Crosblog

I doubt too many stop by here who don't already check out Dawn Summers' corner of cyberspace on a regular basis, but in case there are, please read this post, about the legacy of the phrase "Uncle Tom."

I've been reading political commentary from all sides for years, and I've never heard the issue addressed from the point of view Dawn presents.

Just wonderfully put, and I hope all the praise from her right-wingish readers doesn't hurt her liberal street cred. (I promise to question your patriotism at some undetermined point in the future, if it will help.)

Apparently, there is a Victim's Rights Amendment being proposed to the Constitution. Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein thinks it's a bad idea.

He's right.

I really wish Congress would sit down, take a deep breath, and repeat the following mantra prior to legislating...

Caring about someone's plight does not obligate you to pass a law. Not passing a law does not automatically imply heartlessness.

OK, first, the feds stick their noses into state issues way too often. Every state in the union has victim's rights laws requiring that steps be taken to inform victims of court dates, ensure their right to be heard prior to sentencing, and advise them of compensation funds and other services available. The reason these protections aren't in the Constitution is lynch mobs going after crime victims hasn't been a historically serious problem.

(Insert your own analogy involving Kobe Bryant's accuser here.)

The heightened protections given defendants helps create confidence in the system. You feel better about people going to jail if they've been given lawyers, trials by jury, and the various and sundry rights that get in our way of dropping some crapsack under the jail where the truly deserve to be. Victims actually have an interest a system that produces confidence in the convictions obtained, even if said convictions become more difficult to get.

Prosecutors have a moral (and usually legal) obligation to ensure that victims are involved in the process to the point that they can understand and accept the outcome. Anything added beyond that point is just legislators wanting to "show us they care," which victimizes everybody.

Check out Opinion Duel, where writers from The New Republic and The National Review will apparently write point-counterpoint articles arguing whatever. Currently Jonathan Chait and Ramesh Ponnuru are discussing the whole intelligence thing.

A nice, safe harbor for reasoned debate. The over under on when they descend into Lord of the Flies style chaos is six weeks.

OK, here's what I don't get. Folks who think the U.S. should defer, or at least consult, more with the "international community" usually mean the UN. Unless these folks have been living under a rock, they know that much of the U.S. views the UN with the same skepticism that MENSA would view an application from Jessica Simpson.

Since these folks, generally leftish in bent, have a vested interest in the credibility of the UN. And, given the current scandal regarding the U.N.'s allegedly corrupt, dishonest, and potentially life-threatening handling of the Oil-For-Food program in Iraq, you'd think that it would be these selfsame leftish supporters of the U.N. rising up, vocally demanding the highest level of accountability from the U.N. at every conceivable opportunity.

My point? Oh, just another story from the conservative side of the media concerning U.N. recalcitrance. This time, it's the Wall Street journal pointing out that Russia is standing in the way of a Security Council resolution that would give the investigation real teeth. Geez, one country with a vested interest in the status quo has the power to keep the U.N. from doing the right thing? If I didn't know better, I'd say you could make the case for ignoring the U.N. and proceeding unilaterally.

I'm sure I'm just not reading the right web sites. I mean, you can even work Bush-bashing in, since people are now alleging that the U.S. is stonewalling an effective investigation to ease the U.N.'s involvement in Iraq. It seems far too many Iraqi's remember the U.N. as the Nero who fiddled while Iraq burned, or at least, starved and got its hands amputated. Someone who loved the UN and wanted to go off on Bush could pitch a fit, arguing that the Oil-For-Food scandal needs a thorough investigation, so that Iraqis quit looking at Lakhdar Brahimi like the MENSA Admission Board being told "With You" is the modern equivalent of Handel's "Messiah".

But, for some reason, I hear it from Roger Simon, who draws a parallel to l'affaire Gorelick. I'm sure that's just because I'm not looking in the right places. The people who care about the UN want this discussed, and they want it discussed openly.

Right?

As someone who grew up just outside Peoria, Illinois, I can't help but feel a little regional pride seeing this.

We've heard much about the supposed "wall" that was built between law enforcement and intelligence that may or may not have contributed to 9/11, depending on who you want to win the Presidency this fall. 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick wrote a memo cited by Attorney General/Boogieman John Ashcroft as part of the problem, causing all sorts of hullaballoo.

(And speaking of hullaballoo - if someone is threatening Ms. Gorelick, knock it the hell off. It is morally wrong, highly illegal, contrary to all forms of human decency, and it occasionally causes people to travel to very weird places. And it is not good for this country to go to those places.)

Since Gorelick is involved in the situation, there have been calls for her to resign from the commission due to a conflict of interest. Those who define "conflict of interest" to mean "anything that conflicts with my interest in embarassing the President" have defended her. Still, Gorelick clearly has knowledge of matters relevant to what the commission is studying, and she should probably discuss them under oath, as even John Satan-Himself Ashcroft has done. To the surprise of no one who believes the 9/11 commission is a dog-and-pony show with no purpose other than bashing Bush, Gorelick has declined to do this, choosing instead to bravely avoid questioning and cross-examination for the much harsher scrutiny of a Washington Post op-ed.

I agree with the idea that simply by writing the editorial, Gorelick is acknowledging that she needs to be a witness, not a panelist. Andrew McCarthy goes into great detail, rebutting her column, and clarifying the point that she has no business on the commission. And, lest anyone (such as Ms. Gorelick herself) think this is a partisan hitjob, I would note that Matthew "Taller Than He Looks in Cyberspace" Yglesias thinks she should step down.

I don't blame Gorelick for 9/11. For that matter, I don't blame Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, George Bush, John Ashcroft, or any other US Government official. I blame the 19 hijackers, Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda's top lieutenants, and the various Saudi, Iranian, and other Middle Eastern government officials who gave aid and comfort to them, knowing what they were and what they wanted to do. To me, the commission is useful only if they try to see what holes were present in our security, and what we can do about plugging said holes. It has to be neutral, and it has to look neutral.

And whether it is or not, it definitely doesn't look neutral.

Add James Lileks to the chorus of people pointing out Andrew Sullivan's clueless articulation of his support for higher gas taxes.

In addition to pointing out my real problem with Sully's argument - his complete lack of any understanding about how life works in flyover country - he adds an argument I'd not thought of, which is the devastating effect higher gas taxes will have on independant owners and operators of gas stations.

Sully's way off base on this one. Does he care? Apparently not.
Come on, just a sign that you understand the issue is all I'm asking for.

Or, at least, it's appearing to. Everyone, including local leaders, is calling on insurgents to lay down their weapons in Fallujah.

I'm sure it helped that everyone was crystal clear what the alternative was.

Israel takes out Hamas leader Sheik Yassin. Abdul Aziz Rantisi takes over. Hamas threatens revenge on a grand scale. Israel says no one in Hamas' senior leadership is safe. Which of these two entities actually backs up their words with action?

If you have to ask, you haven't been paying attention. A hearty good riddance to Rantisi, and I look forward to hearing how the new leader of Hamas...

...anyone...anyone? Bueller?

Well, I'm sure they'll sort it out. In any event, who are the Palestinians holding responsible for Rantisi's death? Rantisi himself, for his fiery anti-Semitic rants, and constant threats against Israeli civilians? Themselves, for allowing schmucks like him to assume positions of influence? The Arab world, for continuing to foster Palestinian misery and resentment for their own selfish agendas?

Once again, if you have to ask, you aren't paying attention.

It's a great country, really. No inferiority complex whatsoever concerning their neighbor to the south, nosireebob. I used to live in Detroit, and the only good thing about Detroit is that it's easy to get to Windsor, Ontario from there. Windsor rules. You should go.

But, of course, like any great country, Canada has occasionally passed some stupid laws, that jerks take advantage of. Take the whole free health-care thing. The upside, you're Canadian, you get free health care. The downside? People with Canadian passports who got shot because they belonged to Al-Qaeda can make other, better Canadians pay for their hospital bills. A consolation is the pretty much explicit admission that Canada is a much better place than anywhere people listen to Al-Qaeda.

OK, I'm mocking. But note, I'm not mocking Canadians. Canadians hate these people. Which is why I love Canada.

Folks, cops have a hard job. The work can veer from mind-numbingly tedious to life-threatening in a heartbeat. The pay sucks. No one ever expresses any appreciation. If you have a chance to brighten a police officer's day with a little well-timed humor, please do so.

Do not, however, consider Courtney Love to be an authority on what constitutes "well-timed humor."

She said she told them, "... you guys got to leave soon. My pimp is coming home. ... Someone is holding my place in the methadone line. ..."

And when police asked where her daughter her 11-year-old daughter with Cobain, Frances Bean was, Love said she told them: "She's in the trunk."

Thank God she's still famous. Otherwise, we wouldn't get to hear about her.

Oh, no, wait. It'd be wonderful not to hear about her.

I wasn't too surprised with Bill getting the Apprentice gig. But I don't quite understand JPL being the one to get the boot. I mean, come on, Diana sang that damn Titanic song. She should have been bounced for that alone.

Still, I'm sure there's no need to restate who's going to win.

The last words of Fabrizio Quattrocchi, one of the four Italian hostages being held in Iraq, delivered shortly before being murdered. Words like "brave" and "hero" barely seem adequate.

Apparently, hearing of Quattrocchi's death has caused Italians to unite behind Prime Minister Berlusconi and the Italian troops still in Iraq.

And I wonder if the crapsacks who killed Quattrocchi have any idea how much they've helped us.

I'm sure now that word is getting out about how George Bush's committment to diversity blows John Kerry's out of the water, the Kerry camp will move swiftly to rectify the situation. Applicants should be willing to demonstrate the following:

1. An ability to react indignantly to any suggestion that they were hired because of race. The fact that minority staff members suddenly started appearing prominently on Kerry's team after negative press about the lack of diversity is wholly coincidental. Suggesting otherwise is racist.

2. An ability to refer to Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Rod Paige, Mel Martinez, and other minority members of Bush's staff as not being really members of their respective minority groups, because it would be unseemly for the rich white guy at the top of the ticket to have to use the phrase "Uncle Tom."

3. A belief that minorities can do anything in this country...except see any merit to conservative or Republican positions.

Get your applications in now! Time is of the essence.

