Saturday, October 13, 2007

http://filer.case.edu/~act2/ROADTRIP/oru5.JPG
From Tulsa World:
New claims in ORU lawsuit

It alleges documents were destroyed and a "sexual deviant" had access to campus.
by: APRIL MARCISZEWSKI World Staff Writer

10/13/2007

Three former Oral Roberts University professors made public on Friday what their lawsuit against ORU describes as "the exact packet of information" that they allege got two of them fired and resulted in one's resignation.

Previous versions of their lawsuit contained only a summary of the report, which was at least partially written by Stephanie Cantees, the sister-in-law of ORU President Richard Roberts.

Cantees, Roberts' community and government liaison, gives him reports of what she hears -- including rumors -- in the community and government, Roberts has said. He claimed earlier this week that the report referenced in the lawsuit contained a report by Cantees plus additional information he had not seen before.

He said Cantees' report consisted of untrue rumors.

The full, unsubstantiated report now attached to the lawsuit contains new allegations that Lindsay Roberts, Richard Roberts' wife, spent the night in an ORU guest house with an underage male nine times, was photographed 29 times in her car with an underage male after midnight and after minors' curfew, visited Victory Christian School with an underage male 81 times in 2004, smoked with an underage male at her house and repeatedly moved her "male 16-year-old friend" into her family's house.

The summary of the report in the first version of the lawsuit stated that Lindsay Roberts had sent text messages to underage males late at night. She said earlier this week that one of her daughters used her cell phone and that the family sends cell phones home with the daughters' friends to ensure that they get home safely.

ORU officials, including Richard Roberts, declined to comment after 5 p.m. Friday because they had not seen the amended lawsuit, a spokesman said. The Tulsa World obtained a copy of the amended lawsuit about 5 p.m. Friday.

Gary L. Richardson, attorney for former professors John Swails, Tim Brooker and Paulita Brooker, did not return calls to his cell phone Friday evening. Swails referred questions to his lawyer.

Earlier in the week, Richardson said the report developed by Cantees did not have to be true for the professors' lawsuit to be viable. The professors claim that they were wrongfully fired or caused to resign because they turned the report over to ORU's board of regents.

Richard Roberts said earlier in the week that Tim Brooker resigned of his own accord and that Paulita Brooker's contract expired.

The report newly attached to the lawsuit is written in three sections, with the latter two in a different style from the first. The first section misspells Cantees' last name and appears to quote from a later section.

For example, the first section, with bullets, punctuation and clear sentences, says Lindsay Roberts had a "16-year-old male 'friend,' " and the second section says "male 16-year-old friend" with no quotation marks. The latter sections are riddled with misspellings, lack punctuation and are written with phrases that run together.

The Robertses have described Cantees' writing style as consisting of half-sentences and lacking punctuation because she is dyslexic.

New claims

The amended lawsuit also contains a new defendant -- ORU's board of regents -- and two new legal claims.

The former professors now claim that the board has neglected to properly oversee ORU, Richard Roberts and administrators.

The lawsuit claims that Vice Provost Jeff Ogle sexually harassed a professor, who was allegedly forced to resign while Ogle was promoted. Ogle has refuted the harassment claim.

The lawsuit also claims that ORU and Richard Roberts gave "a convicted sexual deviant unrestricted access to the students of the university." The unidentified man was a "mentor" to ORU students and had confessed to "exposing himself to a 15-year-old boy in a school locker room."

"This further demonstrates the board's wanton and arrogant disregard for the safety of the students under its care," the lawsuit states.

As another example of alleged negligence, the plaintiffs claim that ORU and Richard Roberts fired the school's financial comptroller three days after they filed their lawsuit, then ORU destroyed "voluminous materials and documents . . . constituting spoilation of evidence," the lawsuit says.

Additionally, the ex-professors claim that ORU, the board and administrators conspired to fire them, did so and then "instituted a smear campaign" against them.

The lawsuit alleges that at least one conspiracy meeting happened on ORU's plane, which is leased from Tulsa Jet Management, whose president is Tulsa City Councilor Bill Christiansen.

The ex-professors are each still asking for actual damages in excess of $10,000 and punitive damages in excess of $10,000.
http://www.doubleazone.com/images/oralroberts.jpg
From associatedcontent.com:
The Oral Roberts University Scandal from Students' Perspectives
Oral Roberts University Students & Employees
Speak Out in Response to the Scandal

By Adam Willard

By now, the recently publicized scandal involving Oral Roberts University and its president, Richard Roberts and his family, has made its way into news sources around the country.

Briefly, the scandal involves several recently fired professors accusing ORU of illegal political maneuvering (in violation of its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status) and attempts to cover up a document which supposedly demonstrates proof of a huge number of other serious abuses of financial assets, some illegal activities, and potential sexual misconduct - all perpetrated by Richard Roberts, his wife, Lindsay Roberts, and members of their family. For more in-depth information, you can read my other article on the subject.

But what do students or alumni of Oral Roberts University think about this? Because the situation has occurred in a very conservative religious community, we can expect any number of emotional pleas for innocence and raging tempers of defiance in response. Surprisingly, many ORU students have voiced quite the opposite.

Personally, I have experienced several aspects of the allegations first hand. I attended ORU for four years and graduated in the spring of 2005. During my entire time as a student, there was a campus-wide feeling of fear to confront the Roberts about any concerns or disagreements about the ethical or doctrinal nature of their actions or teachings. It was widely understood that when a student or faculty member openly voiced any disagreements with any aspect of the Richards' management or teaching directly to any high-ranking administrator, the person who disagreed was expelled or fired. For that reason, disagreements were either quietly murmured in very private settings among people one could closely trust or they were completely silenced altogether.

Nonetheless, abuses of assets or actions of questionable moral nature seemed to be frequently flaunted by the Roberts. I remember casually speaking with employees of the athletic department when I went there to work out one day. They told me (in the course of the day's events) how they transported ORU gym equipment to the Roberts' private gym in their mansion complex, all while on the clock for the ORU payroll. They described the lavish set of extraordinarily-sized houses that the Roberts had at their disposal, as well as the private stables on their grounds. This conversation took place years ago, but they're all allegations in the surfaced document that led to the firing of the three professors.

I remember one chapel service (they meet bi-weekly and are mandatory attendance for the entire faculty and student body) when Richard Roberts personally introduced Randi Miller on stage and told everyone to vote for her. Regardless of his commands to the government department (filtered through Dr. T Brooker) to run Randi Miller's mayoral campaign, he violated the University's 501(c)(3) status in front of over 4,000 spectators by publicly endorsing a political candidate. This violation is also an allegation in the lawsuit and protesting it is also what led to the termination of the three professors.

I remember Richard Roberts' relentless fundraising efforts, including asking for more money from the student body even though each student had already paid over $20,000 each year for tuition, etc. I remember having a friend who really believed that God was telling him he should be a student at ORU even though he couldn't get enough loans or scholarships to pay for it. He told the Roberts his story (after a mandatory class that they taught) and asked if they knew of anything that could help him pay for school.

They told him "no" and prayed for someone to give him money, though they themselves could've paid for all four years of college for more than 5 students in his situation with only the salary that Richard receives each year. That's not including any inappropriate expenses of the school's money that the lawsuit alleges the Roberts family has spent on themselves, though if the allegations about Lindsay's wardrobe are true, the money spent on clothes would've lasted my friend two or three years at ORU.

I remember when Richard's oldest daughter, Jordan, by his second wife (Lindsay) first started at Oral Roberts University. She moved on campus (a very short distance from her family's mansion complex), displacing many previous residents in the dormitory wing that she took over. To 'accommodate' their daughter, Richard and Lindsay had the wing she moved into completely remodeled and made available only through private request by their daughter. Part of the remodeling efforts included breaking out one of the walls in her room in order to annex the next room down and make her room double the regular size.

This was all done at the University's expense and I learned of it through an ORU employee who helped do the remodeling work the summer before Jordan arrived and from female students who were removed from the rooms they had previously occupied. This incident is also an allegation reported in the lawsuit.

Those are just some of the incidents which stand out most in my experiences as a student at Oral Roberts University. But one thing that somewhat surprised me was the overwhelming response by other ORU alumni and students attesting to similar experiences. Here are some of their responses since this most recent scandal became public.

