A thought for the Memorial Day Weekend:

"Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again,--
The eternal years of God are hers;
But Error, wounded, writhes in pain,
And dies among his worshippers."

Truth has a way of asserting itself despite all attempts to obscure it. Distortion only serves to derail it for a time. No matter to what lengths we humans may go to obfuscate facts or delude our fellows, truth has a way of squeezing out through the cracks, eventually.

But the danger is that at some point it may no longer matter. The danger is that damage is done before the truth is widely realized. The reality is that, sometimes, it is easier to ignore uncomfortable facts and go along with whatever distortion is currently in vogue. We see a lot of this today in politics. I see a lot of it -- more than I would ever have believed -- right on this Senate Floor.

Regarding the situation in Iraq, it appears to this Senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing International law, under false premises. There is ample evidence that the horrific events of September 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda who masterminded the September 11th attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not. The run up to our invasion of Iraq featured the President and members of his cabinet invoking every frightening image they could conjure, from mushroom clouds, to buried caches of germ warfare, to drones poised to deliver germ laden death in our major cities. We were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein's direct threat to our freedoms. The tactic was guaranteed to provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering from a combination of post traumatic stress and justifiable anger after the attacks of 911. It was the exploitation of fear. It was a placebo for the anger.

Since the war's end, every subsequent revelation which has seemed to refute the previous dire claims of the Bush Administration has been brushed aside. Instead of addressing the contradictory evidence, the White House deftly changes the subject. No weapons of mass destruction have yet turned up, but we are told that they will in time. Perhaps they yet will. But, our costly and destructive bunker busting attack on Iraq seems to have proven, in the main, precisely the opposite of what we were told was the urgent reason to go in. It seems also to have, for the present, verified the assertions of Hans Blix and the inspection team he led, which President Bush and company so derided. As Blix always said, a lot of time will be needed to find such weapons, if they do, indeed, exist. Meanwhile Bin Laden is still on the loose and Saddam Hussein has come up missing.

The Administration assured the U.S. public and the world, over and over again, that an attack was necessary to protect our people and the world from terrorism. It assiduously worked to alarm the public and blur the faces of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden until they virtually became one.

What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S. Ravaged by years of sanctions, Iraq did not even lift an airplane against us. Iraq's threatening death-dealing fleet of unmanned drones about which we heard so much morphed into one prototype made of plywood and string. Their missiles proved to be outdated and of limited range. Their army was quickly overwhelmed by our technology and our well trained troops.

Presently our loyal military personnel continue their mission of diligently searching for WMD. They have so far turned up only fertilizer, vacuum cleaners, conventional weapons, and the occasional buried swimming pool. They are misused on such a mission and they continue to be at grave risk. But, the Bush team's extensive hype of WMD in Iraq as justification for a preemptive invasion has become more than embarrassing. It has raised serious questions about prevarication and the reckless use of power. Were our troops needlessly put at risk? Were countless Iraqi civilians killed and maimed when war was not really necessary? Was the American public deliberately misled? Was the world?

What makes me cringe even more is the continued claim that we are "liberators." The facts don't seem to support the label we have so euphemistically attached to ourselves. True, we have unseated a brutal, despicable despot, but "liberation" implies the follow up of freedom, self-determination and a better life for the common people. In fact, if the situation in Iraq is the result of "liberation," we may have set the cause of freedom back 200 years.

Despite our high-blown claims of a better life for the Iraqi people, water is scarce, and often foul, electricity is a sometime thing, food is in short supply, hospitals are stacked with the wounded and maimed, historic treasures of the region and of the Iraqi people have been looted, and nuclear material may have been disseminated to heaven knows where, while U.S. troops, on orders, looked on and guarded the oil supply.

Meanwhile, lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and refurbish its oil industry are awarded to Administration cronies, without benefit of competitive bidding, and the U.S. steadfastly resists offers of U.N. assistance to participate. Is there any wonder that the real motives of the U.S. government are the subject of worldwide speculation and mistrust?

And in what may be the most damaging development, the U.S. appears to be pushing off Iraq's clamor for self-government. Jay Garner has been summarily replaced, and it is becoming all too clear that the smiling face of the U.S. as liberator is quickly assuming the scowl of an occupier. The image of the boot on the throat has replaced the beckoning hand of freedom. Chaos and rioting only exacerbate that image, as U.S. soldiers try to sustain order in a land ravaged by poverty and disease. "Regime change" in Iraq has so far meant anarchy, curbed only by an occupying military force and a U.S. administrative presence that is evasive about if and when it intends to depart.

Democracy and Freedom cannot be force fed at the point of an occupier's gun. To think otherwise is folly. One has to stop and ponder. How could we have been so impossibly naive? How could we expect to easily plant a clone of U.S. culture, values, and government in a country so riven with religious, territorial, and tribal rivalries, so suspicious of U.S. motives, and so at odds with the galloping materialism which drives the western-style economies?

As so many warned this Administration before it launched its misguided war on Iraq, there is evidence that our crack down in Iraq is likely to convince 1,000 new Bin Ladens to plan other horrors of the type we have seen in the past several days. Instead of damaging the terrorists, we have given them new fuel for their fury. We did not complete our mission in Afghanistan because we were so eager to attack Iraq. Now it appears that Al Queda is back with a vengeance. We have returned to orange alert in the U.S., and we may well have destabilized the Mideast region, a region we have never fully understood. We have alienated friends around the globe with our dissembling and our haughty insistence on punishing former friends who may not see things quite our way.

The path of diplomacy and reason have gone out the window to be replaced by force, unilateralism, and punishment for transgressions. I read most recently with amazement our harsh castigation of Turkey, our longtime friend and strategic ally. It is astonishing that our government is berating the new Turkish government for conducting its affairs in accordance with its own Constitution and its democratic institutions.

Indeed, we may have sparked a new international arms race as countries move ahead to develop WMD as a last ditch attempt to ward off a possible preemptive strike from a newly belligerent U.S. which claims the right to hit where it wants. In fact, there is little to constrain this President. Congress, in what will go down in history as its most unfortunate act, handed away its power to declare war for the foreseeable future and empowered this President to wage war at will.

As if that were not bad enough, members of Congress are reluctant to ask questions which are begging to be asked. How long will we occupy Iraq? We have already heard disputes on the numbers of troops which will be needed to retain order. What is the truth? How costly will the occupation and rebuilding be? No one has given a straight answer. How will we afford this long-term massive commitment, fight terrorism at home, address a serious crisis in domestic healthcare, afford behemoth military spending and give away billions in tax cuts amidst a deficit which has climbed to over $340 billion for this year alone? If the President's tax cut passes it will be $400 billion. We cower in the shadows while false statements proliferate. We accept soft answers and shaky explanations because to demand the truth is hard, or unpopular, or may be politically costly.

But, I contend that, through it all, the people know. The American people unfortunately are used to political shading, spin, and the usual chicanery they hear from public officials. They patiently tolerate it up to a point. But there is a line. It may seem to be drawn in invisible ink for a time, but eventually it will appear in dark colors, tinged with anger. When it comes to shedding American blood - - when it comes to wreaking havoc on civilians, on innocent men, women, and children, callous dissembling is not acceptable. Nothing is worth that kind of lie - - not oil, not revenge, not reelection, not somebody's grand pipedream of a democratic domino theory.

