The Post about My Favorite Authors December 22nd

I had a conversation with a friend online yesterday, and a small chunk of it was devoted to books. That inspired me to fill a blank page with some suggestions for last-minute shopping for the book lover on your list. Most of the following was blatantly stolen from a web page I wrote way back when, so don’t bother pursuing that plagiarism charge - concentrate on trying to bust me for being too beautiful for the web.
That being said, aside from a preference for mystery writers you'll also notice there's only a few females on my list. I don't intentionally seek out male writers and I've read great books written by women. Either I have an unconscious sexist agenda, or it's all a big coincidence. You decide :).

My Picks -

ROBERT B PARKER - From the first time I read Parker, I was hooked. While I read everything he writes (and we‘re naming my first son Parker; seriously), the Spenser novels remain his calling card. EARLY AUTUMN is arguably my favorite book of all time, and aside from the ever-annoying Susan, you really can't go wrong with a Spenser novel. Two cautions: I‘ve heard that both of Parker‘s sons are gay, so as of late he‘s shown a tendency to make every other tough guy a homosexual. It doesn‘t bother me, except it‘s timing paints it as an effort to validate his kids, which shouldn‘t be necessary. Secondly, if Parker has a weakness, its that all his protagonists are Spenser clones. Sunny Randall, Jesse Stone, Wyatt Earp - put them in Boston with an annoying girlfriend and you've got Spenser.

LAWRENCE BLOCK - One of my favorite authors, which is ironic, since I can't stand the Burglar series that made him a fortune, or the Evan Tanner books that taught him his trade. Even so, the Scudder novels, with one or two exceptions, are works of art. EIGHT MILLION WAYS TO DIE is one of the best. His non-fiction 'how to write' books are also a joy to read.

BERNARD CORNWELL - a late addition to my favorite list. The Sharpe series expertly blend the Napoleonic era with adventure fiction and the Superman myth. Plus they're just darn good fun to read. The scene in 'Eagle' where Sharpe, fearing court-martial, is instead promoted put a grin on my face for days. The Archer series was in much the same vein. Drawbacks to his writing? Aside from Sharpe's amazing ability to score with a beautiful lady during every battle, nada.

LOUIS LAMOUR - Perhaps the least respected author on this list, Lamour is none-the-less a legend in the western genre, and with good reason. If there' a God in Heaven, the Sackett novels should stay in print forever. Likewise, his autobiographical EDUCATION OF A WANDERING MAN was great; forget the critics that said otherwise. Lamour did write over 100 books in a career that began in his '40's, so expect some repetitious descriptions here and there.

HERMAN WOUK - A literary giant (IMHO) best known for his least literary works, THE WINDS OF WAR. And WAR AND REMEMBRANCE. I love both of the Wind books, but THE CAINE MUTINY COURT MARTIAL, a superb novel in all respects, is my favorite.

MARIO PUZO - Read the first line of Wouk's bio, but substitute 'THE GODFATHER' for 'Winds'. I love his career making novel of the mob - in fact, its the only book I've ever re-read, and with pleasure - but his talent was best seen in lesser known works. THE FORTUNATE PILGRIM is literary to its core (and sometimes to its fault). THE DARK ARENA, a dark gothic tale of post-war Germany, is excellent - although I think he snuck in an unhappy ending just to be 'highbrow'.

DICK FRANCIS - After her death, the former jockey admitted his wife played a large role in writing his mysteries. If that's true, then I've got more than one female among my favorite authors. Each book is set within the world of horse racing, and very few feature the same hero. Francis has his good and bad books, but most are worth their weight in gold. FIELD OF THIRTEEN, LONGSHOT, and DRIVING FORCE are my favorites.

LAWRENCE SANDERS - Forget the awful (and popular) Archie McNally series. I love the late Sanders for his "Deadly Sin" books. The original was the best - the well crafted page-turner, THE FIRST DEADLY SIN.

