Crosblog

In the midst of this excellent article about the pending genocide in Darfur, I read this gem of a statement:

The upshot: by the predatory and abusive violation of its citizens, the dictatorial government of Omar Hassan al-Bashir, like those of Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein, has relinquished its claims of sovereignty in Darfur.

The idea that acts such as Bashir's forfeit sovreignty is a great idea, and one I'd like to see adopted more widely - although with the UN still unable to quit acting like a Dictator Protection Society, I'm not optimistic.

Via Tapped, I came across this interesting article by Mary Bridges about the Slobodan Milosevic trial. Lots of people have forgotten about old Slobo, (except of course for our best and brightest) but now that Saddam Hussein is scheduled to show up in court, it's important to study the Milosevic trial for what lessons they can provide in the difficult field of tyrant jurisprudence.

The article dances around the most obvious lesson: Team UN doesn't know what the hell they're doing. Sounds like the Iraqis have, in fact, picked up on it.

Rocket Attack at Israeli Kindergarten Kills Boy and Man.

Anyone think the Israeli response will involve targeting a kindergarten?

"Cycle of violence," my ass.

...did extremely well at the box office. Congratulations, well done, and all that. (Hey, no complaints here. I made money on it playing Hollywood Stock Exchange.)

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not going to see it. I had the choice this weekend, and I went to see Dodgeball. (Which, by the way, is hilarious. You should go. Stay all the way through the credits and learn why I hate the song "Milkshake.") And, apparently, I made the right call. As someone who doesn't hate Bush, I'm fairly certain that seeing it would be counterproductive if the goal is making me liberal again. I mean, Moore originally claimed his movie was the unvarnished truth. He's worked his way down to "op-ed." (Which, as I've noted before, may violate campaign finance laws. There shouldn't be laws standing in his way, but there are, and the fact they were proposed by people who like Michael Moore is...well, really really funny.)

Someone who doesn't have a problem ignoring inconvenient facts, and refusing to address alternative points of view is pretty much someone you want to keep far away from people you're trying to persuade, because he won't help. There's a reason John Kerry doesn't talk like Atrios, is all I'm saying. Eventually, someone's going to point out that Michael Moore thinks the people going around beheading hostages are the Iraqi versions of Ben Franklin and Sam Adams:

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win."

OK, OK, the folks doing the beheadings may not be Iraqis - they could be Iranians or Saudis who've crossed the border to muck things up. But as long as Moore is a journalist, and not a BS artist - I figure I'm on solid ground.

(Note - I'm being sarcastic - Jonah Goldberg is absolutely right when he says "in debates fighting perceived lies with willful ones wins you few points." But I'd be surprised if Moore's views about the horrible foreigners violently imposing their will on Iraq only considers the US foreigners, and he has no condemnation of the other kind. I stand open to correction - especially since I ain't seeing the movie.)

Mongolia's communists gave up power peacefully. Then, in 2000, voters disenchanted with the new guys voted them back in. (Although this time they presented themselves as moderately left social democrats.)

Then, voters got picky and voted them out again. Ah, democracy. Seeing it in action just makes you feel good.

Darn those attack ads. I mean, really, how dare the Bush campaign run an ad critical of John Kerry that uses the face of Adolf Hitler? Really, someone who would make such a comparison has no place in our nation's political discourse. Absolutely.

Waitaminute...you mean, the point of the Bush ad was to point out some wingnut demagoguery from Bush's opponents? And the Hitler image was from one of those ads? Come on. No way could Kerry's team be that stupid.

Well, there you go. I was wrong. Instapundit has a good roundup of reaction.

According to a MEMRI source, the reason Iran seized the British sailors - to exchange them for "volunteers" for suicide missions in Iraq.

Yep, definitely need more "help" from Iraq's neighbors. Because they have everyone's best interests at heart.

The media's taken a lot of flack for their role in this whole hootenanny. The Chicago Tribune and WLS started it by going to court to get Jack Ryan's divorce unsealed, despite the desires of both Ryans that the record remain closed. (Jeri Ryan initially opposed it, but changed her mind.) If WLS has defended their actions, I can't find it online.

The Trib, however, has its defense here. Thoughts on some of the Trib's points:

In Cook County, there were more than 191,000 domestic relations cases filed from 1999 to 2003. Only 32 of those cases were sealed from public view. If you sought a divorce in Cook County, or just about anywhere else in the nation, chances are your records are wide open to scrutiny by anyone--friends, neighbors, reporters. You cannot have them closed to scrutiny.

Only 32 cases sealed. How many of the rest asked? For most of us, the best privacy guarantor of all is sweet, sweet anonymity. Of those 191,000 cases, most of them had no reason to be sealed, if only because no one gives a crap about any of the participants. It probably didn't occur to anyone involved to even ask, and it's disingenous to claim that the Ryans were in the same boat.

Case in point: the once-sealed divorce files of former Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Blair Hull. After the Tribune reported that Hull's ex-wife had sought an order of protection against him during their divorce proceedings, Hull relented to the release of his divorce documents.

Which is different, because the allegations against Hull surfaced without the divorce papers, which Hull then agreed to release to clear the air. Hull agreed to have his documents released, the Ryans did not. But, hey, they're the same, right? ("Turnabout is fair play" isn't really applicable here, unless there's been some credible claim that Ryan was involved or supported going after Hull's divorce papers. I know of no such claim.)

The final thing I find curious is the reason the Ryans gave for wanting to keep the records sealed: To protect their son. Both mom and dad agreed that releasing this information would be harmful to a young child. The Trib offers no reasons why the parents are wrong. No mention of it at all, no sign that the Tribune ever weighed the risks to the Ryans' child against the possible value of the information to be obtained. (Indeed, the Trib admits they had no idea if any information of value existed.) So, there's your Chicago Tribune - uninterested in possible harm to a 9-year old boy. But, hey, they got their guy. Ryan's quitting the race. Journalism awards all around.

If I seem all over the place on this, it's because I find fault with both Ryan and the media. Ryan should have known better. He's a conservative Republican, running for major office, married to a celebrity, with a sex-related scandal - he's dumber than rock salt if he ever thought anyone in the media would let up until they found what they were looking for. Ryan should have known that the media would behave like crazed hyenas, unconcerned about any damage they might cause in their quest for salacious material.

And the press...well, acting a little less like crazed hyenas would have been nice.

Well, at least he's willing to give the government of the Sudan one more chance to protect it's civilians. If not, he'll ask the "international community" to step in.

The conflict has killed between 10,000 and 30,000 Sudanese, forced 1 million people to flee their homes and left 2 million in desperate need of food and humanitarian aid, according to U.N. and U.S. officials.

I'm sure they'll get it right this time.

"International humanitarian law is being broken," Annan said.

I wonder if he has any idea by whom.

...is up there with "Cincinnati Bengals, Arizona Cardinals stage Super Bowl to remember" as a headline you're unlikely to see. But, there is good news. All those folks who carped about Republicans having a lower standard of morality for themselves than others will be posting apologies now that Jack Ryan is dropping out of the Illinois Senate race, and you can read those instead. You can agree that the sordid details should have never been public and still not feel sorry for Ryan, since as a candidate, he had an obligation to prepare his party and supporters for any unpleasant surprises once he knew people were rooting around in his divorce file. Besides, the Illinois Republican party is a collection of fools and knaves unworthy of anyone's pity. (Feel free to feel sorry for Illinois voters, however.)

In a completely unrelated story, alleged wife-beater (and Democrat) Cliff Oxford is still running for that very same U.S. Senate.

I just don't get it. Once upon a time, Keenan Ivory Wayans brought us In Living Color, which was comedy gold until everyone but David Alan Grier left to make movies. (Or get married many many times.) Heck, I'll throw in "I'm Gonna Get You Sucka."

Now he's gone from that to this.