And mark my words, the calculated intimidation which we see so often of late by the "powers that be" will only keep the loyal opposition quiet for just so long. Because eventually, like it always does, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall.

--Sen. Robert Byrd, May 21, 2003

Quickie Golf Trivia Question: What do Mark Brooks, Steve Elkington, Bob Estes, Sergio Garcia and Tom Lehman all have in common? First to answer gets a free night of drinking at Over/Under in Santa Monica....

Ari Fleischer's first day back in civilian life is off to a rough start....

Here's something for fans of Hans Gruber: his own website.

P.C. Watch: Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Chris Hedges of the NY Times was booed off the stage and had his microphone cut off by angry students at Rockford College in Illinois, when he gave a commencement speech critical of US war aims in Iraq. This is less a free speech issue (the audience has just as much of a right to boo and heckle a speaker, something Jeane Kirkpatrick found out when she gave a lecture at Berkeley 20 years ago) than it is a sign that a substantial portion of the country is not interested in having its views challenged, and will get mighty defensive about it when you try. Further evidence, of course, that modern conservatism is as intolerant of dissident views as your typical campus leftist.

William Buckley again proves that, agree or disagree, his columns are always provocative. His take on the Jayson Blair controversy is perhaps the first by a conservative that doesn't reflexively blame affirmative action for the fiasco; in fact, he brings up two obvious issues that would mediate against that argument, that Blair is an immensely talented writer (albeit a dishonest one) and that the stories he was writing were real (it was the quotes and sources that were fabricated). It is a useful tonic to the conventional wisdom now emerging, that somehow this problem never would have happened with a white reporter.

His second column, on the Bennett gambling controversy, has been widely disseminated in the blogosphere for his prediction that Mr. Virtue is...objectively discredited. He will not be proffered any public post by any president into the foreseeable future. He will not publish another book on another virtue, if there is any he has neglected to write about. It is possible that the books written by him on the subject, sitting in bookstores, will work their way to the remainder houses.

OUCH !! What isn't commented on is Buckley's more important point, regarding Bennett's right to a private life and the advocacy of "virtue". The whole notion that casinos are now trading the gambling records of patrons to the fourth estate strikes me as contemptible, and I'm glad that he agrees. His more important point, though, concerns the glee which many of my compatriots on the left have expressed concerning this whole sordid tale. Even granting the rather banal point that Bennett is a hypocrite, I have yet to hear a compelling argument that everything Bennett believes in should now be discredited.

What is the larger point about hypocrisy, anyway? For example, if Pope John Paul II has a secret wife and children, his hypocrisy would speak to the unnaturalness of the Church's policy towards sex, marriage by priests, etc. In other words, it would concern a policy within the Church that has nothing to do with morality, vice, or anything beyond the fact that it was imposed centuries ago to prevent clerical leaders from passing church property on to their descendents. The hypocrisy would reflect how wrong the policy is, not vindicate my unrelated positions on choice and contraception. No one could plausibly believe that because the Pope had been shown to be a hypocrite on this one issue somehow discredits the Church's teaching on the Immaculate Conception.

Gambling is clearly not like that. A significant percentage of people view it as a vice, and, as with drinking, most people believe that it is wrong if done to excess. In a not-altogether convincing article last weekend, Frank Rich argues that Bennett's downfall stems as much from his destination (Las Vegas) as his choice of vices, since he could play the slots to his heart's content in Delaware, rather than in a city that still celebrates the memory of Bugsy Siegel, and in which Crazy Horse II is one of the most popular tourist destinations.

Still, one can oppose gambling and still have difficulty walking away from a blackjack table. William Bennett is no more discredited now, on this or any other issue, than he was two weeks ago. More to the point, Bennett should not be discredited because he is a hypocrite who preached virtue while practicing vice. He should be discredited because he was an unforgiving, bigoted, sanctimonious, partisan scold, a fact that was not changed by the events of the last two weeks.

Jeez, Scott Weiland just got popped for possession of drugs. The "unidentified narcotics" were reportedly discovered by police after they pulled him over last night for driving without his lights. This is the type of story that you are never quite sure if it actually happened, or whether it just gets spit out automatically by the A.P. wire every five months.

The perils of writing under the influence: Mr. Samgrass attempts to "set the record straight" concerning his former friend Sid Blumenthal. Someone please do me the courtesy of translating this into English....

I plan on editing the blogroll to the right in the next couple of days. I have some ideas as to what sites I want to add, delete, etc.(while maintaining all of the sites of bloggers who've honored my life's work by linking to Smythe's World), but I am open to suggestions. If anyone has a favorite link that they access here, let me know, either in the comments box or by e-mail, so that I don't remove it.

The incomparable Ms. Annette Summersett now has a website. It's still under construction, but you can download some of her choicest tunes, and for those of you who can't make it to the Sherman Oaks Lounge every Saturday night, you can hear what all the buzz is about. Unfortunately, the two of us are feuding right now, due to her determined, unqualified hatred of the Mighty Ducks.

Finally, an article in the mainstream press about blogging that doesn't treat the medium like it's some bizarre tribal mating ritual. The focus is on those unfortunate many who become fodder for erstwhile friends who blog, even though they aren't public figures. I think I've successfully avoided that problem, since the few friends I have are either too stupid to know how to use a computer, or already understand that most of the stuff I publish about my life is bullshit anyways.

How is it, exactly, that Halle Berry is the world's most beautiful woman, when she was famously only a first runner-up in the Miss U.S.A. pageant? Granted, it was seventeen years ago, but I doubt Christy Fichtner has aged that badly.


Christy Fichtner (more)

I was hoping that if I didn't write about last night, it never happened. That the Lakers were uninspired at the defensive end goes without saying. More interesting was how dominating San Antonio looked in Game 6. After losing back-to-back games, then getting a reprieve in the final seconds of Game 5, a lot of fans expected the Spurs to get blown out by the Lakers, but Tim Duncan, et al., seemed determined last night not just to beat the Lakers, but bury them. And bury them they did, particularly after an impressive 14-minute stretch of the third and fourth quarter when they scored on 18 of 22 possessions.

Last year, the Lakers were a game away from elimination, having just lost a game in Sacramento, due in large part to some questionable calls at the end of the game. When it was the Lakers turn to get the breaks (and the calls) in Game 6, the Kings players whined like schoolgirls. Of course, in Game 7 the refs bent over backwards to assist Sacramento, but the Kings couldn't hit their frees, and the Lakers pulled out another title. Last night, after a Game 5 partly decided on some questionable non-calls late, and with the expectation that the Lakers were going to turn on the afterburners again, the Spurs took the officials out of the game. They will deserve their likely championship.

UPDATE: A touching elegy from Tony Pierce. The best line comes at the end: "the fans were booing because the eggs are cold, the butters getting hard, and the jellos jiggling, except this time, for the first time in a generation, the jello was jiggling for thee."

About a month ago, there were stories about how documents "uncovered" after the fall of Baghdad revealed that a major anti-war figure in British politics, George Galloway, was on Saddam's payroll, as well as showing that the French had provided intelligence about UN activities to Iraq (Galloway was on a short list of people that John Malkovich wanted dead awhile back). Quite a bit of damage was done as a result, both to Galloway's reputation and to France's policy of opposing military action. Well, it turns out those some of those documents were (surprise, surprise) obvious forgeries. [link via Daily Kos]

The story of the renegade Texas Democrats goes from comical to sinister....

