From today's Kausfiles: "I guess Kerry really is writing off the South!... Hello? Do Americans want a first daughter who parades around in a dress Paris Hilton would be embarrassed to wear ? And shouldn't she have, you know, thought of that? Even if she looks good in it."

Short answer: Yes !!!!! Has Kaus completely lost his mind? Why do I have the impression that his screensaver is a fish tank or a da Vinci drawing? If seeing Alexandra Kerry for the next four years is the price we have to pay, then screw the crackers. As well as any other NASCAR-loving, Iraqi-torturing, "Left Behind"-reading, sponging-off-the-Blue-State-taxpayer-while-whining-about-federal-government-spending, Toby Keith-and-The Judds-listening redneck. If we allow some special interest or regional bloc to determine whether a Presidential candidate is allowed to have an attractive daughter, then the terrorists will have won.

What he said.

Conservative pundit Rich Lowry has some choice words for those who believe that Abu Ghraib is merely an aberration: take a look at our own prisons. [link via Cecile duBois] And Jonathan Last of the Weekly Standard writes that using the flip-flop issue against John Kerry is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Lots of bloggers talk about the Geneva Conventions, but no one ever links to them (and that's Conventions, plural; they encompass about a half-dozen different treaties and protocols enacted over the last 150 years, starting in 1864). Here's a good primer from two years ago on the history of international law, the development of the concept of "war crimes" and how they apply to the post-9/11 world, in Slate. Originally proposed by the International Red Cross and the Red Crescent in the mid-19th Century, and enacted by the U.S. Senate in the aftermath of the Civil War, its essence is empathatic: we treat enemy combatants in a manner we would demand that our own be treated, no matter how just our cause or how wicked our adversary. Unfortunately, the Geneva Conventions have always seemed to be adhered to only in the aftermath of war, and forgotten when the next conflict starts up. That may be an inevitable outcome of battle, but it is one that we should always keep in mind before the next war starts.

SMYTHE'S WORLD SCOOP: Apple Blythe?!?
UPDATE: At least we know where the name came from.
UPDATE [2]: Turns out I scooped the rest of the media by some ten hours on this story. I rule.

Works for me....

The Very Ugly American: Apparently the ability to craft the hackneyed conventions of chop-socky and spaghetti-western dross into cinematic gold has not gone to the lanternine head of Quentin Tarantino, or at least not in such a way so that he would feel the need to show that he actually thinks before opening his mouth. Apparently threatened by the articulate actress seated next to him on the dais, he used the occasion of a press conference at the opening of the Cannes Film Festival to slight the British film industry. To wit,

Tarantino, set on edge at a press conference by (Tilda) Swinton's cut-glass accent - she graduated from Cambridge in political sciences before making Wittgenstein with the late Derek Jarman - hit back acidly.

Why if Hollywood was such a "bad boy" monster, he wondered, did British actors "get the hell out of there" and head for Beverly Hills once they hit fame?

(snip)

Then, getting into his stride, he argued that despite all the money, direction, acting and scriptwriting that went into a film, the reality was that audiences "showed up" for one reason: to see "the stars". They paid for tickets to watch actors they knew and were comfortable with.

He said that this was why America, India and Hong Kong - and not Britain - managed to sustain a flourishing domestic film industry.

Swinton, noted for art films such as The Deep End, said that she was not especially anxious to disagree with the jury president, but the "Hollywood product" was not the only one on the cinematic map.

"I speak as someone who comes from a country, which like so many others, is experiencing the loud voice of the multiplexes, which outnumber art cinemas, ten to one. It is jolly difficult for audiences looking for another kind of cinema, and very difficult for filmmakers and critics to have the confidence to look for another kind of cinema, and have the confidence to make another cinema.

First, lets give Tarantino his props for correctly observing that three of the largest film industries in the world are in China, India, and the US, although it shouldn't surprise anyone that the three most populous countries in the world, each with different primary languages, and with long cinematic traditions, have profitable film industries. That Great Britain does not have a film industry to rival the U.S. or, for that matter, two nations with over a billion people, is not much of a shock.

Second, there is another rather obvious reason the U.K. lags behind the U.S. in filmmaking: both countries speak the same language. No matter how much of a movie geek you are, going to see a foreign language film can be disconcerting, and the barrier imposed does not provide the optimum filmgoing experience. It's one thing for America to export films to China and India, where English is spoken, if at all, as an elite language. It's another to export them to a country where the mother tongue is the same; it's much easier to draw the casual filmgoer into the multiplex if he knows he's not going to have to look at sub-titles for two hours.

The competition, therefore, isn't between Hollywood and "Bollywood" or Hong Kong; each territory is pretty much exclusive and is run as a de facto monopoly by the local studios. It's between the U.S. and any other English-speaking country, and when it comes to corporations, our economies of scale kick theirs in the ass every day of the week. At least Great Britain still generates some home-grown product (ie., "Bend It Like Beckham", "Calendar Girls", and "28 Days Later", all of which were released in the U.S. within the last year), and keeps some of their stars at home; in entertainment terms, Australia has pretty much become the San Pedro de Macoris of the American film industry, and New Zealand, South Africa and Canada, while producing plenty of talent, pretty much exist only as location shoots for American movies, as far as the "Industry" is concerned. As the corporations running the studios become larger and more multi-national, the power of this oligopoly will only increase.

So inevitably, then, British "stars" are going to go where the money is, and if they want to make the money that comes from appearing in movies, it means appearing in films made and distributed by American companies; that was as true eighty years ago as it is today. If they don't, they can always work on TV or the stage, both of which are vibrant and healthy in Great Britain, or appear in the odd British flic, and not need "get the hell out of there", to use Tarantino's unfortunate line. That choice has nothing to do with greed, any more then the recent decisions by Kevin Spacey and Gwyneth Paltrow to relocate to London in order to pursue stage careers is motivated by greed.

Swinton's point, then, is dead-on correct. The near-monopoly that Hollywood studios possess in the English-language film market is going to have consequences down the line, in the same way that American fast-food chains have, or WalMart has. Crowding out smaller businesses means limiting the options people have, and thus restricts our imagination of alternatives; the same is true in the cinema. Tarantino would be wise to show greater consideration of that point, since there is no reason that the same stranglehold can't be applied to choke off creativity in other parts of the world as well.

I have redesigned the blog, but it may be a few days until I can figure out how to return some of the links to the side. In the meantime, if you visit any of the random archive pages, the old blogroll is still listed.

The Spurs really don't have much game in the second half, do they?

Truth be told, one of the reasons why Abu Ghraib has already become such a dark page in American history is that public sentiment had already begun to turn against the war, in particular the question as to whether the U.S. was justified in starting this adventure. If Americans no longer overwhelmingly believed in The Cause, it stands to reason that actions which are the inevitable by-product of a war (including the abuse and dehumanization of the enemy) would be less tolerated. Still, the belief by some that the captives at Abu Ghraib represented the most malignant of the former allies of Saddam has been used to rationalize the behavior of their guards; surely, no one would weep if G.I.'s had treated captured members of the S.S. the same way after WW2, or if Bin Laden and friends were similarly humiliated.

That's why this story is all the more important. Between 70 and 80% of all Iraqis captured during the war were arrested by mistake, according to the Red Cross' report, and were treated in a manner that violated the Geneva Convention. The pictures we are now seeing have shown Americans an ugly side to our nature, a side that believes that because we are more powerful than our adversaries our actions must, inevitably, be morally correct. Abu Ghraib was only the tip of that iceberg; considering the way in which we treated Native Americans and the descendents of slaves, it is the flip side to an American exceptionalism which characterizes so much of the foulest aspects of our political culture.

Pulitzer Watch: The Los Angeles Times is reporting that actor Corbin Bernson [L.A. Law, (1986-93); Celebrity Mole (2004)] and his wife, Amanda Pays [some movie with Rob Lowe twenty years ago] have remodeled their home, and intend to put it on the market for $1.5 million. Natch...Brian and Laurie Czamecki of Troop Real Estate have the listing. The same article hints that LA Dodger middle reliever Tom Martin and his wife may soon lease a townhome in Manhatten Beach, thanks to the efforts of Phyllis Cohen-Edwards of Shorewood Realtors.