Judge Guido Calabresi is sorry we weren't smart enough to understand him. As you may recall, Judge Calabresi is the gentleman who suggested that Bush came to power the same way Hitler did, and people who care about democracy will vote against Bush, regardless of their political beliefs. It's odd, really, this spate of liberals claiming that a true committment to American democracy requires everyone but them to vote for candidates other than the ones who best reflect their belifs. See here for a story of how this applies to those inclined to support Ralph Nader as well. You'd think folks who are so concerned about how Republicans are equating all reasoned dissent with treason wouldn't stand for stuff like this. I'm just saying, is all.

But, in his defense, Judge Calabresi has apologized. Although, as I've said, his apology is that we lacked the wisdom to understand him:

A Manhattan federal appeals judge who compared President Bush with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini at a lawyers' conference last week apologized yesterday for his breach of judicial manners.
In a letter to colleagues, Judge Guido Calabresi wrote that he understood his remarks could too easily be taken as partisan - a big no-no for a sitting judge.

His remarks could too easily be taken as partisan, which of course they were not. And then there were his comments about how, since Bush barely prevailed in the election, he shouldn't have "acted big", like he'd won a mandate or anything. And, of course, if Al Gore had been the one to squeak in, and then embarked on grand designs that changed the direction of the nation (albeit in a liberal sense), Judge Calabresi would have been just as outraged.

Cause he's prinicipled. Not partisan. But he understands and is sorry if you can't see that.

I love my dogs, but I have to admit, they have never (so far as I know), averted a massacre.

Apparently, a stray dog in Toronto did just that:

A bloody shooting spree in Toronto by a mentally ill and heavily armed man was averted by a stray dog the man took to, the Toronto Star reported Thursday.

The dog is a stray. I wonder how many offers come in to adopt him.

Tip to Cosmo at the Corner.

Judge suspected of masturbating in court...

The story is not for the faint of heart. The judge faces removal from the bench. No word on whether he will resign to become an assistant coach at the University of Colorado.

Everyone up for just a little more University of Colorado hijinks?

OK, recently the President of the University of Colorado refused to agree that use of the "c-word" in reference to a woman constituted sexual harassment. Her original defense was, well, it can be a term of endearment, and reference its legitimate use in Chaucer's the Canterbury Tales. This argument has since been laughed out of the court of public opinion. And since I don't know any women at the University of Colorado where this sort of nonsense goes on, I'll join in in finding it funny.

There's a new defense, though, that should reassure all feminists outraged. President Hoffman is a weak and defenseless creature who was being picked on by mean and nasty male lawyers. To wit:

At the Herald, Hoffman said, "I was immediately sorry I said it." She said the lawyer "kept pushing me. He was very nasty."

"They were trying to get me to say the coach had violated university rules by not reporting it as sexual harassment," she said.

Which, of course, it wasn't necessarily. Maybe the player in question was a Chaucer fan. (I'd like to see a CU football player come forward and defend the intellectual credentials of his teammates. After all, why is so hard to believe that a college football player is a fan of Chaucer?)

And, of course, the tears:

As she spoke, Hoffman began to cry. She said she had come to the Herald to discuss dwindling state support for higher education. She left the conference room for a few minutes before regaining her composure and returning to discuss funding issues.

Would it be sexist of me to suggest this nitwit has no business running a football pool, let alone a major American University?

Via Karol - here's a piece of comedy better than anything I ever came up with in my stand-up days: The BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is biased in favor of Israel.

Let's spin that around here real quick: To present a more accurate picture of the Middle East, the BBC needs more anti-Israel perspective.

I thought it was only the American media that was controlled by the great Zionist conspiracy. Guess it reaches wider than I thought.

Lileks pops a rivet reading Rex Reed's review of Fahrenheit 9/11:

Here’s the quote that matters:

Mr. Moore, who has tackled corporate greed (Roger & Me) and gun control (Bowling for Columbine), now feels driven and obligated to strip the façade from a swaggering, bow-legged, grammatically challenged bully and a cabinet that is beginning to look more like the Third Reich every day.

Does this sort of rhetoric make us more likely to accurately identify future Hitlers, or less? I’ve said this before, but I’ll repeat myself. You have Bush. You have Saddam.

One is a meglomanical dictator with a small moustache who killed millions, gassed ethnic minorities, annexed a neighbor state and paid underlings to kill Jews.

The other is Hitler.

Read, as they say, the whole thing.

Yoda I am.

Mike the Mighty Bastard I am thanking.

Old this backwards talking joke has gotten.

Here's something I don't get. We've all heard and had a good laugh about IL Senate Candiate Jack Ryan's little communication problem with his actress wife. I mentioned it briefly, as further evidence of the decline and fall of the Illinois Republican party.

But there's a part of it I don't get. Specifically, this part:

"I consider Jack a friend," the statement said. "There was never any physical abuse in our marriage, either to myself or to our son. Nor to my knowledge was he ever unfaithful to me. Jack is a good man, a loving father and he shares a strong bond with our son. I have no doubt that he will make an excellent senator."

Here in Georgia, this kind of unconditional support isn't news, at least for those of us familiar with Democratic Senate hopeful Cliff Oxford:

Oxford's second wife, Caryn Oxford, described him as "physically, emotionally and verbally abusive" in court papers from their 2002 divorce.

He was also unfaithful, if you believe her. Yet, she apparently wants him to be our next Senator:

The couple has since reconciled and Caryn Oxford is supporting his campaign. Both have said the heated rhetoric of the divorce proceedings was brought on, in part, by a fight over the multimillion-dollar company, STI Knowledge Inc., a technology firm the couple founded together nine years ago.

I can't conceive of someone as violent as Cliff Oxford was accused of being having any business in the U.S. Senate. Ryan's sin, though certainly boorish, doesn't come close to the level of domestic violence, although when he was asked by the GOP if he had any skeletons, the fact that he apparently lied about this says a fair amount. (You really thought lurid details about your divorce from 7 of 9 were never going to come out?) Of course, the accusations might not be true...these were divorces. Certainly it's not such a big deal to lie under oath in a divorce, especially when children and large marital estates are on the line.

Or something.

As a big musical fan, I had to watch the list of 100 top movie songs last night. The list is here. "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" is a pretty obvious #1, but they got a few things wrong. "Shaft", "Beauty and the Beast", "Summer Nights", and "The Rainbow Connection" all deserved to be higher, but at least they made the list.

Where in the hell were the songs from South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut? My favorite was "What Would Brian Boitano Do" or Satan's "Up There", but the Oscar nominated "Blame Canada" would have been fine too.

Also, on behalf of the American Society of People Who Apparently Look Like Rick Moranis, I must protest the exclusion of "Suddenly Seymour" from Little Shop of Horrors.

We now return you to stuff that doesn't make people question my heterosexuality.

I generally don't get into South American politics much, so my belief that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is someone admired on the left is based on more of a general sense of the news than any detailed research.

I also did follow somewhat the battle to bring charges against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. (Which I personally opposed, on the grounds that immunity from prosecution was part of what persuaded Pinochet to leave power peacefully. Hey, a good compromise leaves everybody mad. You don't want Captain Unilateral going cowboy on every bastard dictator that double-crosses him, give the bastards a way out. You can still put in the win column when you have an election. In any event, I understand the sentiment. Pinochet was, in point of fact, an anti-democratic bastard.)

It's interesting because both Chavez (loved by the left), and Pinochet (who does have his admirers on the right) had referenda on their rule. This Winds of Change post provides us with the language Pinochet used, and the language Chavez will provide to voters when they decide his fate August 15.

First Pinochet:

"Faced with international aggression launched against our fatherland, I support President Pinochet in his defense of the dignity of Chile and reaffirm the legitimacy of the government."

Yeah, that sounds like a dictator's idea of democracy, all right. How 'bout Chavez?

"Are you in agreement with leaving without effect the popular mandate awarded through legitimate democratic elections to citizen Hugo Rafael Chávez Frias as president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela?"

Boy that sounds...kind of like they're the same kind of leader.

I'm just saying, is all.

I really couldn't think of anything to add about the murder of Kim Sun-Il. There's only so many times you can say "waste the bastards."

This was encouraging, though. According to this, many South Koreans are furious...at the killers.