Because David Duke doesn't blog:
Kausfiles desperate attempt to connect minority hiring to the Jayson Blair story has led to this approving link to Ilsa, She-wolf of the SS. I mean, if you're trying to slam the honesty and integrity of a third party, or discredit policies in which unqualified candidates are given a leg up on the competition for reasons other than merit, Ann Coulter is not exactly your ideal "go-to" source.

You knew this was going to happen...as soon as the war ended, the Volkisher Beobachter would report that Salam Pax (in case you've forgotten, he was the blogger who was reporting live from Baghdad during out latest adventure) was actually an agent for Saddam. Of course, there's no evidence yet....

Bloghomie Tony Pierce guarantees a Laker triumph over San Antonio in Games 6 and 7. PRAISE THE LORD !!!

DAMN !!

Hitchens' betrayal of Sidney Blumenthal ("under the spreading chestnut tree, I sold you and you sold me") may have been his nadir, but this latest column merely shows how comfortable he has become speaking power to truth. Apologias for sleazeball Iraqi exiles I suppose are one thing, but to explain away the tolerance of Nazis in post-war Germany, then use it as an excuse for not aggressively pursuing human rights criminals within the Baathist Party is a step away from the madhouse.

Precocious Harvard under-grad non-sequitur roll:

Anytime the sports scene in Southern California is reviewed, the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim have usually been treated like the red-headed stepchild. Only two prior playoff appearances in the last ten years, there was no reason that this year would be any different. Unbelievably, the Ducks are now just two games away from the Stanley Cup Finals, and an opportunity to take on either New Jersey or Ottawa for the one title to have alluded the state of California.

As long as we're talking about who belongs and who doesn't belong in a PGA golf tournament, why do male golfers like Vijay Singh, Scott Hoch and Nick Price have a problem playing with perhaps the greatest female golfer of all time, Annika Sorenstam, but not playing with some geezer like Arnold Palmer or Billy Casper at the Masters every year? She's much more likely to the make the cut...btw, check out Off-Wing Opinion on this story; he's covering like it like JS Giguere covers a loose puck in the crease.

I wonder why this sort of guerrilla tactic isn't used more often by a minority legislative party. A far shrewder political leader, the late Jesse Unruh, once locked the doors of the California State Assembly in the mid-60's precisely so the GOP caucus couldn't walk out. In any event, Texas Republicans are now the laughing stock of the nation, victims of the arrogant abuse of their majority.

Most of the attention devoted to this story concerned the initial decision to dock the workers in the audience a day's pay for listening to Bush's speech; after public outrage made itself felt, the company relented, and now the employees of Airlite Plastics will not lose a dime for being used as background props in the President's latest economic scam. However, more Democrats should be pissed at the idiot representing their party in the US Senate, Ben Nelson. This tribune of the underclass claimed he

"...was a little surprised by the company's decision regarding compensation for workers during Bush's visit.

'That could very easily undermine the president's message, but I don't want to be an ungracious host,' Nelson said from his home Sunday. 'If this is Airlite's way of handling it, that's between them and their employees.'"

At least the working men and women of Nebraska know they have a friend in Ben Nelson.

Hope everyone had a happy Mother's Day. I got to watch very little of the Laker game this afternoon, as I had to run a bunch of errands and do a little work at the office. After the rout on Wednesday, I may have been conditioned to expecting that Game 4 would be the final game of the series, and I didn't have much interest in seeing my beloved team swept by the Spurs. After the Lakers blew out San Antonio in Game 3, my interest in the series was rejuvenated, but my mental clock was not reprogrammed. So I listened to most of the game on the radio, as the Lakers came from 16 back in the second quarter to win.

I did watch the final four minutes of the game at home, then did the usual Mothers Day thing: movie (The Dancer Upstairs) and Chinese food (good stuff, too; not Panda Express). The flick was actually quite interesting. Directed by John Malkovich, it features an Hispanic cast, with a South American political theme (a fictionalization of the Peruvian Shining Path movement), but with English dialogue. Malkovich is clearly someone who was changed by the events of September 11; anyone looking for a good neoliberal call-to-arms against terrorism could do worse than start with this movie.

UPDATE: According to this review, Malkovich apparently had this film in the can before 9-11-01, providing a more interesting context for his message.

The principal justification Bush gave the international community for starting a preemptive war with Iraq was the claim that Saddam Hussein was in possession of "weapons of mass destruction". The legalistic figleaf the "Coalition" used to commence hostilities, U.N. Resolution 1441, relied exclusively on that claim; Saddam's human rights record and his ties with terrorist organizations hardly factored in. Foreign opposition, from Russia, France and Germany, centered on skepticism about U.S. claims about the development and extent of the Iraqi program.

Well, today, the other shoe has apparently dropped. The 75th Exploitation Task Force, the principal unit designed to uncover the wherabouts of the Iraqi WMD program, is dissolving, having found nothing to date. According to the Washington Post, "Army Col. Richard McPhee...said he took seriously U.S. intelligence warnings on the eve of war that Hussein had given 'release authority' to subordinates in command of chemical weapons. 'We didn't have all these people in [protective] suits' for nothing, he said. But if Iraq thought of using such weapons, 'there had to have been something to use. And we haven't found it. . . . Books will be written on that in the intelligence community for a long time.' "

Looks like someone owes Jacques Chirac and the cheese-eating surrender monkeys an apology.

A big story back east concerns the travails of NY Times reporter Jayson Blair, who was fired after it became known he had included fabrications in close to 50 articles he had written in the past few years. Since Blair is black, this story is being spun as an example of the evils of affirmative action: hire a non-white reporter, and this is what happens. This is the acceptable face of conservative racism today: make a speech where you apparently yearn for the days when blacks and whites attended separate schools, and you will suffer disgrace; stereotype minorities as incompetent idiots, and you will get your books published and columns printed.

Never mind, as both CalPundit and Atrios point out, that there have been many more examples in recent years of white reporters inventing stories and fabricating sources; if one black reporter does it, than all minority job applicants should be considered suspect. If this is considered mainstream opinion among conservatives, it's no wonder that the GOP continues to be led by the likes of Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, and Rick Santorum.

Below the blogroll to the right I have added a new feature, a real-time Google search result of random items, mainly topics I'll be discussing. Have fun with it. Go Ducks !!!

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH !!



An unidentified fan takes exception to the officiating during last night's 110-95 Laker romp.

I would be remiss if I didn't follow up my earlier post about the Bush-AWOL flap. In particular, two bloggers have put in the time and legwork to examine the record, and have come up with different conclusions. David Neiwert analyzes the public record and concludes that AWOL or not, young W's service record in the Texas Air National Guard is troublesome, and asks the reasonable question as to whether his political connections greased his path through some difficulties, including the fact that his flying privileges were suspended. Noting that two important facts, that Bush had his flying privileges suspended, and that he later failed to report to his superior officer for at least seven months, are not in dispute, he reasonably asks for Bush to release his military record to the public. [link via Atrios]

Bill Hobbs, on the other hand, builds a case that there was nothing improper about Bush's service record: first, that joining the unit he did was not a fail-safe way of ducking service in Vietnam; second, that his family connections back in 1968(the year he joined) were not that great, as his father had not been elected to Congress or served in government yet, and that the absence of any documentation showing he ever served after he was transfered to a unit in Alabama does not necessarily mean he didn't, since the military loses records all the time.

