Crosblog

I don't whether this comes across or not, but there are only two things related to politics that make me genuinely angry. One is Illinois State Insect George Ryan. The other is the depressingly popular notion that Israel is a bad guy.

The evil bastards who crave the deaths of Jews more than peace and prosperity for their own people have struck again. Look forward to a few days of everyone acting very very upset, and trying to find new and inventive ways of blaming the victim. You know, the pressures of occupation drove them to it and all that. Of course, Tibet has been the victim of a brutal, repressive occupation, and I'll wager the number of innocent Chinese civilians murdered by Tibet freedom activists is somewhere in the neighborhood of zero. (I may be wrong about that and feel free to correct me if I am. However, I do want to note that source material coming from the People's Republic of China is going to have serious credibility problems.)

And, as usual, the most depressing thing is the throwaway language that doesn't even make in into most stories anymore:

In the Gaza Strip, Muslim leaders praised the "heroic operation" -- a phrase referring to suicide bombings -- over mosque loudspeakers.

The dead will likely include the very old and the very young. And holy places will laud the killers as "heroes."

And, of course, it will all end with Israel being condemned for refusing to put its faith in those who idolize these murderers.

Slobodan Milosevic is beginning his defense. What can we look forward to from everyone's favorite wacky Serbian strongman?

The former Serb strongman, 63, seized the opening day of his defence to accuse the West, NATO, Kosovo Albanian drug gangs, Islamic militants and the Vatican of contributing to the break-up of a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

Still no word on whether Bill Clinton and Tony Blair will testify. One other quote:

"A multi-ethnic, multi-confessional state was destroyed ... this constitutes the gravest international crime," said Milosevic, who was wearing a dark suit, pale blue shirt and a striped tie in the red, blue and white of the Yugoslav flag.

What, exactly, is a "multi-confessional state?"

Been sexually mistreated by a powerful, well-known person? Don't file a lawsuit, because if you do, it's clear you're only out for the money.

On the other hand, you really should file a lawsuit, because if you don't, it's because you know damn well you're full of crap and no one would believe you.

To recap: Victims who file lawsuits are greedy and should not be believed, victims who don't know they have no case and should not be believed. Act accordingly.

Remember how bummed we all were when the McGreevey story hit while Sully was on vacation? And how we really all wanted his take on it?

Well, it's here, and I for one am kinda underwhelmed.

Not that I disagree with him, but if anyone was going to have an entertaining take on the Greeve, it woulda been Sully.

The French law banning headscarves is moronic, discriminatory, counterproductive, and unworthy of a democracy. That much of the above can also be said of Jacques Chirac is beside the point. It is a bad law that can't be repealed promptly enough.

That said, the French refusal to give in to kidnappers who have taken two French reporters hostage to force repeal of the ban is the right thing to do. What the crapsacks who have taken Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot need to understand is that they have changed the pertinent question. Before, it was: What should France do with this phenominally stupid law? And the answer was simple: Repeal it swiftly. Now, the question is: Should we let assholes dictate what our laws are based on their apparent willingness to murder civilians? The answer to that is an even simpler hell, no, and there won't be any return to the first question until the answer to the second one sinks in.

It's still a bad law, which I'm not sure Andrew Stuttaford gets in this Corner post. That is was passed by democratically elected officials doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't have been. But, of course, thanks to those bozos, no one's going to care about that for quite a while.

Ah, New York City. After the distressingly quiet cabride discussed earlier, we arrive at our hotel, where, for roughly the price of a suite at the finest hotel in Peoria, IL, we get a room approx. 5 square feet larger than the bed. Still, you're in the Big Apple, the hotel is just a place to store your crap! We walk around Times Square - the wife finds many places to shop. (Note to women: The maximum amount of time you can expect a man to behave himself in a women's clothing store is twenty minutes. After that, he has the right to entertain himself in ways you may find embarassing, up to, including, but not limited to, trying things on. If you want to run the risk of your man discovering how fetching he looks in a black lace camisole, well, good luck to you. Also, saying "I just want to look one more place" is a legally binding contract, and after you look there, it's time to go.)

Anyway, went and saw Wicked. Very good. We regret missing Kristin Chenowith and Joel Grey, who'd left the show between the time we bought tickets and when we went, there was a bright side - Former New Kid on the Block Joey McIntyre. He was good. No, really.

And then, of course, the party of the century, where many bloggers learned the truth about just how much cooler than me my wife actually is. They also learned of my torrid affair with a Bulgarian contortionist. (Seriously, people - she doesn't read the blog.) There's something incredibly cool about meeting someone for the first time, yet they're not a stranger. The first person I saw was, appropriately enough, Dawn Summers, who's not nearly as evil as Karol claims she is. Got to see Peter again, of course, and met several great folks in person for the first time, such as Steve Silver, who I will agree is better looking than the picture on his blog. (This, despite the fact that his post on the party omits my name. Oh, well, that's Democrats and facts for you.)

I also met Candace, and yes, I am the one with the beautiful wife. There are much worse things to be known as. Also there that I actually spoke to were Funnya, Ari, Jessica, Lisa, and probably others whose names escape me at the moment. Those of you who spoke to my wife without me knowing, please know that the things she says about me are only mostly true.

It was a wonderful cap to a great trip. Should any of you find your way down to Atlanta, (and you should), make sure to stop by. We have lots of things to entertain the out-of-towner, such as a traffic problem that would make any New Yorker feel at home, many many strip malls, a museum apparently devoted to Jimmy Carter (I've never been), and some truly wretched professional basketball. Trust me, the fun never ends here!

So this is New York...just got here a little bit ago. I gotta say, I was disappointed that the cabdriver didn't say a word the whole ride from the airport. Not what popular culture taught me to expect. (And I'd have tipped well for a good-natured political argument, just for the entertainment value that would come with mortifying my wife.)

Hopefully every knows about the big hootenanny at the Fashion 40. We'll be there, but later, as we have tickets to Wicked. (Nobody tell me how it ends.)

And, obviously, blogging will be scattershot till I'm back in the dirty South. Someone tell Bush and Kerry not to do anything stupid for the next few days.

So this is New York...just got here a little bit ago. I gotta say, I was disappointed that the cabdriver didn't say a word the whole ride from the airport. Not what popular culture taught me to expect. (And I'd have tipped well for a good-natured political argument, just for the entertainment value that would come with mortifying my wife.)

Hopefully every knows about the big hootenanny at the Fashion 40. We'll be there, but later, as we have tickets to Wicked. (Nobody tell me how it ends.)

And, obviously, blogging will be scattershot till I'm back in the dirty South. Someone tell Bush and Kerry not to do anything stupid for the next few days.

I'm as much of a nationalist as the next guy, as long as the next guy isn't Pat Buchanan. (He's got me beat there. But I dress better.) I watch the Olympics pulling for the U.S. if they're in it. And I was duly impressed with Paul Hamm's comeback to win the all-around gold, and for a munchkin, he seems like a class act. So why was commentator Al Trautwig all but going "neener neener" regarding Yang Tae Young getting the bronze that day, and muffing his high bar routine at the event finals?

