Tomorrow is the long-awaited return of Don Geronimo to the Don & Mike Show after the tragic accident which resulted in the death of Don’s wife, Freda. Every fan of the show knows Freda, of course, and the news of her death was a shock to us all.

I’ve really appreciated all the wonderful comments I’ve been getting here related to the couple of posts I put up regarding the tragedy. I’ve learned that the vast majority see things the same way; we love the show, we care about Don & Mike, and we mourned the death of a bright and beautiful woman whom we had the pleasure of knowing through the show.

What will Don say tomorrow? I have NO idea and I find myself not really worrying about it. Don will say whatever he’s going to say. We’ll know when we know, and that’s good enough for me.

I’ve missed him and I think it’s quite obvious that Mike, Buzz, and crew have missed him too. The show has gone on, but the chemistry that makes the show so good has been missing. Together, these two are greater than the sum of their parts.

One last comment regarding bizarre comments that have been made here and elsewhere related to Freda’s blood alcohol level at the time of the accident. Let me first say I have heard NO news reports commenting that this was even and issue; not one! So, unless I hear otherwise, I’m of the mind that we have some slimy excuses for humans out there speculating on things that are, ultimately, just a bunch of bull.

Freda was struck, head on, by a Ford Explorer which swerved into her lane to avoid a 10-car pileup! In addition, the driver was 22, very young and very inexperienced or, obviously, he would have known better than to swerve into oncoming traffic, as opposed to the side of the road.

Please stop the comments regarding the myth of her BAC, okay? Obviously, anyone who thinks this makes for interesting conversation is ignorant. Those who have commented here at my web site, as well as other sites just don’t seem to realize how horrible they are making themselves look.

The fact is, you are looking, sounding, and acting stupid if you are out there making such comments. Think about it.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

My wife and I were able to find a babysitter and escape for a movie last night. We saw “Must Love Dogs,” which we both enjoyed. I’m a longtime Cusack fan.

Anyway, Julie and I went in to the theatre before getting any concessions. After we found a seat, I went back out to the concession area to get a soda for us. When it was my turn, I told the guy behind the counter, “a diet please.”

I love that about getting a diet soda, by the way. You just order a “diet” and you avoid that annoying question, “is Diet Pepsi/Coke okay?” When I ask for a “diet,” I’m simply saying, “give me whatever diet you’ve got.” Simple!

This time, however, I was in for a surprise. He looked back and asked, “caffeine free or regular?” I paused, confused but not confused. I knew that they had caffeine free regular and diet, I just wasn’t prepared to have my streamlined request process challenged.

So I said to him, “Regular Diet” please. See how quickly I can adjust to change?

But it sounded so STRANGE. Regular Diet?

Then I had a vision of one day walking up to that same counter and having to say something fancy, similar to what I hear at Starbucks all the time. Instead of having to say something like, “I’ll take a grande half-caf mocha latte with skim; no foam,” I’ll have to say something like, “I’ll take a large half-cal, no caff, classic zero with lime; no foam.”

It could happen, and I hate getting all fancy over a drink! Sighhh… Even ordering soda is complicated these days.

The other day, a good friend of mine sent me a link to an article in the LA Times entitled, You’re not good enough! Human evolution is now being engineered. Choose to enhance yourself or face inferiority, by Joel Garreau of the Washington Post. Mr Garreau is the author of a newly published book, “Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies — and What It Means to Be Human” At first, I thought the whole thing was a joke.

Let me offer an amusing tidbit from the article:

In the next few years, your child will come home from school in tears. He’ll say, once again, that he is unable to compete with the children who are brighter, better behaved and physically more capable than he is because their parents have bought them technological enhancements and you have not. What will you do?

In the next few years?! I don’t think so!

Anyone who thinks that we’ll begin seeing “enhanced” or “augmented” humans in the next few years, scientist or otherwise, needs to begin practicing what I like to call “reality-based thinking.” Several years back, as we were on the verge of finally mapping the human genome, the same cry went out… “We are going to enhance human life, wipe out disease, cure cancer, give everyone built-in antennae for better digital television reception!” Okay, not that last thing, but everything else definitely.

So, what have you heard SINCE we finished mapping our DNA? Very little, right?

That’s because, when we were done, we wound up with more questions than answers. We mapped the human genome and we learned, basically, that we don’t know a hell of a lot more than we thought we didn’t know. If that makes any sense. You could almost hear the cry of scientists and politicians everywhere as they raised a collective “D’OH!” regarding what they had learned.