That National Guardsmen gave their lives for the Domino Theory is beyond dispute, and I will concede that there was a possibility that Bush could have been sent to Vietnam. Joining the Air National Guard was not the same thing as enlisting in the Navy, which his father did days after Pearl Harbor, or the Army, which Al Gore did in 1969. In other words, in the last election, one candidate chose a path that made going to Vietnam more likely, and the other a path that made that destination less likely.

Obviously, the second argument is absurd: in 1968, the future President was the grandson of a former U.S. Senator, and the son of a major player in Texas Republican politics, who had already had a narrow loss in a Senate race and was gearing up to run for a House seat. And that was just on his father's side of the family; his mother had an even more distinguished name. That Bush the Elder had not yet become Vice President didn't mean he was without influence.

The third issue, that records are frequently lost, is really beside the point. After all, it's not like we're talking about him missing roll call on a particular date; it's the fact that there is no documentary evidence in the public record that shows he reported for duty for seven months. Hobbs is on much stronger ground when he reminds us that Bush was honorably discharged, and he has a strong circumstantial argument that whatever Bush may have been doing between 1972 and 1973, no one at the time seemed to give it two thoughts, and he was never disciplined or treated in a manner that would suggest he had done anything wrong.

Anyways, read both blogs, and come to your own conclusions. And demand that the President release his military records before he gets us into another war, or decides to do some more stunt flying.

UPDATE: Bill Hobbs responds on his website, and notes that Bush the Elder actually was a congressman in 1968 running for reelection, contrary to my assertion that he hadn't served in public office at the time the President enlisted in the TANG.

The philosopher-king of Baltimore County, David Johnson, passes this little tidbit along about "Mr. Samgrass":

Today's excerpt from Sidney Blumenthal's *The Clinton Wars* on Salon.com discusses his relationship with Christopher Hitchens.

A choice quote near the end of the story (after a long and detailed discussion of his friendship and subsequent betrayal):

As we walked out of the room, Clinton put his arm around me and made a remark that echoed what I had told him the day the scandal broke, in our Oval Office conversation. "You know," he said with a grin, "you shouldn't be hanging around crazy people." I laughed and said, "You know, that's good advice."

Damn, I love Clinton.

George Bush's "Christophe" moment on board the USS Abraham Lincoln last week continues to draw jeers....

A memorial service will be held this Sunday at the Staples Center. In lieu of flowers for the soon-to-be deceased, Laker management asks that the public renew its search for Samaki Walker and Derek Fisher, both of whom have been missing since the start of the year.

As I've noted in the past, John Kerry has been the victim of some of the most egregious coverage that any political figure has seen since, well, Al Gore, and conservative critic Ben Fritz takes the media to task here. The comparison between the slurs cast upon Gore by the socalledliberalmedia and those pinned on Kerry is clearly disturbing, with the Boston Globe in particular approaching the edge of anti-semitism in its attacks.

Pride goeth before the fall: The vaunted, unbeatable rugby team from my alma mater, profiled here last month, got its ass kicked in the national semifinals by Air Force, 46-28. Come to think of it, we lost to them in football, too.

One of the consequences of President Bush's political stunt last week flying onto an aircraft carrier has been to revive the dormant allegations that he deserted his Air National Guard unit during the Vietnam War. The short story: George Bush evaded serving in Southeast Asia by joining the Texas Air National Guard in 1968 for a five-year hitch. By 1972, with the draft no longer a threat, Bush sought a transfer to a unit in Alabama, where he had been working on a Senate campaign. There is no evidence he ever appeared, and “(h)is final officer-efficiency report from May 1973 noted only that supervisors hadn't seen him or heard from him.”

Of course, there is probably a perfectly good explanation, both for Bush’s apparent violations of Articles 885 and 886 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and for his subsequent non-explanations of his “service” during the Vietnam War. More disappointing has been the lack of pursuit in this story by the “so-called liberal media”. Other than a Boston Globe investigation during the last election, no other publication bothered to raise these questions, and with only a few exceptions, the media has failed to put last week’s flight by an unlicensed pilot into context. As with the coverage of the recent hostilities in the Persian Gulf, Americans are poorly served with a “free press” that is little more than a for-profit propaganda wing of the powers that be.

UPDATE: Bob Somerby nails this story cold, and discredits an attempted apologia from Andrew Sullivan on the matter.

Howard Owens has a good piece on the "outrage" of the disclosure that William Bennett likes to bet; the outrage, of course, being that any sort of public attention is being brought about a legal activity. Of course, $8 million is a lot to burn, and it seems apparent that he (and his family) might have a problem with his recreational activity, and obviously someone who has been as outspoken about the vices of other people should happen to have one that is condemned by a substantial part of our society is bound for a fall. But I'm troubled by the notion that he's not entitled to have a private life, or that he's not allowed to engage in socially questionable activities, or even that he's not permitted to be a hypocrite.

If there is one moral failing that distinguishes man as a species, it's hypocrisy, the homage that vice pays to virtue. This was something the right ignored when the human being in question was Bill Clinton, but now it seems the left is unfortunately enjoying its own version of payback. To say that Bennett is a hypocrite has got to be the single most worthless criticism under the sun. Anyone who aspires to high ideals will eventually be exposed as a hypocrite; it certainly doesn't discredit either the ideals or the pursuit. I don't happen to buy his judgmentalism on the vices of others, including President Clinton, but I certainly do not feel any less sympathy for having his privacy violated in this manner. As a wise man once said, "don't hate the playa, hate the game."

Of course, Bennett is not alone. Yesterday, the head football coach at Alabama, Mike Price, was fired before he ever coached a game at that college not because he broke any rules associated with the game, but because he purchased private dances at a strip club. His transgression was said to violate the "expectations" as to how an Alabama football coach should behave, an interesting standard for a school whose most famous coach resisted the desegregation of his team until the early-70's. Price's impeccable record as a coach both on and off the field was simply not considered relevant. The other figure in the "Coaches Gone Wild" video, Larry Eustachy, may lose his job coaching Iowa State's basketball team due to his antics on the road the last two years, involving heavy drinking and partying. Neither person violated the law, or did anything other than betray the trust of those closest to them.

But such activities are human foibles. It is precisely for that reason that we have moral and ethical codes, and practice religions; not because we are always saints, but because we are often scum. If Price or Eustachy have a drinking problem, than they should deal with it. If Bennett is throwing his children's college tuition away at a baccarat table at the Bellagio, he should seek help. But I won't judge them, because I know that I am in no position to toss the first stone.

The L.A. Times takes the seemingly contrarian view that yesterday's federal court decision was more a victory than a defeat for supporters of campaign finance reform, focusing on the fact that the ban on soft money contributions to candidates in federal elections was upheld. Since the special three-judge panel also struck down other aspects of McCain-Feingold, including the ban on soft money contributions for "party building" and other activities not related to elections, the interesting question becomes whether the parties can resume collecting such funds pending Supreme Court review of the decision. Since the Supreme Court is more likely than not going to overturn the entire law, it would seem to be a no-brainer.

After allowing myself to go to seed for twenty years, I finally took up the gumption to join a fitness club. I was assigned a personal trainer, and began working out on Monday. A few days later, I am now feeling excruciating pain in almost every part of my body. I haven't even attempted the diet that was suggested, a forlorn effort to get me to eat healthier foods. Dodger Dogs, pizza and Chinese food are my staples, and if the gym sincerely wanted me to lose weight, it wouldn't be located in a mall next to Fudruckers, The Cheesecake Factory, and a gang of movie theatres.

