Blue Crab Boulevard

Happy New Year to all the kind folks who stop by and visit here at Blue Crab Boulevard. May the new year bring you and yours health, happiness and prosperity. Thanks for stopping by and reading what I write and thanks for the comments that show that you actually read my offerings.

Not that I think cannibalism is going to break out anytime soon, but about 2,000 people are currently stranded in the Colorado mountains due to the closing of Interstate 70. The people are being sheltered and cared for by the Red Cross and private citizens. Why is the road closed, you ask?

The threat of avalanches. Oh, and whiteout conditions.

Deep snow drifted into more than two dozen narrow ravines in the mountainsides — known as avalanche chutes — raising the danger of potentially deadly snow slides cascading onto I-70.

High winds and blowing snow forced the state to close the highway overnight. There was no word on when the busy thoroughfare through the mountains would reopen.

"I can't even venture a guess right now," Rod Mead, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of Transportation, said Monday.

Crews planned to use low-power explosives Monday morning trying to bring the snow down while the highway was closed, Mead said. Transportation officials said it would be at least midafternoon before the highway was reopened.

In addition to the avalanche threat, wind-blown snow reduced visibility to nearly zero.

At the 1.7-mile-long Eisenhower Tunnel about 40 miles west of Denver, wind gusts reached 70 mph, keeping crews from clearing the avalanche chutes.

"That is basically the problem we are having right now," said John Nelson, another spokesman for the transportation department. "It's not snowing, it's blowing snow."

The Red Cross has opened up seven shelters, but many people are also being taken in by local residents.  

(Brian) Jerry, who had been snowboarding at Keystone Resort Sunday when high winds began, said he and his friends found a place to stay through conversations at a restaurant.

"The good will and the bonding together has been outstanding," he said.

Even a smallish problem like this one brings out the best in people, doesn't it?

Iowa voters have noticed that Hillary Clinton has stopped taking questions from the audience at her appearances. The campaign must have run out of handy plant life. Non-vegetable-like Iowans are not particularly amused by this:

Iowa Falls, Ia. ? Iowans have noticed that Democrat Hillary Clinton has not been taking public questions from audiences during most of her final-push campaign rallies.

After her 40-minute monologue ended shortly before 10 p.m. Sunday, Clinton immediately began to sign autographs, pose for photographs and listen to caucusgoers? concerns one on one.

Iowa Falls resident Alene Rickels, 51, when asked her thoughts about the event, told a reporter: ?Her speech was really good, but it would?ve been interesting to see how she reacted to questions.

?I really thought she would take questions,? said Rickels, a middle school teacher. ?It?s late in the day, so I?m assuming that that?s the reason. I don?t know what she did the rest of the day.?

Clinton took no questions from audiences at any of her stops earlier Sunday, in Vinton, Traer and Cedar Falls.

That message control raised eyebrows for other caucusgoers.

Clinton has taken questions at two of 19 appearances, Obama has done so at 12 of 24. The difference is pretty stark, isn't it? The report mentions that other Democratic candidates are more accessible. They only mention one Republican, Mitt Romney, who is also not taking questions in recent appearances. I suppose it really isn't all that big a deal in the great scheme of things. Besides, how many questions did Hillary get from plant life in the audience at earlier events?

The New York Post reports on a collection of quotes from the media compiled by the Media Research Center. The quotes tend to reveal a severe institutional left-wing/Democratic party bias in the media. It isn't very flattering for the mainstream media.

December 31, 2007 — For the past 20 years, the Media Research Center has been compiling its list of notable quotables. The quotes, from prominent members of the mainstream news media, provide a clear window into the leftist mindset that pervades most of America's large news organizations. At the end of the year, the center (helped by a panel of judges) chooses the best examples. As usual, this year's crop reveals the media's perennial contempt for all things conservative. Actually, the winners more or less explain themselves. (The full set of winners and finalists can be found at the center's Web site, mrc.org.) Happy New Year!

Dynamic Duo Award for Idolizing Bill and Hillary

"When I watched [former President Bill Clinton] at Mrs. King's funeral, I just have never seen anything like it . . . There are times when he sounds like Jesus in the temple. I mean, amazing ability to transcend ethnicity - race, we call it, it's really ethnicity - in this country and, and speak to us all in this amazingly primordial way." - Chris Matthews, MSNBC's "Hardball"

Damn Those Conservatives Award

"I'm just saying, if he did die, other people, more people, would live. That's a fact." - Bill Maher, HBO's "Real Time," discussing complaints by left-wing bloggers that an attempt to kill Vice President Dick Cheney in Afghanistan had failed

Great Goreacle Award

"Do you mind if I -? [holds up a 'Gore 2008' pin] . . . There you go. You can hold it. . . . Here, let's see what it looks like. [holds pin to Gore's lapel] . . . All right, all right. Save that in a freeze frame." - Harry Smith, on CBS' "Morning Show"

Good Morning Morons Award

"So I'm running in the park on Saturday, in shorts, thinking this [warm weather] is great, but are we all gonna die? You know? I can't, I can't figure this out."

