Crosblog

A true challenge is approaching - a vitally important decision needs to be made - the results can be wonderful - or catastrophic.

I refer, of course, to the need to replace Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. Some Bonds have been great (Connery, of course, and dammit, I liked Timothy Dalton), some merely adequate, and some have been David Niven.

There are many worthy candidates - as a public service, I've listed some of the main ones...

Clive Owen - most recently seen in King Arthur. Considered a front-runner by many.

Hugh Jackman - best known as Wolverine. Looks great, but is two franchise roles fair?

Jude Law. Best known as that guy who's going to be a big star someday. For like the past 5 years now.

Hugh Grant. Supported by people who liked Roger Moore, but considered him just a little too manly.

Ewan McGregor. Again - two franchise roles. Is this legal?

Orlando Bloom. Being considered to play "Young James Bond." Anyone remember "Young Indiana Jones?" Didn't think so.

My vote is Jackman, if they can snag him. Owen as a backup, and Grant if you never want me to see another Bond movie ever again.

Rumor mill says Iraq Al-Qaeda head Abu Zarqawi has been caught near the Syrian border. Attempts are underway to confirm his identity.

Not verified at this point that it is Zarqawi - and stuff like this often gets debunked an hour later - but still, get the chief pain the ass in Iraq less than 24 hours after John Kerry's acceptance speech - wouldn't that make it a great time to be a conspiracy theorist?

People who watch political conventions when they're staying at a beach resort are morons. Therefore, I have yet to see any portion of the Democratic convention, though I understand they're sticking with Kerry, despite the fact that literally thousands of better candidates are all gathered right there in Boston.

I've heard Theresa's a loon, Obama's a star, and the protestors have yet to figure a way out of their pens, but this is all secondhand. I also heard Al Gore say something interesting:

These challenges we now confront are not Democratic or Republican challenges; they are American challenges - that we all must overcome together.

It is in that spirit, that I sincerely ask those watching at home who supported President Bush four years ago: did you really get what you expected from the candidate you voted for?

Thanks for asking, Al. You know, truth is, there are some things we believe in where Captain Unilateral really hasn't delivered like we thought he would. It could conceivably provide an opening for another candidate who was willing to address those concerns.

But who in the hell are we kidding? Democratic "outreach" to Republicans consists of their willingness to accept our votes should we ever get over our racist warmongering. Recall Howard Dean's theory on how to win the votes of guys with Confederate flags on their cars:

Eventually, he said, people in these states "will get tired of voting on guns, god, and gays....Whatever it takes, we will win America back."

There's no need to address, or even respect, such concerns. Just wait for the poor, deluded, bigoted fools to get over themselves, and we will be waiting to lead them as they should. The Democratic plan for reaching out to religious voters is telling religious voters they're wrong, and their priorities are misplaced. That these people may have a valid point or two - not an option.

This is the environment where, in the primaries, John Kerry somehow becomes "the electable one", or "a centrist choice", despite the presence of Lieberman, Gephardt, Edwards, and Clark, who have actual political positions that have actual support here in the sticks. Hey, you're the guys who hate Bush, not us. Y'all want him gone, you make the compromises necessary to win our support. I have yet to see any evidence that Team Kerry has done any such thing, or ever plans to.

To answer Al's perfectly reasonable question: I didn't get everything I expected from Bush. But your guy won't give me any of it, and I believe, will undo a fair portion of what I did get. If your guy really was an alternative, hey, I'd be there.

But he's not, and half a loaf is better than none. You know, the same argument y'all have been making to Nader supporters.

...and a humble man is willing to admit his flaws, such as a heightened sense of self-importance and an inflated attachment to the sound of his own voice. It is with this due humility that I must point out that I was dead right about something.

OK, big deal. I was betting on the UN being a big bag of wind and Arab states being fountains of anti-Semitic bilge. Not exactly picking the horse that beat Smarty Jones, I'll grant. But still, back when the UN was talking about actually coming down against anti-semitism, I said this:

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.

In a move shocking to nobody who thinks greater deference to the UN is a horrible idea, Arab delegates to the UN have used strong language to announce the vehemence with which they will move to scuttle the notion that the U.N. has a problem with hating Jews because they are Jews. People who get outraged at the failure of Israel to bend over on command from the UN will continue to decry Israel's "failure to live up to international law," certain that there is no reason for the UN's credibility as an honest broker to be in doubt with Israel.

Via Instapundit

North Korea accuses South Korea of kidnapping defectors.

Ah, that wacky Kim Jong-Il. Will his hijinks never stop?

I have opinions on stuff. I like having opinions. I like having them so much I often refuse to be prevented from having them by trivial details like a complete lack of relevant knowledge. And nobody questions my getting to have whatever old opinion works its way through my brain and out my mouth or into cyberspace. Some people agree with them, some disagree, and some wonder how a guy who can't muster the energy to take out the trash managed to develop the flexibility necessary to get his head that far up his ass. (I'm telling you people - politically mixed marriages are the only way to go!) Noone, no matter how vehemently they disagree with me, has ever questioned my right to have said opinions.

This is apparently one of the many benefits that comes with being a white guy. It's been well documented that being African-American means not being allowed to consider entire slates of candidates, to say nothing of the ideas represented by those candidates. And while, to be sure, very few people are willing to actually come out in support of this kind of thing - you know...if people stay away from bad political ideas because they're intimidated instead of persuaded...it's not my first choice...but if they are staying away from bad politics...it can't be all bad, can it?

And women, too, have conclusions they're not allowed to draw. (They do get points for creativity, however - and I bet, that unlike certain other internet parodies, nobody's sending the lawyers after this one.)

Having the entire spectrum of American political thought open to you is nice. I'm not saying I'd want a different set of opinions, but if I did, it's nice to know I could.

...everyone should get to spend a week attending a conference on the beach. There are very important educational reasons for holding conferences on the beach, all of which seem to be escaping me at the moment. But I'm sure the planners were thinking only of our professional development.

We had an uneventful trip down, except for encountering one of the more frightening bathrooms I've ever been in just outside Macon. The hotel was nice, although it briefly became overrun by a bunch of exuberant Christian teenagers on a retreat of some kind. Perhaps teenage hijinks have changed since my time. While we were at the pool, we got to observe these young folk playing the time-honored game of tossing a friend in the pool. How they would do it was to announce their intent to toss someone, give the victim an opportunity to remove his/her shoes and anything else they didn't want wet, then gently toss the person in the pool. My recollection of this stunt was the more clothes the person didn't want to get wet, the more fun it was. But, like I said, times have changed.

I learned many interesting and useful things, and I'm not just saying that because there's an attendance requirement to get reimbursed. Haven't really been keeping up too much on the news - all I know is: they have apparently still not found the missing woman in Utah, and the Democrats apparently will not be having any last-minute changes of heart, and are going to go with Kerry. Was all the news this week that depressing, or just those two items?