Oliver Stone is human sewage. Since Fidel Castro won't allow any "scrutiny" of him that isn't done by fellow travelers or sycophants, at least we can have some actual scrutiny of the suck-ups. Ann Louise Bardach does her best to pull Stone's head out of Fidel's ass to ask some actual tough questions, and point out the things Castro doesn't let people see or hear about, but anyone actually committed to the truth can learn.

Stone actually seems to think that Fidel can haul people out of his prison, ask them how they're being treated, and get a straight answer, delivered with no fear of reprisal. There are only two possible reasons for this: 1.) Oliver Stone is on Fidel's side, actively working with him to cover up the truth, or 2.) Oliver Stone is dumber then Jessica Simpson after drinking two bottles of Nyquil.

They can't not know. Castro's sympathizers, I mean. They have to know what kind of railroad is being run down there. But they come back and gloss over the imprisonment of independant journalists and librarians, justify everything with "universal healthcare and education." I wonder, if George Bush decided to stay in power for life, took away your right to vote against him, changed all the school cirricula to indoctrinate students about the joys and wonders of "compassionate conservatism," and threw everyone in jail who dared write or speak a word against him, would you be cool with that if he also agreed to pay your doctor bills and tuition, at least for as long as you sang his praises. (Try getting some of that health care and education if you're related to a dissident.)

Check Andrew Sullivan for more venting at Stone. Perfect quote from Sully: "Just when you think Stone couldnt get more morally depraved, he says something like that. The man is laughing - laughing - at a gulag."

Damn straight he is. If Western liberals and leftists would abandon Castro, really abandon him, things would change. They'd have to. But God forbid any ground ever be yielded to the evil right.

Hat tip to Karol for setting me off.

There are few things that annoy me more than fake apologies. Case in point, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), who has "apologized" if his tribute to Robert Byrd offended anyone. Further details about why Dodd may have felt compelled to apologize here.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but Dodd is a sissy-faced snivelling little weasel-boy. One of two things happened:

1. Dodd said something stupid. People got offended because of your stupid comments, they had every right to get offended, and you need to apologize for saying something stupid.

2. Dodd said nothing stupid. People got offended because they're either easily offended by trivial items or they're jerks trying to seize partisan advantage from something that bothers them not a whit. You owe nobody an apology for anything. In fact, they owe you one for blowing your perfectly understandable comment out of proportion.

Dodd is trying to have it both ways. "I didn't do anything wrong, but I'm sorry if you thought I did," solves nothing, and only encourages the jerks if, in fact, you did nothing wrong. This crap is starting to become de rigeur for people caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and it needs to stop.

And I'm sorry if anyone has a problem with that.

I thought Al-Qaeda was getting stronger. People in positions of strength don't sue for peace, unless they're kind and decent and generous and forgiving. And yet, here's Osama Bin Laden his bad self, offering to let Europe off the hook.

Nice to see Osama offering to be so reasonable (not to us, of course, but hey, longest journey, single step, yada yada yada). Wonder what brought it on?

Why the hell is it taking John Kerry so long to pick his Vice-President? All he has to do is plug his desired criteria into the Veep-O-Matic and the best candidate presents itself!

Want a Southerner, from a battleground state, with experience in Congress and Foreign Policy and good name recognition? Just plug it in, and PRESTO! The best candidates are Wesley Clark, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, and Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida. Or, for a different tack, a well-known female candidate with good outsider credentials? You're screwed! (Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and Carol Moseley-Braun sort of qualify)

I could do this all day! Thanks for the link, Oxblog!

Still doubters about this whole "I'm a geek" thing?

A while back, Andrew Sullivan wrote about how he'd like to see the gas tax rise. He said he thought it'd be an "easy way" to fix all sorts of problems. Of course, it'd be easy for him as he lives in an urban area easily conducive to mass transit. How the hell this would be an "easy way" for people in rural and suburban areas is less clear. Despite also living in an urban area easily conducive to mass transit, Karol is still willing to call a dumbass post a dumbass post.

Well, first the good news...then the...actually, there is no good news, unless you count the fact that Sully has cleaned up his argument somewhat for Time magazine. He finally addresses the difficulties his proposal would impose on those of us in fly-over country:

"Others say it penalizes those in remote and rural areas. So what? Very few taxes are perfect, and our electoral system — with its over-representation of big agricultural states in the Senate — already pampers the rural. (I'd gladly exchange a gas-tax hike for abolition of agricultural subsidies. Any takers in Iowa?)"

Now, I know he's not this stupid. I know he doesn't mean to come off as pretty much every cynical midwesterner's idea of the east coast. Surely he knows how few people in these areas receive farm subsidies, and the majority of people living in "farm states" go to regular jobs, which in rural areas, requires a drive.

There may be a reasonable case to be made for higher gas taxes. However, raising gas taxes imposes a disproportionate burden on people who don't live in cities, can't afford a brand new Insight, and can't move to cities cause y'all got rent so damn high. To responsibly raise the issue, you have to be aware of the costs you plan to impose, and discuss how people should deal with those costs.

Sullivan has done neither. From a dumbass post comes a dumbass column.

And I wouldn't mind so much except I know he knows better.

Evil troll doll Muqtada Al-Sadr has apparently decided to negotiate with Coalition forces, without preconditions.

Personally, I was looking forward to the Marines taking him up on that "ready to die" promise he was apparently willing to stick to right up until the point we convinced him we were cool with that. Still, I suppose if there's a deal to be made, it should be.

Still, there are somethings not worth bargaining away. Al-Sadr is looking for a way out that preserves him as someone worth giving a crap about. The man seems to think there's an opening for him to either carve out a section of the country all his own, or possibly even take it over, to the extent Iran is willing to let him pretend to be in charge. It's important that any "deal" struck with Al-Sadr has two key public components: No private armies; and he recognizes he don't run squat. This may be more than Ayatollah Wannabe can accept, in which case we should go ahead and arrange the meeting between him and God. Treating anyone, especially a minor league cleric like this bozo, like a legitimate authority is only going to ask every two-bit Mullah Omar aspirant who got some fans through a good performance at a Friday Open Mic Night to form their own army and start trouble. And while we could kill them all eventually, if we can avoid having to, that would be better for everyone long-term than letting the snake continue to slither around on the expectation he won't bite.

Source material via Andrew Sullivan.

Just to finalize the story about a group of Democrats calling for Donald Rumsfeld to be shot, it should be noted that establishment Democrats have been made aware of it, and they do not approve.

"We are calling the Pinellas County Democratic Party chair about this ad and demand that it be retracted," Kerry campaign spokesman Stephanie Cutter told CNN. "John Kerry does not condone this type of advertising and believes that it is wrong."

Pinellas County Democratic Party Chairman Kevin Jensen told CNN that he, too, was outraged by the ad, and said party officials "don't condone this type of stupidity."

Properly handled. Case closed.

In the alternative, feel free to weigh in on the perils of Red-Blue dating in this polarized age.

I've been waiting for the GA Supreme Court to hand down its verdict, first because I wanted the final resolution, second because I'm not sure how I feel about this case, honestly. Dixon had better grades and SAT scores than I did when I was his age, and was a star athlete to boot. He had everything going for him, and it's heartbreaking anytime someone loses that, regardless of whether or not they brought their misfortune on themselves. I do know I get less sympathetic towards Dixon every time I hear someone allege that Dixon was victimized solely because he was black. The general tenor of the racism charge is that the only reason the aggravated child molestation (hereafter, ACM) charge was brought is to spread the word about black folks messing with white women.

People who claim this either 1.) don't know the mechanics of the criminal justice system, or 2.) are deliberately misleading people. Neither group should be consulted as to how a criminal case should turn out. Check out this CNN interview. It suggests that prosecutors didn't think Dixon was a rapist, which is completely untrue. At the time the ACM charge was brought, law enforcement believed Dixon to be a rapist. (They believe it to this day. If you knew what rape victims go through to make sex cases, if you saw how hard it is - you'd find it difficult to believe that someone would go through that to advance a lie. My personal take is coming.) At the time of the charging decision, you charge every crime the facts fit, and you trust the jury to sort it out properly. (I believe Dixon's jury was racially mixed, but I'm not sure.) I have also never heard any evidence that the Floyd County D.A. is racially biased, other than this case. I've heard Rome in general smeared, but if Rome were such a hotbed of racism, why couldn't they find 12 people to brand Dixon a rapist.

This brings us to the jury. Some jurors have appeared on TV around here, expressing shock and dismay at the sentence parameters for the crimes they convicted Dixon of. I'll admit, I'm at a loss how people could hear the words "aggravated" and "child molestation" and think they didn't describe a serious offense. Still, the sentence isn't their call. I can't tell a jury that a guy with 14 DUI's is facing at most a year in jail, and the defense can't tell a jury that a guy charged with ACM is facing 10 years. They just have to decide whether or not the facts fit the law.

And, apparently, they do. Consent is not a defense to ACM. The only defenses are 1.) no child, or 2.) no injury. It's this latter one that interests me. The victim in this case was a virgin, and her injuries could potentially have resulted from that, rather than any force or struggle (either option can be claimed with a straight face). Dixon was obviously capably defended at trial, but I've never heard if this line was pursued. I think it's a viable issue to claim that vaginal bleeding, etc., resulting from consensual sex with a virgin is a natural consequence of sexual contact and therefore, not an injury. I don't know if it would (or even should) work. I don't know if it was raised. I think it'd be a reasonable point, however. If it is being raised, it's not getting any attention. The thrust of the appeal seems to be, OK, technically the facts fit the crime alleged. It's still not fair.

Personally, I still struggle with the question of whether I think he's a rapist. People who actually have been raped rarely come forward, I find it hard to believe someone would say they were raped when they weren't. (Regarding the guy who said she told him she made it up - I find it at least plausible that someone would make up a story to get in with the Big Man On Campus) That point of view contrasts with another strong view I have - I trust juries. They hear only relevant evidence, while the rest of us hear all the nonsense surrounding it. They come together for the sole purpose of resolving the question. I guess I believe he's not guilty of rape as strongly as I believe he's guilty of ACM. Either the jury took its job seriously and applied the facts to the law or they didn't. I have no reason to doubt their work.

I believe prosecutors were presented evidence that a young man with a history of sexual misconduct raped a 15 year old girl. I believe they did their level best to light him up, and would have done the same had he been white or she been black. I believe the jury did its best and returned a fair verdict that makes sense, given the facts I've been made aware of. I know of no reason to suspect any impropriety in the cops, prosecutor, judge or jury. There is no evidence of any pattern suggesting racial animus anywhere, save a result that some do not like. For those people, the result is enough to prove their case.