"The allegations are pretty impressive. I'm pretty sure they're true." - Current ORU student, Undergrad English

"Is anyone NOT surprized this happened? ...All respect I had for the school is gone." - ORU Alumni, '06 Undergrad Business

"I am a ORU alumni and a past nanny for the Roberts during my time at ORU. I know for a FACT the things I witnessed and experienced first-hand line up with the things that are FINALLY surfacing. All I can say is, "It is about d**n time!!" It is no lie that Lyndsey is a shop-aholic...and Richard for that matter. I almost lost my faith due to what I saw them live and what I saw them preach... They and people like them give God a bad rap!" - ORU Alumni

"I feel about as validated as a conspiracy theorist can be. And about as disappointed." - ORU Alumni, '06 Undergrad Mathematics

"I spent four years as a student and two years as an employee at ORU and I have a deep love of and devotion to the mission of the university. However, anyone not blinded by the charismatic celebrity of the Roberts knows they have abused their power and unfortunately the board of regents and administration have let it happen. I would hold them responsible too, but anyone who speaks against the Roberts loses their job." - ORU Alumni and Former Employee

"I think this is fantastic. It has needed to happen. Corruption is corruption and ought to be brought into the light--whoever is involved." - ORU Alumni, '05 Undergrad Government

"It is all absolutely true... the cars, privileges to their daughter's friends, floormates, etc. I'm not AT ALL surprised by any of it. I'm not being hateful when I say this so don't misinterpret, but I hope they are "corrected" for their mishandling of my tuition money" - former ORU student

"As an ORU graduate I would like to say that I very much appreciate the education that I received from ORU. It was a great experience. My wife, who is also an ORU grad, work at ORU as a Financial Aide Counselor while I attended school at ORU. The part about Lindsay giving full scholarships to her daughter's friends is true. I know this because my wife was the Financial Aide Counselor who handle a few of those students accounts. One of the girls was the daughter of the Praise & Worship leader at the church we attended at the time. This was a mega church and this girls father made a very good salary, and could afford to pay for his daughter's college expenses. However, since she went to school with Jordan Roberts and was part of a singing group with her, Lindsay arranged for her to get a free ride to ORU. My wife handle her financial aide account. I knew also about the dorm remodeling that was done for the Roberts daughter(s) also... I don't want to see ORU go down, but I do think that the gross mishandling of university funds needs to be addressed, and, if guilty, the Roberts need to step down from their leadership role at ORU." - ORU Alumni

"While this is breaking news to some, its old news to others." - ORU Alumni

"I am also a current student at ORU who is not at all surprised by these allegations. These things have been known for years. The favoritism shown to those who are personal friends of the Roberts is sickening in comparison to the giant hammer of discipline slammed down on other students... I love the students and the faculty. I am however sickened by the way MY university is ran... The fact of the matter of all of this is that there needs to be change." - Current ORU Student

"As ORU '05 Alumni this law suite does not surprise me, the money the lies, whats new. Don't you guys remember Richard asking ORU students to give money to the new student center, which was suppose to be built by 2005. Where did all that money go?" - ORU Alumni, '05

"I really want the school to survive this. That's why I think the Roberts' association with the university needs to be terminated pending an investigation. The problem with that is the ministry and the school are almost undifferentiable." - ORU Alumni

"As a recent alum of ORU, I would like to attempt to separate the school from the administration. Attending Oral Roberts University was a positive experience overall, opening many doors for life-changing experiences and friendships. I would hate to see the reputation of the school suffer due to poor choices on the part of the President. That stated, however, I admit that throughout my years at ORU I felt Richard and Lindsey Roberts blatantly flaunted their lack of accountability on many levels and displayed themselves as poor stewards of a Godly university. Financially speaking, it's no secret that they live a lifestyle of luxury and wealth, no doubt procured from the ministry (and my tuition money!)... As students, we were infused with the Biblical principle of reaping and sowing. That line was carted out many times to influence us to give financially. But, in this instance, I truly do hope Richard and Lindsey Roberts reap what they've sown. I'm glad to see that their time to be held accountable has finally come." - ORU Alumni

Almost all personal statements by current and former ORU students and employees state that they have some personal knowledge of at least some of the allegations in the lawsuit. I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise considering the flagrant violation of ORU's 501(c)(3) status when Richard Roberts publicly endorsed a political candidate at a mandatory student assembly with over 4,000 in attendance. Interestingly, all the statements I've read in defense of the Roberts family didn't draw on any particular personal experience or knowledge of facts to support their defense; instead they were simply a compilation of Bible verses, usually intended to promote the idea of the Roberts' unquestionable authority.

With all this incriminating shared knowledge by anyone who's been involved with Oral Roberts University, what does that leave for Richard Roberts to say about it? Here are some of his responses:

The first statement issued by the University: "It is important for ORU students and their families, faculty and staff, alumni, partners as well as the general public to understand that this lawsuit is largely premised upon a compilation of incomplete statements, unsubstantiated rumors and innuendos. ORU will address these allegations through the legal process."

The day afterwards (at ORU's mandatory chapel service), Richard Roberts had this to say: "The Lord spoke to me and said get up... and start writing and I will flow through your hand... Here's what he told me to say to you. 'We live in a litigous society. Anyone can get mad and file a lawsuit against another person whether they have a legitimate case or not. This lawsuit, which was filed yesterday... is not about wrongful termination. It is about intimidation, blackmail and extortion. Make no mistake about it, this suit is about money, as most suits are... Students I wish that I could tell you what I know. I am bursting to tell somebody what I know. But, I have been advised by our attorneys not to do that at this time... I am confident that when the real truth is known, there will be no more questions. And my friends, students, faculty, staff and administration, that's all I have to say."

Next, Richard Roberts released what might've been the most specific statement he's ever made about the school's finances, including some emergency auditing: "Any expenses, including trips, errands, food, etc., deemed personal are charged back to me and are paid personally by me on a monthly basis... Today, the Executive Committee of the Board of Regents met to authorize the implementation of yet another level of review and compliance through the retention of an additional independent outside auditing firm."

Finally, Richard and Lindsay Roberts appeared on Larry King Live last night to publicly address these allegations for the first time. Here are a few quotes from their interview:

First, Richard says, "we don't ever endorse a candidate as a university." A couple questions later, he says, "And we've had a longstanding policy of supporting candidates all across the country and helping them with their races." About the professors' termination he says, "One was terminated, one's contract was not renewed and one resigned." Larry King asks, "But having nothing to do with this?" to which Richard responds, "I don't think so. No."

About the lawsuit in general, he says, "Well, Larry, I'm not exactly sure what to make of it. It's the most unusual thing I've ever witnessed in my life." After Larry King asks them about some of the specific allegations, Richard and Lindsay give some interesting responses to each one, admitting the bare facts and defending each by explaining their particular circumstances. They also admit, though slightly fumbling their speech, that they knew years ago about the document Stephanie Cantese prepared, which is also the source of the majority of these allegations and the reason the professors say they were fired.

One ORU alumni's e-mail was presented to the Roberts: "Danny in Tulsa: 'I'm an ORU alumnus. Why do the majority of ORU students and alumni appear to be grieved, but not surprised, by these allegations? Does it concern you that your excesses are so obvious that most people don't appear to be shocked to hear of them?'"

Richard Roberts simply replied: "Larry, all I know to do is -- is -- and you're talking about the appearance of evil -- avoiding the appearance of evil. All I know is to do exactly as I'm directed by the board of regents. Everything that I do as a president of the university is heavily scrutinized by the audit and compliance committee of the board of regents."

Larry King asks him, "So what you're saying is you have never, to your knowledge, done anything wrong, improperly..." Richard sums it up with "I have not. I have not done anything wrong, Larry."

Oral Roberts even calls in, and though hard of hearing, he says that they've been through experiences like this in the past and he's not surprised. The full transcript can be read on CNN's website.

Apparently, Richard and Lindsay Roberts are entirely defending themselves from any wrongdoing in this situation. They haven't denied all the facts (though they've denied some), but they say that their use of ORU funds and employees or the text messages to underage males are defended by the circumstances involved. In regards to the political accusations, Richard completely denies any involvement - contrary to the experience of myself and many other ORU students who were there when he brought Randi Miller on stage and told us to vote for her.

The final truth is not out. There are so many allegations contained in the lawsuit that it should be assumed they'll never all be investigated and proved one way or the other. But with the overwhelming response by those ORU students and employees who've experienced the Roberts firsthand and who subsequently confirm the truth behind many of the allegations, it's hard to see how Richard Roberts will work his way out of it, or if he can. This may really be the time for change that many ORU supporters are asking for... if ORU can survive the scandal.

(Many of these statements came in response to Tulsa World's initial article covering the lawsuit. Others were in response to other articles on public websites.)


2007 © Associated Content,

From The New York Times Book Review:
Good Grief!
Reviewed by CHARLES McGRATH

SCHULZ AND PEANUTS
A Biography.
By David Michaelis.

Illustrated. 655 pp.
Harper/HarperCollins Publishers. $34.95.


Toward the end of his life Charles Schulz, the creator of “Peanuts,” wished he were Andrew Wyeth. What Wyeth did was fine art, he grumbled, while he was just a newspaper cartoonist, a draftsman, whose work would surely not last. In fact, “Peanuts” is still read, in anthologies and compilations, by many more people than ever looked at a Wyeth, and Schulz’s was arguably the greater talent. He transformed the newspaper cartoon strip, busy and cluttered by the time he turned up in the late ’40s, by flooding it with white space, and by reducing his childish characters to near abstraction — huge circular heads balanced on tiny bodies — he rendered them far more expressive than their cartoon peers. The strip was able to register grown-up emotions, like anxiety, depression, yearning, disillusionment, that had never been in cartoons before. Instead of the “Slam!” “Bam!” “Pow!” sound effects that were the lingua franca of the comics, it employed a quieter, more eloquent vocabulary: “Aaugh!” and “Sigh.”

“Peanuts” was beloved by everyone: by hipsters and college kids (in the ’60s especially); by presidents (Ronald Reagan once wrote Schulz a fan note, saying he identified with Charlie Brown); by the Apollo 10 astronauts, who named their orbiter and landing vehicle after Charlie and Snoopy; by ministers and pastors, who read moral and theological lessons into the strip; by the suits in Detroit, who paid Charlie and the gang a small fortune to shill for the Ford Falcon. At its peak the strip reached 300 million readers in 75 countries; 2,600 papers and 21 languages every day. The various animated TV specials continue to top the Nielsen charts whenever they’re broadcast, and the musical “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown,” after selling out for four years off Broadway, is now a staple of high school and amateur theater productions — the most-produced musical ever.