BEVERLY CLEARLY - Yes, she's a children's author. HENRY AND RIBSY was the first book of length I ever read, way back in first grade, and I gobbled up her Henry Huggins and Ramona series. I'll be sure to pass on her books to my own children.

MICHAEL CONNELLY - Prone to forced plots and absurd twists, he's still a great mystery read - in fact, you don't realize how crazy it was until after you've finished and recommended it. BLOOD WORK is among his best, although the movie was boring.

ROBERT CRAIS - His Elvis Cole mysteries are Spenser rip-offs for a younger audience, but they are well written and almost - almost - as good as a RB Parker book. LA REQUIEM is the best so far.

TERRY GOODKIND - Hey, normally I hate the fantasy genre. Hate it, hate it, hate it -but I love Goodkind. His SWORD OF TRUTH series is great, although he could stand to lay off some of the intense sado-machistic (sp?) scenes. If that last part didn't scare ya (and it shouldn't) then try picking up one of the series. They're all pretty good.

ROBERT JORDAN - Yeah, yeah. I still dislike the fantasy genre, but a friend hooked me on Jordan's Wheel of Time series. Each one is as thick as a phone book, and they really need to be read in order to be appreciated. But the man can write.

JOHN SANDFORD - The PREY novels are excellent and feature the self-assured, violent but moral characters that I'm drawn to. Check out EYES OF PREY, in my opinion the best of the bunch.

ED MCBAIN - The pseudonym of Evan Hunter, McBain's 87th Precinct novels are universally recognized as the original - and best - police procedurals out there. He was the print inspiration for shows like NYPD Blue and Hill Street Blues. Almost all of the 50+ books are great, but I favor WIDOWS and ICE. (under Hunter's byline, my favorite is The Moment she was Gone. Excellent!)

RUDYARD KIPLING - CAPTAINS COURAGEOUS is a sentimental favorite, as is his oft-quoted poem IF. SOLDIERS THREE ain't half bad either :)

STEVEN PRESSFIELD - An author that, in my opinion, either swings and misses or hits a home run. GATES OF FIRE is a novel about the battle of Thermopylae, where 300 Spartan warriors held off the Persian army until they died to the last man. It was a battle that arguably saved Western civilization, and the novel does it great justice. His latest novel about Alexander the Great THE VIRTUES OF WAR, is also quite good.

MINETTE WALTERS - Finally, a female author that ranks as one of my faves! As an Englishwoman Walters not only embraces, but accepts as par for the course a highly socialized welfare state. This is rather hard for an American to swallow, so be prepared. A strong sense of social responsibility pervades her work. So far, my favorite is THE SHAPE OF SNAKES.

ROBERT HEINLEIN - The master of science fiction. His posthumous GRUMBLES FROM THE GRAVE is a great look into the life of a writer, and STARSHIP TROOPERS is a compact novel that didn't deserve the bad movie it inspired.

DEAN KOONTZ - You know, I’ve read a dozen of his books and he still leaves me . .conflicted. I think he tries too hard to prove himself, almost like he’s a self-educated man trying to validate himself to the folks with a degree on their wall (which is odd, as I know he’s well educated). Anyways, maybe I’m crazy. If you like his work, almost any book will do.

STEPHEN KING - I’m not part of his fan club, and I think he’s one of the most over-rated popular writers and a stinking Sox fan to boot, BUT …THE STAND and THE SHINING are brutal, wonderful works of art. Just try reading THE SHINING while sitting in a hotel lobby in the middle of the night, I dare ya. If you like involved, multi-character novels, THE STAND is for you.

MARK BILLINGHAM - Detective procedurals set in London. Grim, violent work with a strong lead character. Try SCAREDYCAT on for size.

LEE CHILD - Extremely well written tales involving Reacher a strong, violent man of unflinching morals with a tendency to land in hot water. Do you see a pattern here? Skip the newest, as it’s a poor stab at a Republican conspiracy plot, but every other title under his name is worth more than a look.