The chickenhawks reap the whirlwind:

From tomorrow's Washington Post:

Tolerance of the situation in Iraq also appears to be declining within the U.S. military. Especially among career Army officers, an extraordinary anger is building at Rumsfeld and his top advisers. "Like a lot of senior Army guys, I'm quite angry" with Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush administration, the young general said. He listed two reasons. "One is, I think they are going to break the Army." But what really incites him, he said, is, "I don't think they care." Jeff Smith, a former general counsel of the CIA who has close ties to many senior officers, said, "Some of my friends in the military are exceedingly angry." In the Army, he said, "It's pretty bitter."

"The people in the military are mad as hell," said retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew, a frequent Pentagon consultant. He said that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, should be fired. A spokesman for Myers declined to comment. A Special Forces officer aimed higher, saying that, "Rumsfeld needs to go, as does Wolfowitz."

Asked about such antagonism, Wolfowitz said, "I wish they'd have the -- whatever it takes -- to come tell me to my face."[emphasis added]

I dunno, Paul, it may have something to do with the fact that they're over there fighting, while you sit comfortably behind a desk.

Idiot son update: After spending his first eight months with Serie A also-ran Perugia on the bench, including a three-month stint in the doghouse for failing a drug test, Saadi Ghadafi, son of the Libyan strongman and U.S. ally in the War on Terror, finally made his debut in Italian soccer, playing 15 minutes as a substitute in his team's 1-0 upset victory over Juventus. His coach, Serse Cosmi, explained later that "Gaddafi came on because he is a player and not because any one of us wanted to go into history as the one who first played the son of a head of state in the Italian championship".

I've never been one to compare Bush with Hitler, but his apologists continued use of the line that "if Bush had known about what was happening at Abu Ghraib, he would have stopped it", is really starting to creep me out.

Gore's worst decision:

In his questioning of the panel, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman contrasted the U.S. response to the abuse scandal and terrorist responses to acts perpetrated against Americans. He noted that American leaders apologized to the Iraqi people for the outrages in Abu Ghraib, but he hasn't heard anyone apologize for the 3,000 Americans killed in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or an apology for the hundreds of Americans killed in liberating Iraq or an apology for the killing and desecration of four security persons in Fallujah.

Perhaps he should take that issue up with the President; certainly, the blood of any American killed in Iraq is as much on Lieberman as anyone else in our government. In the meantime, we have to find a primary challenger (or better yet, an independent), who will challenge this asshole in '06.

In the hagiography of Pat Tillman, one of the aspects to the story that the media has focused on is that he enlisted in the Rangers "in the wake of 9/11"; once The Towers fell, he had an epiphany about the relative lack of importance of playing football, and decided to immediately fight for Uncle Sam. Actually, what is much more interesting is that he didn't enlist immediately. Lots of people rallied round the flag after that fateful Tuesday, sang "God Bless America" and put the Stars and Stripes on their car antennas. Tillman, rather than abandoning his teammates, played out the 2001 season, starting every game, and by turning in another quality season, made himself more marketable as a football player. He didn't actually enlist until May, 2002, when he had nine months to think about the ramifications of what he was doing. His was not an emotional decision, but a reasoned one, and in my view a more patriotic act because of it.

Giving credit where it's due: Andrew Sullivan takes on the rightists' attempts to excommunicate John Kerry from the Catholic Church. Unlike my April 24 post on the same subject, which dealt with the anticipated political fallout, his article focuses on those attempting to lobby the Church, and the unsound religious position they put forward.

Beating and torturing prisoners is not "the America he knows"? Didn't Bush used to be the governor of Texas? Also, good move not going on Al Jazeera; the last thing you want to do is appear on an independent Arab-language station that people actually watch. Those who get suckered by a politician's faux-religiosity are already going to vote for Bush, so why bother with this P.R. stunt if you aren't going to make an appeal to at least some of the people turned off by the revelations of the past week.

What Chalabi Wrought:

In the popular political imagination we're familiar with the neocons as conniving militarists, masters of intrigue and cabals, graspers for the oil supplies of the world, and all the rest. But here we have them in what I suspect is the truest light: as college kid rubes who head out for a weekend in Vegas, get scammed out of their money by a two-bit hustler on the first night and then get played for fools by a couple hookers who leave them naked and handcuffed to their hotel beds. [link mine]

--Joshua Marshall

NaziPundit grows tired of the 14th Amendment, waxes poetically on the benefits of racial profiling. [link via Media Matter] I suppose this story would warm Ilsa's heart, though.

For the duration of the de facto NBA Finals, Matt Yglesias' smug, toxic Lakerphobic site is banned from my blogroll, to be replaced by the wise, sensible analysis of Roger L. Simon. Kobe Akbar !!

Two important stories of note: Josh Marshall, on the increasingly suspicious role that Ahmed Chalabi is playing in the alleged "Oil-for-Food" scandal, and this L.A. Times scoop, on Kenneth "Babyface" Edmonds' purchase of a new home in a gated Beverly Hills community. No word yet on who brokered the sale.

Another perspective on the maltreatment of Iraqi POW's, by Sgt. Stryker. Regarding the excuse made by the staff sergeant in charge of the prison, he writes:

[H]e says that he and the others received no formal Geneva Convention training, which would've instructed them that stacking a bunch of naked men in a pyramid and posing for a trophy picture are inappropriate. I mean, until I was trained in LOAC, I thought I could just walk around shooting people at random if the whim caught me. Without that invaluable training, I'd have no idea that there indeed exist basic standards of human decency. Who knew?

Link via Matt Welch

When any war goes out of control, stories like this one, from the Guardian, are inevitable:

Graphic photographs showing the torture and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners in a US-run prison outside Baghdad emerged yesterday from a military inquiry which has left six soldiers facing a possible court martial and a general under investigation. The scandal has also brought to light the growing and largely unregulated role of private contractors in the interrogation of detainees. According to lawyers for some of the soldiers, they claimed to be acting in part under the instruction of mercenary interrogators hired by the Pentagon.

(snip)

The US army confirmed that the general in charge of Abu Ghraib jail is facing disciplinary measures and that six low-ranking soldiers have been charged with abusing and sexually humiliating detainees. Lawyers for the soldiers argue they are being made scapegoats for a rogue military prison system in which mercenaries give orders without legal accountability.

A military report into the Abu Ghraib case - parts of which were made available to the Guardian - makes it clear that private contractors were supervising interrogations in the prison, which was notorious for torture and executions under Saddam Hussein. One civilian contractor was accused of raping a young male prisoner but has not been charged because military law has no jurisdiction over him.

It should also be noted that the Senate today approved the nomination of former death squad enabler John Negroponte as Ambassador to Iraq.

I wish I could write like Tina Brown:

There was a surreal moment at a serious Manhattan dinner party Tuesday night when 12 power players who had all been talking at once about the mess in Iraq suddenly fell silent to listen to the waiter. He dove in shortly after he had served the coconut cake with lemon dessert -- perhaps to give moral support to the only Republican present, who was beginning to flag. Or perhaps he just thought it might be helpful for the guests to hear from one of the Ordinary Americans whose unhappiness with the status quo they are in the habit of earnestly invoking.

"I'm from the suburbs," he announced, "and I'm voting for Bush."

Nothing captures the atmosphere of a "serious Manhattan dinner party" like an anecdote about "Coconut cake with lemon dessert".

An inspiring story about living the San Fernando Valley dream.

The world's stupidest flag design...c'mon, powder blue and gold?

Smythe Jumps the Shark: Since I started my blog, I've tried to steer my own course, for the most part staying away from issues that I had little interest in, and/or had little in the way of expertise. Since I'm not a reporter by profession, I tend not to be obsessed with the political bias, whether it be right or left, of the media. I don't "fisk" other writers, since that is so 9/12, and I have another blog where I can discuss sports, if I wanted to. My opinion on Iraq is simple: the Administration (particularly the Veep) exaggerated the threat from Saddam, didn't have the slightest idea what we were getting into, and hundreds of American soldiers (and, no doubt, thousands of Iraqi civilians) are now dead. Also, Saddam was a bad man, it was a good idea to keep a close watch on him, regardless of whether we went to war, and it is going to benefit the Iraqi people in the long run to be rid of him.