The success of the strip, together with its spinoffs and an almost unending flood of cheesy “Peanuts” ware — calendars, bedsheets, wastebaskets, lunchboxes, “Warm Puppy” coffee mugs and the like — made Schulz an immensely wealthy man, rich enough to build his own ice rink. In the ’80s he was one of the 10 highest-paid entertainers in America, right up there with Oprah and Michael Jackson. In fact, if by artist we mean someone who paints or draws, it’s no stretch at all to say that Charles Schulz was the most popular and most successful American artist who ever lived. He was also, to judge from David Michaelis’s new biography, one of the loneliest and most unhappy.



We should have guessed, for as Michaelis points out, “Peanuts” was almost transparently autobiographical. There really was an unattainable Little Red-Haired Girl. Her name was Donna Mae Johnson, and she jilted Schulz in July 1950; he nursed the rejection, along with all the other slights he suffered from wished-for girlfriends, for the rest of his life. Charlie Brown, wishy-washy, disillusioned, but also secretly ambitious, was the artist himself, of course; and so were Linus, the oddball; Schroeder, meticulous and gifted; and, above all, Snoopy, with his daydreams, his fantasies, his sense of being undervalued and misunderstood. Violet, with her mean streak; and Lucy, bossy, impatient and sarcastic, were all the controlling, withholding women in Schulz’s life, especially his mother and his first wife, Joyce. Michaelis also goes in for a certain amount of psychologizing, but once you have the key it hardly seems necessary.

Michaelis’s last book was an exceptionally good biography of N. C. Wyeth (Andrew’s father), and his task here is both easier and harder. Wyeth was the practitioner of a dying, minor art form — he was the last of the great painterly illustrators — and if that earlier book had a weakness, it was that Michaelis barely bothered to explain why he deserved a full-length treatment. In the case of his Schulz biography, the importance of the subject almost goes without saying (though the author is at frequent pains to remind us, even so). Schulz was what so many lesser figures are carelessly said to be: a genuine American icon, who in his unassuming way deeply imprinted our culture.

On the other hand, N. C. Wyeth lived a large, big-themed life, with a tragic, Dreiser-ish subplot for good measure. (In his 60s, he became obsessed with one of his daughters-in-law and died in a railroad-crossing collision — probably by accident, but possibly by intention — with her son, his grandson, at his side.) Schulz’s much longer life (1922-2000) was, by comparison, bland and eventless — or at least the part that wasn’t lived inside his head, and except for the strip, he left few clues as to what was going on in there. Though he was one of the first to introduce psychological themes into cartooning, with Lucy and her sidewalk psychiatric-help booth, he was himself stubbornly unanalytical. His nature was as much a puzzle to him as it was to everyone else. “It took me a long time to become a human being,” he told a magazine interviewer in 1987.

People who knew Schulz always called him Sparky, the nickname given him at birth by an uncle, who shortened it from Spark Plug, the name of a woebegone race horse just recently introduced into the popular Barney Google comic strip. It was an almost comically inappropriate handle — there was nothing in the least scintillating about the young Sparky, who was small, shy, geeky — and also a fateful one, linking him to what from a very early age he determined to be his life work: to produce a syndicated daily comic strip.

Not that there were many signs he had a gift for it, or for anything else. Schulz was born and — except for a weird and awful two-year stint the family endured in the California desert — grew up in the working-class neighborhoods of the Twin Cities. His father, who was born in Germany and grew up with German-speaking parents, ran a barber shop (just like Charlie Brown’s dad). His mother, who never got beyond third grade, came from a clannish, depressive, hard-drinking Norwegian farm family and was one of those people who feel inadequate and superior at the same time. According to Michaelis, she could be distant, cool, even mocking and scornful, and he blames her for most of Sparky’s woes, especially his lifelong feeling of being insufficiently loved.

Schulz was raised in what sounds like a grim, even more isolated version of Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon — a close-knit place ruled by church and family, where book learning was regarded with suspicion and where, far from being above average, children were discouraged from thinking too highly of themselves. Early in grammar school, Schulz was bumped ahead a grade, which guaranteed that for the rest of his school career he would always be the smallest, skinniest, most awkward kid in the class. Though a decent pickup hockey player, and a good enough golfer to play No. 2 on the school team, by the time he got to high school Schulz was so crippled with shyness he had become virtually invisible. “I wasn’t actually hated,” he said later. “Nobody cared that much.” His one chance for distinction was lost when some cartoons he had drawn for the school yearbook were unaccountably turned down — a rejection he never forgave, just as he never forgave all the girls who failed to notice that he had worshiped them from afar.

After graduation, Schulz’s shyness and insecurity rendered art school out of the question, so instead he took a correspondence course from Art Instruction Inc., the kind of place that used to advertise on the back of matchbooks. (He found the instruction so helpful that he eventually joined the faculty himself and years later went on the board.) In 1942 Schulz was drafted and, heartsick and terrified, left for boot camp only days after his mother had died. But he actually thrived in the Army and came back newly confident. He even began to go out with girls — though his idea of an appropriate dating present was a Bible. (All his life Schulz was the straightest of arrows: he didn’t smoke, swear or drink, on the grounds that neither did Jesus. The wine at Cana, the young Sparky used to claim, was nonalcoholic.)

In 1951, Schulz married Joyce Halverson, a 22-year-old divorcĂ©e with a young daughter from an ill-advised and short-lived marriage to a cowboy. He arranged to adopt the daughter, Meredith, and afterward always insisted she was his, even when the teenage Meredith began to poke around and ask nosy questions. To some degree it was probably a marriage of convenience on both sides, but for a while it was happy enough, and the Schulzes went on to have four children of their own. Sparky was an indifferent and often inattentive father and husband, though, because, self-absorbed and secretly harboring immense ambition, he was really married to his work. After a lot of rejections and false starts, he finally landed a weekly strip, called “Li’l Folks,” with the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and it was syndicated in 1950 by United Feature, which insisted that the title be changed to “Peanuts.” Schulz hated the name but went along, adding this to his ever-growing list of grudges.

Schulz had initially dreamed of an action strip but began drawing children because that’s what seemed to sell. The earliest strips hit what now seems the authentic Schulzian emotional tone — “Yes, sir! Good ol’ Charlie Brown. ... How I hate him!” — but it took a while for the drawing to evolve, for the heads to enlarge, the limbs to shrink.

“Peanuts” grew slowly at first; caught on hugely in the ’60s, when almost by accident it seemed to speak to everyone who was experiencing the generation gap; and then almost drowned in a licensing binge and flood of tchotchkes. Schulz said yes to everything, no matter how kitschy — toys, cards, books, sweatshirts — until even his fans began to complain he was selling out.

What saved “Peanuts,” Michaelis suggests, was the elevation of Snoopy into a main character in the late ’60s, and the way his boundless, almost surreal fantasy life frequently took over the strip, which at the same time was being pared down to a visual minimum: a scarf, a helmet, a doghouse indicated by just a few horizontal lines. Another thing that didn’t hurt was the gradual souring of the Schulz marriage. The family was living in Southern California by now, on a sort of private Disneyland with its own stables and miniature golf course and the ice rink (where Schulz like to hold court in the Warm Puppy snack bar) nearby. Despite his success, Schulz was prickly, lonely, depressed and increasingly subject to panic attacks; Joyce felt overburdened and underappreciated. Their feuds, their long bouts of coldness, inspired some of the most Thurber-like stretches of “Peanuts” — the strips where Charlie and Lucy seem to be locked in the eternal struggle of male and female, with the latter always wielding the upper hand.

As Schulz grew into middle age, he filled out, stopped wearing his hair in a buzz cut and discovered that he was actually attractive to women. He had one full-fledged affair, and in 1973, a year or so after divorcing Joyce, he married Elizabeth Jean Forsyth, 16 years his junior, whom he had met — where else? — at the ice rink. This second marriage was happier, in large part because Jeannie, as she was known, saw it her job to make it so. Schulz was often moody and withdrawn nevertheless, and was also compulsively flirty. The evidence suggests that his was essentially an arrested sensibility, locked in adolescent longing and self-absorption. But for a certain kind of artist this is not such a bad thing. Kipling and P. G. Wodehouse suffered, or benefited, from much the same condition: like Schulz, they were truly happy only when transported by their work. Schulz said once that if it weren’t for cartooning he’d be dead, and indeed he died within days of resigning from the strip because of ill health.

In another way, though, Schulz’s is a classic American story: the lonely, misunderstood genius who clings to his dream, finds riches and fame, and discovers that they don’t make him happy after all. He was like Gatsby or Citizen Kane. That he chose the comic strip as his medium links him, on the one hand, to such gifted, pioneering and equally misunderstood figures as Winsor McCay, creator of Little Nemo, and Krazy Kat’s George Herriman; and on the other, to current practitioners like R. Crumb, Chris Ware and the graphic novelist who goes by the name Seth, who is currently editing “The Complete Peanuts” for Fantagraphics (and who illustrated this review). These younger artists have a far warier relationship to popular success than Schulz did, but they share his themes of loneliness, of loss, of being unable to connect. Ware’s Jimmy Corrigan is in many ways Charlie Brown grown, while still an adolescent, to a premature old age. And Crumb offers a window onto what Schulz might have been like if only he had let the anger out.