If a technicality contributed to Young getting the bronze instead of gold, who can blame the South Koreans for pitching a fit? I think Hamm did a great job coming back after falling on his ass, but if one thing's become clear, it's that gymnastics has been judged by the most incompetant buffoons this side of John Kerry's rapid-response team. Young did a hell of a job too, and it's a shame that bozos with suits brought the winner into question with their inability to score correctly.

On a related note - how cool was the crowd response to the low-balling of Russian Alexei Nemov's whomp-ass high bar routine? Nemov ended up without a medal - but he's got tons of those. A multi-national protest on his behalf? Now that's a one-time thing.

Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) owes damages to Cong. John Boehner (R-OH) as a result of McDermott distributing to the press a conversation he knew to be recorded illegally.

You know those arguments that only work some of the time? Pro-lifers who obstruct abortion clinics, knowingly violating trespass laws; environmentalists who vandalize developers; loan sharks who cripple people who fall behind in their payments to send a message to other customers - they all claim to serve a greater good that puts them above the law - at least in this instance.

Put Sunny Jim on the list, too. You see, Newt Gingrich was bad, so 18 U.S.C. §2511(1)(c) doesn't apply to him:

Mr. McDermott defended his conduct. "I believed important public issues were involved," he said in a statement, "and that I had the right under the First Amendment to release the taped conversation to the news media."

The actual opinion can be read here. McDermott prevails on several issues - which appears reasonable, from my quick once-over, but the bottom line still hands: Man owes Boehner some money. (Pending appeals, of course)

...to finally allow us all to move on from Kerry in Vietnam. And I'm not talking about trying to actually resolve who's telling the truth either. One group remembers things one way, the other group remembers things the other, and who you believe will almost certainly coincide with your take on who you want to win the election. Shades of doubt can be cast one way or the other, but the matter is not going to be settled for certain, so how can we all quit trying?

I operate under three presumptions:

1.) What's gotten the Vietnam Vets against Kerry riled up is the fact that he has used his service as a major, if not the major qualification for his election. Were he not running as a war hero, they wouldn't be near this honked off.
2.) What we can all agree on re: Kerry/Vietnam - he was there, he did actually serve in combat situations, and anyone who faced danger in Vietnam is entitled to our respect and gratitude for doing so.
3.) Certainly anyone who served as Lieutenant Governor of a populous state, then served 19 years in the United States Senate has the requisite experience to serve as President, regardless of the nature of their military service.

The common theme is, since Kerry has made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign, he can't pretend criticism of said service isn't relevant to the question of whether or not he should be Prez. The corollary to that statement is if Kerry were willing to shut the hell up about Vietnam, the rest of us should be willing to ignore the brouhaha. (Of course, I mean completely shut up - no reference to it in speeches by Kerry, speeches given on his behalf, ads, or independent expenditures - if a pro-Kerry 527 wants to praise him as a war hero, when an anti-Kerry 527 takes issue with it - tough noogies.)

I'd sign on - and since every military man I've heard weigh in has mentioned that true war heroes are uncomfortable being identified as such - the chance to run as John Kerry, Senator would come as a relief.

...is up there with "Iranian rulers praise beauty, athleticism of beach volleyball players" as a headline you're unlikely to see. Still, after Kerry has spent the last several days demanding that Bush tell people opposed to Kerry to quit speaking out against him, George Bush has done precisely that. Unfortunately for polite civil discourse, the group in question has politely told the President to stick it.

Calling on the group to stop the ads, on the cusp of what may be an even more devastating attack on Kerry more difficult to discredit, should warm the cockles of Kerry's heart. This would seem to prove false the allegation that these guys are "doing the President's dirty work," and since I'm sure it was an honest misunderstanding that's led Kerry to make that accusation, I'm sure he'll be mad enough to apologize, and graciously thank Captain Unilateral for at least trying to call off the dogs. Only the most venal of right-wing hacks would suggest that the Goalpost Relocation Committee would now come in and demand something absurd like George Bush personally vouch for Kerry's credibility, declare all 257 Swift Boat Vets liars, and whip John O'Neill raw with a car antenna for suggesting otherwise.

Especially, since, as we all know, Bush's own memory of this point in time is likely to be a little hazier than most.

I do not like the Saudi Arabian royal family. This isn't a matter of personal taste, like hot wings, or reality television, which reasonable people can like or dislike. The House of Saud is the sort of thing no decent person should like, like child abuse or Steven Seagal movies. Complicit in pretty much everything bad to have come out of the Middle East in the last few decades, the Saudi royals deserve a great deal of unpleasantness, and have done their damndest to avoid it, begging for Western help with the threat of "instability," by which they generally mean "our heads dangling from Riyadh lampposts." (If the current Middle East situation is an example of Saudi-assisted "stability", give me chaos, sweet chaos.)

Check out the stuff you're not allowed to do in Saudi Arabia:

During the trial's first session - which was open to the public - the accused were formally charged with "issuing statements and collecting signatures on petitions" calling for change.


They were also accused of "calling for adopting a constitutional monarchy and using western terminology" in demanding political reforms.

Sounds like the defendants were looking to cause a little bit of instability in the House of Saud. Keep up the good work.

...is not a place where you're allowed to speak your mind. Say something a powerful politician doesn't like, and don't expect him to debate you with facts and logic. He has better things to do. It's your obligation to simply shut the hell up.

Here in John Ashcroft's America, your name, email address, and where you can be found are not yours to keep private. Should you attempt to take a stand, expect your information to be forwarded to those who would use it for "the common good." (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more!)

Should you suffer harassment, persecution, or violence, tough noogies. That's the price you pay for holding the wrong views...

...in John Ashcroft's America.

...I don't see enough concerts. The show was fun, but I defintely get the impression that Heart doesn't think much of their 80's stuff. The only songs they did from my era were "Alone" and "These Dreams", both scaled-down acoustic versions. Which was probably fine, since most of the crowd was a modest bit older than us, and definitely more of a 70's crowd. It was fun watching all these folks who went nuts in the 70's, then grew up, got haircuts, and became Republicans regress.

Dion Coleman had a history of run-ins with the law. He'd been arrested for crimes involving drugs and violence. He also has a nine year old daughter.

Walter Holley had also been in trouble with the law before, for drugs. He also had a job and a responsiblity to take care of his ailing mother. He was upset at Dion Coleman, who he believed paid off a debt with a fake $50 bill. Coleman took offense, and on February 25, 2002, the two men got into a fistfight, that escalated into gunfire. When the smoke cleared, Walter Holley was dead at the age of 23, leaving behind a grieving family. Over two years later, Dion Coleman would stand trial for murder in an overcrowded Chicago courtroom, where judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys do what they can to make the system work in impossible situations. It's a building where spur of the moment plea deals are struck in crowded hallways, because everyone has too much to do to get together any other time.