As emotions ran high, South Koreans crashed the Defence Ministry's website with messages demanding revenge.

"An innocent son of our nation was murdered. If you allow me to volunteer for Iraq, I will fight terrorists to avenge his death," read one message.

Sentiment like that should ensure that Kim's murder turns out to be a setback for the bad guys.

...also known as the UN, is convening their first ever conference on Anti-Semitism. I'll say this for the UN, when they see a problem, they don't dilly-dally around, they get right on it.

Various speakers, most notably Anne Bayefsky, spent an encouraging day ripping Kofi and company various new orifices, trying to sink through the collective skulls of the UN that their tendency to mutter "cursed Zionists" every time their horse comes in fourth at the track may have some connection to the fact that Israel gives more respect to the pronouncements found in fortune cookies than to the UN.

The UN is hopeful to actually come up with a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. (Remember this, next time someone lectures you about the need to involve the UN more. "Anti-Semitism is bad" is a controversial notion with these folks.) I hereby submit the following predictions regarding that resolution:

1. The resolution, while condemning anti-Semitism, will also note that Israel is the primary aggressor in the Middle East.

2. It would be intolerant to have any reservations about Imams giving sermons comparing Jews to dogs and pigs and calling it the duty of every Muslim to kill Jews. No such reservations will be included.

3. Every Middle East country will vote against the resolution anyway.

4. Everyone will get cranky about how unappreciative Israel is of this attempt to address their concerns.

I'd love to be wrong. But betting on the good will of the UN? I've never been that much of a gambler.

Rambling's Journal is a good blog written by a guy in my neck of the woods. Literally, we apparently live in the same town.

Funny thing is, I wouldn't have come across him had it not been for Karol, up in NY (for the moment).

His blog has an good review of the big story down here in Atlanta, covering the rapper who shot a video at the jail while an inmate walked out, but don't worry, the incompetent sheriff is on the case. (Also touched on here.)

Life is funny sometimes.

Never, and I mean never nominate anyone named Ryan for anything. Former Gov. George Ryan we know about. Senate Canidate Jack Ryan is the ex-husband of Jeri Ryan, better known as 7 of 9 from Star Trek. They got divorced. The divorce is an entertaining story.

Clinton Book Hype Reaches Climax

There's an editor who giggles every time one of his turns up on Leno.

...or, at least, so I hear every time Scalia opens his yap outside of oral argument. So, I'm wondering what the issue is with the Honorable Guido Calabrese giving a speech to a left-wing lawyers association where he compares Bush's rise to Hitler and Mussolini.

OK, cranky liberal compares Bush to evil dictators. In other news, Pope still Catholic, film at 11. Instapundit and Volokh take turns pointing out how historically flawed, and rhetorically nonsensical, Judge Calabresi's statement is, but here's what got my attention:

Judge Calabresi made his comments from the floor during a question-andanswer period that was part of a panel discussion on the impact of the upcoming election on law and policy.

“I’m a judge and so I’m not allowed to talk politics. So I’m not going to talk about some of the issues that were mentioned or what some have said is the extraordinary record of incompetence of this administration,” he said.

Ah yes, the decorous refusal to discuss whether or not your opponent is a child molester. Very noble, sir. But here's what he said earlier:

The 71-year-old judge declared that members of the public should, without regard to their political views, expel Mr. Bush from office in order to cleanse the democratic system.

“That’s got nothing to do with the politics of it.It’s got to do with the structural reassertion of democracy,” Judge Calabresi said.

You see, regardless of whether or not you agree with G. Dub on the issues, you have an obligation to vote against him (presumably for Kerry), otherwise, you don't believe in democracy. But remember, Judge Calabresi isn't talking politics, because that would be wrong.

And then there's this quote, which I've heard several times since 2000, and I've always been curious about it:

Judge Calabresi, a former dean of Yale Law School, said Mr. Bush has asserted the full prerogatives of his office, despite his lack of a compelling electoral mandate from the public.

“When somebody has come in that way, they sometimes have tried not to exercise much power. In this case, like Mussolini, he has exercised extraordinary power. He has exercised power, claimed power for himself; that has not occurred since Franklin Roosevelt who, after all, was elected big and who did some of the same things with respect to assertions of power in times of crisis that this president is doing,” he said.

I've always wondered: If the Supreme Court had ordered Florida to count and count again, until they could come up with a mechanism under which Gore had won, presumably this would be very controversial and "lacking of a compelling electoral mandate." What powers, normally within a President's purview, would President Gore have been honor-bound to refuse to exercise had he won the damn thing?

Would Gore's list have been different from Bush's? It's an old question, but I never got a satisfactory answer.

One of my favorite pro wrestlers is a guy called Booker T. He's a heck of a wrestler, and someone who occasionally springs to mind reading stories about John Kerry.

No, really. You see, one of Booker's catchphrases, generally uttered when he finds himself disparaged by his foe, is "Tell me you didn't just say that!" Booker is usually very disheartended to learn that his opponent actually did say that, because it means that the good-hearted Booker is now compelled to whip some ass.

It is in the spirit of Booker T that I present the following John Kerry quotes. Via Volokh, we hear Kerry expound on the virtues of personal responsibility:

Talking about education yesterday, Mr. Kerry also told the largely black crowd at the day care center that there are more blacks in prison than in college.
"That's unacceptable," he said. "But it's not their fault."
Rather than the inmates, the former Boston prosecutor blamed poverty, poor schools, a dearth of after-school programs and "all of us as adults not doing what we need to do."

Some of those folks in prison have been there since Kerry's days as a prosecutor. Has Kerry himself ever put someone in prison for something that wasn't their fault? If so, what has he done to get them out?

Also, via Tacitus, we have Kerry, expressing his solidarity with those who still toil under the yoke of oppression:

Kerry showed little enthusiasm when I asked him if he would seek greater international backing for the Varela Project, the petition signed by more than 30,000 Cubans on the island to hold a referendum on whether to hold free elections.

While he has supported the Varela Project in the past, Kerry told me that it ''has gotten a lot of people in trouble, . . . and it brought down the hammer in a way that I think wound up being counterproductive.'' Kerry added that he would try to ''open possibilities'' toward change through greater ''face-to-face contacts'' between U.S. travelers and Cubans.

Yes, Senator. Protesting a dictatorship often gets the protestors in trouble. That what makes it so important for people like the leaders of the free world to support them.

Kevin Drum presents a sort-of-defense of the whole Varela project thing. Not really, since he agrees that Kerry's wishy-washiness on the matter is wrong, but still, since Kerry's internationalist nuance is more likely to get results then Captain Unilateral, his abandonment of those in Castro's jails is a minor issue. And, of course, the fact that I mention it at all is simply a sign of my dated, refuse to leave the cold war right winginess.

UPDATE - My original point in posting this, which got lost somewhere, was to wonder if there was any greater context to it that got lost - the first quote is from the Washington Times, which people who trust the New York Times tend to suspect of having an agenda.

Bill Clinton is coming to Atlanta on July 21 to sign his book. There are, of course, some rules for this whole process:

One book per customer will be signed. No exceptions.
Only customers attending the event will be able to get a book signed. We will not be able to hold books for customers, and we are unable to accept mail, phone, and internet orders.
Only copies of My Life will be signed. No other items or memorabilia will be signed.
No photographs are allowed.
President Clinton will not be personalizing any books.
Books will be signed on a first-come, first-served basis. Because of the huge demand, we can't promise that everyone's book will be signed. President Clinton will try to accommodate all ticketed customers, but if for some reason he cannot, there will be no refunds. All sales of My Life are final.

And, of course there are some rules for interviewing the Prez about his book as well:

Bill Clinton takes responsibility for his actions.
Nothing is Bill Clinton's fault.
If anything looks like it might be Bill Clinton's fault, it was right-wingers out to get him.
If you do not accept the above - you must be one of the right wingers.

If you fail to follow the above rules, Bill Clinton will get mad at you.