Of course, if Marcus Dixon's jury were that easily convinced, he'd never get out of prison.

Feel free to scroll down to weigh in on which celebrity breakup shattered your faith in love.

I figured at some point I'd feel compelled to weigh in on the Marcus Dixon case. Dixon, for those not in the know, is one of the bigger local interest stories here in GA, and it's gotten a fair amount of national play. More or less, the facts are as follows: Dixon is 18, a star athlete and scholar in Rome, GA. He is also black. He meets a 15 year, 7 month old white female classmate in an empty school trailer and sex occurs. She claims it was rape. He admits the sex, denies the force. The girl was a virgin at the time, and suffered vaginal tearing and bruising during the encounter. Age of consent in GA is 16. Sex with a minor is a felony here in all circumstances except when the victim is 14 or 15, the offender is no more than three years older than the victim, the encounter is consensual, and the victim is not injured as a result.

He's charged with rape (carnal knowledge of a female against her will); aggravated child molestation (an immoral or indecent act with a child under 16 to gratify the offender or the child in which the child is physically injured - emphasis mine); misdemeanor statutory rape (sex with girl at least 14 not yet sixteen, less than 3 year age difference); and a few other serious offense related to battery and false imprisonment. At trial, the sex is conceded, consent is offered as the defense to the other charges. A key defense witness is a classmate who claims the girl admitted making the rape charge up, because her racist father would be furious to learn she'd had sex with a black guy. She denied this vehemently at the trial, and denies it to this day.

Nevertheless, a jury acquits him of rape, battery, false imprisonment, etc., finding him guilty of statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. Now comes the big surprise at the end. Here in Georgia, jurors are not told about the range of punishment available to ensure that they apply the facts to the law. The minimum sentence for aggravated child molestation is 10 years in prison. That's what Dixon got. Dixon has appealed the sentence, claiming the molestation statute was misused in his case. It is claimed Dixon is being singled out based on race, and that he is the only person ever charged with child molestation in a case like this. If they're talking about all across Georgia, I know for a fact this is false. I have personally seen a case where it happened, where the defendant is white.

Dixon makes for a highly sympathetic figure. His grades and SAT scores were exceptional. He was an outstanding football player, and apparently had his pick of Southeastern football powers begging to give him a scholarship. He chose Vanderbilt, which has a laughingstock of a football team, but also has a fabulous reputation for academics. (His scholarship was rescinded after his conviction.) Less known is he also had a history of sexually inappropriate behavior regarding his female classmates. (Dixon either pleads youthful hijinks or denies it, depending on which incident you're talking about.)

His case is currently before the Georgia Supreme Court. Analysis about some of the claims commonly made about this case will be posted separately.

St. Petersburg Democrats run an ad calling for Rumsfeld to be shot.

Now, they say that wasn't what they meant. Putting someone up against a wall and pulling the trigger means "letting someone know how you feel," to a certain group of people.

That group is either idiots, or Democrats. The response of the national party will tell us which.

Good to see old friends George Bush and Mexican President Vincente Fox talking. Among the topics of discussion: the recent World Court ruling relating to Mexican nationals on death row.

"Fox, a strong opponent of the death penalty, has said he believes the United States will comply with the ruling." (It also bears noting that in nearly every case, the court found the issue can be addressed through the normal U.S. appeals process)

It's nice to see Fox's faith in our system of justice. Generally, when we hear about Mexican governmental institutions talking about our system of justice, it's not favorable. Of course, it does contribute to Mexico's reputation as a tourist haven.

I hope the extradition issue comes up in these discussions about everyone's criminal justice system. After all, President Fox may oppose the death penalty, but surely he also feels compassion for familes of murder victims.

Update - Just reading Dawn's comment got me thinking. She's right, it's inexplicable that Bush isn't pushing this. The lack of stories about it, however, suggest that's the case. I don't know if it would change my vote, but John Kerry saying "Mexico gets squat until we start getting some murder suspects back here," would go a long way.

When John and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos have split up?

If a hot young actress can't find love with a washed-up sitcom star almost ten years older than her, what hope is there for the rest of us?

(Seriously. I thought these two were for real.)

Well, they do. Read this NY Times Magazine article, which talks about how people still won't permit DDT to be used in African nations hit hard by malaria, in spite of the fact that most of the problems associated with its earlier use have been adjusted for.

It's not even like the Greensters have to admit they were wrong, either. Changes had to be made to how it was used. They were. But people are afraid to permit DDT to be used, and frankly, the environmentalists who caused the fear are the ones in the best position to reassure people. It's fear of environmentalist blowback that's paralyzing agencies that could use it, and the real chickenshit part of this is that I have yet to see any environmentalist come out and publicly defend keeping DDT out of Mozambique.

The "Silent Spring" crowd created a fear of chemical pesticides. It's no longer the point whether such fear was justified then, it's not justified now. Thousands of lives could be saved. Don't look like it's happening any time soon.

Found via The Corner

Andrew Sullivan highlites the complexities of Red-Blue dating.

I read these stories from people aghast to learn that their prospective mate is a liberal/conservative/whatever. My admittedly unscientific observations have been that it is liberals/Democrats more aghast at the prospect of dating across the political divide than the other side, your mileage may vary.

The humor comes because I am a third generation political mixed marriage. My Republican grandmother married my New Deal Democrat grandfather and they stayed together 60+ years, during which they gave birth to my very liberal mother, who married my more or less conservative dad. It'll be 35 years together for them this June. And sure enough, their first born political junkie kid sorted himself out more or less on the right side of the political spectrum (everyone's entitled to a little youthful idiocy) and then went and married a Demmy-crat.

I, frankly, fail to see the problem. Said liberal spouse is, first off, hot. And my demographic group (Geeks, Nerds, et. al.) need to take hot where we can get it. (I'm a geek. I'm OK with it. While there is evidence to the contrary, people would be well advised not to put too much faith in it.) We disagree on most major policy issues, and in the twelve years we've known each other, had the occasional heated discussion. But we both agree on one core principle: Decent, intelligent people can differ on complex issues. As a result, I get to discuss the news with someone who is smart, logical, and brings an alternative point of view to the table any time something comes up. This is also hot, in its own way. (Anyone here still confused about whether or not I'm a geek? Anyone?)

I suppose there are limits to everyone's tolerance (we're not talking about Jesse Helms marrying Carol Moseley-Braun, though they deserve each other), but still, you'd think people would actually want someone to talk to. I can't imagine the conversations that occur at MoveOn.org dates:

Him: Bush sucks

Her: Yup.

Tragic.

I finally got around to seeing the documentary Spellbound over the weekend. At that age, I was a decent speller, yet consistently choked at the regional bees. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank my parents for being proud of my modest success, and letting me practice for an hour or so a night the week before the competition. I mean, they could have hired language coaches and made me review 4,000 words a day. Thanks, guys.

Watch the movie, and pull for Angela, Ashley, and Ted.

...may everyone so inclined have a great Easter weekend.

George Ryan knows about corruption. Giving yet another speech about how he is personally more committed to justice then any person who has ever worked in law enforcement ever, he railed against "...a rotten, corrupt system that is racist and unfair to the poor" while giving a speech at my alma mater.

Well, if anyone were to know what "a corrupt system" looked like, it'd be George Ryan.

Gregg Easterbrook posts an interesting alternative history - the way things would have been if Bush had prevented 9/11 and nipped Al Qaeda in the bud.

Probably a little overdone (I don't think Condi would get sent to the Hague in chains) - but also probably essentially true (the same people who want Bush to fry for not preventing it would have had kittens if he had).

Trusting dictators? Always a bad idea. For instance, China promised to preserve Hong Kong's freedoms when the Brits handed the place over. In a development that surprised everyone living under a rock, in a cave, with their fingers in their ears, China has declined to respect Hong Kong's freedoms.

But of course, such steps are taken only in the interests of stability. Recall of course, the autocratic definition of "stability."

Stability (n): the condition of everyone doing what we tell them and shutting up about it, thus avoiding the need for us to crush them beneath tank treads. Stability is to be prized above all else, and any whining about lesser virtues such as "freedom" or "democracy" or "not getting crushed under tank treads just for suggesting methods of better government" are simply Western attempts to force their way of life on us and should be rejected as imperialistic.

Of course, the people most familiar with China respect of democracy is the good folks in Taiwan, where people are watching to see if there is any chance of China actually meaning this whole "One Country, Two Systems" nonsense.

Thank God we have the United States to take a stand whenever an autocratic government tries to throw its weight around.

What's that? You're telling me the U.S. caved? That can't be true.

Damn it. Somebody refresh the White House's copy of "Crap The Good Guys Don't Do."

If there's anything that would suggest the Democratic Waffle with the Trent Lott Hair would be any better on this, I'd love to hear it.

Source material stolen from Oxblog.

I mean, they freaking lost Jessica freaking Simpson!

Did you look behind the dresser? Or did you go ahead and entrust her arrival to a delusional psycopath?

I like Kwame. Smart guy, hasn't screwed up the whole show, and after Trump's big speech about loyalty, the fact that he was more loyal to Troy then Troy was to him will count for a lot. (I was pulling for him, but Troy was a punk for bringing Kwame into the boardroom with him, and deserved to get fired.)

I think it's Bill. Kwame's probably the better candidate for the job, but that giant Anchorosa he's got stuck around his ankle is going to keep him from looking better.

One of the most disturbing things about dictatorships is that they truly don't get how creepy they come off to the rest of us. Turkmenbashi or Castro have no trouble saying with a straight face that obviously they are loved by 100% of the population, as evidenced by their overwhelming win in elections. Meanwhile, over here, where a President who is only deeply hated by 35% of the country is doing really well, we just laugh. But they're serious.

This is the only thing I can think of that accounts for North Korea even trying this. An attempted defector, caught by China and returned to North Korea, now says his evidence of gas chambers was faked. First of all, a hearty thank you to China for sending this guy back. Second, it just truly boggles the mind that North Korea would assume that anyone would take this as anything other than the product of unbelievable duress.

Also at the press conference was Kang's daughter, Kang Hye-yong, whom KCNA quoted as saying: "My motherland showed leniency to my family for our frank confession of crimes, and allowed us to live together as before after we returned home.