* I’ve only read one book by this author so I can’t list him as a favorite, but if you want a disturbing book to go along with that holiday cheer, pick up THE BONE PARADE by Mark Nykanen. NOT NOT for the faint of heart. The main character makes Hannibal Lector look innocent.

BRUCE CATTON - The man knew the Civil War inside and out, and his writing made you want to read everything he had to say about it. As the subject of his books sometimes overlapped a loyal reader will see some repetition, but overall, a master of his art. Pick up MR. LINCOLN'S ARMY or GRANT MOVES SOUTH to start.

PETER STRAUB - A Milwaukee boy done good. Excellent novels, most set in the horror genre. Pick up KOKO or my favorite GHOST STORY.

DONALD HARSTAD - Hope I spelled that right. A retired Iowa sheriff’s deputy, Harstad now writes wonderful police procedurals set in an Iowa county. I can’t come up with a title off the top of my head, but everything I’ve read is worth a purchase.

Have fun, and happy reading!

The Post about the Person of the Year December 20th

As I'm sure you've already heard, Time magazine has named George W Bush its Person of the Year.

I will now pause briefly to allow the liberals among us a moment to weep, wail, punch the wall, and draw a Hitleresque mustache on the cover after canceling their subscriptions. Now take a deep breath.

All better now? Good. Let's move on.

But of course the left can't move on, a fact so tiring my piddly wit can't find the strength to make the obvious moveon.org pun. In the scant hours since the announcement I've read four five scathing attacks on the decision, most coupled with a condescending brush-off of the award itself.

Yes, I'm aware Stalin won the award twice, thank you. I also know that Hitler won it once, as did Khomeini and Khrushchev. After all, sainthood is not a prerequisite. The title goes to the person who had the deepest impact, good or bad, in a given year.

Which explains how Ted Turner got on the cover in 1991

If Bush wasn't chosen for his humanitarian efforts, as Gandhi was in 1930, he also wasn't picked as an excuse to waste an issue justifying the left's hatred. According to the editors Bush sharpened the political debate "until the choices bled" and was chosen for "reframing reality to match his design, for gambling his fortunes - and ours - on his faith in the power of leadership."

Bush won the award in part because he is a polarizing figure, inspiring adoration in one person and disgust in the next, and all the while never catering his decisions to the wishes of the latest Gallop poll. He is quite possibly the only man in the world to live up to the idea that we are not judged by who are friends are, but who we count as our enemies.

"I think the natural instinct for most people . . .is that they want people to like them," Bush said in the issue. "On the other hand . . .I take kind of a delight in who the critics are."

One of those critics, Michael Moore, was a finalist for the title and a better - or more aptly named - loser there has never been. John Kerry, who no doubt would have earned the nod if not for sixty million Americans, was named among the People who Mattered, a diverse list that included Nancy Reagan and Kobe Bryant.

It's not surprising to see that polarization come bursting back to life for a trifling thing like a magazine cover. What is surprising to me - and Lord knows, by now it should be old hat - is the amount of hate that transcends the political arena and leaks into the personal.

Included in the liberal attacks I mentioned above are references to the 'triumph of the short-bus students' and yes, I called it, a copy of the Time issue with a Hitler mustache. My, what an excellent advertisement for the party of tolerance and diversity.

You can argue this all you want, but anyone who blames their hatred on Iraq, 9/11, or the economy is a liar. Had the election of 2000 been clear-cut things would be different. The President may not have had any more fans, but at least the average Democrat wouldn't be sulking like a spoiled child.

But of course, they're free to feel and express what they like.

As for me, I'm off to buy a few copies of Time for the ol' scrapbook.

 

[fyi - if you want the complete list of winners, click here]

The Post about Kerik December 18th

This one's for the author of  cantkeepquiet.com, who posted a commentary entitled 'hypocrites' about the Kerik situation. Go ahead and check out the site, and when you do make sure to tell her I sent you his way. I'm not sure my contribution here refutes any of her claims, but what the heck.