Kathy Van Kampen and Tim Carter work for the Cook County State's Attorney's office. Their responsibility was getting twelve Cook County citizens to agree with her that justice demanded the conviction of Dion Coleman. If they failed, they'd have to face Irene Holley after she heard her son had it coming, or wasn't worth avenging, or just didn't matter to the people of the State of Illinois.

Cynthia Brown and Adrienne Davis had the awesome task of defending Dion Coleman, and trying to persuade those same twelve people what Lorraine Coleman desperately wanted to believe about her son - that he was a good person who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time - that he couldn't be the kind of person who would callously murder a man over $50.

In the end, the jury believed the worst about Dion Coleman. Convicted of murder, he faces 45 years to life in prison when he's sentenced next month. Walter Holley's family will no doubt find some solace in it, but the wounds caused by his loss may never fade. And Dion Coleman's family has to come to grips with the fact that he will be an old man if he ever sees the light of day as a free man again, if he ever sees it at all.

None of these names would have meant anything to anybody. People commit murder all the time, especially in a big, tough city like Chicago, so the saga of Walter Holley and Dion Coleman would normally have attracted very little attention. But you see, one of the supporting players in this particular saga, one of the twelve people who sat in judgement of Dion Coleman happened to be someone you've probably heard about. Because of that, we all noticed the death of Walter Holley, and the trial of Dion Coleman. But also because of that, we looked past the death of Walter Holley and the trial of Dion Coleman. Look up stories about the trial, and see if anyone tells you what Walter Holley said the day he died. See if you can find out how they knew each other, how they got along before this, or why Cynthia Brown and Adrienne Davis felt that Dion Coleman shouldn't have his life taken from him. Or see if anyone tells you what that one well known person was wearing, or had for lunch, or had to say about the whole process. Even the well known person commented on how everyone was overlooking what really mattered.

That well known person won't be there when Dion Coleman officially faces his fate, so it may not matter too much to the world what happens to him. But if, for whatever reason, our attention is drawn to the murder of Walter Holley and the trial of Dion Coleman, is should be that, and not anything else, that we think about.

Source material:

...invites jury on her show.
Judge refuses request to keep...off jury.
Oh, my!...chosen for jury.
...jury finds man guilty of murder.
...in the jury box. (Good info on Holley and Coleman)
Slay pics freak juror...
...a sad experience (This one had the best coverage of the trial itself)
And, of course, the post that brought the whole matter to my attention in the first place.

Actual choice that needs to be made concerning my weekend plans: Kill Bill double feature or Heart concert?

Certain foods are not supposed to be healthy. So people trying to make healthy versions of them should quit frickin' trying.

This comes up because I tried Dortios Edge today, a "low-carb nacho cheese chip." One of the foulest compounds ever passed off as a snack.

Avoid it like the plague, people. Don't make the same mistake I did.

At least, that's the impression I get from Kerry's sort of response to the Swift Boat ads. His detailed refutation of the facts alleged by the Swift Vets gets lost somewhere in his complaing about one of their main donors being a Republican, but I'm a sure it's there, cause Kerry's all about discussing the facts, and so totally not about the partisanship. I'm also sure Kerry bears no responsibility at all for anything said against Bush by someone who happens to support Kerry, cause, hey, if some nutball wants to claim Bush allowed 9/11 to happen so Dick Cheney could make money, well, he's got a right to his opinion. What do you want me to do about it, asks Botoxus Magnificus quite reasonably.

via Drum.

Credit where it's due. Every Olympic story I've read has warned us to beware of the latent anti-Americanism that would affect events where judging mattered. This was cause for concern, except as it relates to men's basketball, because let's face it, those guys are underachieving punks and they could use the discipline that comes when you think the refs are out to get you.

Bottom line, if the judges were trying to stick it to the Great Satan, there's no way Paul Hamm would have won gold after falling on his ass. Now, my knowledge of gymnastics is pretty much limited to the following fact: Paul Hamm has a voice like a munchkin. Therefore, I don't know what people should have gotten. But I'm pretty sure it would have been easy to keep Hamm off the top of the podium if one were so inclined, after his vault tumble.

Paul Hamm did such a great job representing his county, it'll be a shame for him to have to go back to representing the Lollipop Guild.

(Seriously - the dude sounds like a munchkin.)

OK, no one's asked me about taking the Arab media seriously. And as long as they're claiming the McGreevey/Golan Cipel scandal is a Mossad plot, no one had better ask me to take them seriously.

The governor of New Jersey? Why? Mitt Romeney wouldn't go for it?

Alan Keyes is apparently on board with a form of reparations for slavery and other forms of racial injustice, such as the tendency of emerging TV networks to stop airing shows led by African-Americans once they've established themselves. (Remember when an up and coming FOX network was anchored by shows starring Martin Lawrence and Queen Latifah? Neither do they.) This contradicts some of Keyes' earlier statements on the subject, and is obviously a letdown to many of his conservative supporters. Over at Rambling's, there are a couple of posts pointing out Keyes' inconsistency and linking some detailed rebuttals.

Personally, I've been open to the idea of reparations for some time now. (I'm not alone among the VRWC - Jonah Goldberg has offered support for the theory, in an article I lack the commitment to detail to locate.) The first argument in favor that started to resonate pointed out that because of slavery, and the discrimination that followed it's end, African Americans have had opportunities to generate wealth taken from them, and lost opportunites to share in the fortune they helped create. It's not a perfect argument, although I forget the primary flaw in it (hopefully someone will remind me). Bottom line - you don't have to see racism everywhere, or think Al Sharpton makes any kind of political or fashion sense to think that slavery may have caused lingering economic damage that merits correcting.

To me, if someone said "to completely remove race as an issue - to declare all debts that 'white America' owes 'Black America' paid in full - will cost you X" - I'm interested. Let men and women of sound education and good will hammer out a package and get back to me, I'm on board for anything reasonable.

Of course, I may be a bit cynical - offer a proposal that takes race off the table - and I think more than a few people who say they want that to happen will reveal that they don't really mean it, as they get too much mileage out of it.

But if they did mean it, I'm listening.

Whoever has Paris Hilton's dog, return it now.

Very little in politics actually makes me angry. Most politicians, however self-important or misguided, at least mean well. And when they don't mean well, it's something that can be dealt with using a minimum of rancor. Unless, of course, rancor is necessary for comedic effect. Off the top of my head, I can think of two exceptions: the continued international demonization of Israel, which has really upset me since the murder of Tali Hatuel and her four children, the second is former Illinois Governor/Bottom-Feeding Dishonest Lying Sewer Mold George Ryan.

Ryan hasn't been governor for a couple years now, but every now and then someone will trot him out as Maligned Hero of Justice or something, and I'll get as mad as was the day he spit on the graves of 167 murder victims and in the process, destroyed my respect for death penalty opponents. To recap a few things that don't get brought up anymore when Ryan is the subject:

George Ryan lied to the faces of the victims' families - he told them he would not impose a blanket commutation - which I suspect was a way to get them out of his office thinking the person who shattered their lives wouldn't be on the clemency list. He also promised to notify them in advance if he did decide to commute their loved ones' killers' sentences - a promise that was often not kept.