I should have had a similar story to this Jeff Jarvis post about how and when he stopped being a pacifist. It certainly wouldn't seem like it to anyone who's read this for any length of time (or talked to me at any point in the last two decades), but I grew up in a pacifist church. That would be these guys. If you haven't heard of them, this sums it up pretty well: For guidance, Brethren look to the scriptures rather than to doctrine.

Our faith emphasizes compassion, peacemaking, and simplicity. We baptize those who seek to follow Jesus; we anoint for healing; and in our love feast we re-enact the Last Supper, at which Jesus washed his disciples’ feet and offered the bread and cup of communion.

I was baptized when I was 12, spent many summers at church camp, sang in the choir, performed at the Christmas pageant, my parents were deacons - the whole nine. The people I went to church with, especially the men who were involved - the fathers of my friends, my Sunday school teachers, have been people I've looked up to and admired as long as I can remember. And for as long as I can remember, pacifism was a central tenet of the faith in which I was raised.

Somehow, it never took. One year at church camp, a woman spoke to us about pacifism and the church's traditions. I didn't buy it, and neither did several of my friends, although I believe at least a few of them ultimately came around to a similar point of view. I was in my "teenager who was certain he knew it all phase", and I probably deserved to get slapped, but, you know, she was a pacifist. I've read a few things about pacifism, but it's still never took. I just can't grasp it. Violence is never justified? You mean, never?

I've never understood how it shows Christ's love to leave your fellow man under the thumb of a tyrant. Plenty of Christians spend time in the most horrible of places doing their best to help people, even when there's no press release blaming George Bush to be found, but I'm convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that pacifists have certainly shown more love to the thousands of Iraqis killed by Americans than has ever been shown to the hundreds of thousands or more of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein. There was an article in the Messenger (our church magazine) once about North Korea that spoke of meeting with a North Korean church, and talking about how North Korea were largely the victims of an imperialistic west. (I'm oversimplifying, and I regret to say the article is not on-line so far as I know.) Does it serve God to act like North Koreans are allowed to elevate God above Kim Jong-Il?

On the home front, former Illinois Governor George Ryan, whom I personally believe to be the lowest form of life ever to be elected to anything, let all 167 murderers off Illinois death row, after stringing along, neglecting, and flat-out lying to the families of the victims. You can believe it violates God's law to kill, even a convicted murderer, but there is nothing Christ-like about the way Ryan treated the people who stood between him and a Nobel Prize nomination. And not once have I heard anyone opposed to the death penalty either acknowledge Ryan's callousness, or try to claim the opposite, that Ryan was in fact honest, forthright, and respectful of the victims' families. Pacifism has failed too many people who, it seems to me, should matter.

I'm glad pacifists exist. It makes me extremely proud to live in a country where they can practice their faith. And, of course, nobody's perfect, and there's far too much to do. Even pacifists have to pick their battles.

But even as a kid, it seemed to me they picked the wrong ones. In every other way, my church was there for me growing up. Turning out the way I did, I should have a story.

But I don't.

Paul Johnson has been murdered. Read the following quotes from our friends the Saudis:

Mizahen al-Etbi, a man shopping in the Sweidi district with his family today, praised the kidnappers as "holy warriors, heroes, who never waver ... All Saudis hate Americans, not only these heroes."

"How can we inform on our brothers when we see all these pictures coming from Abu Ghraib and Rafah," Muklas Nawaf, a resident of Dhahar al-Budaih, said as he ate meat grilled on a spit at a restaurant called Jihad, Arabic for holy war.

Yeah, Mr. Nawaf, I'm sure there's nothing that outrages you more than people being tortured at Abu Ghraib. Cause I'll bet every time it happened, Saudis took to the streets outraged at the torturers.

Waste the bastards. I really can't think of anything else to say.

Yassir Arafat expresses a willingness to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

That bears repeating. Yassir Arafat expresses willingness to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

OK, this is just Yassir's word, whose value is somewhere between an East German mark and a Mario Mendoza baseball card. In fact, the official response from Arafat's own people is that the chairman is full of it:

One PA minister, who asked that his identity remain anonymous, pointed out that Arafat “doesn’t necessarily mean every word he says.”

“The president says a lot of things he doesn’t mean. But in case he meant what he allegedly said, then it is a serious matter.”

And, of course, no one of consequence agrees with him:

“Who can tell the non-Jewish population of Israel that they must settle for an inherently inferior status vis-à-vis Jews and agree that they have lesser rights as citizens on no account other than being non-Jews.”

Which differs greatly from the equality enjoyed by Jewish citizens of the Arab world. Still the fact that this statement is even being made is suggesting that someone is actually having improving Israel's security situation. I wonder who that is. Cause it couldn't be Bush or Sharon, could it?

Here's one from Vaclav Havel, former President of the Czech Republic, and dissident during its communist days:

Now is the time for the democratic countries of the world -- the European Union, the United States, Japan, South Korea -- to take a common position. They must make it clear that they will not offer concessions to a totalitarian dictator. They must state that respect for basic human rights is an integral part of any future discussions with Pyongyang. Decisiveness, perseverance and negotiations from a position of strength are the only things that Kim Jong Il and those like him understand.

And here's an alternative perspective from Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico and longshot contender to be John Kerry's veep nominee:

Richardson called for a compromise, outlining a plan similar to one being floated by South Korea, for a verifiable suspension of North Korea's nuclear programs as a first step toward achieving disarmament. In exchange, the United States, he said, should offer joint security assurances to the North along with the other participants at the talks - China, Russia, South Korea and Japan. In addition, he said, the United States should endorse a South Korean plan to ship oil supplies to North Korea to ease its energy shortage while a broader agreement is worked on. As part of an interim step - which China and Russia also appear to support - North Korea should be pressed to allow weapons inspectors back into the country and to rejoin the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, from which the North Korean government withdrew from last year.

Kerry, obviously, is largely in agreement with Gov. Richardson. Bush's views on the matter are more in line with Havel's. Adjust your political scorecards accordingly.

On July 1 last year, thousands of Hong Kong citizens took to the streets to demand democracy. In an inspiring step forward, the Chinese government did not mow them down with tanks. (Hey, gotta crawl before you walk).

Now the Hong Kong's chief bootlick, I mean chief executive, is meeting with the troublemakers to avoid a repeat.

I'll admit having little experience with such things, but I suspect that if you were looking to prevent a big march demanding democracy, well...democracy would probably pull that off.

Just a suggestion. Take the key out of the tank ignition.

...has got to be up there with "Steven Seagal thanks Oscar voters" as a headline you're very unlikely to see. But, thankfully, in response to the mind-bogglingly stupid ruling that Ladies' Nights at bars were discriminatory, the State House unanimously voted to legalize the practice.

Ah, score one for the good guys. And by good guys, I mean "people who distract state legislatures into wasting their time with stupid issues like this, thus keeping them away from taxpayers wallets, if only for a brief period of time."

With recent discussions of treatment of Christians in popular culture fresh on my mind, I read with some interest this story about the new show "Gifted", an attempt to create a Christian "American Idol", producing the next Steven Curtis Chapman, Amy Grant, or (dare I dream), Stryper.

Perfectly fine story. I just have one question, though. Could someone please explain why they chose a picture of William Hung to accompany this story?

Everyone got really hacked off at Jonah Goldberg when he suggested that the media shouldn't have plastered the Abu Ghraib pictures all over the place. Just a right-winger trying to cover up the unjust nature of the cause he foolishly (or maliciously) supported.

I'm sure there's a different reason why the media hasn't been showing recently unearthed footage of what Saddam's crew did at that same prison, although it makes what U.S. soldiers have been caught (and are currently facing trials and prison sentences for) doing look like a relaxing trip to a day spa.

I haven't watched the video. I'm not going to, either. Hopefully someone who's compared what happens there now with what happened there then (and, I hate to point out, would still be going on but for the invasion), like Ted Kennedy will watch it and explain how they're the same.

Update - Aaron Brown of CNN reports that in October 2003 they aired the same or similar footage of Saddam's atrocities. Good for them.