There are only so many ways you can write those opinions before you glaze over the eyes of your readers, and it's so much easier to troll your views elsewhere, where they will be read by a larger audience. Some things, though, I am compelled by reputation to expound on, regardless of the general interest my readers may have. For example, I will always post about any halfway interesting night at Joxer Daly's; Smythe's World, in fact, is the de facto website for the bar, even though I'm not a regular there anymore. Political polling fascinates me, so any shift in the horse race numbers will receive my attention. Jose Offerman has been my favorite athlete since he was making several dozen errors a year at Albuquerque (I've always had a soft spot for despised athletes, like Sonny Liston and Ryan Leaf, but Offy is special, since he has always handled the malice from sportwriters and fans alike with class and dignity), so any news stories involving him will surely get noticed. And naturally, if something happens in the area of law I practice, bankruptcy, I will avail myself of the opportunity to rant.

And of course, there's Phoebe Nicholls. Ms. Nicholls, for those of you who do not have intimate knowledge of the British theatrical scene, is a mid-fiftyish English character actress. She was quite beautiful during her ingenue period back in the day, and even today she's not hard on the eyes, but her uniqueness derives from the spellbinding effect her voice has on an audience. Quite simply, it is the most captivating voice possessed by an actor since the late George Sanders; today, only John Malkovich is comparable. And like those actors, she invariably portrays rather elegant characters who deserve to be taken down a peg or two (that is, when she's not portraying another specialty of hers, that of "bereaving mother". It's safe to say that the former are a heck of a lot more fun to watch).

Almost all of her work is done on British television or on stage, and she's only acted in a handful of films (none released since 1997), so Americans rarely have the chance to see her perform. I've followed her career since her disembodied voice concluded The Elephant Man in 1980, and her most famous role was that of the youngest sister of Sebastian Flyte in Brideshead Revisited the following year. The sheer fact that she has worked regularly (and, for the most part, reviewed favorably) since then, without becoming a household name even in her home country, is a testament to a quality I generally admire in a person, a commitment to craft beyond any pecuniary benefits that may arise out of it.

Which brings me to Prime Suspect 6 [part two], which ran on your local PBS station last night. She had only two brief scenes, playing the frumpishly malevolent spook who attempts to shut down Inspector Tennison's investigation into the Serbian war criminal she's protecting. She played the part perfectly, creating one of the most sinister TV characters since The Cigarette Man, conveying more with a resigned shrug than Gwyneth Paltrow does with one of her patented line-readings. In particular, her final scene conveyed a sense of power and contempt even after she had been out-smarted by the heroine, all without uttering a word. It gets replayed again on PBS next weekend, so watch out for it if you missed it the first time. And by all means, remember the name; it wouldn't surprise me in the least if she turns out to be another Judi Dench, an actress whose fame and notoriety in this country are achieved after middle age.

UPDATE: Jose Offerman has now been cut by three teams in the last two years, and spent the entire 2006 season with the New York Mets AAA team in Tidewater. In August, 2007, he was charged with assault after he charged the mound in a minor league game with a baseball bat (he subsequently plead guilty, and agreed to probation), and was suspended indefinitely. Showing up two years later managing in the Dominican Winter League, Offerman proved the early incident was no fluke by meriting a lifetime suspension for attempting to punch an umpire.

Phoebe Nicholls has rebooted her career in recent years by excelling on the West End, starring in a number of well-received plays and winning some long-overdue awards.

*However, her American fans were recently victimized by a cruel hoax when the IMDB website listed her as performing in the TV series CSI: Miami. In fact, the producers of the show merely created a character named "Phoebe Nichols" (with only one "l", so the audience wouldn't be confused with the real-life actress), a Britney Spearsian singer who is thought to have exploded in flames at the beginning of the show, only for the deceased to have been a doppleganger. I hope my blogmuse was well-paid for the indignity.

Religion of Peace? One of the dittohead talk radio hosts has called for the extermination of all Muslims, proving that rancid bigotry and skinhead sentiments are not simply the preserve of LGF.

Is there anything more idiotic for the GOP to do than to question John Kerry's war record? Last week, they demanded that he release his full war record, which he did, revealing a man of courage and bravery. Now, they are bringing up his anti-war positions after he came back, probably not the wisest course of action considering that a) 30 years after the fact, Vietnam is a not a popular cause, even in Red America, and b) the similarities between Vietnam in 1971 and the Middle East, 2004 become more and more acute. Even the dispute concerning whether or not he ever claimed to have discarded his combat medals in 1971 (the interview in question is unclear as to whether he was referring to his medals or the medals of other soldiers) only reminds the public that he won medals in the first place, at a time when most of his adversaries had "other priorities". Kerry should do whatever he can to ensure that this story stays on the front page for as long as he can, even if it means dissembling, stonewalling, prevaricating, or just plain flip-flopping; the comparison between the brave patrician warrior and the president for whom truth is a flexible concept can only benefit the challenger.

UPDATE: The ABC news producer who broke the story, Chris Vlasto, is well-known for his far-right connections. In 1994, he acted as an emissary from Ken Starr to lobby both James and Susan McDougal to cooperate with his inquisition. In 1995, he produced a report on ABC that accused Hillary Clinton of perjury, based largely on a doctored video clip of the First Lady. In 1998, he threw a celebratory party for Paula Jones and her attorneys after Bill Clinton was forced to testify before the Lewinsky Grand Jury. In October, 2001, he produced a report that claimed a connection between Saddam and the anthrax attacks on Senator Daschle, et al., as well as being one of the first journalists to detail a link between Muhammed Atta and the government of Iraq; both allegations were subsequently discredited. More recently, Vlasto ran a misleading report suggesting that Howard Dean had covered-up incidents of alleged domestic abuse by one of the state troopers protecting him; it was repudiated as "slime" and denounced by those denizens of the far left, Andrew Sullivan and John Ellis. And now comes word that the tape itself was made by the Nixon Administration, which viewed Kerry as an "enemy". Despicable.

UPDATE [2]: The speed by which the Kerry campaign was able to shift the focus off of the medal controversy and back onto the missing Bush TANG records was breathtaking, almost Clintonian in its subtle political skillfulness. He might just win this election yet....

Busy, busy day. Got up early, went to a "book festival" at UCLA sponsored by the local paper of record, found out more about the cultural importance of Las Vegas than I needed to know (also, that Kelly Lange looks "younger" now than she did when I was in high school, thanks to plastic surgery), received a tip about either firing a gun (or lighting a joint[?]) whenever I had writer's block when drafting a screenplay, then checked out the second half of the Laker game...Kobe Akbar !!!

I can't imagine Cardinal Arinze's edict being anything other than a huge political break for John Kerry, and a non-starter for the Roman Catholic Church. In his passionate defense of the Church, Why I Am a Catholic, Garry Wills notes that for much of American history, the Roman Catholic Church officially opposed the Constitutional doctrine of the separation of church and state; instead, the Church held that it was the only true religion of state, that "error had no rights" and that toleration of Protestantism or Judaism was not permitted in Catholic dogma. This lasted until the late-50's, when John F. Kennedy's nascent campaign for the Presidency brought to the forefront the internal debates within the Church about its proper role in the modern, democratic world.

Kennedy, remembering the anti-Catholic bigotry that sank Al Smith's Presidential campaign in 1928, took great pains to disavow any notion that he would be the Pope's servant in the White House, and in a famous speech in Houston, shamed the Protestant majority into acknowledging the patriotism of American Roman Catholics. Kennedy shrewdly realized that his independence from the Church was not only necessary to winning the Presidency, it was a stance that had no downside with rank-and-file Catholic laity, who had grown increasingly distant from the reactionary policies of Rome. Not wanting to torpedo JFK's candidacy, the Church was forced to accept the doctrine of church-state separation, and the assumption of John XXIII to the papacy further accelerated efforts at reform which culminated in the Second Vatican Council in 1962 (Wills, pp. 214-221).