The good news is, we took a huge leap forward in our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. The bad news is, don’t expect to see the benefits of that leap for another couple of decades at least.

Advanced technology almost always works that way. Profound breakthroughs lead to promising new directions for research, which lead to, at first, modest gains, then, over time, exponentially greater gains.

Sorry, but that’s just the way this kind of thing typically works.

Here are a few essential points to remember:

• “Simple Solutions” Thinking - People seem to think that simple genetic enhancements can be made with few, if any, resulting effects on other systems. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nature has shown us already that extremes can carry radical effects which are both positive and negative. So, we engineer a smarter baby, but they all die in the first five years of life from the common cold. That scenario is far more likely than the rosy one painted by Mr. Garreau.
• “Intelligent Design” vs. “Engineered Evolution” - Mr. Garreau seems to think that we are now poised to “self evolve.” But examples like the one mentioned are a better argument for “Intelligent Design” than for any form of evolution. That’s what we are talking about here, manipulating our genetic makeup with a special plan or design in mind, which is exactly what some scientists are now calling Intelligent Design Theory. I love debating on this issue because, almost invariably, people will say something like, “by manipulating genes and other structures in certain organisms, or even by breeding out special populations of dogs, horses, cows, sheep, etc., we demonstrate how evolution works.” My reply? “Ummm… Actually, you are demonstrating how Intelligent Design works. All those changes occurred solely because they were manufactured. So how does manufacturing an outcome prove that a blind, mindless process could create similar changes?” Funny, I never seem to get a good answer to that question.
• Simplifying the Complex & Vice Versa - People LOVE to make simple things complex and complex things simple, don’t they? Our genetic makeup is enormously complex, yet we think we can tweak a gene here and there and get EXACTLY the results we want. Dream on! On the other hand, with simple issues, like the First Amendment, which is all of one sentence, we have created enormous complexity. The press should get unlimited freedom, and pornographers too, but people of faith can only express their views at home. We all have the right to express our point of view, unless it offends someone, then you’ve crossed the lines of free speech.

Overall, I think we need to avoid both the kind of arrogance that has led to ecological disasters throughout the world as well as undue optimism regarding what the short and long-term benefits of new genetic technologies will bring. In the end, it’s more likely that most of the benefits we realize won’t be what we had intended in the first place.

Okay, I’ve gone on long enough. Suffice it to say, our children — and our children’s children too — will NOT be coming to us crying because those “enhanced” children are outperforming them. For now, my money remains on the good old “Mark I” human.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Howard Kurtz, who publishes an online column which I highly recommend called Media Notes at WashingtonPost.com, noted this very interesting occurrence on the day President Bush announced John Roberts as his nominee to the US Supreme Court:

At1:27 a.m. yesterday, the Guerilla Women of Tennessee weighed in on President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee.

“John Roberts: Married to Anti-Choice Org VP,” the group’s Web site blared. Another site, A Liberal Dose , asked: “Why does John G. Roberts Hate Our Soldiers?”

And Feministing.com made no attempt at subtlety: “Why John Roberts Sucks.”

The lightning-quick attacks came after 50 top liberal bloggers joined in a 45-minute conference call Tuesday night. “On the left, we’ve always talked about the need to have an echo chamber,” says John Aravosis, a Washington lawyer and gay activist who writes at Americablog.com . “We believe the right has a whole media network, from talk radio to Fox News to Matt Drudge. The left doesn’t have that because the left doesn’t play well with others…”

Such coordination seems to defy the image of bloggers as iconoclastic lone rangers, pounding the keyboards in their bedrooms and basements without regard to interest-group politics. Bloggers, after all, come from all walks of life, building a following on the strength of their words and ability to draw attention from other Web diarists.

I agree. At the same time, I’m not at all surprised. As a matter of fact, I mentioned this possible new trend back in mid-February and Mr. Kurtz wound up pulling a quote from that same post for his show on CNN.

The whole point of that original post, “Bloglust,” was to express my concern regarding this growing sense of power among liberal and conservative bloggers. Blogs have REAL influence, and they’ve demonstrated that influence over and over again. But I was concerned then and now that Blogs might try to, in a sense, ‘unionize’ and create false issues in order to help a particular party or candidate.

The mainstream media already does enough of that. It would be better, in my opinion, if blogs simply stuck to whatever mattered to them rather than what matters to some politician and/or interest group in DC.