- Meredith Vieira, talking about global warming on NBC's "Today"

Tin Foil Hat Award for Crazy Conspiracy Theories

"Is there such a thing as a man-made stroke? In other words, did someone do this to him? . . . I know what this [Republican] party is capable of."

- Joy Behar, on ABC's "The View," discussing Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson's illness

There are many, many more over at the Post. The full list is available at the Media Research Center website. They include actual video of the festivities. Their top pick for the year comes from McClatchy:

“As Violence Falls in Iraq, Cemetery Workers Feel the Pinch”

Yup, no bias there.

The British Met Office is predicting a brutal cold spell in Britain for the New Year. Many areas will be at sub-zero temperatures and much of the country will be blanketed in snow.

Wrap up warm, the January shivers are on their way.

By the end of the week temperatures in many places will be below zero and large areas will be covered in a blanket of snow, forecasters warned yesterday.

Robin Downton, of the Met Office, said: "The weather is going to turn really cold during Wednesday and by Thursday it will feel jolly cold throughout the whole of the country apart from the very far West and South West.

"There could well be snow in the East and North of England and eastern Scotland. There is a significant risk of a covering of snow.

"Thursday daytime temperatures will only be a degree or so above zero and it could be just below zero overnight.

"Going into Thursday and Friday, there could be snow in areas further west, including the Midlands, on higher ground."

The comments are hysterical. A lot of sniping at global warming and the occasional true believer popping in. Including the folks from Australia who say they are having a heat wave - who appear to have forgotten completely that Australia suffered the coldest June since 1950 this year. Or that waiting for a Harry Potter book in bitterly cold Canberra in July could cause hypothermia. Not to mention the fact that there is snow cover reaching all the way to the Mediterranean this year.

Stuart Rothenberg basically does a number on John Edwards today over at Real Clear Politics. It is the most harsh a look at Edwards that I have seen recently. Rothenberg asks if the Democrats really want a bullying divider as their candidate.

While the Democratic race has often, and quite accurately, been described as a choice between change (Barack Obama and John Edwards) and experience (Hillary Rodham Clinton), it has, in the final days before Iowa, become another kind of choice as well.

Democrats must decide whether they want a candidate who is angry and confrontational, and who sees those favoring compromise as traitors (Edwards), or a candidate who presents himself as a uniter (Obama), or a candidate who presents herself as someone who understands the ways of Washington and can get things done (Clinton).

While Clinton and Obama both acknowledge the importance of working with various interests, including Capitol Hill Republicans and the business community, to come up with solutions to key problems, Edwards sounds more and more like the neighborhood bully who plans to dictate what is to be done.

The former North Carolina senator is running a classic populist campaign that would have made William Jennings Bryan (or Ralph Nader) proud. Everything is Corporate America's fault. But he's also portraying himself as fighting for the middle class and able to appeal to swing voters and even Republicans in a general election.

Edwards certainly would dispute that there is an inherent contradiction between his populist rhetoric and his alleged middle class appeal. But his approach to problems is likely to frighten many voters, including most middle class Americans and virtually all Republicans.

Ouch. This actually reads as highly partisan - although Rothenberg usually tries not to go there. Or at least not this openly, I guess. Kind of interesting coming from him. He states, flatly, that an Edwards presidency would tear the nation apart. Read the whole thing, see if you read it the same way I do. (For the record, I personally don't like Edwards and don't think he will take the nomination.) My guess is that Rothenberg will not be welcome anywhere near the Edwards campaign after this column.

The Politico has a very unflattering analysis of Hillary Clinton's campaign to date written by Elizabeth Drew. Pulled all together, the "herky-jerky" campaign's wobbles from one ditch to the next look, if anything, worse than each incident taken alone. Drew points out that the Clinton campaign is now really dependent on Bill Clinton's ability to garner support for Hillary - not at all what was originally intended.

Her campaign had begun by tagging her, simply, “Hillary.”

She would win this thing on her own.

Everyone knew that her husband would be there somewhere in the background, dispensing advice — but Bill and the memories he summons were to be on the sidelines.

Then, when her supposed juggernaut campaign fell into a ditch in Iowa, Bill was called to the rescue.