 

 

It takes a lot for a newspaper headline to surprise me.

After all, having survived OJ, Monica, Bush/Gore, and the success of The OC in the last ten years alone, I'd thought I'd seen it all.

And then came Bernard Kerik.

One week after the announcement that he was the President's pick to head the Department of Homeland Security, Kerik suddenly withdrew his nomination. He claimed that the immigration status of his family's nanny, and his failure to properly pay her taxes, led to his decision. Maybe. But that's turned out to be the least of a seemingly endless parade of lurid and disturbing allegations.

Kerik, the former NYPD Commissioner, allegedly accepted thousands of dollars in cash and gifts without properly disclosing them and maintained an adulterous relationship with two women at the same time. He's also reported to have ties to a man suspected of being in the mob, stalked a former lover, used an apartment designated for 9/11 workers to wield his romantic magic, and used his position to impair the careers of anyone that crossed one of his lady friends.

Wow. Add a few more charges to the mix and the man could pass for a Kennedy.

But I feel I have to confess something. I knew about Kerik and kept quiet.

You see, everything I know about the New York Police Department I learned from watching Barney Miller and NYPD Blues. So when I heard about Kerik's nomination I thought back to the only image I had of him - 9/11 - and thought he was an excellent choice. Tough, seasoned, politically savvy - what wasn't to like?

A day or two later I stumbled on a web site whose name I can't recall. It had nothing to do with politics or NY at all, but the day's commentary was about Mr. Kerik. The site's author had worked under him in one menial capacity or the other, and for about a thousand words he proceeded to unload on his old boss. At the time I thought it was just sour grapes, but clean up thelanguage a bit and it could have doubled for most of the news reports of the past week.

Oops.

The obvious question is this: if someone in Milwaukee could discover the truth with a rusty 56k modem, why couldn't Washington?

I think the answer lies with that first, patriotic image I had of Kerik. Three years after the fact our images of a smoke filled New York remain vivid, the heroes of the day all the more so because they stood in such contrast to the harsh world that we inherited on that September morning. In the best of circumstances it's hard to see our heroes for the human beings they are. When that human being is as flawed and corrupt as Kerik allegedly is, it becomes all but impossible to comprehend the gulf between reality and caricature. That, and the ringing endorsement of Rudy Guilani, were enough to blind the administration to his faults.

That's no excuse. The careless vetting of Kerik made the Bush White House look foolish and kept the press jumping for a week. And while I doubt Kerik would ever have endangered the country had he been confirmed, it's frightening to think of what other scenarios a slip-shod screening could produce.

In the end, Kerik will land another job, the Bush White House will move on and those responsible for the mistake will learn from it and make the screening process impregnable. Washington D.C will survive.

It's a shame some of our faith in heroes won't.

The Post about Christmas Cards December 16th

This year my wife and I mailed seventy-one Christmas cards to the usual assortment of friends and family. Each card included a personalized note, a smartly printed label, a professional photo of my children, and a subtle but strategically placed holiday sticker on each envelope.

In return we've received fourteen cards, one of which is from a tobacco company that wished us a Happy Kwanza.

If I was prone to rationalization - which normally, I am - I'd label this evidence of a dip in Christmas card giving overall, or proof of the decline of snail-mail in the internet age.

Of course that wouldn't explain why I had to wait in line at the post-office for forty minutes behind scores of people mailing their cards.

So I'm inclined to take this as a personal affront. It certainly can't be directed at my kids, not unless you know them like I do. And my wife could be the source of the boycott, if it wasn't for the fact that no one is foolish enough to cross her. Therefore, it has to be me.

And it hurts people. It does.

Oh, it's not about the cards. Truth be told I rarely read them, other than to note the sender and make sure they spelled my last name correctly (how is it that people in your own family - people that share your name, can spell it wrong every year?).