The influence of the Blogosphere is most apparent when bloggers move away from their random comments and articles and move suddenly into alignment on what are often unexpected issues. Such alignment, as most of us in the Blogosphere know, is called a “Swarm,” and swarms should occur naturally, because bloggers CHOOSE to highlight an issue rather than PLAN to highlight an issue.

Joining a conference call in order to hear certain groups or politicians offer their opinion is fine. Joining a conference call, however, to plan a central blogging strategy in order to create an artificial swarm is just plain silly. And fruitless if you ask me.

I love blogging because I love writing about what I want to write about. If I suddenly had to align myself to someone else strategy, that would just suck the fun right out of all of this. And it is for that reason that artificial swarms are likely to be ineffectual in the long run… Most bloggers just don’t enjoy reading from a script.

Just so you know, I like the swarm concept. That is, I like it when it’s about REAL issues, real deception, real media or political BS… As opposed to what we have in the case of Roberts’ nomination, which is more of a “duhhhhh!” than anything else.

Of course President Bush is going to nominate a conservative judge for the Supreme Court!

If you are shocked by that, then go get yourself a real education. However, if you want a better issue to harp on, just read through Kurtz’s column. Here’s a good one:

Did the Bush team put out misinformation on that crazy Tuesday to steer reporters away from John Roberts?

We can’t answer the question definitively because the journalists involved have a Matt Cooper problem — they promised their sources anonymity, regardless of motive. But I can tell you that some of them are ticked and feeling misled…

Now THAT’S interesting!

Why? Because even some conservatives who have close connections to the White House are ticked over this whole thing. The last turnaround that seemed to shock the Washington establishement as much as this one came on November 2, 2004, when everyone was so sure that Senator Kerry was about to win the presidential election.

Liberals love to paint the President as a simpleton. Then something like this happens and everyone does a double-take; which Kurtz highlights for us in his article:

It all could be very innocent — the typical Beltway gossip game where reporters trade information with supposedly wired sources who don’t really know but like to give the impression that they do. Then the media types blurt what they’ve gleaned on television and online and — d’oh ! — look silly when they’re wrong…

The reporters in question relied on outside Republican advisers who work closely with the White House. These advisers, at least one of whom is said to feel used, were saying it was Clement. But the administration had asked Roberts to return from London for a possible announcement the day before , on Monday. Maybe the president was just keeping his options open…

However you slice it, the administration had a good rollout.

I would call Kurtz’s last line a bit of an understatement. The fact is, Democrats in Washington were so thoroughly surprised by the President’s pick that they STILL seem to be a bit off-balance.

This has given the public a chance to see Roberts through perhaps a clearer lens than might otherwise have been the case. The press, not knowing what to say about the guy, has spent the first couple of days after the announcement just showing him to the public. And Roberts cleans up nice, doesn’t he?

All this is a huge advantage for the President, because if Roberts’ nomination goes well and smoothly, it will give the President an advantage when it comes time to replace Rehnquist.

By the way, am I the only one who understands that Roberts’ nomination as an Associate Justice makes it very likely that the next Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court will be a woman? Can you imagine how silly Democrats in Washington will look trying to “Bork” a woman who has been nominated to be the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court in US history?

Is this President good or what?

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

The MSM and liberal bloggers have been going gaga over the thought that perhaps they FINALLY have a White House scandal with teeth in regards to the Plame controversy. Never mind the fact that even some of the most liberal members of the media are now admitting that no crime was committed, there’s still the hope of getting SOMETHING from this whole story.

I’ve seen posts all over the place and heard the incessant harping of the press during White House press briefings. Everyone in the MSM, it seems, is trying to find a new angle on this story, and it’s getting quite ridiculous.

Here is an interesting — and ridiculous too — example of the liberal media’s seeking after new ways to mine this story:

Washington is electrified with the abundant energy of buzz from a scandal — speculation about Rove, about Bush, about Cheney’s aide, Scooter Libby. Who leaked? Who may have lied? How did Novak slip the noose? But the real scandal is the ongoing mess in Iraq, the murder just the other day of innocent children (is there any other kind?) and the false notion that, somehow, taking out Hussein would make us all safer. London gives the lie to that.
Richard Cohen, Washington Post

Interesting segue here, don’t you think? The Plame controversy as a circuitous path towards yet another liberal statement regarding the evils of the Iraq war… Man, these folks are good!