The Hillary Clinton campaign for the presidency has had an odd herky-jerky quality, marked by multiple and unsubtle switches in strategy — they were practically trumpeted by her aides — giving off an aura of uncertainty behind the sense of inevitability it had carefully cultivated. (Which much of the media bought into.)

The 350-page, state-by-state memo produced last summer by Mark Penn, her chief strategist, purportedly showing that she was the overwhelming favorite led to miscalculations.

The presumption of “inevitability” didn’t go down so well with voters who thought they should have a say in the matter.

Some women registered resentment at being expected to vote for her because of her gender.

As she began to sink in Iowa, her campaign leaked to some newspapers that this was because they hadn’t realized until October how up close and personal a campaign in Iowa must be; but since she had on her side former Gov. Tom Vilsack and other prominent political figures in the state, who certainly knew the rules, this assertion didn’t wash.

(So much for the “textbook campaign” the media had been crediting her with — whatever that meant. Has anyone seen a copy?)

Drew assembles quite a lot more. As I said, it is not a pretty picture. I've posted about the weirdly frenetic Clinton campaign for a while now. It does appear to be lurching about trying to find a message that works - but they roll something out, then turn around and roll out something completely new the next day. All of that makes Clinton look less inevitable and more like she's floundering. The problem with relying on Bill Clinton for votes should be obvious - who is really campaigning - and who will really be in charge? Let's face it, Clinton has a huge war chest and big operations in most states these days - but devastating losses in Iowa and New Hampshire could be a real problem for the Clintonian machine. We'll see soon enough, now. Only a few more days.

John Fund looks at the problems with the Iowa caucus format and finds a number of very basic problems with them. Designed by state parties not as a democratic process, but as one meant to give disproportionate influence to party insiders and party donors, the caucus format actually works against many basic tenets of small-D democracy. That, in turn, makes many of the polls being trotted out by various organizations even less accurate than normal.

The trouble with the Iowa caucuses isn't that there's anything wrong with Iowans. It's the bizarre rules of the process. Caucuses are touted as authentic neighborhood meetings where voters gather in their precincts and make democracy come alive. In truth, they are anything but.

Caucuses occur only at a fixed time at night, so that many people working odd hours can't participate. They can easily exceed two hours. There are no absentee ballots, which means the process disfranchises the sick, shut-ins and people who are out of town on the day of the caucus. The Democratic caucuses require participants to stand in a corner with other supporters of their candidate. That eliminates the secret ballot.

There are reasons for all this. The caucuses are run by the state parties, and unlike primary or general elections aren't regulated by the government. They were designed as an insiders' game to attract party activists, donors and political junkies and give them a disproportionate influence in the process. In other words, they are designed not to be overly democratic. Primaries aren't perfect. but at least they make it fairly easy for everyone to vote, since polls are open all day and it takes only a few minutes to cast a ballot.

Little wonder that voter turnout for the Iowa caucuses is extremely low–in recent years about 6% of registered voters. Many potential voters will proclaim their civic virtue to pollsters and others and say they will show up at the caucus–and then find something else to do Thursday night.

All of which means that the endless polls on the Iowa caucuses are highly suspect. Iowans have been bombarded by well over a million political phone calls in recent days. They range from "robo calls" from interest groups touting one candidate or another to breathless teenage volunteers inviting the voter to a local coffee with some obscure relative of a candidate.

Smart voters tune all this out and screen their calls, making it difficult for pollsters to reach them. Even when they do answer the phone, many people refuse to participate in surveys. Pollsters can't call people who only have cell phones. So you get implausible results like last Friday's Los Angeles Times survey that found Barack Obama in third place on the Democratic side and Mike Huckabee running away with the GOP contest. The Times's pollsters surveyed just 174 likely Republican voters and 389 Democratic one, with a whopping margin of error of plus or minus seven percentage points among Republicans and five points among Democrats.

The problems are not quite so large in the Republican-run caucuses, which do use a somewhat secret ballot process. But the Democrat's arcane rituals border on the deranged. Standing in a corner, people shouting across the room trying to convince others to come stand with them, all of that and more. Entrance polls will only be used in more urban areas - which tend to lean far to the left. But the media will breathlessly report on those poll results - even though they will likely be badly skewed - or completely wrong once the rural results are in. (Fund also notes that in the 2004 Democratic caucuses, four precincts had a whopping zero turnout. Literally nobody showed up at all.)

All in all, Iowa has some very weird rules in place that tend to make a hash out of conventional wisdom. Most reporters are not going to take the time to actually try to understand just how bizarre the rules are and will report as if the same rules they are used to apply. Obviously, that is not the case. That is probably why Iowa has been surprising candidates and the rest of the country for years.

