from the Lincoln Journal Star

Please enjoy this gem from ten years ago.

I remember walking to the stadium and sitting up in the southeast corner of the stands to do the main drawing. I wrote down all the sponsors and advertisers I could see while I was there, and then I went back to the Daily Nebraskan office and looked for their logos in the Yellow Pages to finish the art.

This was clearly before the days of google image search.

from the San Diego Reader

This turned out looking a lot creepier than I thought it would.

from the front page of the Tuesday Journal Star’s local section:

from the Lincoln Journal Star

from the Lincoln Journal Star

from the Lincoln Journal Star

via futurabolditalic.com

A friend called me earlier this evening after having listened to Ben Nelson on today’s edition of All Things Considered on NPR. He alerted me to this exchange:

ROBERT SIEGEL: When you spoke of the extension of coverage, do you mean by that that you support in principle the idea of mandates, and that individuals and employers be required to purchase health insurance?

BEN NELSON: Well I think it’s important that it be compulsory. I don’t particularly like the idea of calling it a mandate. We have compulsory auto liability coverage in America today in virtually every state.

SIEGEL: Is there any more than a semantic distinction between something that’s compulsory and something that’s mandated?

NELSON: Well let’s put it this way — we already have a word that outlines exactly what it is and why it exists. Why do we invent new words?

To me, understanding that this is essentially an insurance issue is important to get away from the idea that there’s too much government involvement in it. We already have that kind of government involvement in mandating compulsory auto insurance. Why don’t we talk about it the same way so that people understand, “Oh, it’s just about like that.” Then you get away from all the discussions and the arguments about whether it’s too much government or not.

On first listen, I had pretty much the same reaction my friend did — Ben Nelson was caught trying to do a little linguistic dance. And when he was called out on it, he kept doing it rather than just fessing up to it, ultimately just coming off as kind of shifty and dishonest. But when I re-listened to see if I wanted to type anything up for the blog, I realized what Nelson is trying to do. I don’t think he handled the exchange very well, but I actually agree with his point and think it’s a smart move. (more…)

Jim Delmont’s “Critic @ Large” column in the Omaha City Weekly is always entertaining, but this week’s is particularly great. (Sadly, I couldn’t find it online, so you’ll need to pick up a copy of the OCW — with a great Beatles Rock Band cover story — to read it.)

Delmont’s work typically combines a beautiful mix of smugness and paranoia — I imagine someone in a velvet smoking jacket furiously typing while taking an occasional peek through the blinds. But his latest column, “Obama, Palin and the Future” is such a random grab-bag of conservative anger, it’s as if Delmont was worried that the nutty concerns in his fridge were nearing their expiration date and decided to toss all of them into one beautiful meal. A few tasty samples:

• It’s September 2009 and he’s still complaining about the coverage of the 2008 election and how the media completely neglected to point out Barack Obama’s inexperience, as if that wasn’t constantly referenced from approximately November 2007 through November 2008 as first Hillary Clinton and then John McCain made it a central campaign theme.

• He then launches into this sweaty-palmed McCarthesque rant about how liberals are taking over the media, colleges, high schools and now even libraries, “whose national meetings are veritable jamborees for the Democratic Party.”

• Liberals, according to Delmont, don’t believe in freedom of speech. Apparently, he says, they’re going to try to shut down Fox News and talk radio.
(more…)