Now, I used to read them all, back when I was fresh faced and young and thought it was oh-so special to have Great Aunt Sally send you a Christmas card at your very own address.

A few years into it you notice that there are only four or five varieties of cards in circulation in any given year, each one saying the same thing. That starts the decline.

Then the fateful year comes when you look at your empty wallet and stoop to mailing out the ten-for-a-dollar cards from the discount store. You hope no one notices your shame.

Whereupon you realize that while Mom receives the top of the line cards each Yuletide, those same people annually mail you the rinky-dink single ply cards you're holding in your hands.

No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus.

But as I said it's not about the cards. It's about economics, a simple matter of exchanging value for value. If I may have a moment:

The cards themselves were on sale for perhaps a dollar each.

The stamps totaled $26.27.

The stickers really don't count, as we purchased them on triple clearance.

No such luck with the photos, which cost $50, not including the incidentals like dresses, shoes, and hair bows.

The time wasted in line at the post office? Priceless.

So, conservatively, we're looking at a total investment of around $150. That boils down to more than two bucks a person. Is it so much to ask that I get even a teensy-weensy card in return?

My wife, ever the voice of reason in things not involving Oprah or the New Kids, says I'm overreacting. According to her it's a matter of reaching out to loved ones you otherwise have no contact with to tell them "we still aren't divorced, and by the way we've bred again."

She has a point. So what if I don't get a card from five-sixths of the people I thought important enough to put on my list. It's not the end of the world, and it doesn't mean I'm not loved. I'll still send them all a card next year.

Provided they reimburse me my two bucks.

The Post about My Ideology December 14th

I’ve been wandering all over blog-dom in the last month, perusing what people around the globe have to say.

My conclusion? Thank heavens for the computer age, because it can’t be healthy to keep this stuff bottled up.

There are sites about pets, and sites ‘written’ by pets. There are Republican blogs, Democrat blogs, blogs about blogs, blogs about blogs about blogs, transgender blogs, gay blogs, straight blogs, and blogs about nothing. There is even a site (purportedly) written by a one year old boy, which if true means my three year old is a slacker and good for nothing.

(Which is something my wife and I have always suspected, but try to keep on the down-low)

But not once, did I ever feel I got to know what that person truly believed about the things that mattered.

And when you get right down to it, it’s important to know whether the author of a site favors Biggie or Tupac. Wars have been fought over less.

So in the interest of partial disclosure I present my Rambling List of Personal Ideology, Ranging from the Divine to the Absurd with little Order and even Less Sense, vol. 1

I‘m a Catholic, for many reasons. Among these are what I call the two Hollywood rules: whatever its faults, the original is better than any remakes. And when all is lost and the devil is loose in the world, who shows up in the movies to set things right? It ain’t the Mormons, brother.

I believe in absolute honesty and sensible social lies.

I am truly bothered by the idea that Tony Soprano might be killed off before he gets a chance to redeem himself, and wonder whether God takes things like that into account.

I believe Oswald killed Kennedy.

I think M*A*S*H was the best sitcom ever, and prefer Trapper to BJ, Colonel Potter to Blake, and Winchester to Burns.

I think Friends takes second place, and firmly believe Chandler rocks.

I think when a political party chooses an ass as a mascot it tells you everything you need to know.

I prefer Laurel and Hardy to Abbott and Costello, werewolves to vampires, and the Captain to Tenille.

I think Burger King burgers are better than McDonald’s, Wendy’s is better than both, and McDonald’s fries trump all.

I think Kate Winslet is the sexiest woman in Hollywood, and am eternally grateful that she removes her clothes in 80% of her movies.

I think that sometimes the quickest way out is through.

Personally, I go with Tupac.

I think baseball is the greatest sport of all time, followed by football, boxing, basketball, and hockey, in that order.

Soccer, when erroneously called a sport, ranks last.

I am the only person on the earth who can say he likes every type of music - and mean it.

I think the New Kids on the Block are the best boy band ever, and that Jordan Knight was their most talented member.