"I've been hearing about and experiencing the benevolent and all-embracing politics of the Workers' Party of Korea and the government of [North Korea] time and again but I've never felt it so keenly and deeply as now."

She also said "I loved it. It was much better than Cats. I'm going to see it again and again."

The right side, and the French side. We all remember the UN Oil for Food scandal, with all the corruption and dishonesty over at the Only Source of International Legitimacy Running Today.

The indispensible Armed Liberal brings word of the French response. The comments contain a few shots across the bow of the French Ambassador's facts and logic.

Read, as they say, the whole thing.

Goodbye, yellow brick road? No, goodbye, Camille.

And not a moment too soon, although, in her defense, her singing on Wednesday wasn't half bad.

Other notes, I think JPL's running out of chances if he doesn't step up, John's version of "Crocodile Rock" actually wasn't bad, and most importantly, how snotty was Diana for serenading Amy with "I'm Still Standing?"

I tell you, I haven't been high on Miss DeGarmo, but maybe there's a superstar there after all.

In conclusion, Fantasia is still going to win.

I grew up in just outside Peoria, Illinois, where the statement "if it plays in Peoria" originated during the town's vaudeville heyday. Nice town.

Today, Peoria is best known as the headquarters of Caterpillar Tractor Corporation, which is where I'm going with this. My beloved hometown was recently visited by the parents of Rachel Corrie, protesting Caterpillar's doing business with Israel. Apparently, since Israel has cleared the driver of the bulldozer, the new target is the big business, in the latest attempt to make someone other than Corrie responsible for her death.

I feel for her parents - she was too young to die, though older then plenty some others. But the simple fact is, she wasn't an innocent bystander. She picked a side in a war, and got killed fighting for that side. It's disingenous to think of her as a "peace activist", unless someone has information about her trying to prevent a suicide bomber from carrying out their mission that I'm not aware of. And now, my hometown is being visted by people trying to destroy Israel, using a pair of grieving parents desperate to remember their daughter in the best possible light.

- and, since I'm sure it's going to come up, many reprehensible things have been said about Rachel Corrie by defenders of Israel. (Do not feel obligated to click on the link, if you're willing to take my word for it.) No death should be celebrated. If you ever supported any war, or the death penalty, or legalized abortion, or the right to self-defense, you agree with the principle that there are occasions when a life must be taken. On those occasions, you do your duty. There is nothing to celebrate or gloat over. And, since the comparison is being made, if any of the mean-spirited commentors are hosting ads for Congressional candidates, those candidates should be pressured to take the ads down or deal with the consequences.

All deaths are not created equal. Most people recognize that. When a justified, or at least understandable death is caused, it shouldn't be celebrated. It shouldn't be used, either.

Imagine being the guy from the Justice Department whose job it is to look at porn all day. Make your obligatory jokes. Then ask yourself, if your job was to find stuff worthy of throwing the manufacturers in jail, would you be more likely looking at pretty people clearly over 18 engaging in more or less normal sexual activity, or are you looking at stuff that would gag a rat?

It's a bad idea, of course. It caters to every idiot stereotype about John Ashcroft that the left desperately want to believe. Also, you make the cockroaches who produce this stuff martyrs, which only helps sales. Where I work, we all believe in avoiding being responsible for bad law. If you persist in a case that seriously risks reversal (and setting binding legal precedent), you run the risk of causing damage that reverberates far beyond your own case. I've been taught to believe avoiding messing things up across the board for everyone is more important than winning any single case.

I have no serious beef with Ashcroft, mostly because his critics are so shrill I tuned them out long ago. And, I suppose what he's doing is enforcing laws currently on the books. It's not illegal or unethical. It's just bad strategy, which means it's still wrong.

Link via Oxblog.

It's just amusing, because Ned Beatty will be America's Next Top Model before anyone does anything about it, but everyone remembers when Trent Lott suggested that Strom Thurmond should have been President back in 1948? Lot of people got mad. Pretty much no one defended him. Some folks would have smacked Lott, except you'd break your hand on his hair. (No one smacked Thurmond, cause, hey, he was like a hundred and eighty.)

Well, Senator Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat of some repute, has talked about how the country would have always benefitted from the advice of Sen. Robert Byrd, even during the Civil War. Some have noted that the Civil War may not have been the best time for someone with Robert Byrd's extracirricular history to have weighed in. Some of the Senator's more moronic Klan related statements may be found here.

It's OK, of course, because Byrd has announced he regretted his membership in that particular social club. And, of course, it's different, because the Democrats, especially from Byrd's neck of the woods have a long history of progressive thought on racial issues.

Which means Dodd will pay no price. Which means that an angry claim that Republicans are "trying to change the subject" or something will be considered the final word in the matter. Such is life.

Still funny, though.

Lt. Smash went and visited an A.N.S.W.E.R. rally. His story is very very funny.

They were on the verge of asking Smash to speak. That would have been worth the price of admission alone.

If any of these things ever take place in Atlanta, let me know.

And not a rhetorical or loaded one, either. I genuinely don't know. Can someone tell me whether or not the film The Magnificent Seven is offensive?

Specifically, if you're at a legal conference, and a speaker uses the movie to illustrate a lecture on professionalism (long story), is that offensive?

All replies appreciated.

It's wrong that somewhere, out there...beneath the pale moonlight...some..one's thinking of me, and loving me tonight.

OK, that's wrong, too, but what's really wrong is that somewhere out there are racists who vote Republican. You know who they are, too. Got confederate flags on their trucks, (and no Dean to vote for), listen to country music, watch stock car racing...the decent soul shudders at the thought of these brutes being allowed out in public. It is horribly, horribly wrong that noble and virtuous Democrats have lost elections because these horrid people found their prejudices best reflected in the other side.

It is in that spirit that I humbly await the call for Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco to resign. It seems that the Republicans ran a person of color, and issues with this cost him votes, leading to Blanco's victory. I am not suggesting that Blanco herself is racist, but if she is a person of good character, she must be appalled at the thought that those yokels found her the better candidate.

Therefore, I await her resignation. Of course, if a win is a win is a win, and she's not responsible for the viewpoints of her dumbest supporters, then please ignore this post, and any other similar claim that may be made about any candidate for public office.

That's important to remember. People don't start static, don't get static.

OK, here's the thing. Remember Spain, which everyone (except, you know, right-wingers, who don't count) said was clearly taking the responsible, morally correct thing in withdrawing from Iraq, and no one would think that threatening Spain with terrorism would acheive their ends?

I just bring this up, cause, you know, the GPEB's who brought us 3/11 have added Spain withdrawing from Afghanistan to their list of demands. I'm sure they don't think for a minute that they achieved anything by their mass murder, and this is all a huge coincidence. (Thanks, Karol.)

And I really don't get why the GPEB's would be targeting Canada. I thought Canada was the epitome of responsible world citizenship. It's almost like their target is Western civilization itself, and the only way to hold onto the things we hold most dear is to take them out once and for all.

That can't be it. If it were, then you'd have to be either with us...

...nah, gotta be something else.

More help for Yassir Arafat, as a group claimed to have murdered the U.S. citizens in Fallujah on behalf of the Palestinians.

They have trouble picking a rationale - they say it was a gift to the Palestinians, then mention that it could also have been due to "US aggression, raids on mosques and homes, the arrests, the torture of clerics and the terrorizing of women and children." Cause these guys are all about opposing torture and terrorism.

Human rights activists sure act different then when I was a kid, and they chained themselves to the South African embassy to protest apartheid. That's all I'm saying.

Since we're a bunch of violent jerks...

I mean all of us. Me, Rob, Cube, Karol...we condone, enable, and/or support violence in support of our political goals, to the exclusion of all simple rules of decency and civil discourse. It's just what we do.

With that in mind, I call attention to renewed consideration of John McCain as John Kerry's veep. The only real sticking point for Kerry's crew would be the pro-life thing, as much of what McCain stands for can be found in this Democrat or that Democrat. Thankfully, all of us who have any objection to abortion are well aware of how unwelcome we are in the Democratic party, even if we're really good on the rest of it.

Anyway, my point. Since we're evil, and everyone left of Zell Miller knows it, why hasn't there been any discussion of how John Kerry nominating a pro-life veep would pretty much guarantee his assassination within twelve hours of being sworn in? I don't think he's much of a candidate either, guys, but, geez, don't set him up like that.

(Note to wackos - Do not attempt to assassinate John Kerry, regardless of who he nominates for vice president. It is morally wrong, anti-democratic, highly illegal, and will ultimately prove counterproductive to whatever cause you espouse. Seek help. Take up a hobby, preferably one that involves less trolling the internet for conspiracy theories. Perhaps stamp collecting. Many nations have run series of beautiful stamps, with pictures of dogs. You like dogs, don't you?)

I'm way to late to fully join in the obligatory Kos-troversy, so I'll just toss off a quick link-free pair of pennies and move on. (If you don't know what's up, check...oh, any blog, really.)

Bottom line: Kos said something stupid. Pretty much everyone agrees with that. (Even Kos tacitly is acknowledging this by deleting the offending post and desperately trying to make the whole controversy another bout of "My accusers are not-nice people, so please ignore the fact that they are, by and large, absolutely right." Also, we shouldn't have gone home with him dressed like we were if we didn't want sex.) Disagreement has arisen about whether or not there should be consequences for Kos' stupid statement.

I could make a smartass comment about how conservatives thinking people should pay a price for their mistakes and liberals thinking they shouldn't tells you all you need to know about both, but...hey, look! I already did! I rule!

(I don't rule. Not yet. But patience, my pretties, patience...)

Look, to all the red meat chewers who feel betrayed about the advertisers who have abandoned Kos, they have to. One, they're not (for the most part), as far left as y'all are. They are genuinely offended by Kos' statement too. (It's not just LGF readers. Trust me on this, if nothing else.) Second, they are mainstream candidates who have to reach out to moderates, independants, and Republicans who are maybe open to switching sides if the right candidate presented themself. You may think everyone right of Jerrod Nadler is a cousin-kissing rube that shouldn't be allowed to vote in a properly oriented society, but for the moment, we can vote, and Kos is in the way of them getting that vote. If he truly wants those folks to win, he'll let them off the hook easy. (Hey, if I ever go off the deep end and say anything truly nuts - not that I ever have - I certainly wouldn't want any candidate I favor to suffer by association.)