Nobody who opposes the death penalty has ever expressed any concern about Ryan's callous treatment of victims' families. I know. I've looked high and low for just one person to say "look, we have to try harder to be upfront and honest with these people - after what they've been through, they deserve that at least, and Ryan, however much I agree with his clemency decision - unquestionably failed in this vital part." When death penalty opponents say "I feel really sorry for what the victims have endured" - as long as there's nothing wrong with how Ryan treated them, it will always sound meaningless to me. The victims' pain isn't something troubling. It's something inconvenient, because it stands between them and their goal. If it were more, Ryan would have something to answer for.

Of course, Ryan does have something to answer for, since he's been charged with corruption. But that's not because he's corrupt - it's because he cares more about justice than the rest of us.

"Clear-cut retaliation," said University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle, who nominated Ryan for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 and again in 2004. A decision on the 2004 award is expected Oct. 15.

"I believe this is clear-cut retaliation for his courageous stand on the death penalty in Illinois. Bush and Ashcroft support and want to expand the death penalty. When the federal government goes after you, it's an awesome experience. I know what happens."

I'm sure this is as true as "I feel sorry for their pain, but..." Remember, the investigation dates back to, and the charges cover time when he was Secretary of State, before he was governor. Apparently in addition to being evil and wanting to execute innocent people, John Ashcroft also has a time machine. Or Ryan's supporters are full of crap.

His trial is some time away, and it's a complicated federal racketeering and fraud case that could turn out who the hell knows how. But whenever he appears in the media holding himself out as a saint (and he'll do this a lot as the trial date approaches), never forget that he had to lie to people who'd had their lives shattered in the most brutal ways imaginable to get there. And never forget that the people who beatify him have never had a problem with that.

Kevin Drum, who makes my life more difficult because he's a liberal I can't help but take seriously, says that any claim that Bush-hatred and Clinton-hatred are similar in tone is ridiculous. After all, nothing Bush haters have accused the President of compares to the evils alleged by those who despise Clinton. In fact, it's so obvious, that "nobody who was sentient during the 90s can find the contrary suggestion anything but laughable."

Now, what I'm wondering, is did a Democratic member of Congress (among others) accuse Bush of allowing 3,000 people to be murdered so he and his buddies could make some money in anyone else's universe, or was that just me?

I'm assuming that this NRO Corner post is quoting this Moveon.org ad accurately. I like the energy to link to the site and/or watch the ad, unless it airs tonight during the Olympics. (Which it probably won't. The downside of not living in a battleground state is you don't get the fun ads.) But I quote:

OPEN ON THE YOUNG GEORGE BUSH IN NATIONAL GUARD UNIFORM.

ANNOUNCER: George Bush used his father to get into the National Guard, and...

CUT TO BUSH'S NATIONAL GUARD MEDICAL FORM BEING STAMPED WITH "FAILURE TO APPEAR".

ANNOUNCER: ...when the chips were down, went missing.

CUT TO SHOT OF TV SHOWING "SWIFT BOAT" SPOT, THEN WORDS APPEAR ACROSS SCREEN, "FALSE ADVERTISING".

AUDIO

ANNOUNCER: Now, he's allowing false advertising that attacks John Kerry...

CUT TO FOOTAGE OF A YOUNG JOHN KERRY IN VIETNAM.

ANNOUNCER: ...a man who asked to go to Viet Nam and who served with dignity and heroism.

CUT TO HALF SCREEN PICTURE OF JOHN McCAIN. HIS WORDS APPEAR ON SCREEN NEXT TO HIS PICTURE.

ANNOUNCER: Here's what a true Republican war hero has to say about the anti-Kerry ad: "I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable...I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."
CUT TO SHOT OF BUSH AND CLOSING DISCLAIMER COPY. ANNOUNCER: George Bush: Take that ad off the air. MoveOn PAC is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Let's ignore for the moment whether or not the Swift Boat ad is in fact "false advertising," which would seem to mean that the Swift Vets actually do think John Kerry is fit to be President, and are just pretending they think he's not to get on TV or something. The direct insinuation is that Bush is somehow responsible for this ad airing. The truth is these guys have been P.O.'ed at Kerry for decades, and started moving against him before he even became the Democratic nominee, and the GOP is no more responsible for what they say then, let's say, the Democrats are for Moveon.org ads.

Now, I know that a double negative is a positive, but when you tell a lie in condemning what you believe to be a lie, does that make one of the statements true? If so, which one?

My head hurts.

Iraq's soccer team won again.

Oh, and apparently Americans are doing OK too. Like I can tell any of these damn swimmers apart.

Oh, that's cause they're all this guy.

Tight Ends

Must have - Tony Gonzales, Kansas City Chiefs - The only TE who puts up numbers comprable to a #1 wideout.

Sleeper - Kellen Winslow, Cleveland Browns - Will probably start putting up big receiving numbers in a hurry. You can't go wrong with a TE named Kellen Winslow.

Overrated - Jeremy Shockey, New York Giants - Not going to find the end zone all that much. Sure to happen QB controversy between Warner and Manning won't help any Giants pass catcher.

Kicker

Must have - Mike Vanderjagt, Indianapolis Colts - Great leg for a high powered offense, playing in a dome. Everything you want in a fantasy kicker.

Sleeper - Jay Feely, Atlanta Falcons - Almost as valuable as Vanderjagt in every category.

Overrated - Martin Gramatica, Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Still a great kicker, but the Bucs won't be giving him as many chances as they used to.

Team Defenses

Must have - New England Patriots - No weaknesses anywhere. They're going to hurt people.

Sleeper - Kansas City Chiefs - Not a great line, but the defensive backs will make enough interceptions to earn a solid amount of points.

Overrated - Tampa Bay Buccaneers - No Sapp, no Lynch - they ain't the Bucs we knew back when...

With fantasy football approaching, and my need for tips to beat the Missus never higher, I hereby announce the birth of the Crosblog Fantasy Football Guide...top players, sleepers, and overrated players abound...

Quarterback

Must have - Michael Vick, Atlanta Falcons - if he stays healthy, he's the most amazing football player to come along since Walter Payton. A guy who can throw for three touchdowns and run for two more.

Sleeper Pick - David Carr, Houston Texans - Now just might be the time he breaks out, with a solid young offense around him.

Overrated - Marc Bulger, St. Louis Rams - He's going to complete a lot of passes to non-Ram players this year. Holt, Bruce, and Faulk mean don't ignore him, but Kurt Warner's 2000 season ain't happening.

Running Back

Must have - Priest Holmes, Kansas City Chiefs - Touchdown machine last two years. Injury risk, but healthy, he can win a game all by himself.

Sleeper - Brian Westbrook, Philadelphia Eagles - With Duce Staley not around to share carries, Westbrook should put up good numbers. Can run and catch passes.

Overrated - Clinton Portis, Washington Redskins - Still a good running back, but not in as good a position as he was with Denver, which should cause his numbers to suffer.

Wide Receiver

Must Have - Terrell Owens, Philadelphia Eagles - With McNabb to throw to him, the sky's the limit.