Anyway, yesterday at the gym I ran into the subject of this piece, who along with her friend and cohort Shannon Ainsworth make up the dynamic one-two punch behind the bar at the soon-to-be-defunct Sherman Oaks Lounge. As both worked last night, they took note of the fact that I was drinking away whatever benefits the afternoon's exercise gave me. In any event, Ms. Summersett will be performing tonight at the Lounge sometime after the de la Hoya fight ends, and anyone in the area would be a fool to pass up the opportunity to see her.

This burning question from six months ago has been answered, and I have to admit I'm surprised.

Where did Bush learn to fly a plane? It's not like he was ever in the Air Force or anything....

Last night, I attended my first Dodger game of the year, with bloghomies Tony Pierce, Matt Welch, and the exceedingly generous Howard Owens. Great seats! The "other" player the Dodgers acquired in the Sheffield trade, Odalis Perez, pitched a gem, marred only by Jim Tracy's decision to yank him with two runners on and two outs in the top of the ninth. What earthly purpose was served by not allowing his starter the chance for a shut-out? There was no report of an injury to Perez; the tying run was on-deck, so even a home run would have been survivable. He had thrown 132 pitches, but struck out Thome and Lieberthal in the ninth. The cynic within me would say that Tracy brought in Gagne because it was a "save situation", and that mattered more than Perez getting a complete-game shutout.

[BTW, if you ever go somewhere without your wallet, these are the people to go with--most bloggers have PayPal on their sites, so you can pretty much borrow as much as you want, so long as you promise to contribute a like amount to their site. Being with a blogger is like having an extra low-interest VISA card and a fake I.D., unless I'm the blogger you're with, in which case it's like having the elderly Joe DiMaggio hanging out with you]

What's the story with "Catherine Zeta-Jones" and "Clear Channel"? I've had six unique visitors this morning from that Google search request...are they boycotting her too?

UPDATE: Found out. Here's the story (allegedly). Carry on.

It's about time--Jose Offerman is finally back in baseball, with the Bridgeport Bluefish of the independent Atlantic League. His first game: vs. Rickey Henderson and the Newark Bears. Perform your magic, Jose !!

For those who are thinking of starting a blog (that includes you, Smilin' Jr.) or who have a blog with a low volume of readers, Volokh Conspiracy has a few helpful tips on making it into the Big Time. Me, I'm quite content to have the traffic I now have, knowing that I'm at the top of the Google search request for "Tanya Ballinger" (the blonde in the Miller Lite ad), and on the first page for those searching for nude pictures of "Hayden Christenson" [sic]. I rule !!

Of the tips Volokh provides, I can't say that I vouch for any of them. I suppose I've gotten a few hits from some well-chosen words on the comments section of other blogs, but I doubt anyone has ever included me on their blogroll because of that. The whole notion that I'm supposed to ask someone to include me on their blogroll is offensive to me, and kind of defeats the whole purpose; at least here, the blogroll is primarily for my own use, and includes several sites that linked to me for a time, then dumped me. If I like a site, I'm not going to lose sleep over whether it generates any reciprocal traffic for my benefit. This isn't an audition, so if someone likes my posts, I don't expect to get renumerated for the privilege. On rare occasions, I will send Atrios or Capozzola a link to a news story, but that's only because I feel the story deserves the attention that blogs which generate a higher volume of traffic can give it.

My advice is to blog for a few months before deciding to follow Volokh's tips. In the meantime, just use the word "nude" once a month, and make occasional references to obscure models or character actors in your posts. The traffic will come eventually...btw, for those really interested in Ms. Ballinger....
)">

Rishawn Biddle seems to be the only one who gets the significance of the Dixie Chicks cover: a middle finger to the morons and necks who boycotted their music and sent death threats to the group (come to think of it, the group is posed in the shape of a "finger"). Historically, the whole controversy reminds me of the aftermath of John Lennon's infamous comparison of the Beatles' popularity with that of Jesus Christ; the Fab Four suffered a temporary backlash, but their popularity soared thereafter, as fans came to see the group (and Lennon in particular) as being honest generational spokesmen.

The Musician Currently Known as Beck has a blog [link via Ken Layne], and it's pretty good, or at least better than that execrable Roger Avary blog that I had up for a month; god, I would rather watch Killing Zoe again than have to read another post about an advance screening for The Rules of Attraction. For someone who has to work to make this site presentable, it's more than a bit frustrating seeing a politician or celebrity start a "blog" that is little more than a collection of stump speeches and press releases, and is clearly the work of a third party. A good blog should occasionally inform the world of something it doesn't know about the writer.

The JS Giguere of blogging, Matt Welch, has a nifty little piece attacking the virus known as francophobia. Interesting that our relations with the nations that nurtured the 9/11 criminals is more amicable than that with our "oldest democratic ally", especially since the non-discovery of WMD has pretty much vindicated Chirac's position.

I haven't forgotten to comment on last night's debacle at Staples. I'm just more comfortable talking about my beloved Mighty Ducks right now. Once you get past the 100-minute mark of a game, their opponents are toast !!

BEGALA AWARD NOMINEE: "...many establishment Republicans believe that the criminalization of private gay sex is a legitimate position, even when they personally disagree with it. That's how close they are to the fundamentalist right. That's how little they care about individual liberties. I guess, as so many gloating liberals have emailed me to point out, I have been incredibly naive. I expected a basic level of respect for gay people from civilized conservatives. I've always taken the view that there are legitimate arguments about such issues as marriage rights or military service and so on; and that fair-minded people can disagree...(B)ut something this basic as the freedom to be left alone in own's own home is something I naively assumed conservatives would obviously endorse - even for dispensable minorities like homosexuals. I was wrong. The conclusions to be drawn are obvious."--Andrew Sullivan, disparaging the civilized tendencies of mainstream conservatives over l'affaire Santorum.

Obviously an issue near and dear to my heart: a writer employed by the Hartford Courant was ordered by the paper to cease publishing a blog on his spare time. The writer, Dennis Horgan, complied, even though the contents of the blog didn't conflict with the travel column he was paid to write by the newspaper. His editor, Brian Toolan, asserted an interesting rationale for silencing Mr. Horgan:

"Denis Horgan's entire professional profile is a result of his attachment to The Hartford Courant, yet he has unilaterally created for himself a parallel journalistic universe where he'll do commentary on the institutions that the paper has to cover without any editing oversight by the Courant," Toolan said. "That makes the paper vulnerable."

The editor added that allowing an employee to set up his own opinion blog was a bad precedent. "There are 325 other people here who could create similar [Web sites] for themselves," Toolan said.

So much for the free press. In the meantime, Mr. Horgan (and the others so situated) should discovery the joys of pseudonymous blogging. Let 325 flowers bloom.

This has to be close to a record for alcohol-consumption, not counting Jim Morrison or Christopher Hitchens. The telling point is that for the person involved to reach that percentage, he had to drink 14 beers, or 18 shots of booze, in an hour.

America: Love it or leave it !!!