Michaelis, who had the cooperation of the Schulz family, tells this story brightly and engagingly, if not always succinctly and without repetition. There is rather less than one might expect about the rich tradition of newspaper comics that spawned Schulz, and more than some readers might prefer about, for example, the patterns of metastasis in cervical cancer (the disease that killed Schulz’s mother). Throughout the book Michaelis maintains affection for his subject without losing sight of how exasperating and narcissistic he could be. And the smartest thing he has done is to pepper his pages with actual strips from “Peanuts,” dozens of them, usually without comment or footnote or even date: an appropriate strip just turns up in the middle of a paragraph that happens to be talking about something similar. Sometimes it’s an illustration, sometimes a wry comment. The effect is to continually remind us of why Schulz matters in the first place, and of the potential not just for humor but for feeling and eloquence in the odd and oddly persistent art form where he made his home.

Charles McGrath, formerly the editor of the Book Review, is a writer at large for The Times.
http://images.apple.com/moviesxml/s/miramax/posters/gonebabygone_l200707121516.jpg
From The New York Times:
Redemption Hunting

By CHARLES McGRATH

BOSTON

ALTHOUGH he hasn’t lived in the area for some 15 years, Ben Affleck is still beloved by the locals here. Bostonians are not used to celebrities, and have apparently not seen “Gigli,” or else don’t care. Almost everywhere Mr. Affleck goes, he gets hugged, high-fived, photographed on cellphone cameras.

Mr. Affleck is similarly fond of his hometown, and shot “Gone Baby Gone,” his directorial debut, for which he also co-wrote the script, there. He also hired many Bostonians — people he plucked off the street or discovered nursing early morning beers in the city’s many bars — not just as extras but for speaking roles. The result is one of the most authentic-looking and -sounding movies ever made about this city, which even as it has become a 21st-century financial center has preserved a provincial culture and accent all its own.

As the tabloids never tire of pointing out, ever since “Good Will Hunting,” which was also set in Greater Boston (though much of the movie was shot in Toronto), the career of Mr. Affleck has veered in an almost opposite direction from that of Matt Damon, his boyhood friend and high school mate. Their roles in that movie, which they also wrote, seem in retrospect to foreshadow what became of them: Mr. Damon was the genius, Mr. Affleck the flunky.

Mr. Damon, of course, has gone on to superstardom as the hero of the “Bourne” franchise, while Mr. Affleck, despite appearing in more good movies than he is sometimes given credit for, has made more than his share of turkeys. Mr. Damon has largely succeeded in keeping his personal life private, while Mr. Affleck’s on-again, off-again courtship of Jennifer Lopez turned the two of them into the headline “Bennifer.”

Of late Mr. Affleck, who is now married to the actress Jennifer Garner, with whom he has a young daughter, has been keeping a lower profile. A lot of critics thought his recent performance in “Hollywoodland,” as the faded movie star and TV Superman George Reeves, indicated a new level of acting subtlety and maturity, and though Mr. Affleck is too smart to come out and say so, “Gone Baby Gone,” with a $19 million budget and the backing of Miramax, clearly represents another chance for him to right his career and prove that “Good Will Hunting” was not a fluke, that he is not just a sidekick but a moviemaker.

Daniel Battsek, the new president of Miramax Films, said in a telephone interview that “Gone Baby Gone” was one of the first projects he greenlighted after taking over, and that Mr. Affleck’s inexperience as a director hadn’t troubled him much. “Given that he co-wrote the screenplay and had such a feel for the city and the people, I felt that we had a guy who would be able to tell the story in such a way as to lift it above the crime genre and make it into a proper piece of filmmaking,” he said.

Originally the plan was to roll out the movie cautiously, in a limited number of theaters, he added, but it tested so well that the studio now intends to release it nationally. The advance word from critics and industry insiders was also very positive, he said, adding, “People’s perception of Ben has meant in a way that the movie had to climb even higher, and now that it has, that’s doubling the effect it’s having.”

“Gone Baby Gone,” which opens Friday and features Ed Harris and Morgan Freeman, is based on the book of the same name by Dennis Lehane, the Boston crime novelist who also wrote “Mystic River,” made into an award-winning movie by Clint Eastwood. “Gone, Baby, Gone,” an earlier book, is in some ways an even darker, more complicated story, set mostly in Dorchester, the working-class Boston neighborhood, and involving the abduction of a 4-year-old girl and a pair of private investigators (played by Michelle Monaghan and Mr. Affleck’s brother, Casey) who have been hired to find her and then find themselves morally implicated in the case.

Ben Affleck, a big fan of the Lehane novels, began working on the screenplay, together with his friend Aaron Stockard, without any notion that he might direct it. “I was thinking about getting into directing, but I always imagined that I would write an original story,” he explained while in Boston not long ago to preview the movie for the local press. “But as I finished the script, I thought, ‘You know, maybe this is the one: a) it takes place in Boston — I understand the characters and the world they live in; b) it already has a story architecture, so I won’t have to make one up; and c) it has an ending that’s really poignant. That’s the hardest thing about movies — an ending. A lot of them just have a conceit.”

To adapt the book, he added, he had to leave out some of what he called the “Pulp Fiction” parts. “The gamble I made was to take some of that out and bring the story into higher relief,” he said. “The danger is that in the process you desex it, but that was the chance I took. I wanted to make a movie that would engage people on another level.”

The other chance he took, casting so many nonprofessionals, came about mostly by accident, Mr. Affleck said while stopped at a red light just before the Fort Point Channel, the boundary between downtown and South Boston. With a couple of hours to spare before the screening that day, he had embarked on a driving tour of some of the locations used in the film. A horn beeped, and he looked over to see a woman in a nearby car staring at him. He nodded and waved. She grinned and waved back.

“Before we started, we talked to the designers,” Mr. Affleck said. “They were saying, ‘We think we’d like to do, you know, a unified palette,’ and I said: ‘No, no, no — no palette. Let’s just go out and look around.’ So we got a camera and just went out into the different neighborhoods and started shooting. I wanted something raw and authentic and even a little scuffed up. People go to the movies to see something they can’t get otherwise, and I thought this was a chance to take you somewhere that you couldn’t otherwise get to — the Boston you never see in the movies.”

In the course of filming, the crew inevitably attracted crowds of people gawking, mugging, just looking like themselves, and eventually it dawned on Mr. Affleck that they were truer Bostonians than anyone the casting directors could provide. “By rule you have to use a certain number of SAG people,” Mr. Affleck said, referring to the Screen Actors Guild. “But SAG extras have a certain look — they’re put together. So I said: ‘O.K., we’ll use the SAG actors. I just don’t want to see them.”

What he saw, and what the viewer sees on the screen, are often the sorts of faces that seldom appear in the movies: people with the soggy, veiny look of alcoholism, the wary, defensive look bred by poverty and abuse, or the broad, toothy smiles that are a reminder of the city’s Irish heritage.

Heading into South Boston — or Southie, as its known, the neighborhood famous both for James (Whitey) Bulger, the hometown mob fugitive, and the 1970s busing crisis — Mr. Affleck paused outside a bar called Murphy’s Law, where one of the movie’s climactic scenes takes place. “It’s sort of a cheat,” he said. “Because there’s no real reason a guy from Dorchester would come all the way to Southie to find a bar. But we liked the way this one looked.”

He reminisced briefly about filming in another bar, where the cameras essentially ran all day while the patrons were served watered-down drinks to keep them from keeling over. “We shot a lot of film on this movie,” he said. “Seven hundred thousand feet. The idea was to get to the point where people lost their self-consciousness, and it didn’t seem like acting anymore.”

Some, he added, were naturals. Compared with professional actors, they “were less inclined to be neurotic,” he explained. “They didn’t give a flying— how can I put this? They didn’t give a flying hoot, and they weren’t inclined to second-guess.” He singled out Jill Quigg, who gives a riveting performance as a beer-sipping smart-mouth. “We were shooting near one of the projects one day, and she just came up to me and said, ‘I should be in your movie.’ The only thing she was ever nervous about was the logistics of where to go during her break.”

The next stop was Dorchester, the city’s largest and most diverse neighborhood, and cruising along the main drag, Dorchester Avenue —Dot Ave to the townies — he slipped into the local patois. “Hey, Mahty!” he called to an imaginary companion. “How ah ya? Wanna go ovah the packie latah, get some beah?” he said using the Boston term for a liquor store.

There are really many Boston accents, he explained, and a trained ear can tell the difference between, say, someone from Charlestown and someone from the North End. “I really care about the accents,” he said, “and it takes a lot of time to get them right.” Then he smiled and recalled the first time Amy Ryan, a Broadway actress who gives what is bound to be the movie’s most talked-about performance, as the abducted girl’s blowsy, negligent mother, read for the part. “After about five minutes I knew she was right,” he said, “and I said, ‘So, you’re from Boston, huh?’ She said, ‘No, I’m from Queens.’”

In the Fields Corner section of Dorchester Mr. Affleck stopped briefly at the house that served as the exterior for the abducted girl’s home, a “three decker,” with one identical apartment stacked over another. In nearby Uphams Corner he got out and went into Cataloni’s, a bar where a sign saying, “Anyone Caught Buying Using or Selling Drugs in This Bar Will Be Barred for Life,” is not mere decoration. In the movie Cataloni’s is transformed into the Fillmore, a place so scary that even the police are reluctant to enter, but on a weekday afternoon it seemed benign and almost cheerful. A guy who looked to be a construction worker was lingering over a Bud, and the manager and the bartender, Joan Falcone and Sue McGarry, looked up as if a visit from Ben Affleck were an everyday occurrence. “How are you doin’, hon?” Ms. McGarry said.