Sleeper - Brandon Lloyd, San Fransisco 49ers - A very talented WR who will be starting with everyone else in SF gone. If they get him the ball, should put up good numbers.

Overrated - Keyshawn Johnson, Dallas Cowboys - With the Cowboys descending into Quarterback Hell, the pretty-much-always overrated Johnson isn't going to merit another book deal this year.

One of Iran's top wrestlers is quitting the Olympics rather than face an Israeli. He can say what he wants about solidarity with the Palestinians, if he ain't injured, sick, or facing a family emergency, than he's quitting cause he's a punk.

(Of course, getting shown up by an Israeli in certain parts of the world may cause a family emergency, causing Mr. Miresmaili to have an accident similar to that Columbian soccer player who kicked his ball into his own net against the U.S. in the World Cup several years ago.)

Arash Miresmaili. Olympian. World Champion. Punk.

From Right on Red by way of Allah.

Someone is hiding in a shrine holy to those of your faith, and using the shrine to stage violent attacks, then retreating into said shrine, hoping the other side will have too much class to level the place with you in it. Now, you want to get mad at someone, and you should. Righteous anger has been well and truly earned, but how far do you think you're going to get venting not at the people who made your shrine a target, but at the people being attacked from the shrine, causing them to seriously consider raiding the place. (As opposed to razing the place, which would be a lot less expensive, time-consuming, and dangerous for people less concerned about the locals.)

OK, I understand why you'd get pissed at the outsiders, rather than your own guys who are actively making your holy place a target. Plenty of mothers out there who couldn't give a rat's ass how violent and destructive her Junior is, you don't hit him back because nobody touches my baby! But what should also be understood is how much this devalues the outrage. If you're not mad at people who hide behind it and shoot people, it probably ain't that holy. Sending in the locals is still probably a good idea, however. But remember that people who think they're entitled to safe spaces from which to try and kill people are not people with arguments worth taking seriously.

Via The Corner, where you can find all sorts of useful things when they're not yammering about politics, something to take you back: The wit and wisdom of Al Bundy.

...your truth may vary.

New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey's truth is that he is a gay American. He's also resigning. As McGreevey is married with a child, one presumes he's been less than honest with his wife at various points during his marriage. In New Jersey, especially, one would think this wouldn't require a resignation from office, if the only secret was he's gay, and the only lies were told to the spouse. (The only thing Robert Torricelli ever did that required his removal was the very strong possibility he wouldn't get re-elected.) If that were the case, McGreevey is to be commended for his heartfelt honestly and open confession.

I'm a newcomer to this story, but it seems New Jersey's truth has a few more details than the governor's truth. The person the governor's having his affair with? A state employee appointed by McGreevey to a high-paying position that many believed him to be seriously unqualified for. He's manipulating the timing of his resignation so the Democrats don't have to risk losing the governor's mansion for a while. And folks close to the scene seem to think that McGreevey is using his homosexuality to shield himself from the ethical issues that his administration has caused. Also, apparently McGreevey's orientation was something of an open secret in certain circles, so a lot of this may only be news to those of us in flyover country.

It'd be terrible to think a qualified official was forced from office because he was gay. It'd be at least as bad to think a corrupt official was using the struggle for gay rights to cover up his doling out high-paying jobs to someone whose primary qualification was his willingness to put out for the boss. But since I don't live in New Jersey (with apologies to my relatives who do), I can enjoy the ride either way. Jeff Jarvis has much to say on the subject as well.

Seriously, I didn't know one way or the other. In other news, John Heffron is your Last Comic Standing, and his wife is still hot. Dat is apparently going to be in the movie Cellular, which I wouldn't have caught if he hadn't dropped the title eighteen times in three minutes. (Which is probably a good career move. Hire Dat Phan, and he will shill the living hell out of your film.)

The funny thing is, that "development deal" that NBC gives the winner always sounds to me like they're looking for a sitcom star, and of the three, John is probably least suited to a sitcom. Both Gary and Alonzo could probably pull off the traditional sitcom male a lot better than John could. But still, if John comes to your town, catch his standup act. Alonzo too.

Not Gary.

California Supreme Court denies San Francisco mayor the power to enact gay marriage. Bound to happen, I suppose. Radical changes in social policy obviously shouldn't be left up to mayors, they should be implemented by judges. You see, mayors might not be lawyers, but when judges sort this stuff out, then the power of lawyers is affirmed, which means, win or lose, we win.

Volokh posts part of the opinion, highlighting how good a job the court did of trying to avoid the charge of settling a political question.

Still, this was just a prelim. The main event will come next year, when California courts get the actual issue.

Convicted rapist wins over $12 million in British lottery.

Anyone else have enough losing Mega-Millions tickets to wallpaper their living room?

Iraq: 4 Portugal: 2

As you may recall, Portugal was the highest-rated team the Iraqis would be facing in group play. Pulling this off means a trip to the medal round is actually feasable.

This is so cool, I'm even willing to link to Iraq's coach complaining about the Americans. He doesn't have to think about why Iraq even has an Olympic soccer team if he doesn't want to.

Just enjoy.

Researcher: Your name key to sexiness

...the art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a rock - Will Rogers.

In a move shocking to no one who thinks cutting deals with Middle East dictators is a waste of time, Iran is demanding that Europe hand over dual use nuclear technology, and defend them when the inevitable Israeli strike comes down. Does Iran care about the tools at the UN's disposal? According to noted reform advocate Mohammed Khatami, threats of U.N. action impress them not so much. Why would they flagrantly thumb their noses in the face of the "international community?"

Instapundit's got a theory:

They've got Chutzpah -- or, at any rate, an accurate sense of how little the Europeans are prepared to actually, you know, do.

My marginally educated guess is Iran believes the only nation that will actually do anything about this is Israel, and once that seems likely, the world will decide that Israel acting unilaterally is worse than, oh, pretty much anything else this side of a Catwoman sequel and clamp down long enough for Iran to officially go nuclear. (Quietly whispering all the while "wouldn't it be great if someone in the Middle East truly had the power to stand up to those damnable Jews?")

As is usual in debates such as this, Winds of Change offers much of value. The main thing is this money quote:

Does anyone doubt for a moment that Israel will, absolutely, positively WILL preemptively destroy Iranian nuclear facilities, with nukes if necessary, to prevent another holocaust?"

Iran is on record as saying trading nukes with Israel would be a net plus for Israel's enemies. If it even looks like Iran getting the bomb is likely, Israel's going in. And then the fit will hit the shan.

If Europe wants to demonstrate how superior their diplomacy is to Bush's cowboy shenanigans, they'll never have a better opportunity. If Ayatollah Khameni hands over the keys to Iran's nuclear program while Bush is still struggling trying to set up a functioning government in Iraq, the forces of multilateralism will never be in a stronger position. Unfortunately, it appears that Iran is acting like they have no fear of Europe.

Europe's good at the nice doggie part. But someone, somewhere, is going to need to be able to pick up a rock.