Potential Supreme Court nominee Alex Kozinski wrote a dissent so convincing in an appeal of a criminal conviction that the prosecution agreed to dismiss the charges, the L.A. Times reports. The Ninth Circuit judge, as well known for his literary, often ascerbic, opinions as for his conservative leanings, voted to overturn a conviction of an illiterate Mexican defendant charged with smuggling illegal immigrants into the U.S., on the grounds that nine potential witnesses who could have backed up his protestations of innocence were deported before trial, and before his attorney could interview them.

The Times points out that the most telling argument in the dissent came from the sort of typically unusual device that has earned the Reagan-appointee such a cult following among local attorneys:

"Perhaps the most striking part of Kozinski's opinion was a simulated dialogue he created to describe how Ramirez's lawyer might try to explain the decision.

'Lawyer: Juan, I have good news and bad news. The bad news is that the 9th Circuit affirmed your conviction and you're going to spend many years in federal prison.' Then the lawyer gives Ramirez the good news: 'You'll be happy to know that you had a perfect trial. They got you fair and square!'
Ramirez questions this conclusion, but the lawyer explains that government agents 'talked to everyone, they took notes and they kept the witnesses that would best help your case. Making sure you had a fair trial was their number one priority. Is this a great country or what?'
Then, Ramirez asks, 'Don't you think [the jury] might have had a reasonable doubt if they'd heard that 12 of the 14 guys in my party said it wasn't me?' The lawyer responds: 'He-he-he! You'd think that only if you didn't go to law school. Lawyers and judges know better.' "

As a result, the U.S. Attorney, fearing that the full 9th Circuit would agree to rehear the case and establish precedent effecting other convictions involving potential witnesses who had been deported, acceded to a motion to dismiss the case.
(Note: former Kozinski clerk Eugene Volokh, subject of this piece last month, has more on this dissent)

While other commentators, left and right, opine on l'affaire Santorum, now is as good a time as any to revisit last month's GOP jackass, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn), who gets taken apart here by Al Franken.

Minnesota 119, Lakers 91:
Perhaps the most ominous news for Laker fans since October, 1991: Kobe Bryant claims he has a "jammed rotator cuff".

Nothing else to say, really; the T-wolves shot lights out in the first three quarters, someone named Troy Hudson scored 37 points for Minnesota, and Shaq clearly was still affected by the emotional swings of the past week. Game 3 is tomorrow at Staples, and the Lakers are not likely going to stink up the arena two games in a row.

How the mighty have fallen--I knew that Hitchens had fallen a long way, but this story is truly sad. No matter what your opinion of the man is, no one should gloat over his misfortune.

Happy Easter, indeed--Political Aims reports that Tom Daschle's bishop is attempting to force the Senator to refrain from describing himself as a Roman Catholic, due to his stand on abortion rights.

It's been over a month, and we still haven't found any of Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction", but we do have some idea about the most devastating weapon in use against Coalition forces in our latest adventure: the Patriot Missile. The LA Times reports this morning that the Patriot, which is typically used to bolster the arguments of supporters of missile defense systems, is coming under scrutiny again after three separate "friendly fire" incidents:

The Patriot attacks on allied planes were particularly puzzling given that throughout the war, no Iraqi aircraft were aloft.

"Why were the Patriots even shooting at aircraft?" asked Philip Coyle, former assistant secretary of Defense and director of operational testing and evaluation for the Pentagon. "We ruled the skies in Iraq, so almost by definition any aircraft up there was either ours or British."

The Patriot system, designed in the 1970s to shoot down enemy aircraft, should have been able to distinguish between relatively slow-moving planes and speedy rockets fired by Iraqi forces, Coyle said.

"If they can't tell the difference between a missile and an airplane, then they need much more restrictive rules of engagement," he said.

The Pentagon claims that nine Iraqi missiles were shot down by the missile, which was revamped after the first Gulf War, but similar claims about its effectiveness were made last time as well, only to be later discredited.

Lakers 117, Timberwolves 98: I have a hard time believing the T-Wolves are going to be this easy. The Lakers are going to have to fight complacency for the rest of the series, or at least until Minnesota reclaims the home court edge. Game 2 will be indicative of whether a four-peat is in the cards: another Laker blow-out, and a sweep will be in the works, whereas a Minnesota win puts the pressure on the Lakers to hold serve in LA or face a long series, which they can't afford right now.

Quickie Trivia Question: Name the three people who are pictured to the left of Satan in the ad on p.28 of this morning's L.A. Times?

Happy Easter, or Happy Palm Sunday, depending on what church you belong to...

Laker game in two hours, so leave me alone.

Comments are off, for the time being (although that might change by the time you read this). I'm adding pictures to this site, for those of you have trouble with big words.

Players leaving college early to turn pro hardly raise an eyebrow anymore. I have to admit, though, that I've never heard of a player dropping out of high school to turn "collegiate" until this week. John Booty, who was thought to be the top prep football prospect in the Class of 2004, decided to bypass his senior season and enroll early at USC, where he intends to play quarterback. The Trojans have an immediate hole at the position, thanks to the departure of Heisman winner Carson Palmer, so Booty may well be in the line-up by mid-season. Apparently the kid is an academic phenom as well, but I always assumed that a student couldn't just arbitrarily skip a year of high school, simply to play semi-pro college football.
Still, there are plenty of good reasons for an eighteen year old to wish to matriculate at USC, and it is his life. Fight on....

Earlier this week, the Orange County Register reported that numerous American athletes tested positive for certain banned substances, but were nevertheless cleared to compete in the 1988 and 1992 Olympics, including Carl Lewis. The substances were commonly found in over-the-counter medications, not steroids, so the U.S.O.C. looked the other way, even though, by the letter of the law, those athletes should have been banned from competing.

The article speaks to what was seemingly a more innocent time, when Sudafed was viewed as an appropriate athletic stimulant, and so long as an athlete wasn't caught juicing himself, the powers-that-be would look the other way. For sports fans who remember Rick DeMont, the Olympic swimmer who was stripped of a gold medal in 1972 after the asthma medication he was cleared to take triggered a positive result on a drug test, it has been easy to take the side of the athlete when it comes to the performance-enhancing effects of ordinary, over-the-counter medication. It's an awfully slippery slope, however. [link via Off-Wing Opinion]

UPDATE: The LA Times followed up this story the following week, and concluded that the trace amounts of ephedrine in Carl Lewis' system were so minute that he would only have been suspended if it were proven he had intended to take performance-enhancing drugs. Since there was no other evidence he had, his exoneration by the USOC was appropriate.

For all the talk about "bankruptcy reform", one area that never seems to get debated by Congress is the threatened use of bankruptcy by corporations as an extortion device against workers. Now that the unions have awakened to discover that for all the concessions they were forced to accept to keep American Airlines afloat, management was prepared to make out like bandits, it seems like the airline will go double-toothpicks after all by the beginning of next week.

I wonder why unions don't call the bluff of management more often in these situations. Obviously, most of the time they will get screwed by the bankruptcy court in terms of benefits and pensions, but every once in awhile, the potential damage to the worker is exceeded by the devastation to management when an aggressive judge or trustee examines the whys and wherefores of a company's collapse. Of course, it probably wouldn't make any difference over the long haul anyway; if enough CEO's get grilled by a bankruptcy judge over the salaries and benefits they made while their company nosedived, Congress will reform the bankruptcy code to make sure they don't have to answer those questions in the future.