The red meat sites are fine for the true believers, but some of that stuff freaks the rest of us out. The intelligent thing to do is allow Kerry and all those congressional candiates to build a wall between you and them if they feel it necessary.

Assuming there is no plan to cut back on the stupid statements, that is.

In-laws in town...

...insignificant time to post adequately on all subjects of interest (my list has gotten long).

Huge update coming by Wed. at the latest.

I prefer the term "inspiration", thank you...

Figures. I get my name dropped on Oxblog and I can't think of anything to post on. Thankfully, Karol over at Alarming News came across this article in the New York Times concerning the oh-so-surprising trend of Hollywood working anti-Bush themes and statements into their scripts. Karol politely and dispassionately addresses the topic in a fair and balanced way here. Reading the article, post, and comments prompts a few words of my own.

First: Sarah Michelle Gellar is a Republican? Where'd you hear that, Dawn?

Second: Sarah Michelle Gellar is a Republican. Cool!

Oh, yeah. The point. Karol thinks the best part is the all-too-predictable whine about "questioning their patriotism" or whatever it is people say when they don't want to respond to criticism. I think it's the hilarious claim that Hollywood is representing all points of view:

"Asked if she (Whoopi Goldberg) would be pleased if her show could contribute to the defeat of Mr. Bush, she said, "I would like that," but added that she was careful to present opposing views."

OK, verifying this would require that I actually watch Whoopi, which I emphatically refuse to do, on account of the show being very not funny (I did see a couple episodes early on). Still, I'm willing to wager pretty much any sum you care to name that the number of occasions where conservative characters get the best of liberal characters is, give or take, zero.

"Robert Breech, an executive producer of "The Practice" on ABC, said his show was trying to spark debate and entertain while presenting both sides."

While I am grateful to James Spader for saving a show that was really starting to grate on my nerves, I defy anyone to point to a "Practice" episode where the conservative character or point of view came off as anything other than misinformed or malicious.

A well-researched, passionately argued liberal viewpoint vs. a straw man conservative is not presenting both sides. I have family and friends who swear I would love the West Wing. I don't doubt it's well written, well paced, and concerns subject matter I'm very interested in. And if they could be upfront about the fact that it's an in-kind contribution to the Democratic Party, I'd be willing to give it a chance. But they don't think they're advocating. They honestly think they're being fair.

And that's funnier then anything that's ever happened on Whoopi.

I love him, but he's apparently drinking Liquid Plumber...

It seems I agree with Andrew Sullivan more than almost any other major opinion writer working today. But he posts here about his desire to raise gas taxes, which he apparently considers to have absolutely no downside, except for SUV-driving boors.

A good man, Sully, but he's off his gourd this time. Travel over to Karol's, where she does an excellent job of calling him on it.

We're all open-minded, right?

If two consenting adults want to play "Horny Burglar and Scared, Yet Excited, Housewife", hey, more power to them. But surely, a few rules are in order to ensure the safe, enjoyable fulfillment of your fantasy.

And first and foremost among those rules, one would think, would be that when the Horny Burglar stages his "break-in," he makes sure he has the right address. Failure to follow this rule can lead to a well deserved kick in the Little Burglars, and equally deserved jail time.

Too funny...

This Moxie post is just hilarious.

(Preview - a committed Democrat comes in to have her taxes done...learns how much she's saved thanks to Bush's tax cuts. Hilarity ensues.)

What in the blue hell is wrong with you, America?

Amy, Jennifer, and LaToya in your bottom three? Look, I know the name may be confusing to some people, but please, quit mistaking Ms. London for less talented people with similar names.

I'm going to say this slowly. You have till Tuesday to absorb it. Get. Rid. Of. Camille.

Not that any of this matters. Never has it been so clear who's going to win this thing.

Why I identify as a Republican...

When I first read this column by Michael Tomasky, I meant to comment on it, since it was one of the first issues that dealt straight on with a major problem I have with the Democrats. I never got around to it, until I was prompted by this Armed Liberal post.

I'm opposed to abortion. It's a big deal with me, but not the biggest, and certainly not the only. My politics are weird enough that I accept there is no way in hell any candidate is going to be everything I'm looking for, so I look for 1.) people who agree with me on most major stuff, and 2.) People who at least understand where I'm coming from on the rest of it. I recognize that Democrats as a party support abortion rights, and consequently, so do most of their members. I'm cool - it's a complex issue, reasonable people will differ. But even when I suck it up and vote for for a pro-choice candidate (Max Cleland, just to pick a recent example), it's recognizing that I'm going against at least one issue that is important, and the idea that fighting anything that could even remotely be conceived as contrary to abortion-rights dogma trumps all else strikes me as shrill, and I'm not sure that folks realize how they sound when they're doing it.

A while back, the National Review Online posted a debate about gay marriage, where the conservative case for gay marriage (or at least civil unions) was discussed in depth. Andrew Sullivan speaks to conservative audiences on the issue regularly. None of this changes the general view of the GOP or conservatives as a larger group, (& it certainly doesn't do much good with the wackos, but like the poor, the wackos will always be with us), but the fact that these things exist means I don't feel so out in the cold disagreeing with conservatives on this particular issue. If the Nation, American Prospect, or Progressive has ever done anything simliar on abortion, I haven't seen it.

I disagree with conservative orthodoxy on several issues, enough that a Democrat who made a serious pitch for my vote would stand a chance of getting it. On the other hand, even a guy as liberal as Dennis Kucinich had to abandon his opposition to abortion before he could present himself as a Democrat on a nationwide stage. And if Dennis Kucinich couldn't call himself a Democrat based on this one issue, why should anyone with any objections to abortion even bother?

This is what happens when Angel is in reruns...

Vampire stories. We all love 'em, right? From Bram Stoker to Joss Whedon, there's no shortage of tales of supernatural horror to serve as silly escapism from the humdrum realities of modern life.

It is just silly escapism, right? Cause, if it is, someone needs to tell these people. (Note - link does not lead to hot Goth chicks in black leather, but rather a story about Romanians who dug up a corpse, cut his heart out, and ate it in an effort to prevent his undead form from stalking their family. Sorry.)

Better safe then sorry, I suppose.

Link via Volokh.

In defense of optimism...

It's always heartbreaking to listen to the families of people gone missing. Especially if you're familiar with the math on the subject. About how very, very rare it is for people who go missing for too long to be seen again. All too often, a body is all you can return.

The families believe, and we skeptics think it's because they have to. It wasn't all that long ago that I was thrilled to be wrong. It's still heartbreaking to watch the desperate hope that grips the families of the missing. But, thank God, sometimes that optimism is rewarded.

OK, so is there a larger lesson here or not?

Yesterday, I posted about an attempt to compare a brutal hate crime in Atlanta with the modest physical harassment suffered by a few Bushies counterprotesting an anti-Bush rally. Mithras, who pointed me towards this story, invites readers to "pick a side."

David Neiwart, who originally brought the story of the Atlanta hate crime to greater attention, has disavowed it and apologized to readers for posting it in the first place. He allows for the possibility that it may still pan out, and isn't going to go off on the people who led him down this apparently primrose path just yet, so there may still be some there there. But the fact that repeated attempts, from multiple people, to confirm any aspect of the story have borne nothing suggests that this urban legend may well be just that. (Atlanta PD's liason to the GLBT community heard nothing about it.)

Now, I never thought that either incident said anything about their respective "sides" as a whole. I said as much yesterday. But some who accepted this story seemed to believe its veracity said something about "the right." To those people, I ask: If the story is a hoax, does that say anything about "the left?" And, more importantly, if the story had larger implications yesterday, but not today, what's the difference?

I don't think it does have any larger implications. But then, I didn't think so yesterday either.

(Note - as I posted in Orcinus' comment section, I think Mr. Neiwart has handled the whole thing in a professional and classy manner. The blogosphere has always operated as a kind of rapid reaction environment, and when he heard about something, he posted his response. Later, when he was given cause to doubt what he first heard, he took it down and posted a correction. The only thing he did was believe something that turned out (apparently) not to be true, and that's only a fault if you refuse to correct the mistake. He did.)

Heroes...

We see them everywhere. Sometimes they wear uniforms. Police, firefighters, military...Tampa Bay Devil Ray...

We admire their courage, their willingness to perservere in the face of danger, their cold, wet noses...

Their cold wet noses?

Their cold wet noses.

Why it's better to be a good guy then a bad guy...

Uzbekistan is apparently reeling from being hit by terrorists. I say "apparently", because, hey, this is Uzbekistan. Anything you hear from Islam Karimov's government should be taken with a shakerful of salt.

It's better to be a good guy then a bad guy, because if Karimov were a good guy, we'd be more able to trust that the dead were terrorists foiled attempting to commit mayhem. Because this jackass does kill people just for thinking differently.

From "Fuhgeddaboudit!" to " 'Ow you doin'?"

Sopranos' Adrianna stepping down in class to join cast of "Joey"

The real reason this is news, of course, is that Adrianna has been cooperating with the FBI against, which means if they have to write her off the show...well, she's walking a fine line as it is.

Just check your bag next time you go bowling, is all I'm saying.

Veddy, veddy eeentairesting...

OK, here's the situation...your parents went away for a week's vacation...

No, that's not it. The situation is you're in charge of a small Georgia town that's hosting the G-8. You know protestors are coming, 'cause you're a beautiful town on the beach. (I'm just saying, how many protestors would be willing to protest in the barren wasteland of northern Nunavut.) You're worried about the damage they're going to do.

You pass an ordinance that some people say goes to far. Or, more accurately, some people would have said goes too far if the protestors hadn't responded by threatening violence.

"If the city doesn't cooperate with us, we'll pull out," Pleasant said. "Then they'll be left with 5,000 to 10,000 activists who are real angry, and their precious little downtown could go up in flames. The less organization and planning you have, the more likelihood of that scenario."

You know, pledging to take responsiblity for your group, promising to help with cleanup, and making a statement that protesting globalization was all about helping the small businessman, and your local spending would reflect that, probably would have gone a long way.

I'm just saying, having dealt with small town leaders in the past, that "do things my way or your town will burn" tends not to work.

I'm just asking...

OK, Bush is the President. That means he'll get credit for everything that goes well on his watch, and blamed for everything that goes bad. It's unfair, but it's unfair to everyone, since any President would get the same treatment. So has it been, so shall it ever be, que sera sera, etc.