“Gone Baby Gone” was also filmed in Roxbury, a black neighborhood that almost never appears in movies. Heading down Blue Hill Avenue, Mr. Affleck took a detour by the Silver Slipper, on Washington Street, a diner where one scene takes place, and greeted the owner, Jeffery Hernandez, who also seemed unsurprised to see him. A couple of blocks away, however, by a field near Dudley Square, he created a near sensation as people came flocking for autographs and to take his picture. “Hey, Ben Affleck!” a man called. ‘You’re still around kickin’!”

“What do you think — am I cuter than J. Lo?” a young girl said, snuggling next to Mr. Affleck while her girlfriend took a cellphone photo.

And as Mr. Affleck was getting back in his car a man wearing a Red Sox cap and a Celtics jersey shouted, “Yo, Ben, where’s the chauffeur?”

“I’m the chauffeur,” Mr. Affleck said,

“All right!” the man said, flashing the thumbs-up sign. “Boston style!”

On the way back to his hotel Mr. Affleck talked about some of the directors he had learned from over the years: Martin Brest, Richard Linklater and Gus Van Sant, who taught him the importance of casting. “I had terror,” he said about starting out as a director. “But then I decided I should just play to what I know, and if I fail, I’ll fail in my own way.”

A little later he added: “For better or worse I’m not very results oriented. I’m sure I should have been. Some of it is just plain smarts, which I didn’t always use. In the beginning part of wanting to be a director was just a natural extension of acting. But now this feels like what I am, or what I want to be, it’s so satisfying and exhilarating. In fact the central preoccupation of my life right now is trying to find another movie to direct.”
http://www.harpmagazine.com/img/news/20071007_Springsteen.jpg
From The Boston Phoenix:
Do you believe in Magic?
Bruce Springsteen returns to the E Street Band
By JEFF TAMARKIN

10/1/2007 5:53:00 PM

On Magic (Columbia), Bruce Springsteen’s first album with the E Street Band in five years, not everything is what it seems. As with the sleight of hand described in the title track, there’s what you think you’re getting and what you really get. If you think that the album is just a collection of random new Springsteen songs tailored for the returning E Street Band, or that its title is generic (All Music Guide lists more than 70 albums called Magic), you’re not paying enough attention to the magician.

There are layers to each of Magic’s songs, and the trick is to uncover them. The exuberant “Livin’ in the Future,” it turns out, is about livin’ in the present, even as Clarence Clemons’s “10th Avenue Freeze-Out”–ditto sax solo points to the past. “Girls in Their Summer Clothes,” with its Spectorian production and Wilsonian melody, may suggest an idyllic world fit for a spinning 45, but “My jacket’s on, I’m out the door/And tonight I’m gonna burn this town down” offers anything but. On “Magic,” a sucker is still born every minute: “I got a shiny saw blade, all I need’s a volunteer/I’ll cut you in half while you’re smiling ear to ear,” Springsteen proposes, but before you can even raise your hand, he warns, “Trust none of what you hear and less of what you see.”

Magic is less strident than 2002’s The Rising, the previous album featuring the E Street Band, but in many ways it’s a sequel — words like “fear” and “dead” and “blood” still tarnish Springsteen’s landscape, and now they’re joined by “mistake” and “crumbled” and “lies.” “You can’t sleep at night, you can’t dream your dream” opens “Your Own Worst Enemy,” sung in a Roy Orbison croon against a brooding string section, and “Your flag it flew so high, it drifted into the sky” closes the song. The hope and pride and oneness of 9/12 have given way to paranoia, distrust, and disgruntlement; the shattering sense of loss reflected in The Rising is palpable, but there’s been no resolution, only polarization and sullenness. “There’s bodies hangin’ in the trees,” Springsteen sings as “Magic” fades, but he’s accepting, not outraged: “This is what will be, this is what will be,” he repeats. The darkness on the edge of town now shrouds Main Street, too.

Magic’s characters aren’t defeated, they’re just tired. Tired of being lied to, tired of feeling helpless and insignificant and tossed away. In the new America, it’s business as usual — except we’re embittered now, defenseless, cynical, and not nearly as angry as we should be. We’re handcuffed and bound, locked inside a box and tossed overboard with no idea how to get out.

So if things are falling apart so rapidly and miserably, why do Springsteen and his band seem to be having so much damn fun? There’s an odd ebullience to several of the arrangements that masks the songs’ personalities and allows them to pass as mere party tunes. Even as Springsteen sings of doomed love affairs, bodies and broken heroes returning home, and the diner “shuttered and boarded with a sign that just said ‘Gone,’ ” Magic skews buoyant and nostalgic. Only on a few songs do Bruce and band meet on common ground to pound his words home. There’s no way not to absorb the blatant anti-war sentiment of the scorching “Last To Die,” the album’s most overtly political song (its lyrical hook is based on a line from a Vietnam-era speech by John Kerry: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”), the disappearing sense of security of “Your Own Worst Enemy,” or the justified grief of “Gypsy Biker”: “To the dead it don’t matter much ’bout who is wrong or right.” Here the sound of the band is with him every step of the way.

But they aren’t as successful at nailing the more internalized sentiments of “Long Walk Home,” “You’ll Be Comin’ Down,” and “I’ll Work for Your Love.” Oversized, revved-up foundations obscure the intricacies of the interpersonal relationships Springsteen has laid out. And “Radio Nowhere,” the arena-ready single that opens Magic, though packed with clanging multi-layered guitars, screaming sax, and a sing-along-able chorus that would be perfect for classic-rock radio if such a thing still existed, is so mired in sonic muck that it goes nowhere.

Chalk up at least some of this disconnect to Brendan O’Brien’s production, which is often so slicked down and smooshed together that it doesn’t just airbrush the band’s jagged edges, it sandblasts them. O’Brien, who also produced The Rising, treats the E Street Band more like previous clients Pearl Jam, Korn, and Audioslave than like previous client Bob Dylan. They’re given little breathing room, a commodity that Springsteen was generous in affording his supporting players on their earlier, more timeless efforts. Perhaps that’s why, though Magic is touted as the grand return of the E Street Band, the album is credited solely to Springsteen. They’re a patient lot, these E-Streeters, but after lying low for half a decade, sitting out the drowsiness and faux Okie persona of the acoustic Devils & Dust, and the playful sideshow We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions, you’d think they might get to share the spotlight.

It’s disarming, this gloss that obscures the cracks and blemishes. The keyboardists, Roy Bittan and Danny Federici, and Clemons on sax have always driven the band, and though there are familiar licks here, that’s part of the problem: they appear to have nothing new to say. Fans can have fun playing where-have-I-heard-that-before, but they’ll be hard-pressed to discover contributions that aren’t subservient to the leader. Drummer Max Weinberg, previously one of the band’s most inventive cogs, has morphed into an indiscriminate basher, sacrificing his usual subtlety for an overbearing, crashing assault that O’Brien is happy to exploit by mixing it to shrillness.

Steve Van Zandt and Nils Lofgren fare better, and Little Steven in particular finds holes to fill with economical but scalding guitar work, perhaps inspired by those raw ’60s garage bands he plays on his syndicated radio program. But for all the talk of an E Street revival, this album could have been just about anyone playing the parts set out for them. Only on the power ballad “Devil’s Arcade,” its official closer and one of its most potent tracks (“You said heroes are needed, so heroes get made/Somebody made a bet/Somebody paid”), do the escalating orchestral swirls and piled-on production do justice to the song. (It’s a good thing, too, that Springsteen recorded the uncredited acoustic bonus track — “Terry’s Song,” a tribute to his recently deceased aide Terry Magovern — solo after the rest of the album was finished. A ham-fisted backing band would have sapped its emotion.)

Ronald Reagan was told to believe that “Born in the U.S.A.” was a patriotic anthem, and some will believe that “Radio Nowhere” is nothing more than a correlative to “57 Channels (And Nothin’ On),” a lament over the sad state of the electronic media. That would miss the song’s desperate longing for connection, and the search “for a world with some soul.” Magic will be whatever it is to those who invest however much they want to in it. There will always be those who laugh and applaud as the rabbit emerges from the magician’s sleeve, and never wonder how it got up there, or why the trickster thought to put it there in the first place.

Copyright © 2007 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group
From northjersey.com:
Springsteen shares a dose of protest with fans
By JERRY DeMARCO


Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Bruce Springsteen's acolytes can recall a time when their particular politics didn't affect whether they enjoyed his shows.

Not anymore.

How can it not when, during the first of two sold-out nights at Continental Arena on Tuesday, he invoked a fictional "Gypsy Biker" killed in a war waged by "profiteers" and "speculators"? Or when he defiantly asked who'll be the "Last to Die" for a "mistake"?

Both were from his latest album, "Magic," whose folkish title song is an anti-Bush allegory about how those desperate to believe can be fooled by a cunning leader's sleight-of-hand.

"Trust none of what you hear and less of what you see," Springsteen sang to more than 20,000 strong, his strum-and-twang giving way to mournful wailing with his wife, Patti Scialfa.

This was no illusion, though.

Nuggets like "She's the One" and the pre-fame "Thundercrack" were certainly appealing -- magic in the night, if you will.

But Tuesday's two-hour convocation was steeped in '60s-era protest music. It was a political rally wrapped in power chords, coming as it did as the nation begins ramping up to the presidential primaries.

The masses bopped in time to the bouncy "Livin' in the Future," even as Springsteen sang of a failure that could well have been George Bush's reelection: "My faith's been torn asunder/ Tell me is that rollin' thunder/ Or just the sinking sound/ Of something righteous goin' under?"