I don't know how else to say it. GARY GULMAN IS NOT FUNNY, PEOPLE! Good looking, sure. Tall? Extremely. Funny? Not if he was singing "The Humpty Dance" while wearing a gorilla suit.

Either Alonzo Bodden or John Heffron is more than worthy of your vote, if you're so inclined. I think John was slightly better, but Alonzo's been top-flight all the way. Also, John's wife is hot, and smart-ass nerds with hot wives should always win in a just world.

And for those keeping score at home, the preceding statement completely exonerated me from any domestic trouble that might normally arise from phrases like "John Heffron's wife is hot!"

Friend: On that Scott Peterson case, I just don't know who else could have done it.

Me: You're right. I still haven't heard any credible alternative for how they died.

Friend: Maybe whoever killed O.J.'s wife did it.

Me: You mean O.J.?

Friend: Yeah.

How can anyone expect to properly deal with DUI drivers when the drivers themselves don't pull cops over and confess?

Take a guess who's to blame for the crisis in Darfur. Go on, take a guess.

If you said Israel, take a bow.

Or, you could agree with this Egyptian government newspaper, which says that the U.S. is actually the guilty party. Maybe blaming Israel hadn't occurred to them.

When said vet (or group of vets) is not onboard the Kerry As War Hero Bandwagon. Following the whole Swift Boat Vet controversy has made for fascinating reading, but I hadn't said anything of consequence yet, because I hadn't seen the ad. Today I saw it.

Normally, the details of Kerry's Vietnam days wouldn't matter. I agree that going, by whoever, and for however long, was a display of guts and character. Everyone who served, in whatever capacity, is entitled to our thanks and respect. But Kerry wants a higher level of appreciation than that. He wants not just to be a veteran, but a heroic veteran, somewhere around John McCain territory. Never mind what we said when Clinton ran against Dole (or Bush 41, for that matter) - people who served in combat are more qualified to be commander in chief than people who didn't. He's not running as John Kerry, Senator from Massachussets, he's running as John Kerry - War Hero. As such, it's well within bounds to question whether or not the term applies.

Having seen the ad, they seem no less credible than anyone else. Certainly entitled to a response at least. But we're told instead that they're unworthy of even being listened to, and what responses we get tend more to be personal attacks instead of factual refutations. On the other hand, John McCain has condemned the ad, and McCain is a fairly difficult person to dismiss out of hand, especially on this particular subject.

On the other hand, sending threatening lawyers to silence a message you dislike is not encouraging. If you're inclined to believe Kerry's a fraud, this conduct fits that worldview nicely. (Swift Vet response here.) The support is an interesting breakdown: Most everyone actually on Kerry's boat supports him, most everyone else in his unit does not. The claim that the men in his unit never "served with Kerry" seems silly on its face - the only people who dealt with him enough to have a valid opinion on his service were the men on his boat? John Cole explains exactly how ridiculous this idea is. Also, (and this is just me wondering), if he was so isolated in Vietnam that only people who were physicially on his boat knew anything about him, when did he learn about all those atrocities he testified to?

Are they being financed by Republicans? Who was going to help them spread their message, Howard Dean? Should we ignore Kerry's "Band of Brothers" because their appearances are being financed by the campaign? Sour grapes for Kerry's anti-war stance? Certainly possible, but part of the Swift Vets' grievances is their claim that Kerry was lying about his claims regarding what went on Vietnam. Why now? He wasn't running for President before. And "John Kerry is a war hero" isn't something that got repeated nationwide until very recently. (These are my answers - you could also read theirs.

There really shouldn't be any negative context drawn from Kerry's service, however it was. Kerry talks about it more than any candidate I've ever seen, but maybe that was Dole and McCain's mistake - Kerry's certainly closer to being President than either of them have ever been. The man went when others didn't. If that were all that had ever been claimed on Kerry's behalf, there's be nothing to say. But his party, his people, his team, they want us to consider him a hero. So it matters if he is.

And I'll just throw out a couple of links that I found interesting but couldn't fit anywhere in the body of the post. Read or ignore as your heart dictates.

Therefore, a couple of overdue additions to the blogroll...

Not Enough Free Time - put out by COB.

Work In Progress - by David.

Check 'em out - and make sure to tell COB to lay off the crack.

Arab League in no giant hurry to stop Sudanese genocide. I'm paraphrasing, of course. Really, it's a question of priorities. A cynical man would think that, to the Arab League, preserving the right of tyrannical governments to kill off inconvenient sections of its populace is the priority controlling here.

Still, what are the odds of this coming up wehen these same governments weigh in on how helpful it would be if we modified our position on Israel?

Jeff Jacoby is not a fan of political gerrymandering. It is a fairly sleazy practice, where whichever political party that happens to run the state capitol in years ending in 0 goes into a back room and draws legislative districts that split towns, counties, and neighborhoods in an effort to screw the other side. I got good and PO'ed at the GOP when they did it up in Michigan, and had every intention of voting pretty much straight Democrat at the next election, because you really only get one shot to make folks pay for pulling crap like that. However, there were higher principles involved, such as getting the hell out of Michigan. I relocate to Georgia, where esteemed Governor Roy Barnes was doing pretty much the same thing, only here it was the Dems doing it to the Republicans. It either failed to stem the tide, or completely blew up in their faces, depending on how you think the 2002 election would have gone had Barnes not tried to rig it, but either way, it didn't work, which is always nice to see. (I don't know whose running the State Houses in Michigan, but I would note that Democrat Jennifer Granholm is now Gov. up there. Jolly good show all around.)

I do disagree with Jacoby that the new elections aren't competitive, however. They're just not competitive when you'd think they ought to be. We have primary runoffs down here, and there are some fights a-brewing. Dylan Glenn and Lynn Westmoreland are running for Mac Collins old seat, and that's a donnybrook by any definition, even though it's happening in the Republican primary. Currently, Glenn is running ads advising us that Westmoreland is a bribe-taking hack, and Lynn is responding by pointing out that Glenn is a charity-robbing carpetbagger. Meanwhile, to take Johnny Isakson's seat, Robert Lamutt and Tom Price are fighting just as fiercely. Price is running on his experience as a surgeon and State House Republican leader. Lamutt has a talking dog. You can see how this would go either way. Whoever wins these primaries will, due to the gerrymander thing, almost certainly win the general election. Unfortunately, Democrats can't weigh in on the contested part, since they have to vote in a big run-off of their own, where Congresswoman Denise Majette faces an alleged wife-beater. And, of course, Republicans can't weigh in on that debate either. (Not that they'd want to - being a Republican and voting for Denise Majette may be against the law, depending on who you ask.)

I'd like to see a law that bars party affiliation as a reason to draw a district, but I doubt it's going to happen, even though the party that wields the sexual apparatus in 2000 may find itself on the business end of said apparatus in 2010. (No one ever thinks it's going to happen to them.) But there are contested elections taking place - you just have to pay enough attention to vote in the primaries and runoffs.

Watch for the talking dog.