Currently, gas prices are high. John Kerry is blaming George Bush. Fair point, or at least, fair within the context of political debate.

Here's the question. As a good environmentalist, doesn't Kerry want gas prices to be high? Wouldn't $2 a gallon and up gas encourage us to carpool, walk or bike more, purchase more energy efficient vehicles, and move forwards on alternative transportation? I mean, President Kerry isn't going to make it easier and more affordable for us all to drive everywhere in our pollution-belching SUV's, is he?

I mean, traffic in Atlanta is bad enough as it is.

Could you be a bigger bunch of punks?

Those wacky Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are at it again. See, some U.S. diplomats are visiting the region, so those crazy kids decide to go and threaten them.

Then, of course, you know what happens. What always happens when wacky kids are having fun. Someone runs and tells mom, and she has to back off.

Just wondering - how does that qualify as a "veiled" threat, as described by the Guardian. Did anyone think that Al-Aqsa was advising diplomats not to visit because the Gaza Strip lacks sufficient nightlife?

In other news of big bad terrorists acting like sissy little nancy-boys, newly appointed Hamas uberstud Abdel Aziz Rantisi ducks the softest of softball questions, regarding Hamas' commitment to Israel's destruction. The relevant exchange:

SPIEGEL: Are you truly interested in nothing more than an end to the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank? Isn't your true goal to drive out the Jews, because you believe that the Israelis have no right to this country?

Rantissi: I want an end to the decades-long tragedy of the Palestinian people.

Who is this bozo kidding. Everyone knows what Hamas wants. No Hamas leader has ever equivocated on the subject. Heck, we know this is a softball interview, because the guy referred to Yassin's killing as a murder in the first question. And you can't give this guy a straight answer?

What a wuss.

Taiwan on...

Come on, it's hard to think of witty headlines all the time. Via the indispensible Oxbloggers refers to an interview that Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian gave to the Washington Post.

In it, he emphatically refuses to cop to this "one China" nonsense. Reading further, I'd say this quote:

"Therefore, in the year 2006, we will hasten the birth of a new constitution for Taiwan, and in 2008, we intend to enact this new constitution, a tailor-made, efficient constitution that is suitable for Taiwan. And this is just a timetable for our constitutional reform. It is not a timetable for independence or any attempt to change our status quo." ...

...I'd say that throws down the gauntlet. He says it's not an attempt to change the status quo, but who are we kidding? It's a declaration that Taiwan will not be submitting to Beijing's governance any time soon. And China has always insisted that everyone keep up the illusion that Taiwan will soon be reunited with the mainland. Chen is pointing out the very real and very relevant point that the majority of Taiwan's citizens don't want to be part of China, especially not as China is currently constituted. The problem is, China's track record on listening to what citizens want is less than stellar.

I don't think the timeline Chen lays out is an accident, either. In 2008, of course, Beijing hosts the Summer Olympics, at which they intend to present themselves as a grown-up, responsible member of the world community. Invasions or or about Olympic time don't go over well abroad. The other side, however, is China places a lot of national pride on their claim to Taiwan, and they may just decide to piss the rest of the world off before they let Taiwan do anything that smacks of independence.

Which is where things get really fun. You see, we've promised to defend Taiwan. There is apparently a school of thought in China that says we haven't got the coconuts. (Money quote at bottom, where General Xiong is reported to have told a former U.S. official that the United States would not fight to defend Taiwan because "you will not sacrifice Los Angeles to protect Taiwan.") What I don't think the Chinese get is how popular Taiwan is here, which should actually make U.S. leaders nervous, since there will be considerable pressure not to abandon Taiwan, regardless of how much easier it makes life.

As I've previously stated on Chen, I'm a fan. And I don't think it helps anyone to pretend things that aren't true, like that Taiwan isn't an actual country. I think China keeps Taiwan from supporting reunification by preserving their authoritarian style of government, which means that China's leaders prefer their own personal power to the reunification of their country. Not very patriotic. Since the Tiananmen Square Fan Club isn't likely to have a crisis of conscience any time soon, things may come to a head sooner rather then later, with the hopes that things blow over by 2008.

No easy solutions here. Either we join a regional conflict on behalf of an small ally against a large nuclear power, or we punk out in front of God and the world. Remind me again why anyone would want to be President.

Those wacky jurors...

We've all heard about the Tyco trial, where one juror is apparently holding out and preventing a conviction. I don't have much of a problem with it myself. She's a juror, you have to persuade her beyond a reasonable doubt. Either do it, or try the stupid case again. That's how things work.

Besides, lone jurors can change things the other way, too. Here in Atlanta, one juror is giving prosecutors another shot at trying an alleged murderer.

No real comment at the moment. Just interesting.

You see the coolest stuff reading blogs...

I mean, granted, working is fun, too. But when you check out blogs like Karol's, you can learn about the political geek equivalent of the NCAA tournament pools that have been sucking me dry for years.

So, without delay, enter the Maybe I Think Too Much election pool. I mean, you could win a subscription to the National Review or The American Prospect! How cool is that?

Don't answer that.

Good news, bad news...

The good news: Denise Majette running for Senate. This is good news because Majette is a perfectly credible candidate with fairly high name recognition, there should actually be a real race for the Senate this year. Not that he's a bad guy (I'll probably vote for him), but likely nominee Johnny Isakson needs a real opponent in the fall.

The bad news. This clears the way for Cynthia McKinney to get back in Congress. That's right. Cynthia McKinney. The woman who once filed a lawsuit claiming it was illegal to vote against her.

Great. Ceasar's. Ghost.

Come on, Jack...

Can you believe Jack Bristow actually fell for Lauren's nonsense? I mean, the woman practically has "spy" stamped on her forehead, for Pete's sake.

Vaughn buying it I can believe. Vaughn's an idiot. Dixon should probably know better.

But Jack has no excuse.

Parallel universes

Crosblog's resident agent provocateur, Mithras, points me towards an interesting connection being drawn. Apparently, a rightish blogger named Matt Margolis went to an anti-Bush rally with pro-Bush signs, propaganda, etc. They either behaved professionally or made asses of themselves, depending on who you ask, and as a result, got knocked around by some of the local anti-Bushers. This has swept the blogosphere, with left-wing sites either voicing the unequivocal condemnation that makes you proud to be an American, or engaging in rhetorical gymnastics to try and get across the idea that Matt needed his ass beat without actually saying it. (Most of the ones I've seen opt for the former, God love 'em.)

Then there is the attempt to draw a parallel to a truly horrific event. David Neiwert describes a truly outrageous, unforgiveable act of violence, apparently committed solely because the victim took an online cheap shot at Bush. More details here. Apparently the idea is that the far more severe nature of the second assault proves that right-wingers are more committed to violence, less tolerant of diverse viewpoints, and generally less pleasant people to be around. Two points.

1. There is some question as to whether or not the assault mentioned in the second story even happened. It supposedly occurred in Atlanta, where I live, and there has been nothing about it on the local news broadcasts or in the newspaper. Commentors on the above posts claim to have called the Atlanta Police Department and been told nothing of that sort has been reported. I'll admit, the fact that it hasn't been reported anywhere is odd, but Neiwart is standing by his story for the moment, and is asking for patience while he verifies. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, so let's proceed on the notion that it happened, exactly as described. I will note that Margolis' story has been reported in the mainstream media.

2. I don't get the connection. First off, the Atlanta assault occurs as a result of a few wingnuts going off on their own. No connection to any group, organization, party, anything. From this we are supposed to draw conclusions about "the right", "conservatives", "Bush supporters", or whoever. Meanwhile, Margolis and company are attacked by people at an organized rally, by actual groups, organizations, parties, etc. From this, we are right-wing Fox News drones if we draw any conclusions whatsoever about "the left", "liberals", "Bush opponents", or whoever. (Snippy remark - I assume it would be OK to draw the conclusion that "It's terrible, the things that awful George Bush makes people do")

The people in Atlanta and the folks in Boston are assholes, to varying degrees. (How big assholes the guys in Boston are to be determined by the amount of damage they would have done if they'd had free reign, the way the guys in Atlanta apparently did. Getting a fight broken up before you have a chance to cripple someone doesn't make you a better person than the guy who actually did cripple someone.) Give the folks in Boston a few months in jail for battery, send the pricks in Atlanta to prison for 20 years for aggravated assault. Neither event has to say anything about any larger movement, unless said larger movement chooses to adopt them.

Which they won't.

Because I'm fair and balanced, dammit!

I'm a fairy enthusiastic supporter of rape shield laws, which are a topic of discussion courtesy of the Kobe Bryant case. However, whenever you pass a law, you always pass the law of unintended consequences.

This Salon article points out the other side. (If you're not a member of Salon, and I can't for the life of me imagine why you would be, you can watch an ad and read the article.)

What do you mean, I can't have the President of Tunisia shot?

The Arab League plans to get together to talk about stuff, only horror of horrors! They learn that other countries actually hold different opinions on stuff. So, of course, they meet anyway, and work through their differences with tolerance and mutual respect.

Or, they act like a bunch of six year olds, and call the whole thing off.

It's always amusing to watch dictators try to function in international organizations. The surprise at the existence of contrary opinions is genuine, which makes it even more hilarious.

I'm reminded of a few years back, Deng Xiaoping of China visited the U.S. Of course, he was met by people protesting China's occupation of Tibet, as well as other potentially bad ideas of the Chinese government. I read somewhere an interview with one of then-President Clinton's advisors who said Deng was genuinely upset with the protesters. The Chinese belived that of course Clinton had the power to restrain them, and the only reason he didn't was spite. They refused to accept American explanations that the protesters genuinely had a right to be heard.

Well, it's funny as long as you don't live in one of those countries, I guess.

Define fair...

Saddam has a lawyer. And...sit down for this. He's French.

I know, I was stunned, too. Mr. Verges says that a fair trial for Saddam would be "impossible." Hey, I'm willing to skip to the execution too, but most folks think we should at least give it a shot.

Also, whose definition of "fair" are we using? Saddam used to think it was "fair" to have the wives and daughters of his political opponents raped in front of them, and to have people fed feet first through a plastic shredder. Will there be pre-trial motions filed to this effect?

So...you want some, or not?