Anyway, back now, and I will be returning to the vitally important task of cherry-picking news items to confirm a pre-existing set of political opinions...I mean, blogging.

Robert Mugabe is mulling over a law that would effectively shut down Zimbabwe's human rights groups.

I can't add anything to that.

Is it going well, or badly? Let's look at the signs.

On one hand, N*Sync may be done for.

On the other, Sammy Hagar is back with Van Halen.

Any questions?

China is demanding the U.S. cease military aid to Taiwan. Because like the wall in Israel, making it hard to wipe out nearby democracies is just not fair!

Here's an addition to the list of Israeli "human rights outrages." Israel has tracked down and killed a Palestinian "militant" who was attempting to hold the body parts of an Israeli soldier for ransom. Dig the headline - "Israel takes vengeance on Palestinian who gloated over soldier's death." Even if that were all it was - and it's not - I'm still OK with it.

Here's a decent example of why. A Palestinian family, tired of having their home used as a staging ground for attacks on Israel by people who never stuck around when the Israeli army came around to respond, told the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to endanger someone else's family for a change. The Brigades reacted about the way you'd think they would if you thought they were terrorists and not "freedom fighters" - they shot and killed a 15 year old boy. Maybe the fact that Palestinian civilians are standing up to these folks suggest they're finally realizing who it is who's actually making their lives miserable.

Miss Al-Za'nin, a single woman, had been interviewed 10 days ago about conditions in Beit Hanoun during the Israeli incursion and she angrily described how children in her clan could not sleep at night and were frightened much of the day. "I wish I could be a fighter to shoot at Israelis," she said then. "I am willing to explode myself out of anger."

Then again, maybe not.

How annoying is it to hear somebody tell you they think you're right, but then act like they think you're wrong?

Many major league baseball games have taken to playing God Bless America during the seventh-inning stretch since Sept. 11. At Yankee Stadium, they do it every game. Toronto Blue Jay Carlos Delgado, an opponent of the wars against the Taliban and Saddam, has quietly protested by going into the dugout or clubhouse when the song plays. This week marks the first time this year the Jays have played in Yankee Stadium, now that his protest has become public knowledge.

I don't know why God Bless America gets played in, say, the Ballpark in Arlington, TX, but in New York especially, I'd never thought of it as a pro-war gesture. To me, it reflects a sense of resolve and healing in the face of Sept. 11. There's also nothing militaristic in the lyrics to the song, as opposed to the definitely warlike tone of, let say, the Star-Spangled Banner, which so far as I know, Delgado's willing to stand through. (Maybe the Yankees do mean to have their seventh-inning ritual show support for the troops. If that's the case, let me suggest they use a song less open to alternative interpretations.

Delgado can make his stand any way he likes. But when he does it in New York, I think people who take offense to him are right.

Don't let the future of African-American actresses rest on how Catwoman does.

This movie is going to suck chunks, people. The character of Catwoman has been in existance for decades. She has been one of the most popular antagonists of one of the most popular superheroes in the history of comics. A (reasonably) faithful transition was a major reason behind the success of Batman Returns. She is one of the few villains to ever merit their own monthly comic book, and I believe her book is the longest lasting. And every black woman up for a lead role is going to be judged by the work of moviemakers who cared about absolutely none of this.

A good summer movie based on Catwoman (Selina Kyle) would be pretty easy to write: She's a thief who steals from the very rich, mostly because she enjoys the thrill, and hey, it beats working. She tries not to hurt anyone, and is generous with animal welfare charities. (Got to make her sympathetic). One night, she steals something from a mob boss, who puts out a hit on her. With the reluctant aid of the cop assigned to track her down (who is only helping because he has to admit she hasn't done anything to rate being brutally murdered by an evil gangster), Catwoman takes down the mobster, and then in a final twist, slips away from the cop, who would have probably felt compelled to still arrest her when the danger had passed. Final shot of Catwoman on a faraway rooftop watching the cops haul the mobster away - closing credits - $30 million opening minimum. The above scenario required about three minutes of brainstorming between my wife and I driving home from wherever we first saw the trailer. (Should any Hollywood executives be reading this - we also have a great idea for the next Spider-Man movie, as well as the Wonder Woman project currently floating around development hell. Call us.) But the directors of Catwoman are trying to think too much. They know better. After all, will comic books geeks really turn down a chance to see Halle Berry in S & M gear just because of a few creative liberties?

Yes. Because everyone who follows the Batman world is ticked off at this. (We are very optimistic about Guy Nolan and Christian Bale's upcoming take on Batman. They appear to care about getting it right.) There are websites and conventions devoting to discussing continuity errors in comic books, and you think changing her name and giving her superpowers is something that will be overlooked? And in any event, according to the buzz, it's not like you made a great movie that will have people overlooking this stuff.

And, not only have you made a crummy movie, you're setting black women in film back years. How do you sleep at night?

(Answer: On a big pile of money. With many beautiful ladies.)

Tip: Volokh

Okay, I'm paraphrasing. But I'm still pretty sure this was the intent of the UN vote demanding Israel tear down the wall that's doing such a good job of keeping people out who want to blow up teenage girls:

In a news conference the same day, Mr. Gillerman showed charts portraying a 90 percent dropoff in successful terror attacks, a 70 percent reduction in people killed and an 85 percent reduction in people wounded in areas where the barrier has been completed.

And that's the problem. If Israel could only be put in a weaker position, then they'd make some really good concessions, and we could get on with the larger task of figuring out how to look the other way when Israel's enemies are finally strong enough to destroy the Jewish state once and for all.

Israel, of course, has told the UN to get stuffed. I'm paraphrasing again, but again, not by much:

"Thank God that the fate of Israel and of the Jewish people is not decided in this hall," Israel's ambassador, Dan Gillerman, told the delegates after the result was posted on the electronic board next to the dais.

This of course, is a source of great consternation to Kofi Annan:

"They should heed and pay attention to the court's decision even though it is not enforceable. It has some moral bearing on what they do," Annan told a press conference.

Sure, Kofi. Please list, in detail, the actions and statements the UN has undertaken that ensure that Israel can trust you regarding "moral bearing" and things of that nature. Give examples.

As a kid, I spent three years in the Philippines. I loved every second of it. So it was with more than a little disappointment when I learned that the Philippine government was rewarding people for kidnapping and threatening civilians.

But of course, we've all heard the joyful reunion between Angelo De La Cruz and his family. Sure, terrorists found out how to get what they wanted, but how can anyone be against this man being freed?

I'm just wondering what these men's families would say on the subject.