Michael Kelly's last article for The Atlantic is up. When he's not deriding the people who disagree with him as appeasers and baathist-sympathizers, the article seems almost poignant. In his valedictory, he writes

On the whole, I'd say, the phoniness quotient is down this time. We are spared, at least, much of the death-and-destruction-and-quagmire talk that preceded the last conflict here. The lessons of the campaign in Afghanistan, adding to the lessons of the campaigns in Kosovo and Bosnia, have sunk in. The U.S. armed forces enjoy a technological superiority like nothing the world has seen before; they are, in a real sense, not even fighting the same war as their opponents—or in the same century. No one argues much now about whether these forces are capable of crushing even very serious opposition, and almost no one argues that Iraq offers serious opposition.

Alas, poor Mary McGregor....

Provocative piece by Paul Krugman today on Neo-isolationism, the foreign policy that has become embraced by a new generation of conservatives, now ascendent in the White House and the Republican Party. Old-School isolationists took a jaundiced view of any American role in the affairs of other countries, and led the opposition to the League of Nations, Lend-Lease, the draft, etc. The Neo-isolationists, recognizing our role as the world's only superpower, support American unilateral involvement overseas, but oppose American participation in international treaties and alliances, in which the U.S. is but one country among many, as well as adherence to international law. According to Krugman, both isolationist traditions share "the same impulses — an assertion of moral superiority, an unwillingness to consider alternative points of view...(w)e obviously can't ignore the world, but many Americans reject the idea that other countries should have any say over what we do." In the long run, of course, we have to accept reality; if we expect other countries to play by the rules, we have to as well.

A wicked description of the Green Party: a party best left to college campuses so grad students and their professor boyfriends have a place to meet which isn't obvious. [via Daily Kos]

How 'bout them Clippers? Nothing to play for, given up for dead months ago, they close out the season on a three-game winning streak, including last night's shocking blowout of the Portland Trailblazers. That was unprecedented: I can not recall the Clippers ever winning a game late in the season against a team that needed it more, and the notion that the beneficiary of their largesse was their co-tenants at Staples, the Lakers. For the Blazers, it's the difference between a first-round date with Minnesota or Dallas, a winnable series versus a likely sweep, whereas the Lakers now have an imaginable route to a four-peat, no longer having to beat the Mavs, the Kings, and the Spurs on the road just to reach the Finals. April 16, 2003 may have been the first time that the entire city (or at least the hoops fans within) of LA rooted for the Clips, or at least gave a rat's ass how the team did.

Jew, or not-a-Jew: The paper of record in the City of Angels makes a correction.

Two distinct views of America's Pastime: Tony Pierce, last night at Chavez Ravine, and ArchPundit, on the latest interaction between fan and players in Chicago.

Today's WaPost article about the effect of a consumer boycott of French wine has had in the last two months is a perfect example of how various forms of bigotry develop and are nourished within a society. Since there are perfectly acceptable substitutes for the products most affected, wine and cheese, that are sold by other countries, it's a painless statement (although some are starting to drink Australian wine, which gives me hope that Francophobia may be a temporary fad). Tourism, which isn't as fungible (unless you count Paris Paris in Las Vegas), has barely been affected: American tourism to France is down, but not as much as tourism to Great Britain, or for that matter, tourism to every other part of the world. There is no evidence yet that Bic lighters, Dannon Yogurt, or Universal Studios has been forced into bankruptcy. Even though Russia's opposition to Gulf War II was more pivotal to Bush's decision to bypass international law, no one has called for a boycott of Russian vodka (incl. VodkaPundit, from whence the above link came), since the available substitutes aren't as good. Same deal with German beer. Francophobia is now the hatred-of-choice in Deliverance Country, USA.

A former adviser to Bush I has a less-than-sunny view of Bush II's reelection prospects.

Damn fine deconstruction of the gossip trade, the surest indication of the dishonesty of any newspaper. Gossip is certainly fun, and I suppose it has its purposes (especially when it involves my many enemies), but journalistic endeavors always use it instead as a substitute for real reporting on entertainment, or, in this case, politics. In effect, gossip is a more benign version of what Eason Jordan fessed up to last week [link via Atrios].

Things not to do when you have the flu (or some flu-like disease): conduct a six-hour deposition of the opposing party in the principal case you're handling.

Operation Iraqi Freedom UPDATE: Hesiod points out that the U.S.' failure to protect the Iraqi National Museum, while taking great pains to save the oil wells, constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Convention. I wouldn't go that far, since there is no evidence that it was willful on our part, but it does spotlight the shortsightedness of much of the war planning by both the Administration and the Pentagon. Remember, the military victory was supposed to be the easy part.
OOPS: Philosopher David ("Smilin' Jr.") Johnson reminds me that it was the Hague Convention that was violated, so it was a mere violation of international law, not a war crime. Whew.

One of the stories that has generated a great deal of internet buzz over the past two weeks has been the revelation that CNN tailored its news accounts of conditions inside Iraq to appease its sources inside that nation's thugocracy. I haven't had much to say about it, since "Dog Bites Man" stories usually don't interest me. Of course, journalists perform fellatio on their sources; if the Falun Gong or the Palestinians are being treated like dirt, don't expect to get the real story from Fox. To me, what was curious about this story was the way the journalist in question blew the whistle on himself. That sort of mea culpa is an embarassing story for all concerned for about a week and a half, but only serves to bolster the long-term credibility of the media. When you assume that you're being lied to, the occasional flashing of the truth can be refreshing.

The World Turned Upside Down: the Mighty Ducks have a 3-0 lead on defending champs Detroit, and the Angels have lost two straight to Ismael Valdes. To be honest, would it surprise anyone if the Red Wings came back and won the next four? Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if the Ducks end up winning the Stanley Cup, considering the streak O.C. is on right now.

I'm not sure I agree with the title of the latest Krugman column, "Behind Our Backs". Voters have known since 1980 that electing a Republican President means that the public is going to get an economic policy consisting of little more than shell games; the conservative mantra of "small government" and "low taxes" has always been a euphemism for a government by grifters. Is anyone surprised that having just prevailed in Iraq, we are now threatening another nasty dictatorship with a weak military? This isn't a situation where people were caught off-guard: Bush's political base in the Red States has wet dreams about fighting wars while simultaneously slashing veterans benefits.

In the wake of last week's cancellation of the tribute to the movie Bull Durham at Cooperstown, Neal Pollack has a comprehensive history of other "Fifth Columnists" using the Baseball Hall of Fame to promote a left-wing agenda, including Catfish Hunter's controversial appeal in 1987 to his "fellow transgendered" comrades.

It took a few weeks, but Bush's little adventure finally got the journalistic takedown it deserves. Remind me again: how many dozens of people were around Saddam's statue when it fell? [link via Eschaton]
UPDATE: Even better is this Frank Rich piece on media coverage, and the over-all public disinterest in the war. [link via Political Aims, a brand new blog that just debuted last week]. You could tell W was not going to get much a boost out of this event when CBS went back to NCAA tournament coverage on Day 2.

What I was hoping against hope was a mild cold, or maybe even the beginning of allergies, has turned into a full-fledged, stomach-churning, throat-eviscerating, nose-clogging flu. And I even got a f*****g flushot last October. I'm dying; why me?

Today I celebrate my roommate's birthday. My mom turns 64turns another year older today, and if I can make it out of my basement lodgings, I will have to buy her dinner.