OK, first Hamas threatens the U.S. Then they punk out. Then new target...I mean, head of Hamas Abdel Aziz Rantisi gives a speech that sounds very much like it's on again.

I mean...God declared war on us. Hamas is the army of God. Therefore, we need to bomb the living crap out of...anyone? Anyone?

Bueller?

Go Illini...

I'm off to the Atlanta Regional Semi-finals. First up is Texas v. Xavier, then Duke (boo! hiss!) vs. My wife's alma mater, the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana!

For those keeping score at home...

Number of murders caused by The Passion of the Christ: 0

Number of murders solved by The Passion of the Christ: 1

We now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

Since it was apparently a bad thing, let's blame the Jews

Someone had to tell those wacky kids at the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades that conning a socially insecure teenager into strapping on a bomb belt was bad form. You see, some people would have known that already. If you think they should have too, you're a Zionist lackey.

But don't worry! You see, it didn't actually happen! Those even wackier Jews made the whole thing up! And the best part is, we can tell this story about Zionist Perfidy without ever mentioning that Al-Aqsa has already claimed credit for it. Of course, they later released a statement that said "Never mind."

And you can believe what they're saying now, despite it's complete opposition to what they're saying then. (Must...not...make...Richard...Clarke...joke...) I mean, after all, how can you doubt people who say Sheik Yassin was a moderate?

I mean, the alternative is, they're a bunch of crapsacks who are committed to nothing but violence, and Israel's wall is probaby not such a bad idea. And we know that can't be the case.

A dark day for law enforcement...

Lenny Briscoe is leaving the New York Police Department.

Let us all raise our glasses to this fine public servant.

Everybody blogs...

And I mean everybody. It appears that we can now welcome none other than Noam Chomsky to the blogosphere. A couple of posts up so far that a cynical man might interpret as Noam claiming that it ain't a real democracy unless his candidates win. I'm sure the cynical man would be wrong about that.

First learned about it from Mithras, then found out Karol had weighed in as well.

I probably won't be a regular visitor myself, but hey, if he ever leaves a comment, that could change...

Democracy, Shmemocracy...

I can understand Al Gore challenging the election he lost. I can understand Lien Chan challenging the election he lost. Those races were close, and the margin of victory falls within the margin of error. Perfectly reasonable to file a contest and make sure. Support or oppose the people involved, they were perfectly reasonable actions, given the closeness of the contest.

But when you get your ass beat like a drum, the problem isn't with the ones who count the drumbeats. The people who wanted to turn Malaysia into Early 2001 Afghanistan were emphatically rejected. Why? Could it be because no sane person wants you to do that to their country? Nah, the public was clamoring for amputations and forced veilings. Other guys must have cheated. (I'm not under any illusions that Malaysia is the epitome of democracy, but the idea that Islamic extremists scare the hell out of the majority of the population makes all kinds of sense.)

I have a confession to make...

I like pro wrestling. There, I said it. I have two degrees, I've seen an opera. I'm bilingual. I have visited many foreign countries. I do my level best to keep informed on important issues of the day, and have what I believe are well-considered views on most of them.

I also enjoy a pastime that reality show fans look down on, intellectually speaking. And yes, I know that it's "fake" (which doesn't accurately describe the physical toll the sport takes on its performers, but yes, the outcomes are predetermined and the wrestlers cooperate to put on a show). Thanks to the internet, I know a lot more then I'd like to, frankly. I know whose contract is up, who's in the doghouse with management, who the suits think is the next big star, and of course, who's nailing the owner's daughter. You can predict a lot, knowing these things.

I miss the good old days. It used to surprise me. The stuff that happened back when guys like Ric Flair, Ricky Steamboat, and Randy Savage were in their prime. It was fun then, even if my dad would laugh at me every time I thought someone was finally going to beat that damned Honky Tonk Man.

Vince McMahon and the WWE won. They own it all, to the point that if someone wanted to argue monopoly, they'd probably have a shot. They are, however, finally getting around to putting some of it out.

It'll be fun to be a kid again.

Hornet's Nest? What Hornet's Nest...

Senate takes up bill criminalizing harming an unborn child.

These provisions are pretty common in state laws, in my experience, and usually get passed without too much fanfare. With the whole Scott Peterson trial set to dominate the news over the summer, this has become a fairly good sized deal, especially with an election about to take place with a President who strongly supports the bill running against a Senator who's against it.

Now, as someone who disagrees with most of NARAL's public policy positions, I'm all for anything that diminishes their credibility in the public eye. But somebody really needs to take those folks aside and explain to them that they're coming off like wackos here. People look at the question of whether or not Laci and Connor Peterson qualify as two victims and say "well, of course they do," pretty much regardless of their position on abortion.

Concerning the two amendments mentioned in the story, Sen. Murray's sounds worthy, albeit not really connected to the issue at hand, while Sen. Feinstein (who I normally like), has proposed an amendment that is a slap in the face to anyone who has ever been in the position Laci Peterson's family now finds themselves. You can find families of murder victims who oppose the death penalty. You can find relatives of 9/11 victims who opposed a military response. Can you find anyone who's ever loved a pregnant woman lost to violence who doesn't believe the child was a victim as well?

Speaking as someone who's probably going to want Bush re-elected, I'm happy to let this become an issue. The sound strategic and moral response would have been for NARAL and company to agree that this isn't about abortion, and if not actually supporting it, at least let it pass.

I know of radical anti-abortion zealots who have long contended that there is no difference between an abortion, clinically performed by a trained and licensed doctor who operates with the consent of a mother, and a brutal murder that takes place while the mother fights like mad for both their lives. I must confess, I'm suprised that NARAL agrees with them.

Since we're talking about amending the U.S. Constitution for you...

Let's say you're the extremely popular governor of a fairly large state. You have a reputation as moderate, no serious scandals in your past, and pretty easy on the eye to boot. You are exactly the kind of person your party, and independant minded folks from all political walks of life, would want to consider as a candidate for President of the United States.

There's a problem. You weren't born in the U.S. Constitution says you can't run. Of course, back in the day, there may have been cause for concern about divided loyalties, but in this day and age, that concern seems somewhat anachronistic.

So, we start talking about amending the Constitution, largely with you in mind.

Interestingly enough, the family of a murder victim in your state is trying to amend the state constitution to correct what they see as an injustice regarding their loved one. Men and women of good will can differ on the policy merits of the amendment, but as governor, your support will obviously be sought out. And, in fact, you are asked by the family for your support.

Would it kill you to give them a straight answer?

Kobe Question...

OK, right now, Kobe Bryant's accuser is being grilled about her sex life for having the temerity to accuse a rich guy of rape.

We're not even close to addressing the ultimate question (was she raped, or did she just decide to get her name and reputation dragged through the mud for the hell of it). We're just asking right now how much of her previous sexual exploits can be admitted for the purpose of either casting doubt on her testimony, offering alternate explanations for supposedly incriminating evidence, or intimidating her into submission. (Kobe will take anything he can get, I'm sure.) Kobe's lawyers believe it's all fair game, and it is in fact a violation of everything that makes our country great to not let them roam far and wide over her history.

I've always wanted to pose a question to Kobe's defense team. And that question is this:

"In your world, with your rules, why on earth would anyone ever report a sexual assault?"

I'm just wondering. Seriously.

I'll take it.

If you're going to criticize someone, you should also be willing to praise them. I've said my fair share about Spain's election and Zapatero, and that I thought ill of Zapatero's committment to truly fighting the GPEB's.

While I'm still not crazy about the message sent by anyone who cuts out of Iraq (I still think it's tatamount to throwing Iraqis to the wolves), I have thought that if Zapatero matched his withdrawl from Iraq with a greater committment elsewhere, he'd still be doing his part.

Apparently, he's talking about beefing up the Spanish presence in Afghanistan.

Not much to say about that. Good for him, if it happens. There are different ways to fight the bad guys, but you have to recognize that any effective means of fighting is going to piss the bad guys off. True good guys do it anyway.

I'd said before I hoped Zapatero's committment to the greater conflict was sincere, but I doubted it. I said I hoped to be proven wrong about him. It appears he may actually do it.

As Spike would say, "Good on you, mate!"

Damn right you won't...

OK, I asked a hypothetical question yesterday. By threatening us, wasn't Hamas inviting Captain Unilateral to turn their entire playground into a charred, smoldering husk? I mean, we don't all agree on pre-emption, but we all solid on anyone who got beef with the U.S. to the A gets they caps peeled, right?

(Translation of last sentence for Republicans: If you threaten the United States, we will eliminate you.)

Apparently someone pointed that out to Hamas, because Hamas would like to make it clear that they are absolutely not threatening retaliation against the U.S.

One advantage of having a warmongering cowboy with his finger on the button. Sometimes people watch what they say.

The devil is in the details...

OK, you read this story, and you think the British have gone off their collective rockers. I mean, sending a man to prison for defending his home from robbers? Are they serious?

Well, I support a man's right to defend his home as strongly as anyone here. But apparently, there's more to the story. Doesn't mean the dead guy didn't have it coming, but maybe if the details in the second story were true, maybe we're not talking about the noble defender of hearth and home we thought they were. (I read the second story after comming on this post of Karol's. My views have evolved in the last half hour.)

Granted, the Brits bring some of this bad press on themselves. It's well known that they are not fans of the individual right to self defense.

At least, the leaders do. The populace supports self-defense. Maybe someday someone will notice.

What in the hell...

...was wrong with JPL last night? Dude, "She Believes In Me" ain't that hard a song to sing. People like him , though, and that should save him.

Amy rocked the house. I'd have thought she'd be next on the chopping block, but that performance was one of the best of the night. Also dug John Stevens' take on "King of the Road." When you heard what song he was going to sing, you just went "Oh, yeah. That'll work." And it did.

All moot, though. Because, with all due props to the local girl we're supposed to be pulling for around here, your next American Idol is Fantasia. Country night was a bit of a downer for her, but with that out of the way, watch the hell out.

Want me to vote for Kerry?

You've got time to arrange it, since he's on vacation at the moment. Bush is being a bit of a wuss about the whole Sheik Yassin thing, as discussed here. I'm sure the President has zero problem with Israel icing this turdburger, and is only equivocating due to the realpolitik involved with Europe finally finding a bombing victim they can empathize with.