The voters have spoken...the bastards!" - Morris Udall

Yesterday was Georgia's primary. I voted, and I'm still not sure who my state rep is or is supposed to be (will you get this redistricting crap handled, already?) Many, many people ran unopposed, at least in the primary. Then, I attended my first campaign party, on behalf of Herman Cain, where my wife and I had the privilege of meeting Karol and Peter in the flesh. Having met them, I can see why their fellow New Yorkers are eager to get them back. That being said, we now have a Republican nominee who reminds me mainly of the walking dead. Seriously, Johnny Isakson looks like five miles of bad road.

His opponent will either be Congresswoman Denise Majette or alleged wife-beater Cliff Oxford. (As an aside, I don't agree with the claim that the abuse allegation has been "retracted", "recanted", or anything that suggests his ex-wife is now saying it didn't happen. Her statements sound more like - "I wish I'd kept my mouth shut" more than "He didn't hit me." If in fact he did not strike her, the fact is she claimed he did in court documents, and we need to start looking into whether she lied in any sworn statements, or whether her attorney should be disbarred for filing same. I don't agree with the "well, everyone lies in a divorce," claim.)

Majette, for her part, once earned an immeasurable store of good will by removing Cynthia McKinney from Congress. By running for Senate, however, she has opened up her reliably Democratic 4th district seat. And sure enough, Cindy was on that open seat like Nicole Richie on a well-built hillbilly. And sure enough, as her buddies in Al-Jazeerah reliably report, McKinney won her primary outright, and is now a virtual lock to rejoin Congress. Thanks, Denise.

The Cain party was a fun place to be, at least while I was there. (When I left, folks were still optimistic - I got home around the time Cain conceded). I'm guessing, but the crowd may have been the most diverse group of any election night party in the state. (Possibly excepting Majette's.) As nice a group of people as you'd ever expect to meet, and no doubt about it, they loved their candidate and believed in him. And, I'm sure, at the various parties around the state, people who felt just as strongly were living and dying with each update that interrupted "According to Jim." At the end of the night, most of those people ended up going home disappointed.

But all of those people are still what make things work around here. And I think the republic turns because of their dedication to their candidates. As heartbreaking as last night was for those who poured their blood and sweat into this election, I still envy 'em all.

Except for the McKinney crowd. What the heck are they thinking?

...the one everyone here across the state of Georgia cares about...the one that tells us...

...that the Georgia Bulldogs should win the national title this year.

What, is there some other poll I should be aware of?

This has been making the rounds, hadn't seen it till today.

Now that's comedy.

Apparently the city of Boston is playing hardball with its police department, resulting in a threat by the police to picket the Democratic Convention. Should 5-0 choose to picket in certain places, this could make things uncomfortable for Kerry, who will not be photographed crossing a picket line. (The fact is he won't cross one. Whether that is because he is deeply committed to the rights of the working man or whether he represents a party that is a wholly owned subsidiary of the kleptocrats currently pillaging America's unions is a separate matter.)

Last month, Kerry refused to cross a police union picket outside the U.S. Conference of Mayor's meeting in Boston, canceling his speech to the group and saying he didn't cross picket lines. After Kerry made that stand, (Patrolman's Association president) Nee said the Patrolmen's Association pledged it wouldn't picket the FleetCenter to spare Kerry the embarrassment of having to cross a line to accept his nomination for president.

Far be it from me to tell these guys how to represent your workers. But with the potential embarrassment that would result from putting Kerry in this position, you probably won't be in this strong a position any time soon.

OK, that's not actually what was said. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. I'd just been following the coverage of the Iranian trial of the scapegoat...er, I mean defen...oh, hell, I mean scapegoat, accused of the murder of Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi.

I simply note that Kazemi's family believes government higher-ups are responsible for Kazemi's death, and the guy in the dock has been designated "Official Pretend We Give A Crap Guy" by the mullahs. In an effort to persuade the world of their committment to justice, the Iranians have barred Canadian observers, abruptly shut down the trial, and have threatened any attempt to independently cover the trial.

Now, maybe I don't know enough about the animal in question to say what species it is. I am confident in saying that it waddles, has webbed feet, and quacks. Thus I say duck.

(Cut to Iranian democracy protesters hiding from secret police: "Way ahead of you!")

 
Koshka went to the vet Saturday.  To her, this day started out fabulous, because she got to go for a ride all by herself.  No having to share the backseat (or her person's attention) with anyone, she rode proud and tall, getting the attention of everyone stopped next to us at red lights. 
 
Unfortunately, she knows darn well what the vet's office looks like.  And, she's here for her annual vaccinations, and despite a vet staff that couldn't be kinder, she disapproves of the whole process.  And, I'll agree, that does seem like a very uncomfortable way to learn your temperature is normal.  And the vet's suggestion that she drop a few pounds may lead to more moving around and fewer cheeseburgers.  (Koshka's daddy may, stress may, benefit from a similar program.)   But I promise, Koshka, the needles prevent you from getting a host of terrible, deadly diseases.
 
Koshka:  Oh, yeah?  When was the last time you went to a doctor?
 
Me:  That's not important!  Now hold still!

And in honor of your 86th birthday, what will we here in the U.S. have for you?
 
How about the knowledge that the struggle you began will continue, thanks to your American incarnation...Martha Stewart. 

...but I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to either refute or at least explain Michael Moore taking footage of greiving families who disagree with his views and using them without permission.  I'm open to a reasonable point of view defending Moore, but so far, one hasn't happened yet.  What the hell is Chris Lehane getting paid for, anyway?
 
Oh, and folks who are certain that Moore isn't that kind of guy - that he really means all that stuff he says about caring for our men and women in uniform - there's another guy who makes pretty much the exact same claim.  I'm sure Moore has a perfectly reasonable explanation for that one, too. 
 
 

In no way was the election in Spain the result of voters giving Al Qaeda what they wanted in order to get the hell out of the crosshairs.  Silly to even consider such a thing.  Only the most knuckle-dragging troglodyte neocon would push such an obviously ridiculous idea. 
 
Could somebody tell them that?  Al Qaeda has advised the people of Italy as follows: 

"This is the final warning for the people of Italy. You either get rid of incompetent Berlusconi or we will truly burn Italy."

  Somehow these guys got the idea that voters might turn out a government in response to a terrorist threat.  Since we know they didn't get the idea from the Spanish, I gotta wonder where it did come from. 

...but how in the hell did this happen?

A Chicago-area man on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted Fugitives list has been arrested in Mexico and returned to the U.S. to be tried for the slayings of two suburban women, the agency disclosed today..."This information was corroborated with Mexican authorities in Veracruz, who did an outstanding job of locating Alfonso," the FBI agent said. The suspect was apprehended by the Mexican federal police and immigration service.

Alfonso first will face trial in DuPage County for the murder of Genoveva Velasquez, 28, of Glendale Heights, officials said. Velasquez was shot five times as she arrived for work at a Wheaton McDonald's restaurant the morning of June 6, 2001.