Of course, how do we know that something MORE serious would not have already happened had we NOT taken Saddam out in 2003? Or a second incident in this country, for that matter. Wasn’t Saddam the one who boasted that he was paying $25,000 to the family of every suicide bomber? But, of course, when you are emoting as Mr. Cohen does in his article, there really is little room for reasoned argument.

Let me offer a relevant thought for those who decry the Iraq war and have recently taken to giving us a body count (probably because there are not enough Americans soldiers dying these days to satisfy liberals in the media) of those civilians in Iraq who are being murdered, on a near-daily basis, by the hundreds at the hands of the same people who were killing them in the thousands and tens of thousands BEFORE we invaded… There is a major difference regarding the death of civilians in Iraq now vs. while Saddam was still in power.

What’s the difference? Before we took Saddam out, his murderous henchmen would take their heavy machinery and dig huge long trenches in the desert sand. After digging these trenches, they would line up innocent civilians by the hundreds and thousands, then casually walk down the line and shoot them in the head or chest Nazi-style. Then they would push the sand back in place and move on to dig their next mass grave and reload their weapons for the next random group of civilians.

Today? Saddam’s old henchmen and these suicide bombers hide in the shadows, hoping to kill as many as possible and hoping against hope that they are not killed first. Yes, they kill dozens at a time. At the same time, however, they are no longer the hunters, they are now the hunted. And we know (as do they) that eventually they’ll either die killing other human beings, die in a confrontation with American or Iraqi forces, or be captured and thrown into jail.

As an Iraqi or American citizen, which scenario would you prefer?

Nuff said for now.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Over the past few days, I’ve read several comments related to the fact that the Don & Mike Show was on the air just a day after Freda’s tragic death this past Sunday. Mike O’Meara, Buzz, Charlie, and crew were there, though, of course, Don (AKA, Mike Sorce) was not.

Some seem to feel that it was inappropriate for the show to air on Monday, when the Sorce family, as well as the JFK family, was still reeling from the pain and shock of it all. I have a different opinion.

The fact is, if Mike and crew had not come on the air to tell us what had happened, I might still not know what was going on. If they had simply run “Best Of” reruns, I would have assumed that, perhaps, Don & Mike had just gotten themselves in trouble with management again.

I was very grateful that they came on to tell us what happened and to play back some “Best of Freda” bits. If you are a fan of the show the way I am a fan of the show, you understand that this is the way these guys have ALWAYS worked.

Don & Mike don’t follow “the norm” related to what other shows might do. They don’t shy away from heavy subjects, and they stay closely connected to their listeners (despite what Don might say on the air :-)).

Remember 9/11? I do.

The Don & Mike Show aired. Without a hiccup, without a pause, without even a slight delay. They went on the air, opened up the phones, and just started a dialogue with listeners. It was a dialogue that went on, if I remember correctly, for weeks. They were positively heroic in the way they handled that event.

So, on Monday, Don sent Mike and crew to the station to let us know what happened and to start the dialogue. I was and am grateful for that. They didn’t ignore us and leave us guessing, instead, they did the incredibly difficult thing of coming on the air to tell us what had happened.

So, for those of you who have asked the question, “is this the end of the ‘Don & Mike Show,’” I think you have your answer. Don’t you?

Thanks,

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

When I went to visit the Don & Mike Show Website yesterday, it had been taken down. Probably to prevent a deluge of fans from crashing the site. But I was able to call up a cached version of the site via Google and I found this message from Freda Sorce, penned in October of 2004:

Freda Files

Nearly 15 years later…

It’s been a long time since I’ve written anything except a check. But many years ago,when Bart was a little boy,and sweet,we put out the Don and Mike newsletter. People would write or call in to be on the mailing list and supposedly every month we would do a mass mailing of our little four page newsletter. Every month turned into every few months which became semi-annually until we got tired of it and the mailing list became too long.

We all had columns. There was “Donny-In-The-Afternoon!” and “On the Town with Mike O’Meara” and “Girl Talk with Freda”. Even Buzz,brand new to the show had “Catching a Buzz”. Plus,we had a few pictures,news about the show and sold t-shirts’ all via the good old United States Post Office.

So now that this internet thing seems to be catching on,the webmaster told us that we could accomplish the same thing as the Don and Mike Newsletter with the Don and Mike Website.

What he doesn’t realize is the fact that the newsletter didn’t really accomplish anything.