Since the whole international justice thing is a big deal nowadays, what with discussions over who gets stuck with the bill for Saddam Hussein's Court TV extravaganza, I was wondering how things were going at the Hague, from which we could all use a few lessons about justice.

How is People vs. Slobo going, anyway? I mean, that trial started in 2002. They should be done by now.

Or...they could start his defense in July, and he could be demanding to call Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Gerhard Schroeder as witnesses for his defense. Take note, President Allawi. You need to run Saddam's trial like that.

I would like to see Clinton testify though. His sense of honesty and virtue would lend dignity and gravity to the proceedings.

I mean that. I really do.

My wife is an alumnus of the University of Illinois, which has as its symbol Chief Illiniwek, who has been the object of discord as long as I've ever heard of him. The board of regents recently ducked the issue yet again, encouraging everyone to find a compromise, which is actually pretty funny, since Chief opponents are unlikely to accept a compromise short of abolishing the Chief and requiring sensitivity training for everyone who refuses to admit their affection for him stems from latent feelings of hostility towards Native Americans.

I've seen the Chief live once. We went to an Illinois-Iowa game, and after 30 minutes of the Illini getting thumped like the only bass guitar at a week-long jazz fesitval, the Chief came out for his halftime performance. The crowd loved him, and I have to admit, I found it fairly inspirational myself.

I've never gotten the idea that having a sports team named after you is offensive. If so, apparently we're offensive to (among others) Greeks, Scandanavians, the Irish (tell me their mascot isn't drunk), and that one group it's OK to insult, Christians. That's right. Christians.

I will note that no one who has ever gotten their shorts in a bunch about this issue has ever struck me as much of a sports fan. I wonder how much of a coincidence that is.

The phenomenon known as an "Instalanche" is a truly amazing thing to see. If I were to die now, my legacy to the world would be a snide comment mocking the French.

When I first started this exercise in inflated self-importance known as the blog, I got pretty interested in the whole Gary Barnett/University of Colorado/Katie Hnida/Drunken Bacchanal Masquerading As A Football Team story. I eventually moved on, once it became apparent that 1.) nothing was going to be done; and 2.) it probably wouldn't get any weirder.

OK, right on #1, way the hell off on #2. To wit: The female president of the University of Colorado is on record, under oath as saying that using the "c-word" is not necessarily sexual harassment, and can even be a term of endearment.

OK, granted, they don't say which c-word. Maybe the player called the woman "cookie". That's not necessarily harassment, and can in fact be a term of endearment.

Actually, it's the lawyers' fault. The prez' spokeswoman makes it clear:

"She was in an extremely adversarial deposition with attorneys who have brought federal litigation seeking monetary damages from the university," Ames said. "In an effort to not allow the attorney to dictate to her a definition of the word, she defined it herself as a swear word. She was then asked if she was aware of a non-negative definition. She replied from her scholar's knowledge.

You see, if the mean old lawyer hadn't tried to pin her down and admit that the word in question was a hateful, vile term with no acceptable use in polite society, she wouldn't have had to suggest it's a term of endearment.

University spokeswoman Michele Ames said "there should be no doubt" Hoffman understands the current meaning of the word and was speaking from her scholar's knowledge of the origin of the word.

The word dates at least to Chaucer, who used it in The Canterbury Tales in the 14th century.

It's entirely possible the player who used the term was also a fan of Chaucer. He is one heck of a writer, and the Canterbury Tales is a rollicking good time that can be enjoyed by one and all. If that weren't possible, she'd be an idiot, and we know that can't be the case. She'd be more interested in protecting the football team's future than creating a safe environment on her campus, and we've been assured that's not the case.

Cause, if it were the case, then she'd be a big c-word.

Coward.

How the hell do the French do this? French Polynesia, aka Tahiti, has elected a pro-independence president who is promising to lay the groundwork for the eventual independence of the islands.

How do they persuade their colonies to move out of the house and get a job? We're the most hated nation on earth, and we've been trying to unload Puerto Rico for years (or at least make them a state, so they start paying their own damn freight). It ain't happening. Apparently we are worthier colonial masters than the French. Actually, not all that surprising.

Tip to the Instapundit.

Update - Hi, everyone!

Skydiving at 80? Please. Call me when he's 101, and he jumps out of an airplane on a dare.

Just checked out Idle Gossip, run by a way cool hipster named Michael. Lots of posts on a variety of stuff, well worth checking out. My favorite during my initial scroll down the screen was this post, detailing the sort of plight that never happens to sensitive husbands like me.

(On a wholly unrelated note, my wife is getting her hair done next Tuesday. Could someone please remind me, so that I can make sure to notice, be blown away by her beauty and shower her with compliments, but not in a way that sounds like I didn't think she was beautiful before.)

Should any doctors read this, please take note: While I am a lawyer, I am a criminal prosecutor. I do not now, nor have I ever, practiced in the field of medical malpractice.

I feel the need to clear the air, because apparently there's a movement growing where doctors are declining to treat the lawyers they feel responsible for high malpractice premiums. Some doctors and hospitals are playing hardball, preemptively warning attorneys that they will not treat them for non-emergency situations. In one case, a nurse claims she was fired from a hospital because her husband works at a med-mal firm.

Not all doctors agree, of course. That Hippopotamus Oath, as Homer Simpson refers to it, would seem to requires to treat all who need it, regardless of whether the person seeking treatment is more like a bottom-feeding barracuda. And, the AMA has shot down a resolution endorsing the practice.

The lawyers, of course, are the innocent victims in all this. The problem is the bad guys at the insurance industry, who just need more government control:

Malpractice lawyers, led by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, counter that rising premiums have more to do with the insurance industry than jury awards. They say tighter regulation of the industry is needed.

As a general rule, it's a rare situation where lawyers come across a problem that can't be solved by giving more power to lawyers.

I don't know. I wouldn't want anyone who despised me, for whatever reason (lawyer, Republican, St. Louis Rams fan), to be rooting around inside my body with sharp implements. And I fail to see any serious upside to requiring doctors (or anyone else, for that matter), to do work they oppose for whatever reason. You know, free country and all that.

This reaction by doctors is probably not a good long-term solution to the problem, however. The lawyers claim that the good doctors, at least, are victims as well, of those evil insurance companies. If the lawyers wanted to demonstrate this, they could start looking into ways they could reduce the malpractice premiums of guys like Dr. Rick Miller:

Miller, who says he has not been sued for malpractice, says he pays $84,151 a year for malpractice insurance. He says that after he paid business costs and taxes last year, his take-home pay was $64,000.

If they're really all about justice for victims, and not opportunistic vacuum cleaners out to suck all the money they can, well, if Dr. Miller has never been sued, the fact that he's forking out over eighty grand in undeserved premiums suggests he's a victim of somebody.

OK, I'm defending the BBC. Actually, I'm not, I'm defending the Office of Communications, the British media nanny that recently slapped Fox News anchor John Gibson on the hand for some impolitic statements about the BBC.

As Jeff Jarvis (from whom I got this info) so wisely points out, pretty much everything Gibson said about the BBC is either completely accurate, or at least highly defensible. There's a wealth of information available for those curious about whether the BBC has an agenda, and what that agenda may happen to be.

But still, the fact is, if one believes the Ofcom crew (and one is entitled not to, if one is cynical), FOX put on a crappy defense. The Ofcom summary of the response is too long to post, but it sounds like FOX just restated soundbite complaints against the BBC without any indepth explanation of the BBC content that led Gibson to make his claims. Those upset by Gibson's claims, of course, deeply believe in the whole government oversight thing, and very much took the process seriously. Nothing I've read about the affair suggests that FOX or Gibson gave a rat's ass what Big Brother had to say about them. You don't take the ice, don't be surprised when the other team puts the puck in the net a whole bunch.

There isn't any outrage justified by the decision. European bureaucrats are upset with FOX news. In other news, sun rises in east, film at 11. This is just a reason to feel sorry for the Brits, who deserve better than having a government nanny tell them what opinions are safe to hear. As Jarvis puts it:

But here's a government agency defending a government network. How do you spell conflict of interest? How do you say in English, "Butt out, bud?"