He then is to be tried in Kendall County for the 1992 murder of Sumanear Yang, 23, officials said...Alfonso could be sentenced to death if found guilty of either slaying, said DuPage County State's Atty. Joseph Birkett.

Again, not that I mind. But I was under the impression that when Mexico found itself in possession of a defendant facing execution, they took this as an opportunity to assert their moral superiority. I'd really like to know the details on how a guy facing two separate death penalty trials actually got kicked out of Mexico without us having to promise to let him out of prison someday.

To re-emphasize - I do not mind at all. Kudos to all involved on both sides of the border. I'm just wondering if it's a change in Mexico's policy, or a unique exception, or if he was drugged, stuffed in a trunk, and mailed north.

I don't have a high opinion of Michael Moore. It's more the way he carries himself making a poor impression on me than anything else, since I haven't seen or read much of his work. (Current scorecard: Read Downsize This! Actually own an autographed copy of this book. Not bad as liberal calls to arms went, but kind of disappointing. I'd heard Moore was something of a humorist, but the book really wasn't that funny. Also saw Bowling for Columbine. Fell asleep about twenty minutes in. No desire to see or read anything else he's made.) I will, of course, use him as an example to mock the lunacy that are our campaign finance laws, but that's an example. (Hopefully it's clear that I think the laws in question are bad ideas, and Michael Moore, and anyone else for that matter, should be free to spout their views in any forum willing to host them at any time.)

All that said, this is pretty damn low. According to the family of Air Guard Major Gregory Stone, footage of his funeral made its way into Fahrenheit 9/11, despite no permission from the family, who seem to be pretty sure Maj. Stone would want no part in how Moore chooses to express his free speech rights. At any rate, they're certainly outraged themselves.

Now, having been taken in by one hoax this week, I wanted to see if anyone had debunked this latest urban legend. Moore's latest web entries seem to think our fighting men and women pretty much love the big lug. Actually, a quick response to this story would seem to be the perfect use for Mike's new blog.

Two entries? What the hell is wrong with this guy?

Oh, and the whole exploiting a soldier's death and a family's private suffering, without their permission and to advance a cause with which they emphatically do not agree. That sucks too.

Or, maybe that's the hot dog. In any event, I did note with appreciation this Tapped post where Nick Confessore empathizes with the Spanish speaking students being let down by "bilingual" programs that keep them from learning English. Getting PO'ed about bilingual education is usually a province of the right. The left's job in this party is generally to accuse critics of racism.

I know of no study that suggests bilingual education has support anywhere among parents of non-English speaking students. They all want their kids to learn English, and they want it ASAP. The driving force behind retaining these programs comes from the education lobby, who more and more strike me as people who don't believe any good is being done if they aren't getting credit for it.

There's just something about spending a night at the ballpark, even when the game isn't all that close, that just makes you willing to forget what goes into a hot dog.

And keeping in the tradition of posting about Senate races that extends back...oh, almost five minutes now, Mike Ditka has declined to tackle the U.S. Senate race.

So, the second rate improv troupe that is the Illinois GOP keeps on trucking. Hey, does anyone know Sammy Sosa's stance on the tax cuts?

I actually hadn't heard this, but if anyone was believing the conventional wisdom that Johnny Isakson was the clear frontrunner in the race for the GA Republican nomination for the US Senate (I was one of those people), here's a guy who claims to have access to reliable sources that Isakson is running like someone's chasing him hard.

This from a guy who saw Saxby Chambliss coming. Personally, I didn't see Saxby Chambliss coming until about 10:30 on election night, about 20 minutes before Cleland's concession speech. He's picking Cain, if anyone cares.

Tip - Corner.

How were people ever able to discern the deeper truths about themselves before internet quizzes?



Take the quiz yourself.

Tip of the cap to David, who is apparently Cyclops.

But hey, points to the gang at "Fthevote" for at least making vote tampering fun.

And honey, if you're reading, Georgia is not, repeat not, a swing state.

Via Wonkette (of course)

While I may be a Republican elsewhere, I make an exception for Illinois, whose Republican Party is the worst-run band of slack-jawed yokels this side of Molly Hatchet. So, it is with some bemusement that I note that they will apparently be challenging the sainted Barack Obama with...Ditka.

And the truth is, he's probably the best guy to run. Someone like State Senator Steve Rauschenberger, who a lot of folks thought was the guy who should have gotten the nomination, couldn't have hit the ground running since he had that "who in the hell is Steve Rauschenberger" problem. The only type of person who can jump in a situation like this and contend right away is someone who doesn't have a name recognition problem. Frank Lautenberg in New Jersey, Walter Mondale in Minnesota, and since Jim Edgar told the Illinois GOP to take a flying leap (not a bad call, remember, the Illinois GOP is a short bus with position papers), the only hope left is find a conservative celebrity and see what the hell happens.

Sure, it turns the political process into a Saturday Night Live sketch, but at least it's one of the funny ones. It could be worse, we could have a campaign like "A Night at the Roxbury."

Man, that was a fun All-Star game. OK, I really only paid attention in the first inning, but hey, watching Roger Clemens get lit up like a Christmas tree is always fun.

And Last Comic Standing was pretty good, too. Gary was a lot better, and though I am kind of sad to see Jay go, he did get out-performed. My bet is Corey gets bounced next week.

There's been a minor flap over a little fund-raiser Kerry & Edwards had at Radio City Music Hall, where some of the entertainment is alleged to have slipped the bounds of good taste.

The Republicans would like to see the footage of this event, for obvious reasons. The Democrats would like it kept quiet, for either obvious reasons or because of concerns about copyrights and intellectual property, depending on whom you believe. The Republicans attempted to alleviate those concerns with a letter, of which the gist follows:

I called on your campaign to release the performance that Sen. Kerry said represented the "heart and soul" of America so that all Americans could see for themselves what John Kerry thinks represents the "heart and soul" of our country...I have been assured that "fair use" rules of copyright would allow you to release the tapes of these musical performances to the news media under 2 U.S.C. § 107. To allay the other concern you relayed to the news media, Bush-Cheney '04 pledges to refrain from using audio, video or transcripts of the event for any television, cable, satellite or radio advertising. We look forward to seeing this spirited display.

The Democrats have responded - gotta give 'em credit for promptness, with this:

Considering that the President has failed to even come close to keeping his promise to change the tone in Washington, we find your outrage over and paparazzi-like obsession with a fund- raising event to be misplaced. The fact is that the nation has a greater interest in seeing several documents made public relating to the President's performance in office and personal veracity that the White House has steadfastly refused to release. As such, we will not consider your request until the Bush campaign and White House make public the documents/materials listed below:

-- Military records: Any copies of the President's military records that would actually prove he fulfilled the terms of his military service. For that matter, it would be comforting to the American people if the campaign or the White House could produce more than just a single person to verify that the President was in Alabama when said he was there. Many Americans find it odd that only one person out of an entire squadron can recall seeing Mr. Bush.