That being said (which Don says all the time and drives me crazy),I liked writing my column. It was a chance for me to relay my opinion without being interrupted by my husband. And I’m going to encourage Buzz’s wife,Marsha,and Robb’s wife,Cary,to participate also,along with of course the future next Mrs. Mike O’Meara whomever she may be. That’s why we’ve included the wives pictures on this website. As long as we are integral to many of the stories being told on-air,it’s only fair that we be represented too.

If anyone would have told me years ago when I was putting address stickers on those newsletters,the rollercoaster that we had in store for us,I would have been tempted to sell Bart’s Beanie Babies (at the time quite valuable) and run off. There have been ups and down,on the show and in our real lives. But every problem that we’ve had in our personal lives has made us stronger. And all the issues that the show has experienced from changes in personnel,to market successes and disappointments,to FCC rule revisions has made the show better,smarter,stronger. We were out with Buzz and Marsha a few weeks ago and Buzz commented that he’s having the best time on the show that he’s ever had. It’s nice to see the whole crew renewed and enthusiastic about what they do. When they enjoy themselves,I know it comes through on the air. I hope it will come through this website as well.

Freda Sorce
October 11, 2004

When I tuned in yesterday to the ‘Don & Mike Radio Show’ I was stunned to hear that Freda Sorce, wife of co-host Don Geronimo (whose real name is Mike Sorce) had been killed in a auto accident in the Ocean City, MD area. At first I was hoping that it was some kind of terrible joke, but then I googled her name and found confirmation from dcrtv.com, which is a great source for news on tv and radio media here in the Washington Metro area.

This is terrible terrible news. Everyone who listens to the Don & Mike Show knows Freda. Don called her or took calls from her all the time and she always added a fun and special element to the show. Listening to Don and Freda debate back and forth over one issue or another was, in my mind, a form of “reality radio.” It was just fun and it was one of those little things that made the D&M Show unique among all the other shows out there.

I began listening to Don & Mike in the 1980’s, when they first became a team and aired on WAVA, which was then a progressive rock station. Julie though first began listening to Don when he was working in Chicago for a radio station there.

My sincerest condolences go out to Mike Sorce and his son Bart. I still have a difficult time believing this has happened and I know it must be incredibly hard for Mike and Bart right now.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Well, I’m very sorry that I’m posting this such a long time AFTER the Hi-5 concert at Sesame Place, but it took me a bit of time to get away from a new game I’ve been playing called “Star Wars: Republic Commando.” It’s a simply phenomenal FPS (first-person shooter) game with an interesting story line and intuitive interface. What can I say, I’m a gaming geek too.

But, getting back to the real point of this post, the final day of our Hi-5 concert getaway was even better than the previous two. First of all, my head and stomach were no longer trying to mount their own little revolution. Secondly, we were able to see the Hi-5 cast yet again before we left for home.

On Sunday morning, as we were getting ourselves organized for our trek back home, we had the chance to see the entire Hi-5 cast as they were getting ready to head back out to Sesame Place for a second day of shows. We first spotted some of the cast members while we were at breakfast. The girls really wanted to say hello, so Julie walked over to ask if it was okay. They were so very nice to the girls and even posed for pictures with them.

We saw them again about 30 minutes later as we were bringing our bags out to the van. They were all gathered in the lobby, getting ready to go back to Sesame Place. Again, they took the time to say hello to the girls. Here are a few pictures here for your viewing pleasure:

How in the world do you properly thank such generous people? Shaun and I had another brief chat too and he was telling me about how much he was enjoying being a part of Hi-5. His sincerity came across with crystal clarity.

Julie and I wish the cast all the best. We so appreciate the generious gift of their time over the course of the weekend. I know that both our girls were thrilled to meet everyone and to see them in concert. It’s cliche, I know, but thanks for the memories.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

I had wanted to put up a post regarding liberal views on terror but Taranto beat me to it and did a far better job than I would have done on the topic. Here is the column excerpted from his business daily column, “Best of The Web Today:”

Root, Root, Root for the Bomb Team
So what does the New York Times have to say about yesterday’s terrorist murders in London of more than 50 people at last count? Here’s a quote from the paper’s lead editorial of today:

That fear has already led to questions about why the British security agencies did not anticipate the attacks, why the wealthy nations have not done enough about the root causes of terrorism and why Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden continue to function after almost four years of the so-called war on terrorism. Many will wonder why the United States is mired in Iraq while Al Qaeda’s leader still roams free.