I prefer DC comics to Marvel, but favor Spider-Man over Superman. Go figure.

I prefer Conan to Leno and Kelly over Kathie Lee.

Of the hundreds of books I’ve read in my lifetime, the only one I’ve read twice is The Godfather.

Titanic is the first of two movies I’ve seen more than once in the theater. I saw it thirteen times.

Gladiator is the second. I saw it three times.

I believe human teeth are the only flaw in God’s design.

And finally, and most importantly in the whole scheme of things:

I think the Godfather would wipe his ass with Tony Montana.

The Post about the Reserves December 12th

The older I get, the more I worry that there are no true solutions to a problem, only temporary course adjustments.

The formula is always the same. A problem is evident, and a solution - innovative or tried and true, it doesn't matter - is put into action. The trouble is solved and great praise is bestowed. Twenty years later that panacea has created its own difficulties and the cycle beings again.

What we're seeing in Iraq is the end/beginning of a cycle.

After Vietnam Chief of Staff Creighton Abrams was charged with overhauling the troubled Army as it switched to an all-volunteer service. He reduced it in size, but he also implemented a fundamental change in its organization. Abrams believed Vietnam had gone wrong partly because we were able to wage a war with a bare bones contribution from the Reserves - which, to his mind, slowed the impact of the war on the middle class and necessary debate on the war. His reorganization of the Army ensured that any future war would necessitate activating the reserves.

It worked. In both the Gulf War and Iraq, whether you agree with the war or not, action was preceded by public debate and congressional approval.

But this newfound reliance on the reserve system has strained the patience - and performance - of some Army units. In October reservists from a South Carolina unit refused orders to drive a convoy because it was too dangerous.

Last week eight U.S. soldiers and reservists filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the Army's stop-loss policy, another 'correction' of Vietnam policy. Unlike Vietnam, where units were depleted of experience and leadership by a policy of rotation, soldiers are sometimes required to remain with their units past their scheduled return.

And this week Spc.Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat team (a unit comprised mainly of Army National Guardsmen) openly confronted the Secretary of Defense about a lack of armored vehicles- to the loud applause of his unit. It was later discovered that a journalist had secretly coached Wilson.

I don't doubt that the vast majority of reservists are patriotic Americans doing their duty. And I don't mean to minimize the sacrifice they make by leaving their families behind for months and even years; after all, it was a sacrifice I was unwilling to make in the years of peace that followed my eighteenth birthday.

But the truth is that it's an army and not a means of paying for college or making an extra buck. If you aren't prepared to be called to active duty, then it would be wise not to enlist. If you are unwilling to accept that 'fairness' is largely absent in war and you may be forced to stay longer than you thought, then it would be wise not to enlist. If you do not have the vague notion in your head that a whole lot of missions are dangerous and could get you killed (even if you're only driving a truck), then it would be wise not to enlist.

[This might land me in hot water, but if your character precludes showing the Secretary of Defense his due respect, and you prefer to turn a courtesy visit into a carnival at the request of a reporter, then kindly choose not to enlist.]

It's time to re-examine the Army's organization. Abrams was right - reserve units do hold a special place in America's heart. But while in the past Americans may have needed a kick in the pants to question a war; we've grown bitter and cynical and perhaps, smarter. We don't need that extra incentive, not at the expense of morale.

And in an era where the Army is called to work miracles under the glare of an antagonistic media, maybe it's best if that work was done by personnel who do it 24/7/365.

One Month!

Today is the one- month anniversary of this site. So far I've had 2406 visitors.

Impressive, but most come from Blog Explosion, which mean they're staying for the minimum required time and moving on.

Even so, fourteen people on BE have chosen to bookmark Slapinions, which is fourteen more people than I'd have reading it otherwise. And twenty-two people on BE have chosen to rate my site on a 1 to 10 scale. As of this writing I have a 6.86 rating, which is pretty good considering my site is as visually appealing as Bea Arthur.