Now, a second JFK is being challenged to restate his position on the separation of church and state. Cardinal Arinze's trial balloon has no official standing as Church dogma, so American bishoprics will continue to remain divided on permitting dissenters to receive the Eucharist. Any further action to impose sanctions on pro-choice Catholic politicians will prove to be ineffectual, and may do more than a thousand attack-ads to reverse the perception that Kerry's views are malleable. A candidate who would seemingly risk excommunication in order to remain true to his principles would certainly be viewed as a formidable political force, one not to be underestimated, and certainly not one whose toughness to deal with terrorists could be challenged. So if Rome wants to press this issue further, I say, "Bring it on !!"

Dr. J gives Friends the warm, loving tribute it deserves.

The tinfoil-hat-wearing brigade, when they aren't making dark allusions to John Kerry "faking" his injuries during the Vietnam War, are now obsessed with the so-called "oil for food" scandal involving the U.N. While it does seem obvious that Saddam profited rather handsomely from the foreign aid that trickled into Iraq after the first Gulf War (surprise, surprise), conspiracy theorists who see the U.N. as a satanic front are using documents "uncovered" within the Iraqi Oil Ministry as evidence that the entire Security Council (save the U.S. and U.K.) was on the take. I suppose I would take this "scandal" more seriously if I didn't see the fingerprints of the Iraqi Governing Council and Ahmed Chalabi all over this. Forged documents implicating the enemy de jour have been abundant since we pulled the statue of Saddam down last year, and it's not as if baksheesh is all that unusual in the Middle East. I mean, when was the last time a Likud Prime Minister wasn't on the take?

In short, the "oil for food scandal" is a desperate attempt to shift the blame for the debacle now occurring in Iraq from the incompetents who started the war to those countries that refused to buy into our rationale. It isn't France's fault that Paul Wolfowitz is a clueless putz, and Russia is not to blame for the chickenhawk's great adventure into oblivion.

Pat Tillman, R.I.P. No one can say that he was just a cheering from the sidelines.

The person whom Meryl Streep says she patterned her character after in the upcoming remake of The Manchurian Candidate, Peggy "the Dolphin Queen" Noonan, has written another one of her fellative tributes to God's Holy Warrior. I guess it's one thing to feign surprise that Bush's approval ratings did not immediately plunge as a result of the setbacks at home and abroad the past two weeks; after all, Jimmy Carter's approval ratings soared after the hostages were taken in Tehran in 1979, and again after the failed rescue attempt in the desert in 1980. The immediate instinct of the public is to rally behind the leader when bad news hits. It's quite another to claim that President Bush is a "popular" president, liked and admired by "the people". His approval ratings are between 47 and 52 percent, hardly the marks of a beloved leader (and about ten points below Bill Clinton's the day he was impeached), and the most recent polling shows him anywhere from five points up to four points down against Kerry. He might still win reelection, but "the people" barely tolerate him.

A new poll in the LA Times shows Kerry with a commanding 12-point lead over the President in California. Since Gore defeated Bush by 13 points in this state last time out, the Times poll is in line with national polling that shows a dead-even race. After everything that has happened the last three years, the political dynamic doesn't seem to have changed a whole lot.

The "Sakharov of Israel", Mordechai Vanunu, was released from prison this morning, eighteen years after he had been kidnapped in Rome by the Israeli Secret Service. Vanunu, who spent much of his time in prison being held in solitary confinement, was convicted of "treason" in 1985 in a secret trial for detailing that nation's nuclear secrets (and lack of security over same) to the Times of London. Upon release, Vanunu immediately defied the gag order that had been imposed on him as a condition of his release (another condition, btw, forbids him from accessing the internet, so don't hold your breath waiting for the VanunuBlog), renewing his attack on Israel's nuclear program. Mazel tov !!

Nothing says "freedom" in Iraq like the Second Amendment.

The Bush Serenity Prayer, as told by Neal Pollack:

Heavenly Father, give me the power to try to change what I cannot, and to not change what I can. Give me the strength to believe what is obviously false. And grant me the lack of wisdom not to know the difference.

Two new polls are out showing Ralph Nader with between 4-6% of the vote if the election were held today, turning a dead-even race into a Bush win. I don't pretend to be an insider, but I'm quite sure that almost nobody believes he will attain that level, particularly since he got only 2.7% of the vote last time, when he was on the ballot in almost every state, running at the head of a legitimate (albeit minor) political party, and still possessing a positive reputation with the public. Frankly, I'd be surprised if he topped one percent in November (Pat Buchanan, who was on the ballot in every state in 2000, got less than half a percent), and any pollster that continues to treat him seriously is committing malpractice.

As Prof. J. reminds us, this will not be the first Presidential election at risk from the threat of terrorist thugs....

George Bush got a lot of mileage in the mid-term elections by attacking Democrats who opposed his version of the legislation creating the Dept. of Homeland Security because it didn't contain labor protections for employees of the new department. It was a cynical maneuver; as we have learned from the Kean Commission, the mistakes that led to 9/11 resulted from policy neglect, particularly from the Bush Administration, and not because of lax overtime standards in the Defense Department. As a matter of policy, though, it was also a shortsighted attack, since it is precisely those occupations where organized labor is still strong, such as the police, that often have the best view as to our vulnerabilities to a terrorist attack.

One particularly important union in any effort to stop terrorism is the ILWU, representing longshoremen and maritime workers. While the attack on September 11 has us increasingly focused on attacks from the sky, it is no less important that we be vigilant elsewhere, especially in our nation's ports. This letter, sent last month from ILWU President James Spinosa to the Director of Port Security for the D.H.S., chillingly details the complete failure of port operators to implement basic security measures mandated by the government. Even more disturbing has been the lack of response by the DHS; apparently, trying to enforce regulations against private companies violates the political credo of this administration, while bashing unions remains par for the course.

The long-awaited return of Prime Suspect will air tomorrow on your local PBS affiliate, going head-to-head with The Sopranos, Alias, 24 (preempted Tuesday because of Bush's press conference), and State of Play (on BBC America). And they all start at 9:00 p.m. !! This may be the Greatest Single Night in the history of the boobtube (ironically, it is also the start of TV Turn-Off Week), and it would take two TIVO subscriptions to capture it all. Her appearance, however, will not be until next week's episode.

I think we can safely say that Kobe has been forgiven for Sunday.

Mention "Nagano" to an American hockey fan, and they will as likely as not refer to a team that pillaged through the Olympic village en route to ignominy. Say the word to a Canadian, and they will sadly remember the Gretzky/Sakic/Roy-led Dream Team that came home without a medal. But if you say the word to a Czech fan, will they think, "opera"? Matt Welch informs us over at Hit & Run that a production based on the Czech Republic's gold medal winning team has debuted recently in Prague, to the delight and consternation of high, middle and low-brow alike. LA Kings fans might be interested that the protagonist of the piece is "Milan Hnilicka", whose real-life counterpart currently tends goal for the team's minor league affiliate.

Hard to believe the next football season is only five months away....

Just two weeks after its debut, Air America has been pulled from the airwaves in L.A. and Chicago due to a legal dispute with its radio "landlord" (actually, the company which allows it to use its spectrum). Listeners in sunny California who tuned in this morning expecting to hear Al Franken's take on last night's press conference instead got something akin to Spanish language Christian radio. Anyways, Air America Radio has filed for a temporary restraining order, here.

I don't care what political views you hold or what party you belong to, anyone who was not thoroughly depressed by the stumbling, incoherent performance of the President tonight is missing a heart. His pre-9/11 actions have been in the spotlight recently, but this evening's almost surreal outing in prime-time showed that he's still the same clueless hack that he was when he took office. It was the most embarassing effort by a political figure since Dan Quayle debated Lloyd Bentsen.

