-pressed to disagree with some of those points -- raging anti-intellectualism, xenophobia and the failure of the Tea Party, now polluted by the religious right's social agenda, to lift a libertarian message above an undercurrent of hate. And if public broadcasting really doesn't want taxpayers' money, we should grant Schiller's wish that federal funding disappear.

Problem is, Schiller stakes his claim to higher ground because he's a liberal -- his ideology makes him superior. That’s bullshit, of course.

Limbaugh, O'Keefe and their ilk, though they'd never admit it, suffer from the same condition that afflicts the left-wing Schiller. That they're "ignorant, arrogant" conservatives is the disease, not the cure.

(Watch the 12-minute version of Schiller's comeuppance here. If you have two hours to kill, you'll find the full video punking here.)

Chowder, please -- hold the chicken

"Whoever advised Palin to say this should be fired." (Jonathan Capehart, The Washington Post)

"I read that answer several times, and I still really don't know what she's saying." (Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary)

"All defensiveness and self-absorption. A hefty dollop of chowder-headed babbling re: Egypt as well." (Mike Murphy, GOP consultant, via Twitter)

"We should be used to this by now: lots of feathers, no chicken."
(Jack Cafferty, CNN)

"I have a big problem with people who glamorize dumbness and demonize education and intellect -- and I'm giving a pretty good description of Sarah Palin® right now." (Aaron Sorkin, screenwriter, "The Social Network")

("Sarah Palin" is a registered trademark -- or it will be, presumably, as soon as the former Mayor of Wasilla and former half-term Governor of Alaska re-submits her application to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. The first time, last November 5th, she neglected to sign it. And just to show that certain traits are inherited, her daughter did the same thing when applying to register "Bristol Palin.")