I'm trying to add the Haloscan comments as recommended below. In the meantime, these are the comments that are strictly from BE users and not visible to mere common folk:

You can only comment if you have an AOL account, which I don't, but I liked your Giambi post. Pretty gross the way they screw up their bodies. What the hell do guys that make 100K on the bench need a union for?

purplezebra | 00:25 December 4th, 2004 | 0 Replies | Report | Delete

I agree with the second comment

amb3589 | 20:37 December 3rd, 2004 | 0 Replies | Report | Delete

I was not able to comment on your post "The One about Giambi" I just wanted to leave a comment to say I agree 100%. I really think that all of his health problems are due to steroids. I hope that the health issue becomes the big thing in all of this. Life and death is certainly bigger than baseball, and this truely is a life and death issue...

PeterMan | 17:02 December 3rd, 2004 | 0 Replies | Report | Delete

I agree with the first comment. Mainly political blog, but not insulting like many other political blogs I've run into.

I suggest changing the comment format, since it forces you to sign up for an AOL Journals account. I myself recently switched from a members-only comment account (Blogger) to the universal Halocan, and I've found that people are more willing to comment on my posts now.

Oh, and you must be the only other person on Earth besides me who knows about Donnie Wahlberg's rap from "No More Games"! I presume you're talking about the original version of "No More Games", not the C&C Music Factory version...

kaonashi | 22:53 November 29th, 2004 | 0 R#eplies | Report | Delete

Very well written blog. Largely concerned with politcs, but doesn't rant. Content with about a PG-13 content for very light adult references. (Things like "Yoda" sex comments.)

Oftencold | 02:26 November 22nd, 2004 | 0 Replies | Report | Delete

 

 

Until the comments are up and running, I'd like to ask a favor. If you are a repeat visitor to the site, or plan on being one, drop me a line at Slapinions@aol.com and tell me. I'd like to get some sense of who's reading my stuff, and will post your name and (if you have one) your url in a future post.

The One about The ID Policy December 9th

I was buying cigarettes at the grocery store the other day when the clerk asked to see my ID.

Yes, I smoke. Get over it.

Now I'd heard about the new store policy that says clerks are required to look at the ID of anyone purchasing alcohol or tobacco. I knew that on paper their policy was to card everyone, regardless of age, rather than face the wrath of our litigious society. I just didn't believe that this 'ideal' would carry over into the real world, where common sense insists that the grandmother at the counter might just be old enough to tip one back.

But apparently, these people actually read the memos on the break room wall.

I must admit to being a little put out. I'm long past the point where being carded makes you feel cool and grownup, but I'm also too young to find it flattering. I can see questioning me over liquor, but cigarettes? I was old enough to buy them before the checkout girl was born.

And it's not like I don't look my age. I had two days worth of stubble - which for any other man would be a week's growth - and thinning hair. I had two kids in my cart. I wear a wedding ring. I was paying with a credit card. And if that wasn’t enough, the Eisenhower/Nixon T-shirt really should have been a tip-off.

In retrospect, it doesn't seem like they asked the world. But if you've ever tried to keep two toddlers quiet and happy at a grocery store, you can appreciate how desperate a thirty second delay can be. A weeks worth of cigarettes do less damage to my health and well being.

I understand that a company has to protect its financial well-being, but more and more it seems to be at the expense of logic and responsibility. If my kids purchased cigarettes illegally, but without gross negligence - in other words, if they didn’t manage to do it at age ten - then my beef wouldn’t be with the store, it’d be with my kids.

Alcohol is a different story. Unlike tobacco it has immediate consequences, not only for the consumer but for people on the road. It makes sense to tighten sales policy, although I don’t see how you can justify going to the extreme the store has.

Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. doesn’t see it that way.

In a column published in the December 9th Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel takes issue with the ribbing the policy has been taking.