The Washington Post reports on a new required course that all journalism students must take at Tsinghua University in China. The class is called "Marxist journalism" - and it, unfortunately, sounds kind of familiar.

The center has in its first year of operation become a vivid example of the tension between China's rush toward modernization and the Communist Party's insistence on retaining control over the flow of information. Journalism students at Tsinghua are taught not only about Watergate and the rise of the Internet, but also about the restricted role reporters are expected to play under a Marxist government such as China's.

In China, that role traditionally has been to support the government by spreading propaganda and suppressing news that contradicts policy or puts officials in a bad light. But as the country has opened to the world in the last three decades, many journalists — and journalism students and their professors–have acquired new ambitions for their craft, such as investigative reporting on official corruption.

Against that background, the party's Central Committee in 2001 urged Chinese media and journalism schools to adopt the concept of "Marxist journalism." The term was broadly interpreted to mean journalism that the government views as improving society and taking account of Chinese realities, including censorship under one-party rule.

What sounds more than a bit familiar is this part:

Addressing censorship, Fan told students that the government must "guide public opinion" because many Chinese are not well educated and cannot understand current events well. "The situation of our country decided we need to guide public opinion," he said. "We should consider the social effects of every report, thinking if it is good or bad for our country, society and people, especially for the stability and development of the country."

Make a couple of minor word substitutions and it sounds more than a little like the agenda of many in the Western media, doesn't it? (Despite warnings from some in media that point of view journalism can be a very bad idea.) Not that the media in this country does the government's bidding - quite the opposite, in fact. Still, there are a lot of reporters these days who write with an agenda, one which is not transparent, meant to "guide" public opinion. That should make some journalists uncomfortable.

Of course, we also have graduates of the Mad Magazine School of Journalism running about as well.

Daniel Drezner, writing in the Los Angeles Times, takes a look at celebrity activists, the good, the bad and the ugly of the phenomenon, as it were. He asks whether celebrities should be the ones setting the global agenda.

Celebrity involvement in politics and policy is hardly new. Shirley Temple and Jane Fonda, for example, became known as much for their politics as their films. Actors, including Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Fred Thompson, have taken the more traditional star route to power: running for political office. The template for the Live Earth concerts earlier this year was the 1985 Live Aid concert, which in turn echoed the 1974 all-star concert for Bangladesh.

But today, the power of soft news has given stars new leverage. Their rising clout has as much to do with how we consume information as it does with the celebrities themselves. Cable television, talk radio and weblogs have radically diversified the news sources available to Americans. The more competitive marketplace for news and entertainment affects how public opinion on foreign policy is formed.

Matthew Baum argued in his book "Soft News Goes to War" that a large share of Americans get their information about world politics from such soft-news shows as "Entertainment Tonight," "Access Hollywood," "The View," "The Daily Show" and "The Tonight Show" — or from Gawker, TMZ and PerezHilton. These shows and websites reach an audience that is normally unattainable by the New York Times or "Nightline," according to Baum. Yet hard-news sources cover celebrity politics too. Think of how many times you saw Madonna in Africa on CNN, or Sean Penn in Venezuela. And frankly, if the Washington Post has to choose between an Op-Ed article by Jolie and one by a lesser-known expert on Sudan, which author do you think will be published?….

….But celebrity activism doesn't always achieve its ends. Richard Gere, for instance, has devoted decades to the cause of Tibetan independence, to little avail. And although Bono has been invaluable in promoting debt relief, his (Product) Red campaign, which aimed to generate money for the U.N. Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, has been a disappointment.

Even if celebrities are judicious and focused in promoting their causes, there are limits to what they can do. Promoting a policy agenda is one thing; implementing it is another thing entirely. A celebrity who harps on a cause risks generating fatigue with the general public. As Bono recently told CNN: "Look, I'm Bono and I'm sick of Bono. And I fully understand. … I look forward to a time when I'm not such a pest and a self-righteous rock star."

A deeper problem celebrities face is that although they're good at bringing attention to a problem, it does not automatically follow that there will be a groundswell of support for direct action. This is not how politics necessarily works, particularly in the global realm. Any solution to a problem such as global warming or Darfur involves not just goodwill but a willingness to incur significant costs. As people become more aware of the policy problem, it is far from guaranteed that a consensus will emerge about the best way to solve it.

Drezner also dryly notes that celebrities stands on issues can actually backfire. Many Americans certainly think celebrities should stick to entertainment and keep off the global agenda items. There are celebrities that have been relatively effective, depending on what they were supporting. (Think Audrey Hepburn as a good will ambassador for UNICEF.) But the self-righteous ones do become very annoying and probably actually harm the cause they are pushing. (Think Sheryl Crow and her "humor.")