"New Jersey! Is there anybody alive out there?" he shouted, launching the show with "Radio Nowhere," a curiously radio-friendly rant against a taste-challenged culture. Springsteen then leaped into the inspiring "No Surrender," coaxing sidekick Steve Van Zandt to the microphone and closing with the final chords of Elvis Costello's "Radio Radio."

Counting off the songs, Springsteen steered the black-clad E Streeters through a series of set pieces, driving them home at times with sonic guitar or wailing harmonica. He showed his harp-playing chops on a stomping, ZZ Top-styled "Reason to Believe," then sent the long-timers into a frenzy with the machine-gun spray of "Candy's Room."

Playing behind him for the first time since he stumped for John Kerry on the 2004 "Move On" tour, the band had its flaws, their collective rhythm tripping up at times. They were tightest on the newer material -- guitarist Nils Lofgren juggling scorching riffs with Van Zandt; Danny Federici and Roy Bittan twinkling through the lush orchestration; violinist Suzie Tyrell, bassist Gary W. Tallent, and Scialfa filling their roles; and the icons Van Zandt, Clarence Clemons and Max Weinberg forming the best supporting cast since that now-defunct cable show about the anxious mob boss from West Caldwell.

At 58, Bruce is no longer the hardest-working man in show business. He doesn't stalk the stage anymore and pretty much kept his feet planted during a "Dancing in the Dark" encore -- a modern-day version of Elvis Presley shot from the waist up. He nonetheless stirred the beer-swigging throng, who responded with their own wall of sound each time the pride of Freehold thrust his fist or fretboard into the air.

Springsteen teased the Johnny-come-latelys during the "Thundercrack" encore, saying "they were louder in Philly" the other night. Moments later, they sang along in full throat on the requisite houselights-up "Born to Run."

None of the tunes from "Magic" had the anthemic weight of "Born to Run" -- or that of "The Rising" or "Lonesome Day," which he sprinkled into the set. But the new numbers had the same edge, as well as a familiar sonic ring. And by delivering it so soberly, with nary a butt wiggle or deep-knee bend, Springsteen may have found a compromise between his quieter performances and the rock-and-roll traveling redemption shows that have now receded into history. Either that or his rheumatism was acting up.

For anyone who could hear him through the din, Springsteen delivered a state of our union underpinned by genuine love for country.

"My father said, 'Son, we're lucky in this town/ It's a beautiful place to be born,' " he sang in the shimmering "Long Walk Home." " 'It just wraps its arms around you/ Nobody crowds you, nobody goes it alone./ The flag flyin' over the courthouse/ Means certain things are set in stone./Who we are and what we'll do and what we won't.' "

The rally closed with the jig (or is it reel?) of "American Land," from the Seeger sessions, as Tyrell hit a jaunty stride and follow-the-bouncing ball lyrics flashed on the jumbo screens above the stage. It was at that point that Springsteen really got into the act, marching from one side of the stage to the other, waving his pick hand at the crowd.

Whether they'll vote with him or not, Springsteen pulled the neat trick of making his audience a community. Like one of his idols, the late Harry Chapin, he reminded everyone that no matter what their individual intelligence or background, no matter how dislocated and alienated they may feel -- from friends, loved ones, colleagues -- they could connect with one another, at least for a couple of hours.

What they did once they left the revival tent was up to them.
* * *

Set list:

1. Radio Nowhere
2. No Surrender
3. Lonesome Day
4. Gypsy Biker
5. Magic
6. Reason to Believe
7. Candy's Room
8. She's the One
9. Livin' in the Future
10. The Promised Land
11. Darkness on the Edge of Town
12. Brilliant Disguise
13. Darlington County
14. Devil's Arcade
15. The Rising
16. Last to Die
17. Long Walk Home
18. Badlands

First encore:

19. Girls in Their Summer Clothes
20. Thundercrack
21. Born to Run

Second encore:

22. Dancing in the Dark
23. American Land
From Home News Tribune Online:
Hey pretty darling, don't wait up; gonna be a long walk home
By Rick Harrison


There are days when I'm completely lost.

I doubt my instincts, my reasoned judgment, my sense of hope. I stare from behind the wheel of my car at a metallic liquid swirl of humanity, oozing along New Jersey's clogged roads. Each life inside, disconnected from one another and the madness of more distant lands.

I live in a country divided by pride and shame — and blinded by both. I recognize my neighbors, but I do not know them. My country feels vibrant, but something is dying inside.

Is there anybody alive out there?

You're damn right there is.

When I went to see Bruce Springsteen open his "Magic" tour in Hartford, Conn., last week, I already knew the answer to that question — one he's been asking in one form or another since I was born. It's a question that echoes throughout the new album's first single, "Radio Nowhere," probing the void of American alienation and issuing a challenge to connect.

The song demands attention. It pleads and promises. Like his best songs, it offers a token of faith to escape the cold darkness. "I just want to feel some rhythm!" Bruce belted to the back of the old hockey barn.

Over the course of the show, the unsteady undercurrent of the new songs shake through the wall of sound. Springsteen is not just singing about girls in their summer clothes, sunsets, motorcycles, breakups, barmaids, lost soldiers and hometowns. As much as he's ever done, he's peeling the thin skin off of his country and exposing it to the elements. The songs might jump and swerve, but the aftertaste proves disarming and corrosive. What's happened to this great nation? Where are we going? How did we get here?

I was born here. Like Bruce, here in New Jersey. And like Bruce, I've always peered toward the edge of town, looking elsewhere, wondering, imagining. The best art teaches us something about our world, about human nature. Springsteen songs do more. They let you inhabit other lives, recognizing universal foibles and emotions through the behavior of strangers.

I grew up a white, privileged suburban kid. I've never known real hunger, real suffering, enduring danger or genuine hopelessness. I've never robbed a bank, raced cars, gambled away my life, fought in a war, married the wrong woman, worked at a car wash, or watched my brother's taillights disappear into Canada after he bashed a man's head in.

But thanks to Bruce, I somehow know these people. I feel more complete as a person. More compassionate and hungrier for real experience.

In concert, the E Street Band blows the lid off complacency. The set list takes us from the angry grief and desperate hope in the days after Sept. 11 ("The Rising") to the disastrous squandering of goodwill and good sense that defines our current adventure in Iraq ("Last to Die"). The songs puncture America's daydream, a fantasy in which our leaders do not imprison people indefinitely without due process, in which the rule of law can't be discarded with a signing statement and the machinations of hack toadies, in which we do not torture prisoners, in which fear does not trump bravery and liberties do not sell at a discount under a red, white and blue banner promising safety.

It's appropriate that I saw Springsteen in Connecticut — an old friend in a new place. I'm moving there next week to start a new job, share a home with my girlfriend, meet new neighbors. Maybe I'll get to know them better.

I hope something changes, and this country comes together, rediscovers what made it great, veers away from the cliff and arrives in The Promised Land.

"Here everybody has a neighbor," Bruce sings. "Everybody has a friend. Everybody has a reason to begin again."

Some days I'm completely lost. And some days, with a little help, I'm ready to make the long walk home.
Lars Klove for The New York Times
October 12, 2007
Books of The Times

Charlie Brown Gets the Blues
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI

SCHULZ AND PEANUTS
By David Michaelis
Illustrated. 655 pages.
HarperCollins. $34.95.

Charles M. Schulz drew “Peanuts” for nearly half a century, and the comic strip became a touchstone for the baby boom generation: an epic meditation, at once rueful and barbed, about the disappointments and existential quandaries of life, a funny-sad-wistful portrait of a recognizable world in which love goes unrequited, baseball games are always lost, and the Great Pumpkin never shows up.

The ever hopeful, ever rejected Charlie Brown; his cynical, rage-filled nemesis, Lucy Van Pelt; the philosophical and self-possessed Linus; the fanatic pianist Schroeder; and Snoopy, that bumptious beagle with the extraordinary fantasy life: these were characters who resonated with a generation that came of age during that perplexing period of transition as the country lurched from the somnolent ’50s into the psychedelic ’60s and ’70s. And they were characters, as David Michaelis observes in his revealing new biography, deeply rooted in their creator’s own life. It’s not just that Charlie Brown embodied Schulz’s own melancholy temperament and insecurities; it’s not just that Lucy represented his first wife’s bossy impatience. It’s that all the characters represented aspects of the deeply conflicted artist himself. As Mr. Michaelis writes, Schulz “gave his wishy-washiness and determination to Charlie Brown,” his sarcasm to Lucy, “his dignity and ‘weird little thoughts’” to Linus, his “perfectionism and devotion to his art to Schroeder,” his sense of “being talented and unappreciated to Snoopy.”

It is Mr. Michaelis’s achievement in these pages that he leaves us with both a shrewd appreciation of Schulz’s minimalist art and a sympathetic understanding of Schulz the man. He shows us how Schulz’s sense of vocation as a young child, fueled by a fierce ambition, led him to the career he’d always wanted, and how he gradually assimilated a host of influences to find a voice that was inimitably his own. He also shows us how Schulz constructed an anomalous fictional world that captured the public imagination, eventually reaching readers in some 75 countries, 2,600 newspapers and 21 languages.

At times the author’s prodigious research may overwhelm the casual reader, who may well wonder if we really need to know about all of Schulz’s unrequited crushes, all his panic attacks and spasms of self-doubt. But Mr. Michaelis, who had access to Schulz’s papers, has done a fluent job of weaving the many facts and anecdotes he’s collected into an engaging narrative that underscores how the artist’s solitary childhood in Minnesota — as the only child of a father preoccupied by work and a withholding, erratic mother — shaped both his insecurities and his will to succeed.