But tonight there was a feeling of melancholia, a sense that he was just going through the motions. Regardless of how one might feel about the 2000 election or about George Bush as a person, I'm sure there was a time, possibly on the day he was sworn in, when he dreamed of greatness, that he could be another Lincoln, another FDR, someone who would make a difference in the lives of his countryman in a positive way. It's safe to say that's not going to happen, and he knows it. He has spent a large chunk of money in the last two months, against an opponent who has either been convalescing or on vacation, and he has barely nudged the polls. His wartime stewardship has come under question, his lackadaisacal approach to terrorism before 9/11 (something that we can all plead guilty to, by the way) is under withering assault, and now the press and public can barely contain their laughter at the fact that he can't go before his own commission without having his Vice President hold his hand.

The obvious historical analogy is with Warren Harding. Also a late bloomer, with modest political aspirations at first, Harding could be a little prick, too, but he also had this almost puppy-dog desire to be "one of the boys". Like Bush, he didn't have the heart to fire any of the incompetents in his retinue, and it drove him to an early grave.

After tonight, it wouldn't surprise me if Bush decided he didn't want any of this anymore; that the "war on terror" took precedent over his own ambitions, and that rather than face the distraction of having to campaign for reelection while all hell is breaking loose in the Middle East, he would focus his energy on "staying the course" in Iraq, and not seek a second term. He would look statesmanlike, could hand-pick the GOP nominee before the convention, and the election could be a referendum on his policies without the distortion of his contentious personality. Then he could retire to his "ranch", and hope that, in time, the American people would look back and remember what it was they liked about him, and perhaps forget his ineptitude in dealing with the economy, the runaway deficits, the ineffectual strikes against Al Qaeda, and the ongoing debacle in Iraq. Even now, he can still do some good.

The Day After: Bush's reaction to the August 6 briefing.

Now that Barry Bonds has caught him on the all-time home run list, I thought now would be as good a time as any to post this tribute to the Say-Hey Kid, by the late actress and raconteur, Tallulah Bankhead.

Local legend Marc Cooper has started a blog, and he has an hilarious yet smug take on the official website of Our Favorite Shiite, the Ayatollah Sistani. This type of snark is a key reason the left gets wiped out in that half of the country that still believes in creationism, et al., and it's probably not a good idea to send insulting e-mail to one of our only remaining friends in Iraq, but still...if I have to give up certain practices because they are Makrooh, then the terrorists will have won.

Howard Owens has a nice encapsulation of what-I-did-last-night, here. Little to add, except that the League Fathers of arena football might consider adding a little defense to the sport; it was easier to score than at an SC sorority mixer.

The big problem Dr. Rice had this morning was that she wasn't Richard Clarke. His straightforward, honest, direct answers left a much better impression on the neutral viewer; perhaps her oleaginous, tone-deaf excuse-mongering (especially after Ben-Veniste and Kerrey made her seem more like a character in Glengarry Glen Ross than someone who has responsibility for preventing attacks on our nation's soil) might have worked three weeks ago, but now it just seems hollow. Dr. Rice represents everything the Bushies have come to symbolize: incompetence, ideology and sycophancy are valued, while results and achievement aren't. I predict she's going to find her true calling selling some choice property to retirees in Florida when this is all over.

QUOTE OF THE YEAR:

"Why do papers like the [NY Times] and [Washington Post] misread the plainly vague meaning of Bush's words?"
--Mickey Kaus

Those who look carefully enough may notice that I now have something like an RSS feed, whatever that is. Let me know if it works.

Former-marxist-turned-neo-fascist writer Oriana Fallaci has a new book out, which blames Arab immigrants for every problem now afflicting Europe, and hypothesizes that the Roman Catholic Church is now controlled by a Wahhabist cabal (ed.--yeah, it's called Opus Dei). If another Hitler ever rises to power in the future, he will probably scapegoat Muslims.

Worth reading: a very eloquent post by "Kos" on his mixed feelings over the deaths at Fallujah, told from the perspective of someone who grew up in a country torn apart by guerilla warfare, and who has actually fought in a war himself.

UPDATE: Dr. J. has more on Blackwater Security, the organization that employed the four men killed last week. Needless to say, while I don't believe that anything they might have been doing justified either the barbaric way in which they were murdered last week or Kos' insensitive remarks concerning same, I believe it should be a matter of concern that we are tolerating the use of mercenaries (or "private security contractors") in Iraq. His language was clumsy and cruel, more reminiscent of an LGF post on Rachel Corrie, but compared with much of the crap that exists in the b-sphere, Kos is actually a moderate voice (as far as I can tell, he hasn't called for the extermination of the Palestinian people), and, unlike the Kerry Campaign Blog, I will not allow his unfortunate venture into the realm of Political Incorrectness determine his position on my humble blogroll.

As it turns out, not everyone appreciated Mr. Clarke's eloquent testimony to the 9-11 Commission. Charles Krauthammer, whose Pulitzer Prize is more in the tradition of Walter Duranty's and Janet Cooke's, goes on the attack, denouncing Clarke's apology to the 9-11 victims as "phony", and then ridiculing those same families for claiming "special status" as victims.

Dr. Krauthammer's rationale, such as it is, is that since Clarke admitted that even if the Bushies had followed his advice, the 9-11 attacks still would have taken place, there was nothing that could have been done to prevent what happened. Everyone did there best, so no apology was in order. Besides the incredible defeatism of that conceit (no matter how hard we try, the terrorists will inevitably succeed), it also misses the point completely. Clarke was the anti-terrorism tsar. If he couldn't devise something to prevent 9-11 from taking place, and if the Bushies were clearly disinterested in the whole subject of non-state-supported terrorisms before 9-11 to have ignored Al Qaeda, the American people are owed an explanation why. Clarke gave them one, by taking accountability, showing them the respect that Krauthammer couldn't find in his heart to give.

This week, Sports Illustrated has an excerpt in its GolfPlus Special from the recently published tome by Alan Shipnuck on last year's failed effort to integrate the home of the Masters, The Battle for Augusta National. Shipnuck, who covers the sport for the magazine, has some particularly interesting insights on the sad role blogs played in the whole affair. The villain (or hero, amongst the bedsheet-wearing crowd) of the piece is a Beltway flack named Jim McCarthy, who was hired by the restricted country club to go "on the attack--investigate the activists, hold them accountable for their track record and their ideological inconsistencies. You have to take on the press that is often conspiring to give the activists a platform to espouse their views. It's like the argument of appeasement versus aggression in geopolitics, and we all know how Neville Chamberlain fared."(emphasis added)

McCarthy, an avid readers of blogs, planted stories with Internet conservatives to shift the focus away from Augusta National's sorry track record on racial and sexual discrimination and instead towards the New York Times and Howell Raines. With Raines, et al., already unpopular on the right for the Times' oft-critical reporting of the Bush Administration, McCarthy's flackery found a receptive audience in the blogosphere, and hostile coverage elsewhere effectively mau-maued the Times into silence on the issue. As of today, Augusta National still has no female members, and only a smattering of token non-whites, and stands as a shabby symbol of the sport of golf. [additional links via The National Debate]

Today was the long-awaited debut of the "liberal" talk radio network, Air America. For the most part, aside from some annoying opening-day glitches, it isn't bad, but I don't see Limbaugh, Hannity, et al., shaking in their boots. One of the problems is the lack of experienced talk radio hosts on the network; much of the output so far has seemed like Pacifica Lite, with an especially irritating tendency of complaining about stories that aren't being covered by the Establishment Media for reasons of bias or expediency. It may be true, but I'm a pessimist by nature; the last thing I want to listen to on the way to court is how the whole world is conspiring to silence me. The new network does promise to be blog-friendly, though, with Atrios earning major props for his stint as a guest on the evening show. You can listen to the live feed on the Air America website, or the west coast feed (from Portland) three hours later.

After a long hiatus, Neal Pollack has returned, chastened but unbowed:

Thank goodness that I have this forum in which I can address those of you who are sitting in front of your computers, or who have programmed updates to this website directly into your cell phones. Your government failed you. Those entrusted with providing you the best in fact-based Web opinion failed you. And I failed you. I tried hard, but that doesn’t matter, because I failed. For that failure I would ask, once I’ve explained to you why I stopped blogging, for your understanding and your forgiveness.

Allah akbar.

Richard Clarke: the public speaks !!