There are several more demands, all of the "admit your mendacity and maliciousness" type. If Ken wanted to respond, I'd suggest:

Dear Mary Beth:

Will the Kerry Campaign attempt to change the subject every time an uncomfortable subject comes up, or is this just a one-time thing?

Regards,

Ken.

And should somebody say "Hey! Those are legitimate requests she's making!" (and somebody will), let me just add - if so, then they should be treated with the respect they deserve, and not used as a cheap dodge to get out facing embarassing facts.

See? Advice for everyone. I am so fair and balanced.

Over the weekend, I posted about a hate crime that allegedly took place in France. I drew many broad conclusions about French leaders and society from this incident.

This incident did not happen. The "victim" has confessed the story was a hoax. The charges made in the above post were unsupported by the facts, I was wrong to have made them, and I withdraw them without reservation or qualification.

I have a question. Tonight, I will probably watch the Major League All-Star game. Here's what I've been wondering - as a fan of the Chicago White Sox, I usually root for the AL, especially since the winner gets home field at the World Series, and the Sox actually have a snowball's chance this year.

But that's just one team I like. And they only have one player on the team, who will at most pitch one inning. The rest of the AL is filled with players I dislike from teams I've come to see as the enemy, such as Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota, and the Yankees. On the other hand, the NL bothers me not a whit, although as an Atlanta transplant, I'll admit the Braves annoy me slightly, and in honor of my Cub-fan wife, I'm willing to loathe the Astros.

The missus finds this debate ridiculous. Her beloved Cubs are in the NL, therefore the NL is good. I ask about the evil that surrounds her boys - "Roger Clemens? Mike Piazza? Barry Bonds? These people are the good guys now?" No answer.

Eh, for tonight only, I can pull for Manny Ramirez, Derek Jeter, and Miguel Tejada. Cause, if nothing else, that will give us something to compete over.

We're kind of weird that way.

It's not that I don't care that people abroad hate the U.S., I just think the problem is more on their end than ours. In support thereof, I present a man with his head so far up his ass he could flush out his colon by sneezing, Iranian Supreme High Mucky-Muck Ali Khamenei:

``We seriously suspect the agents of the Americans and Israelis in conducting such horrendous terrorist acts and cannot believe the people who kidnap Philippines nationals, for instance, or behead U.S. nationals are Muslims.''

Yeah, not really motivated to change my ways, either by people who believe this or by people who think it's Captain Unilateral's fault that people believe this.

Via Oxblog

I wouldn't say there are no circumstances where I'd support changing the date of the Presidential election. If I knew for a fact my polling place would be a live-fire zone on Tuesday, hey, Wednesday works for me as well. But hey, it's the popular conspiracy theory du jour, even attracting attention when it's not the topic of discussion.

It's certainly a good idea to have a plan (contingency plans are good), it's probably not such a good idea to trumpet same all over the place (hey, terrorists! Want to know how you can really mess things up around here?) Which is probably why Condi has come out and said put the aluminum foil away, we're not moving the election.

And God bless Kevin Drum for reminding everyone that the question (what should we do in the event of a terrorist attack on our election) is actually a valid and relevant one that needs answering, and people should put aside their admittedly entertaining conspiracy theories and help answer it. And curse him for making it harder to dismiss the rest of the wacky crap he says by clearly being intelligent, rational, and reasonable.

Life is much simpler when there's people who agree with me, and nutjobs. I'm just saying, is all.

UPDATE - Since I linked to Karol's off-topic post, I feel compelled to add her lengthy take on the subject, as well as the question that immediately followed.

The World Court swears that they deeply agonized over their decision that Israel was required to remove the most effective defense against terrorism yet devised.

Judges who voted for the decision said they had little choice, and criticized the U.N. General Assembly for drafting a loaded question by asking the court for its opinion on the "legal consequences of the construction of the wall" without referring to the context of terrorism.

So, they knew it was a rigged game, but still, not only did they play the UN's ring toss game, they went to places on the midway they weren't even asked to go:

Though unsolicited, the lengthy decision went well beyond the question of the barrier, touching on some of the fundamental legal issues that have been in dispute since Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan in 1967.

It ruled that Israeli settlements were illegal, a violation of the Geneva Conventions against transferring civilians into occupied territory. It specifically included East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed in 1967 and now considers its own.

The court also ruled that Israel must respect humanitarian law protecting the rights of children, and cultural, social and economic freedoms. Israel has maintained that such conventions were not applicable for a disputed territory in a conflict zone.

These deeply troubled judges from all corners of the world could have said - "look, this isn't a proper question for judicial resolution - draft your petition better and try again." But, hey, answering this loaded question will only hurt Israel - let's take a stab at it! (Note - only the U.S. judge, who dissented, is identified by name. British and Dutch judges, who had reservations about the decision they ultimately endorsed, are also cited. Gotta wonder what rule of law respecting societies the other twelve hailed from, and what reservations they may have had.)

Of course, we all know whose fault this really is:

Even judges sympathetic to Israel's security dilemma criticized the Israelis for failing to put forward an effective case.

The thing is, the Israelis, those supposed international scofflaws, are actually re-routing the barrier to comply with an Israeli Supreme Court decision. Everyone, including the judges who ruled on the Israeli decision, acknowledges the new route will provide less security than the one originally planned. But the court balanced the competing interests, made its ruling, and since no one can claim that Israel's security needs were ignored, Israel is complying with the ruling.

Note to the UN and associated international entities: Israel doesn't trust you. At all. And they have reason. If you want to help, start taking steps to earn this trust. (This conference was a good first step - take more.) If you want to be a useless pain in the ass, arrogantly demand Israel's submission to agencies that have never displayed the slightest concern for the lives and well-being of Israelis.

Via Volokh, we hear about this insane story. Here's the jist:

Tony Twist, the former rock 'em-sock 'em Blues hockey player, was awarded $15 million Friday by a jury that concluded comic book artist Todd McFarlane had profited by using Twist's name without his permission.

Apparently, legendary St. Louis Blues tough guy Tony Twist suffered damage to his reputation because a comic book villain shared his name. Apparently, he's not as tough as Blues fans gave him credit for, since he's apparently vulnerable to skinny comic book author Todd McFarlane.

Volokh has assisted with the defense on free speech grounds, and I think his position has merit. (Now that there's a verdict, the case stands a chance of review beyond the Missouri Supreme Court). My view that Twist is an ass does, of course, fly in the face of my general faith in jury verdicts. But that's because I remember Tony Twist lurching around the ice in the uniform of the Peoria Rivermen, the St. Louis Blues' IHL farm team at the time. (Guy couldn't skate, pass, or shoot. All he did was hit people. The fans loved him.) I'd seen Twist play at least a dozen or so times. And, I'd read Spawn, the comic in which his villainous alter ego appears.