This shy, dutiful, painfully insecure boy was nicknamed Sparky (after the horse Spark Plug in the comic strip “Barney Google”), and beneath the Charlie Brown self-doubt he harbored an almost magical sense of destiny. From early on he was always doodling and drawing; by the time he was a teenager, he was studying how-to-draw cartoons books and taking a correspondence course in illustration.

Two nearly simultaneous events — the death of his mother from cancer and his induction into the Army in 1943 — would abruptly end Sparky’s sheltered childhood, heightening his fears of abandonment and loss of control. These very same emotions would fuel his characters’ struggles, just as they would shape Schulz’s willful self-sufficiency — his determination (maintained to the very end of his life) to draw “every single one of the 17,897 strips” without assistants. No doubt they also explain his fascination with “Citizen Kane,” a movie he would watch “perhaps as many as 40 times,” identifying with Orson Welles’s hero, who succeeded on a scale beyond the grandest of his childhood dreams and yet struggled to find love and security.

In charting Schulz’s life and career Mr. Michaelis does a wonderful job of showing how both the “Peanuts” strip and its characters evolved. He notes that unlike “Pogo” and “Li’l Abner,” which were dense with “business,” “Peanuts” was full of empty spaces and “didn’t depend on action or a particular context” to hold the reader’s attention. Rather, it “was about people working out the interior problems of their daily lives without ever actually solving them.”

He observes that Charlie Brown developed from a somewhat cocky kid into a “stoical Everyman” (“a decent person in a world hostile when not indifferent,” as Mr. Michaelis puts it) in response, in part, to the growing aggressiveness of Lucy, who evolved from a cute little girl into a domineering force of unreason “in the lineage of Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen and James Thurber’s controlling wives.”

Snoopy, the beagle with Chaplinesque moves and Quixote-like dreams, took the longest to develop fully. He started out as a smart but ordinary enough dog who walked on four legs and lived in an ordinary doghouse and became an exuberant creature who “often treated Charlie Brown and his friends as if he were their intellectual superior” while tolerating the foolish human things they did.

Snoopy skied, he surfed, he played tennis and golf, and he wrote (or at least started) a novel. His doghouse came to be furnished with a pool table, books, records and a van Gogh, and he would spend more and more time battling the Red Baron in his trusty Sopwith Camel.

At the same time his internal monologues increasingly came to reflect his creator’s own musings and confusions. As Schulz’s long first marriage began to unravel, Snoopy wondered about love and loss, and when Schulz became enamored with a young woman, Snoopy fell in love with a girl beagle at the Daisy Hill puppy farm. Both Schulz and Snoopy also developed crushes on the skating sensation Peggy Fleming.

By the late 1980s “Peanuts” had become a worldwide phenomenon, a merchandising empire generating more than $1 billion a year and spreading “tens of millions of plush Snoopys the world over from Argentina to Zimbabwe, Congo to Togo, Norway to New Zealand, Cameroon to Canada.” One of the first comic strips to deal with its characters’ inner lives, a strip built upon its creator’s own anxieties and losses had become, Mr. Michaelis writes, the “most widely syndicated cartoon on the planet, read by 5 percent of the world’s literate population.”

In December 1999 Schulz addressed a letter to his hundreds of millions of readers, announcing that he was going to retire; no one would succeed him in drawing the strip. Two months later, on Feb. 13, 2000, “the Sunday paper carrying his last cartoon arrived with the stunning news that Charles M. Schulz had died in his sleep of complications of colon cancer,” Mr. Michaelis writes. “Just hours later the final ‘Peanuts’ strip appeared in newspapers around the world. To the very end, his life had entwined with his art. As soon as he had ceased to be a cartoonist, he ceased to be.”

From The Yankees Pen at Home News Tribune:

Time to Let A-Rod Go
by T.J. Furman

Alex Rodriguez. If you’re the Yankees, what do you do about this situation?

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2006/writers/jon_heyman/08/28/al.busts/tx_alex.rodriguez.jpg

First, a brief recap. A-Rod, clearly the best player in the game this past season, can decide anytime between now and the 10th day after the World Series ends to terminate the last three years of his contract, the richest ever in the history of sports. He claims he wants to stay with the Yankees, so why would he exercise the opt-out clause? Well, believe it or not, he would actually make more than the $25 million average salary he makes right now.

The Yankees have claimed they would not negotiate with Rodriguez if he were to take that option and become a free agent.

Complicating matters is A-Rod’s and the Yankees’ performances the past four years in the playoffs. He went nearly three full calendar years without driving in a run in the postseason, but started showing signs of life in this past ALDS, getting four hits in the last two games and hitting a home run. But earlier in the series (and even earlier in Game 4 than his homer) Rodriguez had a chance for big hits and didn’t come through again. (Neither did a lot of other players, but I’m writing about A-Rod now. We’ll save the others for later.)

So, what should the Yankees do?

Let Rodriguez go.

That’s not an easy call and one I don’t necessarily think the Yankees will make. It wasn’t easy for me to figure it all out, either. A-Rod’s regular season (.314 BA, 54 HR, 156 RBI, 143 R) was among the best ever and had me convinced that this playoff season would be different from his others in pinstripes. That he would break out of his duldrums and put up a performance that you would expect from a player of his caliber.

He didn’t do it, the Yankees lost and he bears some of the blame for that. Not as much as in past years, but he’s still culpable to a degree.

But this past year’s ALDS isn’t the reason to let A-Rod walk. It isn’t even necessarily Rodriguez himself, but simply the idea he represents: That big money will lead to world titles. In case you haven’t noticed, it hasn’t worked.

Here are the payroll totals for the Yankees in their world title years and 2001 (when you could make the case that just one or two pitches with different results would have meant another title) along with the percentage difference between themselves and the second team.

YEAR PAYROLL (in millons) PCT. DIFFERENCE
1996 52.2 7.1
1998 63.2 -11.5
1999 88.1 8.4
2000 92.9 2.8
2001 112.3 2.4

The Orioles outspent the Yankees in 1998, paying out $70.4 million that year.

Here are those same numbers from 2002 on.

YEAR PAYROLL (in millons) PCT. DIFFERENCE
2002 125.9 16.2
2003 152.7 30.4
2004 184.2 44.7
2005 208.3 68.7
2006 194.7 62.1
2007 189.6 32.6

The difference between the first set of numbers and the second set is stark. Each year, the additional spending has increased the pressure exponentially to the point I think it’s nearly impossible for this team to win the World Series. When you think anything less than being the best team in the world is a complete failure, you’re going to fail.

By the way, over that second span I listed the World Series champion has ranked at an average of 12.67 on the payroll list (not including this year, obviously).

This has a lot to do with A-Rod since he makes more than anyone else on the team. I also firmly believe that “hired gun” acquisitions — players the Yanks can get because other teams either can’t afford them anymore or won’t get into a bidding war with George Steinbrenner — don’t thrive in this environment, at least not initially.

Aside from the idea of the inflated payroll inflating expectations, the structure of the team offensively is flawed. Starting with Jason Giambi in 2002, the Yankees have tried to build their team around home run hitters: Giambi, Rodriguez, Gary Sheffield. Hideki Matsui was brought in for the same reason, but turned out to be a more balanced player. None of the world championship teams had a player hit more than 30 home runs and were twice led in dingers by Bernie Williams, who was constantly criticized during his stay in New York for being a cleanup hitter who couldn’t hit homers.

So, it’s time for Alex Rodriguez and the Yankees to move on. Who should replace him? How about Mike Lowell or Mike Lamb. If you have arguments against this, let me know. I’ll do my best to fight you off.

From The NYT Blog Bats: October 11, 2007
The Steinbrenner Question
By Tyler Kepner


The Yankees may wait to decide on Joe Torre’s fate, a sign that principal owner George Steinbrenner will not act on impulse. This is how he did it last year and, despite his memorable rant in the Bergen Record last week, we should not be surprised.
George Steinbrenner

Steinbrenner, as always, is at the crux of the decision making process. But he is a different Steinbrenner, and no one knows precisely how he is different. That issue of his health seems to hover over everything, and the questions about his involvement in running the Yankees were crystallized in an e-mail I received this morning from a reader who did not give his or her name:

We count on you for your honesty. Now, we need an honest assessment — what do the sports reporters actually know about George Steinbrenner’s health? We’re not asking you to reveal anything you can’t. But just the facts: When it was reported that George was ‘fuming in his office’ after the last loss — did any reporters actually see him in the stadium? Has anyone actually spoken to him in person in the last six months? We’re not asking for speculation or rumors. But the unanswered questions hang over every article everyone writes. If we’re going to talk about Steinbrenner’s effect on the future of the Yankees, let’s be honest — if we’re not even sure if he’s cognizant of what’s going on, let’s at least admit that we don’t know.

The reader raises some great questions. We have tried to address them as best we can, and The Times is not the only paper trying to do so. Various publications have tried to uncover just what’s going on with the 77-year-old Steinbrenner. He still gives an occasional interview over the phone, but never a face-to-face sit-down.

You hear a lot of things about Steinbrenner’s health that can’t be written without verification. I wrote today that he is uneasy in public. I have also written that many people who have known him for years believe his health is failing. They say that he has good days and bad days. He goes to bed late, wakes up late, and still cares deeply about the Yankees.