...is up there with "Robert Byrd denounces pork-barrel spending" as a headline you're unlikely to see. But, apparently, because of the climate of fear created by the Bush White House, we were denied some girl on girl action between Halle Berry and Sharon Stone and Catwoman. Or, at least, the twenty people who saw it were. The rest of us, didn't lose so much.

One imagines that the creative freedom that would no doubt run rampant in a Kerry administration would give the creators of Catwoman the courage to fix this oversight. Which means - Kerry as President = Catwoman sequel. How anyone can in good conscience vote for this man now escapes me.

Via the Corner

Proposed Dutch law would ban unsolicited toe-licking.

Apparently the practice is currently legal in the Netherlands. But it won't be for long, so adjust your vacation plans accordingly.

"A German prisoner in Madrid and his girlfriend glued their hands together during a jail visit in an attempt to fight the man's possible extradition to Germany, judicial sources said on Thursday."

I'm not sure how one helps the other, but it's nice to see he has a loved one who doesn't want his charges to stick.

...OK, that was wrong.

Director Kevin Smith and his wife have renewed their vows in Las Vegas. The spouse and I are huge Kevin Smith fans - my favorite was "Clerks", hers "Chasing Amy" - your mileage may vary, but it's all good.

My wife is well aware of the fact that she is, in nearly all respects, a geek's dream girl. (And not just this geek). Among her loves are movies made from comic books, fantasy football (she's finished ahead of me two years running - don't tell me Donovan McNabb isn't overrated), and collecting action figures (we have hundreds). People who meet her often struggle to find some nice way to ask me "how in the hell did you pull that off?" What can I say? She likes 'em geeky.

But Kevin Smith's wife does have something few women who love geeks can say. After carrying his child and bearing him a daughter, Jennifer Smith allowed her husband to name their daughter after a comic book villain. He named his daughter Harley Quinn and she let him!

The missus is not someone challenged lightly. Currently our only children are furry and bark when the doorbell rings, but should that day come, this page may have a baby picture with a name like "Selina Kyle" or "Elektra" underneath it, primarily because one does not tell this woman she can't, or won't, do something.

Either way, I'll still be luckier than I ever deserved to be.

This was emailed to me by my father. I found it amusing, and hereby pass it on...

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth.

She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & the addition of more government welfare programs.

Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor she felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. The self professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she studied all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your good friend Mary doing?"

She replied, "Mary is barely getting by." She continued, "She barely has a 2.0 GPA," adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies. But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter visibly shocked by her father's suggestion angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said,

"Welcome to the Republican Party."

OK, Alan Keyes isn't officially in the Illinois Senate race, after all. He'll let us know Sunday.

Which is good, cause, you know, we're not on any kind of time clock here or anything. If Keyes declines, I hope first runner-up Andrea Barthwell tells the party to take a flying leap. The moron collective known as the Illinois GOP has done a Keystone Cop job of trying to field a candidate, and anyone who wants a political future in politics may just want to steer clear of this minefield and challenge Gov. Blagojevich in 2006.

Just wanted to agree with this Matthew Yglesias Tapped post about why cutting deals with dictators is a poor long-term solution to any diplomatic problem:

...I think it's important to undertsand that Karimov doesn't want to "deprive radical Islamists of a recruiting tool." If the Islamists went away, then so would US support for the regime in Tashkent. Just as in Pakistan you can get assistance from dictators on concrete tactical issues, but they're never going to provide a strategic solution to the overall problem because the regimes depend to a large extent on the existence of the problem to secure American assistance.

I concur. It's a disappointment that we have a President who's willing to do this with Uzbekistan and Pakistan. It's also a disappointment that our only alternative is a guy who's willing to do the same with Iran and North Korea.

Time of haircut: 20 minutes.

Cost of haircut: $12.00

It's official. Alan Keyes vs. Barack Obama for the Illinois Senate seat. Nope. Still not a fan of the practice, what with Keyes not being, technically speaking, someone who lives in Illinois. So, if Obama feels that Hillary Clinton is unworthy of representing New York, he can raise the issue with confidence. Michael King has more on the subject.

From my days as a Congressional intern in Illinois - as I understand the state, voters are actually concerned primarily with agriculture and transportation issues. National media don't get into Obama's take on that stuff, but one figures, since he was in the State Senate, he's at least heard of the issues. Keyes, who certainly has cred on the social conservative/tax cuts/bomb the crap out of people who piss us off crowd, will need to get a working knowledge of Illinois nuts and bolts in a hurry.

Free advice, Alan. Whatever one's stance on "corporate welfare" or "government handouts", or any form of government giving money to people to support commerce that might not be able to support itself - in Illinois, we all make an exception when one word is involved. That word? Ethanol.

While we may not read about it in Newsweek, I'm pretty sure Obama loves him some ethanol. To win in Illinois, you need to love it too.

I tell you, nothing makes me cheerier than watching democracy in action. And here we have people in Afghanistan getting cranky with President Karzai, and maybe making a real contender in Yunus Qanooni. No knives in backs, no "mysterious disappearances", just back the other guy and go to the media talking about what a snake your opponent is. I tell you, I think they're getting the hang of it.

90% of eligible voters register, they have an actual choice, I'll say it again: nothing makes me cheerier than watching democracy in action.

Overseas, I mean. When it happens here, sometimes morons elect candidates I don't like. And that's not funny at all.

After everything else they've done, they have to go and pretend to harass the guy who asked Theresa Kerry about what constituted "un-American traits of political discourse." I mean, it has to be right-wingers pretending to be upset Democrats, since the Dems are the ones fighting tooth and nail against the notion of harassing someone who disagrees with you. Real Democrats would have pointed out where we can find the complete answer to the question, since the reporter doesn't believe he ever got an answer, and as Rachel Lucas points out, Kerry is not, technically speaking, correct when she says "Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said that," prior to becoming a hero to people who don't want to answer unpleasant questions everywhere by telling the guy to "shove it." ("Not techincally correct" is my take on Heinz Kerry's statement. Rachel, less committed to diplomacy then I, describes it as "she was lying, lying, lying," which would appear to be, technically speaking, not incorrect.)

OK, I actually saw it in the Fulton County Daily Report, which you can't get online. But the headline here is the same, and it's not the sort of thing you'd expect to see in a legal journal:

Court OKs Hog-Tying Suspect.

Asparagirl has posted the schedule of the Iraqi soccer team at the Summer Olympics. She's probably right that this is going to be three and out for Iraq - Portugal is rated #12 in the world, Costa Rica #29, and Morocco #31, compared to Iraq's #43. But even though just making it is an amazing achievement, and plenty to be proud of, ya still gotta pull for 'em.

At least I think ya gotta pull for 'em. We know that Americans will be the bad guys every time they take the field, mat, pool, or whatever the hell they call that thing fencing takes place on. Hopefully, regardless of their thoughts on the U.S., folks will pull for the Iraqi Olympic team. If that means not going into the question of why there even is an Iraqi Olympic team, so be it.

90% of eligible voters in Afghanistan have registered to vote in their upcoming election. 41% of the electorate is female.