This is what is so wrong with government involvement in speech. This is where it heads. Gibson had an opinion. The audience can agree or disagree with that opinion. The audience doesn't need some government agency to decide for it whether the opinion expressed is right or wrong. But what makes this really perverse is that the opinion was right and the BBC was wrong and another damned government commission said so and yet this government commission goes after Gibson. Perverse indeed.

We could be more European if we wanted too. Of course, that would give John Ashcroft the right to have a staff member camp out in the Nation office to make sure they weren't playing fast and loose with the facts in their quest to get their point across. The Nation guys would probably be OK with that. It's cool to be the brave reporter beset by government censors. Just ask John Gibson and all the free speech heroes over at FOX.

I mean, congratulations to the Detroit Pistons, who won the NBA finals in convincing fashion.

Having lived there, I loathe Detroit and pretty much everything about the city. But given the bottomless sense of entitlement felt by the Lakers and their fans, to see them lose was satisfying. To see them get thumped like they didn't even deserve to buy tickets to the Finals, let alone play in them - that was hilarious.

Even if it meant Detroit had to win.

Apparently David Gilbert has a book out. Why do we give a crap, you ask? Well, ideally, we don't. But not everyone has the same definition of ideal.

David Gilbert was one of those "maybe he went a little too far, but his heart was in the right place" 60's radicals who found himself helping out with an armored car robbery in which Brinks Security Guard Peter Paige, and Nyack, NY police officers Edward O'Grady, and Wavery Brown were all murdered. (Most stories tend to leave the victims' names out.) David Gilbert drove one of the getaway cars, and for his part in the murder, received a sentence of 75 years to life. Nowadays, Gilbert moans about the unfairness of felony murder laws, aghast that for his role in facilitating the crime, he would be treated as harshly as the triggerman. That actually wasn't his defense at the time. At the time, he put up a witness who claimed the victims merited killing because they interfered with the just "expropriation" of funds needed to fight an illegal government. (That would be the U.S. Government.)

And there are folks who think he's a political prisoner. And those folks want you to take them seriously.

Here's an interesting idea. Miss Barrier Line, to crown the prettiest girl on the border of the West Bank and Jerusalem. Well, it's something that can be done together.

Of course, when the party started, all the Palestinian contestants but one backed out, citing threats of violence. And the pageant organizers asked that one girl to stay home out of concern for her family.

Boy, there's a big freaking shock.

At first it was neat to read the big TIME magazine story on blogs. They dropped not only Instapundit, but also Wonkette and Calpundit, among others.

Then I had to sigh. It's like when your favorite band suddenly has a number one record, and suddenly, you're not part of this tiny little group anymore.

There goes the neighborhood.

Good news! Howard Dean isn't a rampaging nutball. You see, that famous speech, after Loud Howard choked in the Iowa primaries, where he threatened to go into the homes of Edwards and Kerry supporters, break their furniture and have his way with their women. (I'm paraphrasing a bit. I tended to tune Dean out every time he turned purple.) And, of course, it climaxed with "the scream".

Howard Dean said the scream speech "never happened," and that its repetition more than 900 times in the following week showed cable "at its worst" and revealed cable news as a "Murdochized" entertainment medium, not journalism.

Dean charitably allows that his loss might have been partially his own fault, for not recognizing that the American people were too stupid to see his brilliance, or something. (Paraphrasing again.)

Here's the thing. If the media conspired to "get" Dean, whose side does that put them on? Not the right, that's for sure.

Four words: Please. Nominate. This. Man. But, if you actually had a goal of replacing Bush, and to that end had to sink a competitive challenger for the Democratic nomination who didn't have a snowball's chance in hell in November, good job.

New York Judge helps robbery suspect evade police.

OK, she claims the cop was "dishonest" with her. (Apparently she's the only one who thought so). She's also had her share of controversies before. She's even got the mayor on her case.

Presumably Bloomberg was PO'ed because while the cops were chasing this guy, they weren't citing smokers.

OK, call me pessimistic, but when I hear that Israel is easing restrictions on Palestinian travel, all I can do is wonder how many kids will be around when the next bomb goes off.

The real, story, is of course, Israel still plans on building that barrier we keep hearing about.

Palestinian cabinet minister Saeb Erekat said building a barrier around Ariel would "mean the destruction and devastation of the road map," an internationally backed peace plan for a Palestinian state next year, because of the confiscation of Palestinian land.

For months, Palestinians and their supporters have been demonstrating at many construction sites along the length of the barrier, making similar complaints. Thousands of hectares of land have been confiscated for the barrier.

And the best part is - I'm sure everyone believes Israel's sole purpose in doing this is a land grab. Just once, I'd like someone whose first response to a suicide bombing report is to ask about "root causes" to explain what they believe the "root causes" are that have led Israel to believe the wall is necessary.

Great Glenn Reynolds Post:

I took a whopping paycut when I left law practice, and the gap continues to widen. Guys with my seniority are making well over a million bucks a year at big firms.

Best money I ever spent.

I couldn't agree more. I always wanted to do what I do for a living, and I have never begrudged my wealthier brethren (and sistern) in the private sector their giant paychecks, because I wouldn't do the work they do for twice what they make.

Every so often, I'll actually stop and realize: I really like my job.

And with that, who needs a big paycheck?

(OK, the well-employed wife helps. Thanks, honey! I love you!)

Supreme Court tells Michael Newdow to get a hobby, leaves pledge alone.

It seems everyone really wanted a ruling on the merits in this case. (Although some folks who thought Newdow would have gotten his butt kicked are happier this way.)

I'm cool either way. It was a silly lawsuit that took up more time than it deserved, and if Newdow really didn't have standing to waste our time with it, I'm glad the Supreme Court had the coconuts to not humor him, even though the entire nation is going to be rolling it's eyes the next time some guy with more free time than faith decides to file a lawsuit.

I agree with this quote in the Tacitus post:

In which case this seems to be an angry father who used his daughter as a pawn for his own personal battles. Kind of makes you wonder why he doesn't have custody.

If I did agree with Newdow (and agreeing or disagreeing with him would require far more research than I care to do - that is to say, any research), I wouldn't want this jackass as the poster child for my point of view. If we must do this again, we can at least do it with a better group of people.

OK, I saw this game on Karol's site, and I had to play too. These guysuse some combination of facial recognition and random-ass guessing to approximate what movie stars you look like.

Anywhoo, this is me:



And here's where you can see who I allegedly look like. (If the link vanishes - it's Tim Robbins, Ralph Fiennes, and Adam Goldberg.)

OK, that was fun, right? Let's have some more fun.

This is Mishka. A wonderful friend and loyal companion, but he is, techincally speaking, a dog.



And here's who he looks like. (Again, if the link disappears, now contacting lawyers will be Noah Wyle, Pierce Brosnan, and the estate of Freddie Mercury.)

I'm not sure what that actually says about anything. Personally, I'm just impressed they were able to figure out I have the same build as Ralph did in Red Dragon from just that one picture. Also, I figure I got my results because their database didn't have a picture of this guy:

Funny movie. No middle ground in the theater, though - everyone around me either loved it or hated it. I'll say that if you regularly find yourself uttering things like "That was wrong...but funny!" you'll like the movie.

The line "Is that why the women are so slow" is the funniest thing I've heard at the movies in years.

Don't ever say the UN is unwilling to help Israel. Kofi Annan has pledged his help in Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza.

And I don't doubt anytime Israel wants to leave any piece of territory, the UN will be right there to help. It's when they want help sticking around that suddenly the phone calls don't get returned.

The concept of taxing the hell out of purchasing yachts sounds really good. Only the meanest of Republicans would ever support the concept of giving people a tax break on buying a freaking yacht. (And certain Democrats who have learned hard lessons.)

Unless, of course, you believe that people actually adjust their behavior to respond to various stimuli. Then you might think that if people knew purchasing a yacht in California were taxed all to hell, they might purchase that yacht somewhere else or not at all. And, if you believe that people are actually employed by the building of yachts, you might think that discouraging their purchase would be a bad idea.