There are no easy answers to these questions.

That’s right, the Times is complaining that “wealthy nations have not done enough about the root causes of terrorism”! Now granted, one can talk of the root causes of terrorism without slipping into liberal weeniedom. This column has long endorsed the theory that terrorism springs from the tyrannical and fanatical political culture that prevails in most of the Arab and Muslim worlds. The Bush administration subscribes to this theory too, which is why it has embarked upon a strategy of democratization, a key element of which was regime change in Iraq.

Do the editorialists at the Times disagree with this theory? No, apparently they are completely oblivious to it. First they complain about the failure to deal with “root causes,” then they scratch their collective head over why we’re “mired in Iraq.”

So what does the Times think are the “root causes” of terrorism? Well, the paper addresses that question in another editorial:

As the leaders of the richest nations carry on their annual conference despite the bombings in London, they have a chance to embrace what should be an essential element of any long-term global strategy against terrorism. By adopting a coherent plan to tackle the extreme poverty of Africa, the leaders of the G-8 countries will also take on the civil wars, governmental breakdowns and illicit financial flows of one of the world’s most troubled regions.

The idea that poverty in Africa contributes to terrorism is not as ridiculous as it sounds. As the Times notes:

American military forces fought what may have been their first encounter with the new international terrorism in the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia, a dozen years ago. . . . Failed states that cannot provide jobs and food for their people, that have lost chunks of territory to warlords, and that can no longer track or control their borders send an invitation to terrorists.

It’s worth noting that a dozen years ago, when President Clinton decided to pull out of Somalia, a Times editorial praised this “wise stand-down.” In any case, we don’t disagree with the Times that misrule in Africa is a moral outrage and in some cases a security threat. But how dense do you have to be not to acknowledge that the same is true to an even greater degree in the heart of the Middle East, the place where terrorists actually come from?

At least the Times doesn’t go so far as to say terrorism is America’s fault. Others do. Here’s columnist Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe:

The world, of course, shares the sympathies of Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, who said the London bombings were a ”despicable, cowardly act.” Yet every invoking of the innocents also reminds us of our despicable, cowardly killing of innocent Iraqi civilians. . . .

The innocents in the so-called war on terror are always ”our” citizens or the citizens of our allies. The only innocent Iraqis are those killed by ”insurgents.” Our soldiers clearly did not intend to kill innocents. But this posturing of America as the great innocent, when everyone knows we kill innocents ourselves, is likely only to make us look more like the devil in the eyes of a suicide bomber.

And here’s someone with the unlikely name of Jann Wenner, on the Huffington Post:

If the London bombings are the work of an Al Qaeda offshoot, then you have to fairly say, in the same way we condemn other’s [sic] terror, this is in part the result of Bush’s War on Iraq.

To Jackson, there is no moral distinction between deliberately targeting civilians and accidentally killing civilians in a war of liberation. To Wenner, it is America’s fault that terrorists deliberately target civilians. And note that the Times and Jackson both sneer at the “so-called war” on terrorism.

This has been a brief tour of the mindset of some American liberals. Folks, Karl Rove is not making this stuff up.

One liberal who makes sense, though, is Slate’s William Saletan:

Bin Laden’s whole game plan is to turn the people of the democratic world against their governments. He thinks democracies are weak because their people, who are more easily frightened than their governments, can bring those governments down. He doesn’t understand that this flexibility–and this trust–are why democracies will live, while he will die. Many of us didn’t vote for Bush’s government or Blair’s. But we’re loyal to them, in part because we were given a voice in choosing them. And if we don’t like our governments, we can vote them out. We can’t vote out terrorists. We can only kill them.

America needs more voices like this on the left.

Amen to that!

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Congratulations to our cousins across the sea for winning the 2012 Olympics. This from Stephen Wilson in the AP:

SINGAPORE (AP) - Britain vs. France. Blair vs. Chirac. Two historic rival cities convinced they were long overdue. London prevailed - upsetting Paris to secure the 2012 Olympics.

The British capital overcame its cross-Channel opponent 54-50 Wednesday on the fourth ballot of the International Olympic Committee vote, capping the most glamorous and hotly contested bid race in Olympic history.

Paris lost again. The French lose again…

hmmm…

In case you can’t tell, I’m trying VERY hard to control myself, but I will say this. It’s a good thing they lost, otherwise we’d have to call them “The Freedom Games.”

Nuff said.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com