I never made the connection till I heard about the lawsuit. So now, yes, when I think of Tony Twist, I also think of Todd McFarlane's amoral mobster. But that's because of the hockey player.

Bush is getting a modest amount of crap for not addressing the NAACP convention. Well, as factual charges go, this one has legs - he actually didn't address the convention. (As opposed to certain other attacks, which may appear to be fading in strength) Still, I don't see the problem - isn't what happened Bush failing to speak at a meeting of a left-wing activist group? I don't see anyone giving Kerry any crap for not talking to the NRA, Christian Coalition, or National Right to Life. Sure, it would be incredibly courageous for either candidate to walk into a room full of people who don't agree with you and aren't going to agree with you no matter what you say and present your case anyway, but is it really some great failing not to. Bush actually did this in 2000 when he spoke to the NAACP, which reacted by casting him as the moral equivalent of racist murderers. As for Kerry courageously facing a roomful of people passionately opposed to everything he stands for, well, I haven't heard about it, but I'm sure he's done it before. I understand he did a spot in Vietnam, a roomful of people who merely think he's wrong about something oughta be a piece of cake.

I know, I know, the NAACP isn't "partisan" or what-have-you. Neither is the NRA, if you ask them. (Or anyone else I just mentioned). What gets the NAACP's dander up is they claim to represent "Black America", and it is this group, not a collection of liberals, that Bush is allegedly snubbing. And, I'm sure that can be verified. African-Americans of all political stripes are welcome as members and leaders, be they say, supporters of school choice or not, then perhaps Bush has done a disservice. If they are in practice a liberal activist group, then they really shouldn't expect Bush any more then the Media Research Center should expect Kerry.

Apparently Rachel Lucas is calling it quits for real. Her blog was the one that made me really want one of my own, because I too like to rant about politics and brag about my dogs. It just won't be the same without you.

Hey, look, another anti-Semitic attack in France. The attackers went after a woman and her 13-month old baby. Probably right-wing skinheads, right? Isn't that who the French are saying were behind the upswing?

The attackers, who appeared to be of North African and African origin, slashed the woman's clothing, and cut off a lock of her hair — "as a souvenir," one attacker is reported as saying.

OK, maybe not. But hey, this isn't something we can hold the French government accountable for, right? There's nothing about France that would suggest a high tolerance for anti-Semitism, right? The French really care about their Jewish population...

According to the police account, none of the passengers on the train came to the woman's rescue during the attack.

Oh, yeah. That was a surprise, too.

UPDATE (7/13) - Stories have been run casting doubt on the victim's story in this case. I'll have more to say when it gets settled whether this actually happened or not.

SECOND UPDATE - The story is false - obviously any conclusions to be drawn from it must fail as well - more details here.

Saw Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy last night. It was pretty good, although if you're looking for a goofball summer comedy, and you haven't seen Dodgeball yet, check it out instead. Dodgeball's an A, Anchorman is (at best), a B.

It does have its funny moments. Christina Applegate's final revenge on Will Ferrell is pretty funny, as is just about everything involving Steve Carell's mentally challenged weatherman. There's a fun time playing "spot the celebrity cameo", and for the liberals, one pretty funny cheap shot at Captain Unilateral. In between the good moments, however, the movie thinks it's much funnier than it actually is, which can be kind of painful.

If you loved Dodgeball, you'll like Anchorman. If you didn't love Dodgeball...well, then I gotta wonder about you. Because that was a really funny movie.

Show of hands, everyone who's surprised the World Court has ruled against the Israeli security fence.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Israel's response is summarized as follows: Oh, hell no. And there are a few inconvenient facts about the fence that are pointed out elsewhere as well:

The Israeli Defense Forces, on its Web site, says the "Anti-Terrorism Fence ... substantially improves the ability of the Israeli Defense Forces to prevent the infiltration of terrorists and criminal elements into Israel."

The site says that 502 Israelis had been killed in seven separate suicide attacks that originated from the West Bank, where there is no barrier. But only one suicide bomber came from the Gaza strip where there is a barrier, the site said.

The fence works - and given the standard treatment Israel receives from international organizations - those of us who support Israel tend to suspect that's part of the problem.

There are some reasonable criticism's of the wall here. (scroll through the comments - read Candace's and Alceste's). I took two points here:

1. There are some things the good guys don't do - which Israel's own high court agreed with when they dealt with a portion of the wall, and

2. The wall was only a problem because it didn't run through internationally recognized borders.

Regarding #1 - I don't think too many reasonable people doubt that Israel exercises far more restraint then its enemies. When terrorists infiltrate Israel, and Israel has to respond, the people they go after hide in civilian areas, conceal weapons and tunnels in civilian homes, and do their damndest to force Israel to kill high numbers of innocents. So, instead of violent incursions to reduce the number of terrorists attacking Israel, they built a wall to keep them out. The wall is a manifestation of Israeli restraint, not a failure of it.

As for the second, it's a fair point, if you believe in the good will of the judges. I, personally, have more faith in the Tooth Fairy. I think if Israel had built the fence inside one recognized barrier, the Goalpost Relocation Committee would come up with another border that was violated. Or, Palestinians who worked in Israel would claim their "economic rights" were violated, and the court would think that was good enough. I've come to believe this: If a pretext is needed to blame Israel, a pretext will be found. Or invented. Whichever. As noted here, Israel isn't even one of the nations who has assented to the ICJ's jurisdiction. I seem to recall people saying that the court would only intervene when both parties to a dispute consented to the court's jurisdiction. Guess which country moved the court to make an exception?

Finally, Roger Simon points out an intriguing bit of hypocrisy. If the problem is the fence is a "land grab", then having a Chinese judge read the ruling is almost criminally ironic - especially among those who could swear there used to be a place called "Tibet." Or, for that matter, the poor oppressed of Tahiti, landless victims of an occupying power themselves.

If these folks were truly concerned about human rights, freedom, and self-determination, Israel would be way down the list. That they always seem to top it suggests another motive. I wonder what that could be?

...is up there with "Bush experiences difficulty with four syllable words," as a headline you're unlikely to see. Reason being, it's not news. Stuff we didn't know yesterday, but know today, now that's news.

So, when Ted Rall runs a cartoon where Condi Rice uses a racial epithet to describe herself and gets shipped off to a re-education center where she learns how to be black again, I really didn't think it was worth getting mad about - we've seen this dance before - Rall (or whoever) makes an offensive statement, right gets outraged - left gives some variant of this response:

Ted Rall? Are you guys still whining about that fringe blowhard? He hardly represents the left, and most of us resent the stupid crap he does in our name, but you all still trot him out like he's representative of our side every time he pops a rivet, because you prefer the straw man that Rall is to the unrebuttable criticism offered by (insert name here). Besides, do we come banging on your door every time some right-wing blowhard says something hateful and stupid?