March Madness nearly being complete, and the Final Four/Frozen Four set, I am now ready to return to blogging forthwith. Not that I wouldn't have sacrificed a few minutes during the Tournaments if events had warranted, but the major story (Richard Clarke) was being addressed by voices more eloquent than mine, and the Presidential campaign is currently in stasis: the Democrats, having jumped out to a quick early lead, is resting its big guy, while the Republicans, with a big war chest and with the commercial airwaves to itself, is struggling to put some space between the candidates before the summer. The 9-11 Commission has served to thwart the efforts by the President to build a commanding lead, and the closer this race remains going into the Democratic Convention, the more likely it is Kerry will pull away at the end, when the candidates will be on relatively equal footing, in terms of both money and stature.

For the second time in as many months, the White House has seemed inept in dealing with a frontal assault on its competence. Last month, it was the National Guard story that they managed to turn from a minor hiccup into a major embarrasment; now, it's their reaction to Richard Clarke's book and testimony before the 9-11 Commission. As any number of commentators have pointed out, Clarke's revelations are nothing new. Clarke made for a compelling witness last week, telling the family members of the 9/11 dead that he had failed them (btw, when was the last time anyone can recall a politician using the active tense when discussing his mistake?), but Kerry's campaign manager must have woke up the next morning with some serious wood after seeing the GOP's inept response. Some free advice to Karl Rove, Bill Frist, et al: never even hint that your adversaries aren't telling the truth, since a) it only reminds people how mendacious you guys are, and b) you never seem to be able to deliver the goods. Also, fire Condi Rice. It's never a good thing when the whole world is laughing at you.

Law of Unintended Consequences: An Israeli writer believes that the big winner in the Israeli take-out of Sheik Yassin last week will be Hamas, the group Sharon intended to destroy. If there is any world leader who is less competent than George Bush in dealing with terrorism, it's Arik the Whale. [link via Tom Paine]

Any doubt that George Bush is unfit to hold the office of President was resolved this week, in the aftermath of the Richard Clarke revelations. His patent inability to admit error would be the envy of any fifteenth century papist. At some point, one would hope that a more rational head in the Administration would say to His Highness that having his flacks (or as one cartoonist says, his "flying attack monkeys") use every charge in the books to assasinate the character of his critics is not only immoral, but politically counterproductive as well. I suppose that's what you get for having a President who sees himself as God's Righteous General. As William Saleton writes in Slate this morning:

It's funny, in retrospect, that Bush ran for president as a uniter. To unite a country, you have to acknowledge and reconcile differences. Bush doesn't work toward unity; he assumes it. He doesn't reconcile differences; he denies them. It's his tax cut or nothing. It's his homeland security bill or nothing. It's his terrorism policy or nothing. If you're playing politics, this is smart strategy. But if you're trying to help the country, it's foolish. The odds are that 50 percent of the other party's ideas are right. By ruling them out, you start your presidency 50 percent wrong.

Some of the resulting mistakes may be inconsequential. Some may cost 3,000 lives. Some may cost 2 million jobs. "If the Democratic policies had been pursued over the last two or three years … we would not have had the kind of job growth we've had," Cheney bragged three weeks ago. That's the way this administration thinks: We do things differently. But being different doesn't guarantee you a better result—just a different one.

Taken together with Mr. Clarke's testimony this afternoon before the 9/11 Commission, in which he did something that Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al., have refused to do, which is take responsibility, it is a damning portrait.

Every now and then I wonder how it is that the GOP has proven utterly incapable of receiving significant support from outside its white male base, and then I read a blogpost like this, and the answer becomes obvious. A white reporter joking that a team in the NCAA Tournament will lose a game because it has "too many white players" is not the same thing as a white pundit with a history of racial bigotry saying that a black quarterback who has taken his team to three consecutive conference championships is overrated because he is black.

Moreover, the comparison made between basketball and NASCAR is utterly bogus. Black racers were shut out of auto racing by the bylaws of the sport, which limited participation to members of the Caucasian race; today, that earlier exclusion means that there is less interest in NASCAR, both as a career objective for potential black participants and as a pastime to follow on the weekends. Either formally (as in golf) or informally, the same was true in almost every other sport. The fact that black athletes were able to take part in some college football and basketball programs north of the Mason-Dixon Line before the Jackie Robinson Era gave those sports added cache with African Americans. White players have never been shut out of basketball because of skin color or racial prejudice, no more than they've been shut out of football, baseball or hockey.

In case you were wondering, Joanna Kerns (TV's "Maggie Seaver" from Growing Pains) has sold her home in Brentwood. According to the LA Times, which broke the story Sunday, she intends to build a new house in the area, no doubt with the $3.5 million she got from the sale of her three bedroom, three and a half bathroom mansion. No word on the lucky sap who can now boast to friend and stranger alike that he owns the old "Joanna Kerns Estate".

The last word on Spain:

"Spanish voters weren't intimidated by the terrorist bombings — they turned on a ruling party they didn't trust. When the government rushed to blame the wrong people for the attack, tried to suppress growing evidence to the contrary and used its control over state television and radio both to push its false accusation and to play down antigovernment protests, it reminded people of the broader lies about the war.

By voting for a new government, in other words, the Spaniards were enforcing the accountability that is the essence of democracy. But in the world according to Mr. Bush's supporters, anyone who demands accountability is on the side of the evildoers. According to Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, the Spanish people "had a huge terrorist attack within their country and they chose to change their government and to, in a sense, appease terrorists."

So there you have it. A country's ruling party leads the nation into a war fought on false pretenses, fails to protect the nation from terrorists and engages in a cover-up when a terrorist attack does occur. But its electoral defeat isn't democracy at work; it's a victory for the terrorists."

--Paul Krugman

Occam's Mach3: One can make all the arguments you can trying to explain the latest polls that Kerry has lost his mojo, that Bush's ad-attacks are working, that Kerry as a campaigner has fundamental weaknesses, and you can boil them all down and you still wouldn't have enough crack left to get a buzz. The amount Kerry has lost in the polls to Bush is almost exactly the same as the amount Ralph Nader gets now that he is included in the horse race. Kerry is in trouble only if you believe that Nader is going to double his 2000 vote, which the latest polls all indicate.

There will be even less output than usual for the next few days, due to a bad case of Tournament Flu that I've come down with (btw, any who would like to take part in my brackets pool, just drop me a line), as well as a truckload of legal work that has to get done.

Kevin "Sherlock Holmes" Drum, whose investigative skills were praised in this month's Vanity Fair by James Wolcott, has a good analytic post on the Spanish election. He focuses on the feeling of betrayal by the electorate in the days immediately after last week's atrocities, towards a government that seemed more interested in using the bombings to score domestic political points, rather than showing that the Spaniards are Tapas-Eating Surrender Monkeys and the like. Those who have characterized yesterday's vote as being objectively pro-terrorist, or as evidence of moral cowardice by the electorate, have lost almost all credibility at this point.

The use of the "war" analogy really obscures the fact that most people don't simply fear terrorist attacks as something that might happen to their country, but as something that might happen to themselves. The Bush Administration often ridicules its critics as people who believe that terrorism should be treated as a "law and order" issue, fought with subpoenas rather than bullets, with laws rather than smart bombs. In over-simplifying the matter, they risk losing the American people by over-emphasizing the military aspect of this fight, while ignoring the crime prevention aspect. Some terrorists are state-sponsored, and in those cases we should treat the nations that support them as hostile, but most aren't, or are sponsored only tenuously. In those cases, the only way to fight back, and win, is to use all the weapons at our disposal. And yes, those weapons include the subpoena, the levy, and the arrest warrant, where the nefarious dealings of the underworld are exposed to the light of day. After all, we didn't crush the Mafia by nuking Sicily.

In that respect, the neo-conservatives are starting to resemble the liberal establishment of the '60's, which believed that problems such as crime were social disorders which would go away once the "War on Poverty" succeeded, while not taking seriously the public's desire to feel safe walking the streets. What has happened in Spain the last two days should be a wake-up call: the people will show no loyalty to a government that seems ineffectual when it comes to protecting the people it serves. We don't want crusades; we're not going to wait until you reshape the Middle East. We want the problem stopped. Now.