This, of course, assumes that rich people are villainous greedbags who will refuse to purchase items made more expensive, simply because of cost. California Democrats, however, believe that rich people truly care about the blue-collar workers in the shipbuilding industry, and will gladly pay more (in taxes) for the same product, because they understand the inherent good that will come of it.

It's truly heart-warming to see such confidence in the inherent decency of our well-heeled. It's discouraging to think that less enlightened people might believe this is a case of Democrats endangering the financial well-being of the very people they claim to care about, all to "stick it to the rich" or some other nonsense.

Rest in peace, Ray Charles.

Via Andrew Sullivan, I read a story about one of the most jaw-dropping claims I think I've ever heard: "Death to Jews!" and calling Jews "monkeys and pigs" isn't really, you know, incitement to anyone to kill Jews. Money quote as follows:

“The rhetoric is principally used by political and religious leaders to galvanize resistance to what Palestinian Arabs consider to be the patent persecution of their people by Jewish immigrants to the Middle East,” Alexander said in a report filed in federal court.

“As unquestionably hate-filled and thus morally reprehensible as such language is, when Palestinians refer to Jews as ‘descended from apes and swine’ or encourage support for those who ‘kill Jews,’ they do so with the reasonably justifiable self-image of victim and persecuted, not of victimizer and persecutor.”

OK, the initial reaction is: This guy is a moron of truly galactic proprotions. Then I thought about it. And really, if you've been victimized by a horrible crime, aren't you entitled to a little inappropriate language?

Take, for instance, the victims of the Wichita Horror: (long story really short - two men commit a number of truly evil crimes resulting in the murder of four people and nearly killing a fifth. For purposes of this analogy - it bears mentioning that the killers were black and their victims white) If a family member of one of the victims felt compelled to lash out with a racial epithet at the Carr brothers - well, you wouldn't approve, but wouldn't you understand? And isn't that how the Palestinians feel? Even if we don't approve of such language, shouldn't we at least understand?

Then I thought about it a little more. Maybe we would understand. But I'm not sure, because in the case of the Carr brothers, none of the family members used any racial epithets. (The worst thing anyone said was a brother who said "Happy Birthday, asshole," as the Carrs were sentenced to death. Surely we can allow him that.) If they ever felt driven to utter racial slurs about the bastards who slaughtered their loved ones, they did so in private, then composed themselves as best they could, perhaps out of determination not to sully the memory of the victims, perhaps simply because even with this level of provocation, they didn't say such things. One person hung the Carrs in effigy (claiming he wasn't thinking about the racial significance of a noose), and hate groups attempted to use the crime to prove their various dumbass theories, but apparently, the community wasn't driven to any vulgar expressions.

And it's not just Wichita where victims of horrible crimes avoid such language. In Israel, David Hatuel's public statements on the murder of his pregnant wife and four daughters have never once strayed into anything that could remotely be called hateful.

It's possible, maybe even probable, that families victimized in such a horrific manner think all kinds of horrible thoughts about the perpatrators. But, in most of the world, nearly everyone does their best to avoid saying the kind of comments that apparently are de rigeur for people trying to empathize with the Palestinians, whether the speaker has personally suffered or not. For some reason, Palestinian suffering is alone and unique in all the world as justifying and rationalizing the kind of racist statements that everyone else, no matter the provocation, is expected to avoid.

I wonder why that is?

Watched Last Comic Standing last night. I didn't even know they were doing it again, because I was checking NBC's website for awhile looking for audition days. In my, shall we say, less employed days, I was a regular on the open mic circuit at the clubs and bars around Atlanta. After a few months of performing regularly, I think I'd become one of the better amateurs in town (which covers a wide range. You go to an open mic night, and you hear comics who make you think "Why isn't he on HBO?", and they're immediately followed by those who make you think "Why is he still talking?")

Unfortunately for my burgeoning show business career, I passed the Georgia Bar and got a job. In the greenroom at the Atlanta Punchline, someone wrote some advice to aspiring comics on the wall - "Quit your day job - you will never succeed as long as you have that security net" - or something like that. It's true. Come home from work, take the necktie off, and it's amazing how less inspired you are to drive 45 minutes to a dive bar somewhere to tell 6 minutes of jokes. At first, I started going out less and less...a brief resurgance when a friend called out of the blue and said "Hey, where the hell have you been"...and now, it's becoming pretty apparent: I'm a lawyer, not a comedian.

Ah, it was fun while it lasted. And it was fun to watch the show. Currently, I'm pulling for Jim Norton, a regular on Tough Crowd who had the best bit of any of the contenders.

According to Jonah Goldberg, I used to be, but now I'm not. The simplistic definition was

"it meant someone who was once liberal and became conservative (hence neo conservative)."

OK, that fits.

But now it means "bagel-snarfing war-monger," and I don't like bagels.

(Yes, I know "bagel-snarfers" is him alluding to the recent tendency to say "neo-cons" because "grand Jewish conspiracy" didn't test-market as well.)

Fake apologies continue to suck. Today's example is none other than World Wrestling Entertainment main-eventer John "Bradshaw" Layfield, who will soon be seen challenging for the World Title in this month's Pay-Per-View. (And more than a few of us were expecting him to win.)

That, however, was before he decided to try and rile a German audience by goose-stepping and doing the Nazi salute, a move that cost him his job as a financial analyst for CNBC. That's right, you can no longer get televised stock tips from a pro wrestler, so you know this is serious.

The WWE briefly posted the following on their website (it's gone now, as is any mention of the controversy) -

"WWE and John Layfield deeply regret Mr. Layfield's actions in the ring at our event in Munich and apologize if it has offended or upset our fans. Mr. Layfield has been reprimanded for his actions."

Dudes, if that's the best you can do for goose-stepping in Germany while the rest of the world remembered D-Day, spare us all the effort.

Things are looking up for our boy G. Dub. Deals being struck at the G-8 run the risk of actually making him look moderately presidential. And hey, it's an election year! What a lucky break!

This, of course, cannot stand. Remember the rage. Remember Florida. If nothing else, remember that we promised to burn south Georgia to the ground in righteous fury. We need to deliver. Reputations are on the line.

Or, in the alternative, the reason hardly anyone is showing up is because the man won't get his foot off the neck of the oppressed. Speech should be free, you know, like in Cuba. I mean, they can get thousands to protest Bush.

Just another day in John Ashcroft's America.

George Bush? Well, sort of. If it hadn't been for him, then Jun Koizumi wouldn't have sent troops to Iraq and bad stuff wouldn't have happened.

Well, OK, bad stuff would have happened, but it would have happened to different people, and that's why Nobutaka Watanabe is suing as a result of his being taken hostage in Iraq. You will note, of course, that Watanabe is suing Japan. Because the guys with the masks and the guns were all driven to it, of course, and would even now be working with transgendered teens had Bush and Koizumi not driven them into the arms of "militants."

Meanwhile, over in Iran, students who dared protest the autocracy of Ayatollah Khameni have disappeared, probably never to be seen again. I wonder if their families could sue us for not invading, as our willingness to deal with the mullahs in Iran has obviously made them feel secure enough to torture and imprison those they find unpleasant.

Nah, that's be crazy.

After wistfully recalling my days as an anti-Reagan youngster, a decision based on my oh-so-intellectual preference for the opinions of rock stars over the opinions of guys who wore neckties, it was enjoyable to read Rod Dreher's wistful recollection of feeling essentially the same thing for the same reason.

It was an entertaining journey, going from being cool to being right. Especially because, in retrospect, I wasn't cool. So, actually, I guess it was a journey from being a nerd, deluded, and wrong, to just being a nerd.

Probably not movie of the week material there, now that I think about it.

Having posted consecutively on sports and Harry Potter, I feel compelled to agree with this Tom Franck post which points out that Quidditch is a horribly designed sport. The whole "150 points for catching the snitch" thing makes the rest of the game a waste of time, and it's pretty clear the rules were made up by someone with no love of or appreciation for sports. It's really a minor mistake, though. If the snitch were only worth, say 50 points, the game would make more sense.