Things could still go wrong - the Taliban believes it's a crime against Islam for them not to have total control of everyone's lives, and have targeted accordingly - but this shows how important it is to do it anyway - I'll just echo what Jeff Jarvis said about it:

Now I don't want to hear any snobs, snots, jackasses, and self-important Western fools tell me that Afghanistan or Iraq or Iran or any nation and any people are either "not ready for democracy" or "do not want democracy." Crap. Give the people an opportunity to speak and the people will speak.

And hopefully, some years down the road, we'll wonder if they'll ever shut up.

Via Q and O, we hear about the idea that Europe may not be as thrilled with Kerry as they pretend. The New York Times brings us word from the old country:

"Europeans are surprised to hear that John Kerry is talking about America the same way as George W. Bush does," the paper said. "They are amazed that at the Democratic Convention in Boston, he saluted like a soldier, one hand up at his temple. They would prefer not to hear it when Kerry promises that he would never hesitate to use force in case America is under threat. They are disappointed."

I wonder if it's starting to sink in. A good bit of Kerry's appeal is in him presenting himself as the guy who can "rebuild alliances," which a bunch of Americans take to mean the following: Kerry will be able to bring U.S. troops home overseas (which Americans support), while not abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan (which Americans are generally unwilling to do), by being able to persuade other countries, such as those in Europe, to take a larger share of the load, by which we mean putting troops on the ground. I have yet to see any evidence that Kerry actually knows the secret recipe that will enable the French to actually see human rights abuses anywhere save Guantanamo Bay, but if Kerry is to win on the national security front, this will be why.

If Bush wins, Europe can sit back, do nothing, and blame Bush for everything that goes wrong in the world. If Kerry wins, his credibility will hinge on Europe getting its hands dirty. Maybe who Europe wants to win this thing isn't that clear after all.

Whole thing via Instapundit

Michael Vick has vowed not to cut his hair until the Atlanta Falcons win the Super Bowl. Those who believe in the Falcons can take heart from this committment to success from the most exciting player the NFL has seen since Walter Payton.

The rest of us will just sit back and imagine Michael Vick in about 2008.

Alan Keyes is apparently being considered as the GOP Senate candidate in Illinois to run against Barack Obama. Some might consider this odd, as Keyes is techically speaking, a Maryland resident. (By "technically speaking", I mean he, you know, lives there.) Thankfully there are political pioneers who have blazed the trail for people to represent states they have no connection with.

I suppose it's as good an idea as they're likely to get. The GOP needed star power to even make a showing, and given that the Illinois Republican party is an abyss of incompetance and corruption, the only way they were going to get such star power is to look out of state. Just make sure he'll do it before people start getting there hopes up.

Yeah, yeah, I know the story. Israeli retaliation/pre-emption activities against Hamas (who is their new top guy, anyway? He's not scared or nothing, is he?) and company result in "civilian deaths." But where exactly is the "civilian" line drawn, anyway. Check out this story from the Globe and Mail regarding a Palestinian attack gone horribly awry:

Moments before, masked militants were filmed putting a detonator in an alley near the road. Palestinian ambulances were already standing by, as people in nearby buildings waved white flags to show the Israelis the buildings were inhabited by civilians.

OK, so folks nearby are aware of the attack, and doing their best to persuade Israel to declare certain builidings off-limits as "civilian." (And how sure are we that nobody interesting isn't in these buildings anyway?) How in on it precisely do they have to be before they stop being "civilians", and start being "decoys" or "human shields" or "people who are definitely involved?"

And a side note - apparently Palestinians think identifying themselves as civilians will prevent Israel from attacking. Nobody thinks identifying themselves as an Israeli civilian will prevent a Palestinian attack. This means that everyone's in agreement as to who the good guys are, right?

This NY Times article just has a wealth of interesting information in it. Take for instance this gem about Ben Affleck:

At a breakfast with Florida delegates, the actor Ben Affleck got into specifics, explaining that the Bush tax cuts had provided him with $1 million last year that he didn't need.

It was a smart strategy to please the faithful in Boston, but the protests may raise a question for some voters: If you think the government has a better use for the money, why not give it back? When The Nation urged readers to send their tax rebates to the magazine, the editors were criticized for hypocrisy: given their beliefs, shouldn't they want those rebates to pay for public programs instead of remaining in the private sector?

We asked Mr. Affleck if he had considered sending the $1 million back to Washington. "No," he said. "I'm not Jesus Christ of the tax code. I can't completely martyr myself."

Now one could ask various questions: if not the whole million, how about $500,000? $250,000? Would taking one less freaking deduction for the sake of principle kill you? Or, one could ask Ben to compare the economic effects of him spending the money versus letting the government spend it.

Or, one could ask the real question. Given that your last few movies include Gigli and Jersey Girl, who the hell is paying this bozo enough that he'd save $1 million in taxes?

And I'm not just saying that because his big old convention speech netted him diddly squat in the polls. And I'm not saying that because I want him to lose. (Although I do, which means you can take what I say with as much or as little salt as you like. Cause out here in blogdom, we're honest about crap like that, and we're open to the possibility that it affects what we write about. Elsewhere, your mileage may vary.)

I say that because I watched John Kerry on ABC Sunday with my lovely wife, whose keen insight is superceded only by her taste in men. (My wife, not Kerry.) What you should know is the Crosbabe is generally inclined towards the Democrats, and she loves Edwards. She also really digs George Stephanopolous, which would seem to make watching George and John squared sit down together a virtual delight, right?

Well, if I know my sweetie, she doesn't grind her teeth that much when something good is happening. Kerry kept talking about his vastly superior experience, causing her to scream at the TV screen "You're qualified! We get that, moron! What are you going to do?" Her point being, that given that Bush has four years of being President under his belt, comparing resumes to decide who better meets the minimum qualifications is ridiculous, but hey, Kerry's people are pros. Right? She also thought he couldn't sound more like a pompous ass if he were auditioning for the role of Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady. (I'm paraphrasing. She rarely makes Broadway analogies.)

And this is all the talk of someone who will probably consider it her civic duty to hold her nose and go to the polls and vote for Kerry, but if he's going to make it that hard, I'd wonder about his turnout.

My take on it was fairly simple: Looking at Edwards and Kerry, right next to each other, I am still shocked and amazed that given the choice between the two, America's Democrats went with Kerry. It also appears that Kerry has learned nothing about why Gore lost in 2000.

And feel free to say "BUT GORE DIDN'T LOSE IN 2000!" Perfectly fine by me. Y'all go right on thinking that. Absolutely nothing about Gore's positions or the way he tried to sell them had anything to do with it. It was all Katherine Harris, and since she ain't running elections in Florida anymore, Kerry can do things the same way. No lessons need be learned.

Not gonna hear me say any different.

Went to see The Village over the weekend. Not a bad movie, but disappointing, as it wasn't nearly as scary as the trailers promised. Decent drama, below-average thriller. It does, however, establish that Communism doesn't work, so it has that going for it. Also Bryce Howard is a pleasant surprise as the film's heroine.

I won't spoil it for people who still plan to see it, but personally, I wish I'd seen the Bourne Supremacy.