His family goes to great lengths to protect him. After Game 3, son-in-law Felix Lopez ushered him away from reporters, even though Steinbrenner seemed ready to talk. After Game 4, he clutched his daughter Jennifer as they left the stadium. He made no public comments after either game.

The first time I saw Steinbrenner was in 1998, when I covered the Angels. It was the day that a chunk of the upper deck fell into the loge-level seats at The Stadium. Steinbrenner was in the elevator, furiously pressing the up button when the elevator was going down. He was angry. He reminded me of the Larry David impersonation of Steinbrenner on “Seinfeld.”

When I became the Yankees’ beat writer in 2002, Steinbrenner was fairly accessible. He was a presence during spring training, once offering a pizza box filled with hamburgers to reporters. He patted one reporter on the stomach and said, “Getting fat on the good food, are ya!”

After the Yankees lost in the A.L. division series that season, I called his home and got his reaction.

Hank Steinbrenner
George Steinbrenner’s son, Hank, right, with Reggie Jackson.
(Louis Lanzano/Associated Press)

The next season, I called him now and then, and sometimes he would call back. He patrolled the clubhouse in June after the Yankees were no-hit by the Houston Astros, and he openly meddled with Torre’s plan for pitcher Jose Contreras. In August 2003, before the new collective bargaining agreement was finalized, he asked me to come into his office for an interview that would run in the Sunday Times, and he used the forum to rail against the pending C.B.A.

But in December 2003, Steinbrenner collapsed at the funeral for Otto Graham, and he has not seemed the same since. He has his moments, of course, and some of them are quite kind. Shortly after my daughter was born in 2005, a children’s book written by Steinbrenner’s daughter, Jessica, arrived in my mailbox at The Times with a personal note from Steinbrenner about the responsibilities of fatherhood. It was a touching gesture.

Now, Steinbrenner is clearly slower, less feisty, and, yes, he seems somewhat distant at times. He is rarely seen at spring training when reporters are around, and of the 83 games played at Yankee Stadium this season, he missed 80.

Is he cognizant of what’s going on? I believe he is. But he clearly wants his sons, Hank and Hal, to have more input in team affairs, and they have dutifully taken on a more active role. Steinbrenner seems to realize he needs help running the team, and needs a successor.

His sons are filling that role, and that is why their input on the Torre decision is crucial. That is why Torre will likely remain in limbo until the Yankees’ executives meet in Tampa, possibly early next week
http://www.don-arts.com/uploads/BSgal.jpg
Bruce Springsteen: 10 Songs

Here's a question posted on RMAS that's far more difficult than winnowing down a top 100:

If you could put together one CD containing 10 Springsteen songs and
those would be the ONLY Springsteen songs you could ever listen to
again....what songs would your CD contain?

This isn't a list of what I think are the 10 best Springsteen songs, and I gave myself about a 5 minute limit for the exercise, but I think I could live with this list for a long time. (There's also the qualification that any version of Prove it All Night on this mythical disc would have to be a live version.)

  1. Incident on 57th Street
  2. Backstreets
  3. Born to Run
  4. Prove it All Night
  5. The Ties that Bind
  6. Loose Ends
  7. Land of Hope and Dreams
  8. Nothing Man
  9. Last to Die
  10. Long Walk Home
The image “http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/thumb_0604_06.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
Sanchez, former U.S. commander in Iraq,
calls war 'a nightmare with no end in sight'


By Jeff Schogol, Stars and Stripes


Mideast edition, Saturday, October 13, 2007

ARLINGTON, Va. – The former top commander of U.S. troops in Iraq slammed the handling of the war and gave a bleak assessment of the current situation in Iraq.

“There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight,” retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez told a convention of military journalists on Friday.

Sanchez commanded U.S. troops in Iraq from June 2003 to July 2004. His controversial tenure saw the capture of Saddam Hussein and the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi government, but also the rise of the insurgency and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

While cleared of any wrongdoing, one report found that Sanchez and his deputy, "failed to ensure proper staff oversight of detention and interrogation operations."

Abu Ghraib was a sore subject Friday for Sanchez, who lambasted the media for using phrases like "dictatorial and somewhat dense," "liar" and "torturer" to describe him.

"I also refused to talk to the European Stars and Stripes for the last two years of my command in Germany, for their extreme bias and single-minded focus on Abu Ghraib," he said.

But Sanchez reserved most of his venom Friday for U.S. officials, saying the U.S. government still has not brought all the resources needed to win in Iraq.

“From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan, to the administration’s latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize the political, economic and military power,” Sanchez said.

Continuing changes to military strategy alone will not achieve victory, rather it will only “stave off defeat,” he said.

“The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the State Department, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure and the American people must hold them accountable.”

Even now, the U.S. government has yet to launch a concerted effort to come up with a strategy to win in Iraq, Sanchez said. Such a strategy should involve political reconciliation among Iraqis, building up the Iraqi security forces and getting Iraq’s regional partners.

Sanchez acknowledged that U.S. officials have adopted that idea, but added that they do not have the necessary nonmilitary resources to carry it out.

“And it is not synchronized, and there is no enforcement of the strategy,” he said.

Sanchez said he realized there were serious challenges to the U.S. military’s strategy in Iraq as soon as he became the top military commander in Iraq.

Asked why he did not speak out about his concerns, Sanchez said general officers take an oath to carry out the orders of the president while in uniform.

“The last thing that America wants, the last thing that you want, is for currently serving general officers to stand up against our political leadership,” he said.

However, general officers do have the option of stepping down if they disagree with the country's leaders.

Sanchez said he felt he could not resign and go public with his reservations while he was in Iraq, because he feared that move could further jeopardize troops serving there.

“I think once you are retired, you have a responsibility to the nation, to your oath, to the country, to state your opinion,” he said.
http://www.buckfush.com/images/George_Bush_Constitution_Killer.jpg
From Real Clear Politics:
George W. Bush, Globalist
By Patrick Buchanan


Have the Bush Republicans ceased to be reliable custodians of American sovereignty? So it would seem.

President George W. Bush began well. He rejected the Kyoto Protocol on global warming negotiated by Vice President Al Gore as both injurious to the economy and rooted in questionable science. He refused to allow the armed forces and diplomats of the United States to be brought under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

But now President Bush is about to take his country by the hand and make a great leap forward into world government. He has signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which transfers jurisdiction over the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian and Arctic oceans and all the oil and mineral resources they contain, to an International Seabed Authority. This second United Nations would be ceded eternal hegemony over two-thirds of the Earth. It is the greatest U.N. power grab in history and, thanks to George Bush, is about to succeed.

Within the Authority, consisting of 155 nations, America would have one vote and no veto. However, we would pay the principal share of the operating costs, as we do today of the United Nations.

In 1978, Ronald Reagan declared, "No national interest of the United States can justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth's surface over to the Third World."

Rejecting the New International Economic Order that sought to effect a historic transfer of wealth and power from the First World to the Third, President Reagan in 1982 refused to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty or send it to the Senate. Now, Bush, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., have resurrected this monstrosity and are about to ram it through the U.S. Senate with, if you can believe it, the support of the U.S. Navy.

The rot of globalism runs deep in this capital city.

What is the matter with Bush? What is the matter with the U.S. Navy? For the sea treaty grants us no rights we do not already have in international law and tradition -- it only codifies them. It siphons off national rights, national sovereignty and national wealth, however, and empowers global bureaucrats and Third World kleptocrats whose common trait is jealousy of and hostility toward the United States.

Under LOST, if the United States wishes to mine the ocean or scoop up minerals from its floor, we would have to pay a fee and get permission from the Authority, then provide a subsidiary of the Authority called the Enterprise with a comparable site for its own exploitation with our technology. Eventually, the Authority would collect 7 percent of the revenue from the U.S. mining site, giving this institution of world government what the United Nations has hungered for for decades: the power to tax nations.

While the treaty assures the right of peaceful passage on the high seas and through narrows that are territorial waters, we already have that right under international law. And for the past two centuries, we have had as guarantor of the right of free passage the U.S. Navy. Now, we will have it courtesy of the International Seabed Authority.

"It is inconceivable to this naval officer," writes Adm. James Lyons, former commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, "why the Senate would willingly want to forfeit its responsibility for America's freedom of the seas to the unelected and unaccountable international agency that would be created by the ratification of LOST.

"The power of the U.S. Navy, not some anonymous bureaucracy, has been the nation's guarantee to our access to and freedom of the seas. I can cite many maritime operations -- from the blockade of Cuba in 1962, to the reflagging of ships in the Persian Gulf, to our submarine intelligence-gathering programs -- that have been critical to maintaining our freedom of the seas and protecting our waters from encroachment. All those examples would likely have to be submitted to an international tribunal for approval if we become a signatory to this treaty. ... This is incomprehensible."

U.S. warships today inspect vessels suspected of carrying nuclear contraband. In the Cold War, U.S. submarines entered harbors to tap into communications cables to protect our national security. Our subs routinely transit straits submerged. To do this, post-LOST, the Navy would have to get permission from an Authority composed of states most of which have an almost unbroken record of voting against us in the United Nations.

Why are we doing this? Do we think we will win the approbation of the international community if we show ourselves to be good global citizens by surrendering our rights and our wealth?

The Law of the Sea Treaty is an utterly unnecessary transfer of authority from the United States and of the wealth of its citizens to global bureaucrats who have never had our interests at heart, and to Third World regimes that have never been reliable friends. That Republicans senators think this is a good idea speaks volumes about what has become of the party of T.R., Bob Taft, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

And they call themselves conservatives.

Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.