(Note the President. European leaders don't like you. They don't want you to win. They won't help you. They have visions in their pointy European heads of the Shangri-La awaiting us all once Kerry bounces your cowboy ass back to Crawford. They are not letting go of their dreams. Doing anything for the sole, or main purpose of ingratiating yourself to these folks is a galactic waste of time. Adjust your schedule and/or medications accordingly.)

Kerry has yet to weigh in. The money quote from the above story is: "Presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was on vacation, but a spokesman said Yassin’s history couldn’t be ignored.

“It’s important to remember that Sheik Yassin was responsible for organizing dozens of deadly terror attacks in Israel,” Mark Kornblau told JTA."

I agree with Kerry on essentially squat, but if he comes back from vacation and utters the following statement:

"With regards to the Israeli killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, let me just say: Good riddance to bad rubbish."

...he says that, my vote is his.

OK, I have a question...

There is disagreement across the political spectrum about whether the U.S. can strike pre-emptively in response to perceived threats. Iraq wasn't a danger at the time we invaded, but Saddam wanted to be, and perhaps, given time, could've been. Were we justified in striking first?

(Note - above question rhetorical and not point of post.)

The thing I think most everyone agrees on is when we do receive a real threat from someone with the means and commitment to carry it out, we have the right, nay...the duty to beat their asses like a #16 seed. (It's March Madness time. Get used to basketball analogies.) Everyone agrees with the Afghanistan portion of the War on Terror, whatever their political affiliation. (Which isn't how I remember it when we were discussing Afghanistan, but we're glad to have them on board in any sense).

My point is, after Sheik Yassin suffered that "unfortunate accident" (in the Sopranos sense of the term), Hamas threatened us. Given their track record, I don't think anyone doubts that Hamas means it when they threaten to blow up people they don't like (and they don't like pretty much everyone), and the statement seems pretty unambiguous that we are now at or near the front of that list.

So, it would seem to me that Hamas has just given Dubya the green-light to start blowing crap up over in the Hamas neck of the woods.

Not saying we should. I'm just saying.

Taiwan vs. Spain - the parallels continue...

Remember the claim that where the Popular Party really sank itself by sticking to its increasingly unlikely claims that the Basques were behind the Madrid bombing?

According to the Weekly Standard, the same thing happened in Taiwan. The author, who was there, notes that the KMT became obsessed by the fear that sympathy for the nearly assassinated Chen would translate into a comeback win, leading them to spread increasingly unlikely rumors that Chen had staged the shooting for precisely that reason. Therefore, the KMT's moronic reaction to the shooting altered the election as much, if not more, then the shooting itself.

Also curious to note that from the domestic side of things, the KMT is the party of the right in Taiwan, and Chen represents the party of the left. (At least the major ones - Taiwan has minor parties that aid in coalition governments.) I never knew that before, even though I've always admired Chen. (My views on world leaders are based pretty much solely on what they do on the world stage - what they do internally as far as taxes and domestic laws are between them and their electorate, as far as I'm concerned. That's why I can admire Tony Blair, while recognizing that were I a Brit, I probably wouldn't vote for him.)

Curiouser and curiouser...

Bloggers Against Drunk Driving...

Hat tip to Mithras, for pointing me towards a topic of interest to me, at least. The question: Instead of taking drivers' licenses from persons convicted for the first time of drunk driving (Technically - "driving under the influence of alcohol" - you don't have to be slobbering drunk to be impaired) - we should take away their license to drink.

Proposal first made by
Mark Kleiman, supported by Atrios, and if not wholly opposed, at least criticized by Mithras. It should be noted that Kleiman suggests this as a punishment for anyone convicted of any form of being stupid under the influence.

It should also be noted that this is not changing one form of punishment for another. In my experience (and my experience is as a prosecuting attorney who handles a lot of DUI cases), people convicted of drunk driving usually spend at least some time on probation, during which they are ordered not to drink alcohol. (Usually, they have to be evaluated to see if they have a drinking problem and comply with whatever recommendations are made by the evaluator). So, basically, the judges are way ahead of these folks, and the only proposal being made is to stop suspending their drivers' licenses.

Which is a bad idea. In terms of which condition people are more likely to comply with, remember, alcoholism is an addiction, driving is not. Also, people who drink and drive are, let's not forget, dangers to the rest of us. The license suspension is done to make sure that they don't drive until we're sure they can do so without putting the rest of us in danger. Also, if it's your first offense, and if you cooperate with the officer (by which I mean providing a breath or blood sample when asked), you are almost certainly eligible for a work permit. I can't help but notice that people who are convinced of the existence of hordes of innocents whose lives were ruined by "only having two beers", tend not to mention these things.

If you choose to drive after having a drink, we let you do that here. BUT, by doing so, you assume some responsibility regarding your level of alcohol and your ability to drive. People who don't live up to that responsbility are dangers to the rest of us, and the rest of us come first. That's why they lose their driver's licenses.

Yeah, the world's gonna miss this guy.

Leader of Hamas dead, Sharon unable to discuss without first saying "Ding, dong..."

The usual suspects are, of course, up in arms. The United Nations, an agency renowned throughout the world for its unyielding opposition to anti-Israeli terrorism, has condemned the attack.

And, of course, Yassin's brothers in arms are pledging unremitting violence. As opposed to the peaceful status we all got used to while he was alive. I mean, exactly what does Hamas have to threaten? "Before, we were irrevocably committed to the destruction of Israel, but now...now, we're really pissed, and we're going to..." do what, precisely? As much as you can to kill as many Jews as you can? How does that differ from when Yassin was alive?

It'd be delusional to think sending him to hell is going to change anyone's mind on the value of mass slaughter any more than George Khoury's death is going to. But since the Palestinians are still planning on doing everything they can to destroy Israel, the only choice Israel had was whether to face the barrage of violence with Yassin alive and planning attacks, or dead.

It may not have been right, but it wasn't wrong.

Ok, if he was a Jew, he'd have had it coming...

...however, it turns out he was an Arab. And not just any Arab, either, but the son of an Israeli Arab lawyer who challenged Israeli policy through legal means (to wit: Not blowing people up.)

I'm curious to know what Arafat and company think happened here. (Or anyone who thinks it would have been "understandable" or "legitimate resistance" had George Khoury been a Jew.) Was it a murder? Something akin to when a police officer fires, believing he's facing a gun, only to find out his adversary was unarmed? An accident? Basically, do the shooters need to be hauled in the dock to face murder charges?

Folks have "apologized" in the manner that I hate more than anything else. The "look, I didn't technically do anything wrong, but I'm sorry you're upset with how things turned out," apology. If people keep the pressure on, I don't doubt that the Palestinian Authority will somehow manage to turn up two or three people who will be prominently sentenced for killing Mr. Khoury, then quietly released a few months later.

The Khourys seem like the kind of people that, had they been representative of Palestinian sentiment, would have already produced a peace agreement. Instead, the Palestinian cause consists of people who think Jews out for a jog deserve to be shot, and the people who quietly stand by and let the first group act with impunity.

And because of that, George Khoury is dead.

Truly Mighty...

My friend Mike blogs intermittently over at Diary of a Mighty Bastard. Drop by now and then when you get a chance.

While I may be infallible on world affairs...

Stop laughing. That wasn't a joke. Lawyers don't have senses of humor.

Anyhow, while I may be infallible on world affairs, my college basketball needs a little work. I got 21 games out of 32 right in the first round, missing Manhattan's upset, and putting too much faith in my chosen underdogs Dayton, Air Force, and Southern Illinois, among others. However, I am in the top 260,000 at my online pool.

The comeback begins today.

A question...

And I'm seriously asking, because I haven't heard.

Apparently it's possible that the U.N. has been less then ethical regarding Iraq. Now, there are people who have complained about it.

But what I want to know is this: Has John Kerry uttered word one? For that matter, has anyone who is prominently trumpeting the position that the only responsible position is to turn the whole shebang over to the U.N. addressed how this scandal might affect the question of whether the U.N. is worthy of such trust.

(For me, at least, the statement "The U.N. has its problems, but it's the best thing we have," addresses nothing. If it's corrupt, if it's in the pocket of a brutal dictator, taking money that was supposed to be spent on food and medicine so Saddam Hussein could point to starving children and saying "sanctions are killing innocent Iraqis!" - then they are emphatically not the best thing we have.)

But anyone? Kerry? Any Democrat who ran for President on the "bring in the U.N." platform? Chirac? Schroeder? Zapatero?

I just want to know what's been said. I mean, they can't be ignoring it. Can they?

Conundrum...

OK, we all remember the whole Spain thing. People who wanted the Iraq war courageously repudiated pointed out that Zapatero's election was obviously not a cave-in to terrorism, and only right-wing fools would think so. Said right-wing fools pointed out that the sudden disappearance of the Popular Party's lead could only be explained by a capitulation to terrorism, and anyone who thought so was an appeaser or had their head in the sand.

Both sides would like to make it clear that their interpretations of events in Spain is the result of fair, dispassionate analysis of all arguments, and not cramming facts into a previously cemented worldview.

I bring this up, because it happened in reverse in Taiwan.

At least it was in reverse for me personally. I like Chen Shui-Bien, and admire what he's trying to do in Taiwan. That said, I can't vote in Taiwan, and apparently the people who can were planning on getting rid of him. Then he gets shot. Suddenly, Lien Chan's lead vanished, and Chen wins.

In other words, an intervening act of violence may have affected the results of a democratic election. Sound familiar?

There are still questions surrounding the shooting of Chen, including the claim that he staged it himself. China, who hates Chen, is another obvious suspect.

I'm posting this before I take my regular lap through the blogosphere, so I'm sure I'm about to learn something that'll affect my take on things. At present, I don't have a firm one. As I like Chen, I'm glad he's still in charge...but some things are more important than the result of any single election, like the integrity of the process. I don't know what effect the shooting had on the process, but people who like the result shouldn't brush off the very real concerns this raises.

This would seem to be good news...

Relatively moderate guy whomps Islamist ass in Malaysian election.

Anyone needs a headline writer, give me a call. I think that pretty much sums up everything you'd need to know without actually clicking on the link.

(Ed. note - please click on the link.)

Granted - this guy is filling the spot occupied by Mahathir "Jews Rule The World - Vote Kerry!" Mohammed, who is not exactly the kind of guy looking to lead the Muslim world into the 21st, or even the 18th century. But given the alternatives presented - Abdullah clearly represents the step forward, and small steps forward are better than going backwards.