Well, yes, actually. No left-winger I've ever met, spoken to, or read, will actually defend the practice of questioning the black credentials of African-American conservatives if you ask directly, but when it comes up, why spoil a good thing? Sure, it's bad, but it seems to work, so as priorities go, you know...

This response put things in perspective for me. I imagined there was a word that all aspects of society agreed was offensive beyond any doubt. That everyone agreed that use of this word was mean-spirited, hateful, and devoid of any place in civilized debate. That everyone agreed no one should have to be defamed in this fashion. Then I imagined, that because of my views on the issues of the day, that some people decided to make an exception for me.

I was wrong. It's worth getting mad about.

Today is Dawn's birthday. In honor of this auspicious occasion, I will cross party lines and say only nice things about the candidate she is supporting for president (albeit with some reluctance), Mr. John Kerry.

(drumroll please...)

NICE STATEMENTS ABOUT JOHN KERRY.

1. His comments that John Edwards was unfit for the presidency, in addition to being factually correct, displayed a rare courage in his willingness to take on a fellow Democrat. Would that we could all eschew partisanship to criticize our own when warranted.

2. His statement that life begins at conception is a courageous admission from a Democrat, and his recognition of the value of unborn life is laudable for its compassion.

3. His votes to authorize the Iraq war and in favor of the Patriot Act reflect a deep, abiding commitment to our national security, and the cause of freedom worldwide.

4. His ability to nail a billionaire is an inspiration to us all.

Kenny Rogers fathers twins at 65.

"Something's got a hold on me"

"It's cheap, but it ain't free."

"Love, or something like it's got a hold on me."

"Love, or something damn near like it's got a hold on me."

...ah, what a pleasant thought. And don't get on me about being some right-wing-dissent-suppression-Ashcroft-hugging-jackboot-wearing-Gestapo boy, either. Ashcroft and I merely shook hands.

What I mean is, it wasn't my idea. Or even our idea, by which I mean those of us more or less right of center. I've asked the question a few times as to whether Moore is risking running afoul of campaign finance laws.

Now, of course, the movie is currently in theaters, and certainly the need to fill screens with I, Robot, the Village, and Catwoman (at least for one weekend), will get Moore out of theaters well in advance of the 60 day limit. But - if I recall correctly, he plans to release the DVD in October - specifically hoping to influence the election.

John Samples has an article explaining how Moore is apparently risking a felony, at least in following the example of another man trying to market a politically charged documentary.

Remember - it wasn't the right's idea. So it's OK to lock his ass up.

Journalists covering Saddam's court appearance were asked not to identify the participants. One of them named the judge, putting him at risk of reprisals from Saddam loyalists.

Is anyone surprised to learn this journalist is Robert Fisk?

Via Sully.

...but in what universe was Gary Gulman funnier than Ant?

The man is fighting for his celebrity life - be funny or be obscure - and he chooses to riff on Double Stuffed Oreos?

Seriously, anyone think that was funny?

Today John Kerry admitted that when he declared John Edwards to be unfit for the presidency, he was being horribly, mind-bendingly, ass-faced stupid.

OK, I didn't read the story, but I'm sure he said something like that. Nice to see a man admit when he's wrong.

Ah, the trek homeward to spend the holiday weekend with family. Friday at 2 p.m. is the designated leaving time...

...Friday, 3:30 - my wife calls, swearing this time she's really on her way home from work. Koshka, normally renowned for her cast-iron digestive tract, decides to honor the occasion by throwing up on the couch. This portends well for the 12-hour drive over bumpy highways. Nevertheless, we're off, only three hours behind schedule. My wife says "hey, for us, that's on time!" I mutter quietly to myself.

Roll into Peoria, Illinois approximately 4:30 in the morning. The dogs are happy to see Grandpa - they love Grandpa. Unfortunately, mom's allergic, so they have to stay in the garage. They're less crazy about that part.

Saturday's experience is at O'Brien Field, where we watch the local Peoria Chiefs battle the Lansing Lugnuts. Crowd loyalties are mixed, since the Lugnuts will be Chicago Cubs when they grow up. This is low Class A ball, so the players are 2-4 years away from the Show, although they could be forgiven for being more optimistic, since one glance into the crowd reveals thousands of kids all wearing the jersey of Albert Pujols, who was a Peoria Chief in 2000, and the National League Rookie of the Year in 2001.

The game is pretty good, although it rains sporadically throughout the first two innings. The Lugnuts win 4-3, after which we see a fireworks display worthy of class A ball. The music includes Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue." Illinois may be a blue state, but Peoria is red America all the way. Ice cream on the way home. Just like when I was growing up - the Chiefs couldn't win squat then, either.

July 4, back in church for the first time in six months. I realize early that morning I forgot to pack a nice shirt for church. One day, in an act of teenage rebellion, I decided to stop dressing up for church. What the heck does God care what I wear, said teenage me. 31-year old me thinks - "would it kill you to wear something with a collar?" But neither version of me thinks this while packing, so I walk in to church wearing a T-shirt with a picture of a trailer that says "There's no place like home." And that was the most appropriate thing I had.

Barbecue at home with the parents and my grandmother. Mishka decides to try and sneak off the porch...and gets his giant head stuck in the porch railing. Big Stupid strikes again.

Off to Atlanta...boy, do we continually underestimate the size of Illinois, especially when you have to drive the length of the damn state. Roll in at 5 Tuesday morning...

...home.

There are people who really loved Spider-Man 2, and there are people who hate America. OK, it maybe wasn't that good, but it was pretty close. If you haven't read a script or spoilers on the internet somewhere, there's plenty to surprise you. It looks clear where Spider-Man 3 will be going, and while it's not my first choice (I'd have put it off as long as possible), I can understand why they did it.

The cast is unbelievable. Tobey and Kirsten are great, of course, and J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson, James Franco as Harry Osborn, and especially Alfred Molina as Doc Ock steal the show. (It's so cool when really good actors take their popcorn flicks as seriously as their Oscar bait.) Speaking of which, the Oscar bait hasn't come out yet, but why the hell not make a pitch early for Tobey? People always get nominated for doing great jobs playing historical figures (Denzel Washington as Malcolm X, Nicole Kidman as Virginia Wolff, Will Smith as Muhammad Ali) - because it's really hard to play a real person, because there's only one right way to do it. Well, Peter Parker's had thirty years of history, and the most nitpicky bunch of fans on Planet Earth were waiting to descend upon Sam Raimi and company with the fury of a thousand suns if they didn't pull it off. Which they did. (And not everyone's capable of this - see The Hulk and this summer's sure-to-be-excreble Catwoman for comparison - also read this New Republic article about how comic book movies get it right. Or don't.)