Those who have hang-ups with [the] policy have apparently neither lost a child nor been at the scene of a violent crash involving alcohol . . . I don’t find anything funny about notifying a parent that their son or daughter is dead. . . . That cashier . . .may be saving your son or daughter’s life. Do you find that incontinent?

Well, Gosh, now I feel bad. I mean here I sit, without a single casualty (knock on wood) to use to score cheap points in a debate. And you know, maybe he’s right. Maybe it’s not all about liability and twisting common sense on its head. Maybe it’s a humanitarian effort. All those ideas about how the policy essentially forgoes enforcing a perfectly good law in favor of an overboard stance . . .

What can I say? I was wrong.

No one is in favor of underage drinking. So prevent it by doing your job and carding anyone twenty-five or even thirty. I’m fine with that.

Just leave the chain smoking grandma’s alone.

Ugh

I tried and failed to load haloscan comments into the site. I'll contact them and see if it's even possible.

In the meantime, the entry below is in response to a question from Sarah Jakubowski. If you have any questions, comments, etc and can't access the pathetically limited comments section here, feel free to drop me a line at slapinions@aol.com

Enjoy.

 

The One about Belling

If someone had come up to me two months ago and said that my homestate of Wisconsin would be the center of a media controversy, I'd have laughed in her face. Remember, I'm barely old enough to remember Reagan's first term, yet I have clear memories of a sock puppet - yes, a sock puppet - doing the weather forecast on Milwaukee's CBS affiliate. And while the puppet has long since retired, that's still about as risqué as the local media gets around here.

Had that prediction been made, I'd be eating a lot of crow for the holidays.

As of this writing there have been not one, but three separate incidents involving radio talk show hosts in Milwaukee and Madison. Conservative Mark Belling was suspended for five days following his use of the term 'wetbacks'. Madison host John Sylvester faced criticism for calling Condoleeza Rice "Aunt Jemima", and former Milwaukee Alderman Michael McGee was suspended recently for uttering the F word on air.

I've heard discussions on free speech, censorship, FCC regulations, and corporate responsibility that have been spawned by these episodes. That's lovely, but I think they all miss the boat. Do you know why none of this - not the original 'sins' or the subsequent arguments - have inspired me? Because, when it comes down to it this is nothing more then a case of three men filling seconds of airtime with a lousy, ignorant choice of words. Fine them, suspend them, or fire them as the incident warrants, but please spare me the talk of lofty ideals. I don't buy it.

On the other hand, there is some validity to the claim that the 'liberal' media crucified Belling while ignoring the excesses of its own poster boy. But not for the reasons you think.

Yes, there's a wonderful staged atmosphere to the Belling affair. Following his statement the station received only a "couple" of complaints. By their own admission, many of the Mexican-American groups that protested Belling first heard about it days after the fact, from Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporters looking for (and creating?) a story. And subsequent efforts to have Belling's employer fund Community Centers and college programs to 'make amends' smacks of selfish exploitation.

But when it comes down to it, Belling said the word, and it was inevitable that it would be reported. Mark Belling is a household name in Wisconsin. John Sylvester is not. Mark Belling filled in for Rush Limbaugh nation wide. If John Sylvester has ever broadcast nationally at all, it's not common knowledge.

Put yourself in the media's shoes: if you had two nearly identical stories, one featuring Pam Grier and the other Julia Roberts, which would you play up?

Moreover, Belling's remarks were off the cuff. Sylvester's reek of self-publicity. It's just possible that the media - for once - recognized the truth and buried the story, only to have it dragged front and center by conservatives.

[McGee, by the way, had been the subject of a legal investigation prior to his suspension. Because of this, it's impossible to draw him into these comparisons; the station probably looks at the obscenity as a Godsend]

And you know what? This might have done both Belling and the state some good. Belling has a solidified and angry base at his beck and call. And coming as it did in the wake of the election, he absorbed a lot of the venom of an angry Blue-State electorate - sparing his own supporters the wrath of the left.

Still, it makes you long for the days of the sock puppet, doesn't it?