The people of Spain get serious about taking the fight to the terrorists, bouncing the government that supported Bush's diversionary vendetta. Any opponent of the President has to be chilled by the result; what happened last week is a taste of what we might get just before the next election, and the impact that might have is far more important than the results of any partisan dispute.

Eric Alterman, co-author of the excellent The Book on Bush, will be in L.A. this weekend, signing books at the Midnight Special in Santa Monica this Sunday, and no doubt giving advice on filling out brackets for next week. His website, which is less a blog so much as a daily column, does an excellent job spotlighting less-famous writing talent (in the guise of a "Correspondents Section"), which is often more entertaining than the column itself. To wit, check out yesterday's tribute to the "A.J. Soprano of politics".

An unsubtle example of "working the ref": John Ellis, the man who mau-mau'ed the networks into prematurely calling Florida for Bush in 2000 (and a cousin of the President, to boot), attacks the lib'rul media for going "easy" on John Kerry. Considering the hatchet jobs the press gave to President Clinton for eight years, and the atrocious job they did on Al Gore four years ago, Bush's supporters have little to complain about this time. Ellis complains:

Republicans are amazed by the disparity in the news coverage of Senator Kerry and President Bush. As well they might be. Kerry's triple back-flips on virtually every issue are "explained" in The New York Times and The Washington Post as the products of a "nuanced" mind at work. President Bush's straightforward assertions are portrayed as the lies of an ill-advised moron. What's going on here?

What's going on is that some members of the media take their responsibility to be impartial seriously. When the Bush campaign attempted to use the flip-flop issue to attack Kerry, a few reporters actually looked at the record and found that the attacks were weak and deceptive. And like the rest of the country, members of the news media no longer take a word the President says at face value; the fact that he can lie with a straight face doesn't carry him as far as it used to. Ellis later complains that the media largely shares a personal animus of Kerry, but they haven't allowed that bias to color their coverage of the candidate. If true (and let's remember, it would be hard for anyone to be a bigger a-hole than the incumbent), that would be an historic mark of maturity in the Fourth Estate.

One of the consequences of deciding to fight peripheral targets, rather than the people who actually attacked us on September 11, occurred today in Madrid. Bush has pretty much chosen not to be serious about Al Qaeda and its sources of support in the Middle East, and I doubt our European allies are going to be too enthused about following our lead in the future until we get serious. They may have to wait til next January for that to happen.

Why can't the U.S. of A. have a Labor Secretary as good as the one the Iraqis have? [link via WWDT]

In describing the significance of Monday night's acquisition of forward Anson Carter, the local paper of record notes:

"[H]e becomes the fourth African American player to suit up for the Kings in their 37-season history, joining Grant Fuhr, Nathan Lafayette and Mike Marson."

Isn't that a good example of why labeling people isn't necessarily appropriate? Carter, in fact, is a native of Canada (as were Fuhr, Lafayette and Marson), and is therefore as much of an "African-American" as Lennox Lewis or Kip Keino; in fact, Charlize Theron is more of an "African-American" than he is. In any event, for most hockey fans, the notion of a "black" hockey player is not much of a novelty: Fuhr was recently elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame, and besides Carter, Jerome Iginla has been one of the top players in the league for the past three seasons. But as with most hockey players, they are Canadians, not Americans, and are not hyphenated-Americans in any event.

I had never listened to her program while it was still on KCRW, and I am coming rather late to this controversy, but the firing last week of humorist Sandra Tsing-Loh from her gig on public radio has pissed me off no end. One can talk about censorship, free speech, the creativity of an artist, or whatever, but what it really signals is that the SoCal area has a public radio station run by a timid programmer. And for me, that's everything.

Public radio is something that I wished I listened to more often. Usually, it's just for the news and political coverage, and "Which Way L.A." with Warren Olney, and even then infrequently, but I'm glad that there is someplace on (as Al Smith would put it) the raddio where the programming isn't entirely dominated by market considerations and safe, centrist political views. It's good to know that it's there, and that it's relatively uncensored.

To put it another way, it's radio for adults. And adults, every once in awhile, swear. There is a time and place for four-letter words: in casual conversations with friends, or in heated arguments, they're part of the vernacular; in church, at an elementary school, or with one's grandmother, some discretion should be used. I try to steer clear of such language on this blog, partly because it limits the audience that can access this site (web-blockers already make some blogsites difficult to access at government offices and high schools), but also because this site is a creative outlet for me, and I would prefer to articulate the same sentiments with less vulgar language, if possible. But it's not always possible.

Not having heard the program in question, I'm not going to venture whether Ms. Loh's use of the f-word was appropriate in the context of her piece, or whether the piece itself was funny, because frankly, I don't care. The issue is not whether her rights have been violated; it is, instead, my desire as a consumer to hear and experience the work of creative people in an unedited manner, when I choose. It is from that desire that the right of free speech is based. The decision about whether she could use the word in question was resolved when she was hired to do the program (or at least, when the station agreed to air the pre-taped piece twice the same morning). Public radio's mandate is different from the mandate of, let's say, NBC or Nickelodeon; it's not like SpongeBob SquarePants was using the word at 8:00 p.m. I don't want to believe that the battles posthumously won forty years ago by Lenny Bruce are going to have to be refought everytime a woman's breast is exposed, or a rock star extemporaneously exults at winning an award.

As with Howard Stern, there is a fair amount of hypocrisy involved here on behalf of the programmers. Clear Channel knew that Stern's radio show was vulgar and sick; that was the whole point, and those that listened, and those that refused to listen, knew what they were getting. They didn't act until the government began another one of its three-times-a-decade rampages on morality in popular culture. With Loh, I haven't seen any evidence that she made a habit of skirting the boundaries of good taste, but that doesn't matter. If she had been little more than a female version of Andrew Dice Clay, then KCRW is hypocritical for pulling the plug now after all this time. On the other hand, if this was just a one-time occurrence, then nothing will create a climate of fear with the rest of the talent more than firing a long-time employee for an innocent mistake.

There is currently a boycott right now of KCRW, but I can't honor it, for the same reason I couldn't honor a boycott of Rush Limbaugh's show, or the 700 Club. You can't "boycott" something you have no intention of patronizing in the first place. A public radio station that places draconian content restrictions on its programming isn't much better than the 24-7 news on KNX, so why would I listen? Just to listen to the pledge drives? It would be like if I decided to "boycott" peas, and that's just fucking crazy.

More evidence that the flip-flop attack on Kerry is a campaign loser: Dick Morris thinks its brilliant !!!

I suppose one way we can test the credibility of former "weakman" ruler Jean-Bertrand Aristide is to demand that he return to Haiti post-haste. After all, if he was kidnapped by foreign armies (that is to say, the U.S. and its beloved ally, France), and if he is currently free to move around in exile, as he claims, then there should be no problem for him to return and resume power in Port-au-Prince. The fact is, democratically elected or not, Aristide was a thug, and his unpopularity with his constituents sealed his fate. Although we shouldn't be in the business of rubber-stamping military coups, such as the one we backed several years ago in Venezuela, the United States cannot provide protection to every third world despot, elected or not, simply because the alternative may be worse.

Too often, we look at the veneer of democracy, and ignore the fact that the government we are propping up is as autocratic as the typical military junta (and to a lesser extent, the same could be said for Hugo Chavez, Ariel Sharon, and whichever puppet of the mullahs happens to be in control of Iran). South Africa, for crying out loud, had the outer appearance of a democracy for a century, yet liberals hardly demanded that we send in the Marines to defend P.W. Botha. Being able to participate in contested elections is no substitute for possessing the full human rights of a citizen.

For those of you who wondered whatever happened to Jose Offerman, this story gives the skinny. Like many small-market teams, the Twins are pursuing a variation of the Billy Beane philosophy, and larding up on players who get on base, take pitches, and basically act like a schnorrer to the opposing pitching staff, and that's what Offerman does. He had his best years with the Royals, where they downplayed his defensive shortcomings and tried to find a niche for the talents he actually possesses, which is to take pitches like a mother/father and hit triples. He did those things with LA and Boston (at least he did his first two years with the Sox) too, but the teams, and by extension the local media, were more obsessed with what he couldn't do, such as catching anything that was hit at him or stealing bases, and the result was unfortunate for all concerned.