This is something I've been thinking about for awhile, since I started reading posts about how John Kerry has practically disappeared, as though he's hoping that "anyone but Bush" sentiment will carry him through.

It can't be fun to have no real enthusiasm for the candidate you're more or less supporting. You do your duty and vote for the better person (or lesser of two evils, if you're really cynical), but it's drudgework - the political equivalent of filling out status reports.

I remember a year or so ago reading an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution about a couple of college kids who became interested in a guy running for state office. They really believed, and hooked up with him back when he was still pretty much a fringe candidate, so they became fairly serious players in his campaign - the article talked of late night bull sessions in hotel rooms over policy, back when no one believed this guy had a shot. The punchline, of course, is the candidate is Governor Sonny Perdue, and these kids who believed in him back when no one did are now helping him run the state. I read that story, envying those kids, not because I'm a fan of Sonny (though I do like the guy), but because I envied the fact that they'd connected with him enough to take the chance. My wife agreed wholeheartedly, and she's somewhat less of a fan of our governor than I.

It's a great thing to believe in someone that strongly, and I envy everyone who does. It's been awhile since I'd felt that way myself, since I've pretty much come to two conclusions:

1.) I'm essentially a conservative Democrat, and
2.) Being a conservative Democrat is a big waste of time.

The first candidate I remember getting excited about was Roland Burris, who made a couple attempts to become the Governor of Illinois. I was more liberal back then, but Burris had a solid record on crime, and always struck me as the most impressive member of his candidate fields. Illinois Democrats never agreed - Attorney General was as high as he got - if memory serves, he never really contended strongly for the gubernatorial nomination.

I really, really liked Glenn Poshard, a blue collar conservative Democrat from southern Illinois who somehow got nominated for Governor in 1998. I was going to law school in St. Louis, and was registered to vote there at the time, since, you know, I did live there. I missed getting to vote for Poshard, who was running against my least favorite politician ever, George Ryan. Poshard inspired little enthusiasm among Illinois Dems, which probably contributed to Carol Moseley-Braun getting bounced by the phenomenally uninspiring Peter Fitzgerald.

It was some time around then that I finally sighed and said "okay, I'm a Republican." The politicians who really inspire me are mostly Democrats, but they're guys like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, who are very much disliked by huge numbers of Dems. I'm impressed with those who had the conviction to try and push the "Joe-mentum", mainly because I personally considered it a waste of time, since I knew in my heart the Dems wouldn't let him win. Besides, since I think Bush is okay, I had a fallback position. Forced to choose between Republicans I like, Democrats I adore who can't win primaries, and Democrats I don't like - I went practical. But I still envy those who don't.

So on this Independence Day weekend, I want to wish the best to everyone pounding the pavement or working the phones on behalf of the men and women they believe in - be they Republican, Democrat, or whatever the hell nutball party Ralph Nader's in this week.

...really, I do. And I'm not just saying that because juries regularly praise my impeccable presentation, and often include compliments about my striking good looks and forward thinking fashion sense.

And it is with that faith that I read that a man found legally insane after slicing his girlfriend's eyes with a knife has been called to serve, and may actually get to serve.

Hey, if he was genuinely nuts then, and genuinely better now, then let the man do his civic duty. But if he were on a panel, being considered for duty, wouldn't you love to know what sort of case would have to be tried where the lawyers would actually want this guy to hear it?

...is up there with "French respond forcefully to Anti-Semitic vandalism" as a headline you're unlikely to see, especially here in this blog.

But hey, there it is:

the Massachusetts senator also told Spanish language media outlet Telemundo that he opposes giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

Kerry told Telemundo that obtaining driver's licenses is something that is for legal residents of the U.S.

Not only do I agree with the man, but I give him points for saying it to a Spanish media outlet, which conventional wisdom suggests would be less receptive to this position.

Michelle Malkin has some good analysis of the upside of Kerry sticking to this: 1.) it would give Kerry an in with normally conservative voters who want immigration laws enforced, who have ample reason to be upset with Bush for his fairly lax stance on the matter, and 2.) while left-wing groups will bitch about it, that will help your street cred with moderates, and bottom line, are the wingnuts really not going to vote for Kerry and subject us all to four more years of Captain Unilateral because of this? I think not. She also points out that she doesn't believe for a second Kerry will stick to this if elected. And, being fairly cynical myself, I'm inclined to agree.

But still, we can always remember this day, when Kerry was brave and right, all at the same time.

...you know, about important stuff, like not executing Saddam:

In Berlin, the government's top human rights official, Claudia Roth, criticized Baghdad's move to reinstate capital punishment, which was suspended during the U.S. occupation.

"To start out this way does not send a good signal," Roth told The Associated Press. "I think it would have been a signal of democratic strength had they not reinstated the death penalty in Iraq."

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb and conclude that most Iraqis are A-OK with frying Saddam, which would mean that "democratic strength" means Iraq doing what Germans want instead of what they want. (To be fair, Turkey, Poland, and Great Britain are all quoted as essentially saying "hey, their country, their criminal, their call.")

Hey, at least they're taking an interest. Don't stress too much, a fair trial for Saddam Hussein is well within reach. I like how SarahK put it:

* yes, because anything above ["are you Saddam Hussein?" "yes." click-click-boom.] is quite fair.

...you know, I actually prefer that version to the original. "Let Freedom Ring" is a nice sentiment, but really, the only reason it became a catchphrase is because it rhymed.

Anyway, the point - and I occasionally have one - is to refer to this story about Hong Kong residents protesting for democracy. The hugely speculative crowd estimates range from 200,000 to 530,000 (crowd estimation, as an exact science - ranks somewhere between Michael Moore and my NCAA pools.) Still, 200,000 people at a minimum taking time to hit the streets and demand nothing more than the opportunity to vote for their chief executive is amazing, especially since the Chinese have a history of taking a dim view of folks like that.

Chinese state media made no mention of the march.

Yeah, that figures.

Saddam's trial is going to be a gaggle of laughs. Just listen to the defendant:

He refused to recognize he invaded Kuwait. He kept saying, "How could you say that? I did that for the Iraqi people....how could you defend these dogs," he said, referring to the Kuwaitis.

The judge reprimanded him for his language. "This is all a theater, the real criminal is Bush," he said, during one outburst, referring to the U.S. president.

The other accusation that he spoke out against was the gassing of Kurds at Halabja. "I heard about that on the television reports, saying it happened during rule of President Saddam Hussein," he told the judge.

I'm sure, after he's acquitted, then he'll set off searching for the real gassers of the Kurds. The way he talks about them, maybe the Kuwaitis did it.