Some random thoughts on the rumor that Affleck and J-Lo are remaking Casablanca:

1. I have a feeling that the whole thing is an urban legend. I have yet to see a reputable source (and that incl. the site I've linked to) report this;
2. If they are interested in remaking the film, won't they have to obtain the rights from someone? I mean, it's not so old a screenplay that it would already be part of the public domain;
3. What studio would be willing to back such a financially (and artistically) risky project?
As famous as they are, there is no evidence that either one can put fannies in a multiplex;
4. Why was there such a visceral reaction to this rumor (incl. my own little whine)? I'm not a film critic, studio exec, or related to either Affleck or Lo, so it's not as if I'm obligated to see any movie they're in. If they make this film, and it sucks, it won't really bother me, since I won't go to see it. For that matter, if the movie rocks, it's unlikely I would see it anyway, since movies really don't interest me that much in my old age.
5. If there is any truth to this rumor, then as surely as day follows night, we'll be seeing a story in the next few days about Gwynnie and Chris Martin wanting to remake A Star Is Born. I mean, that's how the show biz news cycle works, right?
Anyways, before you follow my earlier advice to sign a petition, you might like to turn on your bullshit detector until this gets reported in Variety.

For all my love of college basketball, it rarely avails me anything when it comes to winning a bracket pool. This year I finished toward the back of the pack, and had no team in the Final Four. So this I discovered too late to do me any good this year, but it's still interesting to study: a "game theory" model for picking brackets. It's for people who enjoyed A Beautiful Mind for the math, not for Jennifer Connelly.

Finally, someone has compiled a comprehensive list of the awards handed out by Lord Haw-Haw this year. Ever since it became my life's goal to be nominated for a Begala (the award for the most politically-incorrect-but-truthful statement by a figure on the left), I have been disheartened by the seeming randomness of the award, and the deliberate snobbery of his decisions: the award always seems to go to a professor or columnist, never a lowly blogger.

Now, however, I'm not even sure I want the honor. There has to be some selectivity in choosing your nominees for a Begala, or a Sontag, or even a Von Hoffman, but handing out those awards every week waters down the achievement, making it as trivial as the "Player of the Week" award given by Major League Baseball. Standards are important. I dread the day that when I finally get picked, it will be for a post that I take little pride in.

Maybe it was all about Syracuse winning the other night. If this picture was taken right after Saddam's statue fell, then the media conned us big time on Wednesday.

Sign this petition NOW !!! If this movie gets made, where will they stop?

Fresh from predicting the defeat of Yankee imperial ambitions in the sands of Iraq, Mohammed Said Sahhaf prognosticates more woes for the Yankees (courtesy of Neal Pollack)

People who doubt the power of blogs should check out LT Smash today, a real-life Marine who gives a first-hand account of the fall of Baghdad and the "death" of Saddam. Then have any patriotic feelings that may have been aroused squashed into dust by the chickenhawk crowings of Mr. Samgrass and Lord Haw-Haw.

Senate Democrats have effectively plugged the nomination of Prescilla Owen, the President's wingnut de jour nominee for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, until at least mid-summer. As "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" becomes an 8-day story(although check out Oliver Willis, on why we shouldn't let that happen), with Halliburton execs set to follow the Marines into Baghdad, political reality sets in. Bad economy + divided country + public disinterest in foreign affairs=Replay of 1992.

From Smythe's World, March 19, 2003:

D-Hour has passed, and our country is about to go to war. Here are a dozen things we need to keep in mind:
1. Saddam Hussein is bad, and he has bad intentions;
2. Iraq has not attacked us, and is not presently attacking its neighbors;
3. Iraq has not been shown to be involved with the attack on September 11;
4. For the first time in our history, we are attacking a nation that is not engaged in hostilities with us or its neighbors; in fact, we are not even claiming a pretext that they are, as we did with Mexico and Spain in the nineteenth century;
5. There has been no failure in the inspection regime under Resolution 1441 to require that we go to war this instant;
6. The U.S. withheld evidence from the inspectors that might have made discovery of WMD’s possible, but didn’t provide it so as to not minimize the case for going to war;
7. The difference between the relative strength of the US and Iraqi armies is enormous; we are literally going to be tearing the wings off of a fly;
8. Many thousands of civilians will be killed;
9. Most of what we will hear being reported on American television will be untrue, especially in the first few days of conflict; overseas reporting, even Al Jazeera, will be more accurate;
10. No matter how lopsided the battles will be, each soldier and sailor has family back home, who will be worried no end over the fate of their loved ones, EVERY DAY OF THIS WAR;
11. We will discover the full extent of Hussein’s brutality and tyranny when Baghdad is “liberated”;
12. History will not look kindly at us for our prevarications used to justify going to war, for our manipulation of the tragedy of 9/11 to justify these acts, and for the bloody-minded lust that this Administration has pursued this war.

Lord, I'm brilliant !!!

Looks like Baghdad is finally getting the word that Syracuse won the other night.

It's now official: the Lakers own Dallas. Shaq and Kobe score only 14 apiece, and they still beat the Mavs for the 25th straight time in LA. Dallas is now tied with San Antonio for the division lead, while the Lakers are now a game behind Minnesota, and a half-game back of the number two team in the East, Detroit. If they finish with a 5-seed, it's 50-50 they four-peat.

For those who were offended by Senator Kerry last week, here are some more terms for the current Administration that may be more to your liking, courtesy of Max Sawicky. Note: the last one is particularly nasty !!

BTW, today is the first anniversary of Smythe's World. My first-ever post was here. A special thanks to my friends Matt, Carolyn and Chris, for reading me everyday; to James Capozzola, for his kind words and generosity(esp. w/regards to the Blogger ad); to Jeralyn Merritt, who single-handedly doubled my visitors; and to Matt Welch, Oliver Willis, and "Atrios", for being good at what they do, and inspiring me to do better.

This story almost throggles the imagination (as Alexander Haig might put it). I sensed last November that a lot of the criticism of the Wellstone Memorial was actually an effort to denigrate the late Senator, and I think Sen. Coleman's classless remarks about his predecessor are evidence of that.

Back when we was still an engaging political commentator, Jeff Greenfield wrote a book called Playing to Win. In it, he gave aspiring politicians tips on how to successfully campaign for office, often in a tongue-in-cheek style. Perhaps the best known tip he gave was something called "political jujitsu": using the force of an opponent's attack against him, for your own advantage.

Last week's controversy over the remarks made by John Kerry for "regime change" in Washington brilliantly illustrate the theory. After a bad week, when the focus was on Kerry's anemic fundraising, and the sudden emergence of Howard Dean as a candidate more in tune with the progressive (ie. "Democratic") wing of the Democratic Party, Kerry was able to turn all that around with a stunning display, turning what had seemed a gaffe into a rousing knockout at the expense of the chickenhawks.

First, he allowed his opponents on the far right to attack his rhetoric, and Rush Limbaugh, Mark Racicot, Tom Delay, and others took the bait. Then, his staff responded, with a not-so-subtle dig at the non-service of Delay, et al., during Vietnam. Reminding voters that he was a decorated war hero, while Limbaugh sat out the war with a boil on his butt, and the rest of the chickenhawks had "other priorities", makes it impossible for any attacks on Kerry to get traction. On the other hand, he invigorates Democrats, and enables them to more easily oppose the Bush war policies. Any candidate who can score points at the expense of Rush Limbaugh or Tom Delay instantly wins credibility in the party base. Not a bad display !!