My college football blog, Condredge's Acolytes, is going to start covering the NCAA Tournaments in basketball and hockey. Since it's a collaborative site, I welcome the contributions of any who have two cents they'd like to put in.

Best news of the day for Democrats: Dick Morris is predicting a Bush landslide.

What to do, if the goals of fighting terrorism and fighting Saddam conflict? Well, if you're this President, to hell with 9/11, you give this guy a pass, and he ends up killing several hundred people in Iraq.

Slate takes John Kerry to task for "flip-flopping", a meme hatched by Karl Rove, et al. Most of the examples are bogus, or can be easily explained, but the question I have is, who f---ing cares? "Flip-flopping" is an attack that only resonates in primary contests, when you are trying to convince base voters that the other guy is insincere. In general elections, it's a loser issue, the type of thing that people who don't like you and won't vote for you anyway will use to rationalize their votes.

One example of that attack failing miserably was Jerry Brown's reelection bid in 1978. Brown turned the entire dynamics of that election on its head by changing his position on Proposition 13, which he had fought against when it was on the June 1978 ballot. After the initiative passed, Brown suddenly became its biggest supporter, defending its constitutionality in the courts, and earning kudos from Howard Jarvis in the process. His opponent, Evelle Younger, who had led in the polls, made Brown's "flip-flops" on that and other issues the centerpiece of his campaign. The voters, instead, returned Brown to office by an overwhelming margin. Clinton's strategy of triangulation after the 1994 elections is another example of how a politician who changes his position on issues not only survives, but thrives before the electorate.

One of the dirtiest secrets in politics is that voters in a democracy not only tolerate a politician who changes his mind, they demand it. If swing voters are unsettled by Iraq or the economy, they are not going to give a rat's ass whether Kerry changed his mind about welfare reform in the mid-90's. And since many of those same voters performed the same "flip-flops" over the Patriot Act and the war, it doesn't do the Republicans any good to rub their noses in it.

WACK JOB WATCH: James Lileks jumps the shark here, with a pitiful claim that supporters of Kerry are objectively pro-terrorist. And a Republican Congressman goes one-up on Move On, comparing Kerry to Adolf Hitler. Oh, yeah, he's "French" looking, too. Also, Donald Luskin links to a clearly bogus "corrections" site for the New York Times, fooling (among others) Mickey Kaus. Lastly, Ilsa, She-Wolf of the S.S. has her unique take on the latest Mel Gibson movie; no surprise here, she loves it [link via Pandagon].

UPDATE: A reader (Kaus, actually) writes in to explain to your ignorant correspondent what "doppel" means. Turns out he wasn't fooled, but I was. That, and the fact that I actually missed a question on the Harrick Jr. Final Exam, means that my entire week has been one of humiliation and despair. I SUCK !!

First of all, the fact that a criminal defendant has claimed that he provided several baseball superstars with the juice should be taken with a grain of salt. The bigger the story he can tell in court, and the bigger the names he can bring down, the more leniency the court will grant him when it comes time for sentencing. In that sense, Barry Bonds should be given the same benefit of the doubt that Lance Armstrong was given.

Second, any lawyer who puts out a statement that his client "never knowingly" did something should be disbarred for rank incompetence, or even worse, made to practice in the field of workers comp. If an attorney is going to be that stupid, why not just put out a statement saying that there is "no controlling legal authority" to implicate your client and be done with it. Far better for Sheffield's attorney to have just kept his mouth shut, or at least said that his client will have no comment on what was or wasn't said to the Grand Jury.

Third, steroid use in baseball will be The Big Story for the next year, and will probably color how fans eventually look back at the last decade in the sport. Obviously, Bonds' single-season home run record will come into question (as will McGuire and Sosa, btw), but he has had such an impressive career that he will still be viewed as one of the all-time greats. Less fortunate will be players like Sheffield or Giambi (or Nomar, or Piazza, or any other player who gets caught up in this net), who may not have a pre-steroid portion of their career they can point to if they get implicated. Any well-sculpted ballplayer from the last fifteen years is going to be tainted by rumors of steroid use, regardless of guilt, in much the same way that the late Flo-Jo was after the 1988 Olympics. Sheffield, for example, with three consecutive MVP-candidate seasons, was just starting to put together a legitimate case for Hall of Fame consideration, which the steroid rumors may have irreparably damaged. This is a scandal the sport can ill-afford.

Prof. Johnson presents: "The Passion of Elvis".

Contrary to my post last week, the Seeds didn't open for the reclusive Ken Layne & the Corvids last Thursday. No matter; it was still worth the $7 cover to see the opening night of the "Minotour". The group keeps getting tighter, and the night was marred neither by Matt Welch's solo cover of "Only Women Bleed" nor by the obscenity-laced spat over welfare-reform between Mickey Kaus and Sky Saxon that interrupted the concert for ten full minutes until the police finally arrived. Saturday, in Huntington Beach, they were even better, debuting three new songs, including one kick-ass blast that sounded like an unholy mixture of Johnny Cash, Buck Owens, and "Him or Me" by Paul Revere and the Raiders. Hopefully, a "Maxotour" is in store for the rest of the country real soon. And by all means, if you go see them, print out one of their flyers....

Any doubts I may have had about John Kerry being a better president than George Bush were resolved by his answer to yesterday's debate's final question: Is God on our side? A good leader often tells people what they don't want to hear, and Kerry's answer actually seemed to have been generated out of some thought on his part. There was none of the phony religiosity that one gets out of W, who clearly sees matters of faith as a prop he can use to pick up Red State votes, rather than something that actually has meaning to him. I'm still voting for the ambulance chaser tomorrow, but my respect for the frontrunner has gone up enormously.

I certainly wouldn't begrudge her the Oscar she won tonight, but does anyone else think that Charlize Theron maybe was under a heatlamp for too long this week?



UPDATE: Nope, turns out she just overdid the make-up. Check out this photo from the night before, at the Independent Spirit Awards. I'm told that an exaggerated "tan" is often used to cover up acne problems, an especially acute problem when a significant share of the audience (particularly in Hollywood) is tuning in to the show via TV sets of the high-definition variety. Anyway, she's not necessarily a candidate for a melanoma...whew.

Atrios...revealed !!

Needless to say, I disagree with the President's call for a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriages and civil unions. I have nothing to add to what has been so eloquently stated this morning by Andrew Sullivan, except to pray that Senators Kerry and Edwards do the right thing on this issue, even if it means four more years of W. In the end, it is not a political position, it is a point of decency.

For whatever reason, I don't think John Edwards' inability to answer a question on the foreign corporate tax credit and its relation to the European Union is going to be a big issue come Super Tuesday. Reporters seem to think that playing "Stump the Candidate" is an effective way to demonstrate how much more learned they are than the people running for office, so last time we had some smartass reporter questioning candidate Bush on who the President of Taiwan was, and now we have this story.

It is an article of faith that one of the more significant after-effects of 9-11 has been the creation of a substantial segment of former liberals whose backing of the President in the "War on Terror" will realign American politics into the foreseeable future. This group, disproportionately represented in the blogosphere, sees Bush as a modern-day combination Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill, galvanizing the forces of freedom in a twilight struggle against Islamofascism, and they uncritically supported the decision to go to war with Iraq, no matter what the current rationale happened to be. The Democrats, with their support of such trivialities as "international law", were derided as unserious, doomed to a certain landslide defeat in November 2004.

Well, as it turns out, the more important segment of the voting public, albeit one that hasn't had the gumption to set up their own vanity sites with Blogger yet, are the voters who cast their lot with George Bush in 2000, and who have now gotten a case of buyer's remorse. Up to eleven percent of the people who voted for Bush last time now say they will pass on the G.O.P. this time, as opposed to only five percent who now regret their vote for Al Gore in the last election. The key issues: anger over the decision to go to war in Iraq, and concern over the President's economic priorities. In particular, independents now overwhelmingly disapprove of Bush's performance as President. [link via CalPundit]