And it works as a literary device, setting up some nice one on one duels between Harry and Malfoy leading up to their inevitable duel to the death in book 7.

Tip to Eugene Volokh

OK, so Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe decided he was going to take the farmland of white ranchers and redistribute them to his buddies...I mean, the poor landless blacks who suffered under colonialism.

No, on second thought, I was right the first time. Law abiding black citizens who just want a chance to do honest work and support their families are actually getting screwed. How can we fix this?

How's about having the state own everything? I mean sure, that level of state control hasn't produced a thriving economy anywhere ever, but it does a decent job of keeping the rabble from stringing up the local despots. And isn't that what's really important?

Besides, outside of Zimbabwe, who's going to give a rat's ass?

On the military front - Fabrizio Quattrocchi's countrymen have been rescued by coalition forces. Apparently this was a military operation, and done without negotiation. No doubt the forces of multilateralism will be demanding that the freed Italians return to captivity until a deal can be struck that affirms the simple humanity of all involved, and ideally wrings some concessions from Israel regarding the Gaza Strip.

It also appears the UN is prepared to sign off on the transition of power to the new Iraqi government. But, of course, will this new government be able to have any impact on the ground?

Well, they seem to be striking deals getting some of Iraq's larger militias to disband and sign up with the Iraqi army. Granted, Mookie isn't on board, but hey, that new army's gotta practice on somebody.

OK, so J-Lo gets married to Marc Anthony really quickly, although one would think someone with her history would be a little reluctant to pull the trigger so quickly.

Turns out "trigger" may be the operative word, as Lopez' marriage is apparently of the shotgun variety. The good news, is apparently at least the baby is Marc's.

Althought Anthony won't even confirm the marriage. Seriously, Marc, do you think they asked you on the "Today" show to discuss your upcoming album?

UPDATE - Just wanted to stick in the article where I'd heard it was Anthony's kid.

The champions of the National Hockey League are the Tampa Bay Lightning. That's right, the best team in hockey is located in Tampa, Florida. Look forward to reports of Iceland winning the gold in Beach Volleyball at the Olympics this year.

Unfortunately, pretty much no one outside of Tampa and Calgary gave a flying crap. Sure, once in a while, there are people who followed the Cup, but the fact is that after America stole hockey from Canada (no Canadian team has won the cup in over a decade), we stopped caring.

Which is a darn shame, because this was a whale of a series. Just about every game was close (it seemed like they all went into overtime), and there was plenty of human drama. Dave Andreychuk, who finally won a Stanley Cup after 22 years of playing, was the big human interest story (especially about how his wife made him sign with Tampa Bay). The main excitement was provided by the goalies, especially Khabibulin's inspired play in the third period, when the Flames finally dug their heads out of their butts and threw everything but the kitchen sink at him.

But hey, no alleged rapists here, so nothing to see.

Congratulations anyway.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was really good. David Thewlis is amazing as Lupin, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint do great jobs as Ron and Hermione, and Gary Oldman is...well, Gary Oldman. The story moves very quickly for a two and a half hour movie, and they've reduced the plot nicely to one concise story.

Which is my one criticism. To reach their running time, they cut out nearly all the Quidditch - in the book, the Quidditch Cup shows Harry getting stronger as he prepares for the book's climatic confrontation with the dementors, and the final match with Slytherin (not shown at all) is one of the book's high points. (Also, I was looking forward to our first look at Cedric Diggory, who's a big deal in Book 4. I assume the guy racing Harry was him, but who knows.)

The other part that was regrettably cut short was the conflict between Ron and Hermione when Ron believes Hermione's cat has eaten his pet rat. The movie does a great job of pointing out the romantic tension between the two, and since Ron's rat turns out to be a pretty big plot point, this fight would have served both ends. Ron is furious in the book (more mad than he would be at anyone else, presumably because of how he feels about Hermione) and poor Harry gets caught in the middle of two friends who desperately want him on their side.

Still, as a movie, (not as an interpretation of the book), highly recommended. Up this weekend will be the Stepford Wives (unless my decidedly un-Stepford wife forces me to watch Saved.)

The nation is about to say its final farewell to Ronald Reagan. Not everyone in the nation was a fan, and some of those non-fans have released tasteful, positive, eulogies. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy said some very nice things. And, of course, the snide thing to do is point out how hard Kerry and Kennedy worked to stand in Reagan's way pretty much every time he tried something. But, as Ramesh Ponnuru points out, it's a double edged sword when a political foe dies. Deliver "false praise" for his pursuit of goals you opposed, or speak ill of the dead? Jonah Goldberg makes an apt comparison to FDR, who has since transcended partisanship to become someone admired by both sides for the ideals he represented, if not the technical means he used to achieve them. It's possible, maybe even likely, that Reagan has inspired a similar sentiment in his former opponents.

I really hope that there are no Rick Kahn moments at Reagan's funeral. (Kahn is the speaker at Paul Wellstone's funeral who told Republicans that honoring Wellstone's memory required them to abandon their party and support Walter Mondale - a moment generally credited with ensuring Norm Coleman's victory.) It is perfectly possible to honor Reagan's memory without requiring the mourners' support of Bush. Anyone who finds a kind word for Reagan should be received with appreciation and thanks, regardless of their political affiliation. If, later on, Kerry claims that he is the man who can best honor Reagan's legacy, fine, tear him apart. Until then, here are some gentle remembrances from people who wouldn't vote for Reagan if a kitten's life depended on it.

Growing up, I didn't like the guy. His alma mater, Eureka College, was just down the road from where I grew up (in rural Illinois, fifteen miles qualifies as "down the road"), and Ronald Reagan was idolized in Illinois. He was born in Tampico and grew up in Dixon and he became President. How could we not love him?

Well, if you were me, you did it to be cool. All the cool people - movie stars, musicians - despised the man. I was a precocious know-it-all who found an easy way to be contrary - be anti-Reagan right in the heart of Reagan country. Reagan was the hero of simple folk, and frankly, I was smarter than that. Mondale was honest. Taxes needed raising. He had a woman as his Veep nominee. Reagan was in a movie with a chimp. How complicated was this, America?

Turns out the answer was this: Not very, and far more than I gave it credit for. One thing I did believe was that the Communists were evil. My liberal mother and conservative father agreed on this point, so I took it as gospel. Mom's idea of a liberal included Democrats with unimpeachable anti-communist credentials - JFK, LBJ, Scoop Jackson - and, frankly, I assumed that this was one thing everyone agreed on, so there wasn't any point in giving Reagan any credit for his hard line towards the Soviets. It was only years later that I finally got the idea that far, far, too many people were treating Communism like an alternative lifestyle, and while no one was a fan of the labor camps, some people weren't exactly gung-ho about working hard to close them. With Reagan, it was simple: people who lived under tyranny deserved to be free, and merited our efforts to help free them. It was also more complicated than I thought: not everyone concurred on the second point.

It's overly simplistic to say "Reagan won the Cold War." He certainly helped a great deal, but there had to be people on the other side of the Iron Curtain who wanted the help. When I heard that Reagan had passed, I wondered what some of them would have to say about him:

Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth – a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us. - Natan Sharansky, speaking of Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech - which he heard of while imprisoned for dissent.

"When he saw injustice, he wanted to do away with it. He saw communism, and he wanted to put an end to it." _ Solidarity founder Lech Walesa

"I was deeply hit by the news about the death of Ronald Reagan. He was a man of firm principles who was indisputably instrumental in the fall of Communism." -- former Czech President Vaclav Havel

And, on a more personal note, read Karol's deeply touching post, about her parents, emigrants from the Soviet Union. Just two of the millions of people who knew that what they didn't have behind the Iron Curtain - freedom - actually mattered a great deal more than those who sympathized with the "theory" of Communism would ever bother to understand, and recognized and appreciated the work of a man who cared more about their plight then the sensitivies of Western elites.

They were right. I was wrong.

Rest in peace, Mr. President.