Casual Observations

In the Inbox

2005-05-21T19:00:00.000-07:00

From: mr. Charles Brown.
24 river lane government
reserved area, Abuja.
Telephone:+234 803 881 4129

Attention please! strictly confidential!

Dear Friend,

With all due respect, i guess my letter will not embarrass you, since i have no previous correspondence with you. i strongly believed, i would not regret approaching you in this matter. i am mr.charles brown, a solicitor at law and the personal attorney to late mr. Mark Michelle, a french national. late mr.mark ichelle is a private oil consultant/contractor with the shell petroleum development in saudi arabia, herein after shall be referred to as
my client.

I have avery urgent and mutual business relationship to propose to you. on thursday june 6th 2000, my client and his wife with their three children were involved in an auto clash, all occupants of the vehicle unfortunately lost their lives. since then, i have made several enquiries with his country's embassies to locate any of my clients extended relatives, this has also proved unsuccessful. after these several unsuccessful attempts, i decided to personally contact you with this business partnership proposal. i have contacted you to assist in repatriating a huge amount of money left behind by my client before they get confiscated or declared unserviceable by the finance and security company where these huge deposit was lodged. the deceased had a deposit valued presently at $12,000,000.00 million us dollars (twelve million united state dollars) and company has issued me a notice to provide his next of kin or beneficiary by will otherwise have the account confiscated within the
next
thirty working days.

Having been unsuccessful in locating any of my late client relatives for over two (2) years now. i am now seeking your consent to present you as the next of kin/beneficiary to the deceased so that the proceeds of this account valued at $ 12 million united states dollars can be paid to you. it is not necessary to be a blood relation to late mr. mark michelle, neither is it necessary to bear the same surname with him. it is even not important for the stand-in next of kin to be a french national.

Already, i have worked out modalities for achieving my aim of appointing a next of kin as well as transfer the money abroad for us to share in the ratio of 60% for me and 40% to you. it is my intention to achieve this transfer in a legitimate way, all i required is your honest, co-operation,confidentiality and trust to enable us see this transaction through. the money transfer paper work itself will include a certificate of origin so that the receiving bank does not ask question. also the paper work will include proper certificate that the fund being transferred is from non-criminal sources. in short this will be a proper and legal money transfer with apparently no risk involved. the transaction is guaranteed to succeed without any problem.

As soon as i hear from you, i shall provide you with further clarification that you may need.

your urgent response will be highly anticipated and appreciated. Best wishes,

Mr.Charles Brown.
Telephone:+234 803 881 4129

Hating America?

2005-05-18T22:52:00.000-07:00

Our pal Soxblog (whose real name, we can now report EXCLUSIVELY, is Dean Barnett) has a few posts up about whether or not the media is functioning as a Fifth Column, essentially aiding our enemies in the War on Terror. We can understand where he's coming from, but we beg to differ.

A little.

First of all, let's dispense with the notion that the "media" is in any way an organization of people working in concert toward a common goal. The term "media," as Dean uses it, is effectively meaningless. All newspapers? TV stations? Magazines? He's undercutting his argument at the outset by using a hollow generalization, more likely out of the convenience of the term than to be disengenuous.

That's why people who suggest that "the media is biased" are usually ignored or dismissed, as they should be. Putting it that way suggests a conspiracy carried out by the entire group, when the reality is that many of the people working in journalism happen to have a world view that leads them to embrace a more liberal political philosophy. This includes the men and women who have been hired by news organizations to report the news. Others work as editors or bureau chiefs and are responsible for making decisions about what is published or aired (see our related post below). So they decide what stories are important and what details in those stories are relevant. That is why, on balance, the media appears to be biased. But actually it's just the sum of thousands of people making thousands of decisions each day which reflect, either consciously or sub-consciously, their own personal opinions. It's human nature, and it happens with those on the left and those on the right.

But that doesn't explain things like the press reaction to the NEWSWEEK affair or the actions of 60 Minutes II in the memo scandal. Chalking it up to "media bias" does little to help us understand the lengths certain individuals in the MSM are willing to go to, in the eyes of Soxblog, do damage to the United States.

It starts with a post-modern view of the world. There is no absolute truth. Instead, truth is something that is defined by the individual, and our truth might be different than your truth. For many of you, this no doubt sounds very odd; unfortunately, many people have accepted it as a central tenet of their lives. These include many left-leaning individuals, including those working in journalism.

And if there is no absolute truth, facts don't have much value, do they? Instead, your own thoughts and feelings take precedent. That's why so many people thought that the exit polls were more accurate that the actual vote totals in the last election -- they just "knew in their hearts" that Kerry had won. Since the returns did not confirm that, they must be flawed. When you dispense with the concept of absolute truth, certified vote totals can't mean much.

But there is one type of truth that they wholeheartedly embrace: the "greater" truth. Perhaps the finest purveyor of a greater truth is everyone's favorite filmmaker, Michael Moore. The standard process for making a documentary is to gather facts (!) and interviews and footage related to a particular subject, and discover what the movie is about in the editing of all of those components together. Moore, on the other hand, starts with an assumption -- "Bush lied about WMD and sent our soldiers off to die in an unjust and unnecessary war" -- and then complies and manipulates footage to support that thesis. He ignores any evidence that contradicts his thesis; he's after the greater truth, which he knows "inherently." Moore is skillful enough that those watching his films begin to think he's got a point; it's only after Christopher Hitchens reminds the public of all the things that he left out or altered that his movies fall apart.

But that still doesn't address the question of whether or not Moore and those like him are out to sabotage America. Now, let's get something straight: are they hurting America? Undoubtedly. The fallout from the NEWSWEEK piece is confirmation of that. But are they acting as a Fifth Column to conduct such damage on purpose?

No.

Frankly, they're not that smart. Remember, it's about the greater truth. They know certain things to be true: that Iraq never had WMDs, that Bush lied, that the war was all about oil, that Kerry won the election -- now it's just a matter of uncovering the information to confirm it. (Even journalists who don't believe in absolute truth know they need some facts...well, most of them.) These lapses in judgment are not conceieved as assaults on America; they're just efforts to prove themselves right.

So is the "media" a Fifth Column? Sometimes, to an outsider with perspective, it seems to function as such, but the reality is that its far too inept (as we're all finding out) to be acting in concert on anything. How do we know? Lucy Ramirez faxed us a memo from a Kinko's in Texas that said so...

Defining What is Fit to Print

2005-05-18T21:57:00.000-07:00

LaShawn Barber has been taking some heat over her comments on the NEWSWEEK story. Here's what she said:

Whether Americans flushed the Koran down the toilet is irrelevant. Newsweek should not have reported it, even if true. It’s common sense, people. Those journalists knew how Muslims would react! Why would you hurt your own country and risk more deaths just to report this “fact?” To what end???
America-hating ~~morons~~ media!

Other than her last sentence, which is reflects poorly on her skills as a writer and undercuts the point she's trying to make, we don't think what she said was so outlandish. There's a difference, after all, in someone (say, the government) telling a media outlet (or blogger, for that matter) what it can and cannot print, and that same media outlet exercising its judgment in deciding those things for itself.

After all, isn't the slogan of our favorite newspaper (the New York Times) "All the news that's fit to print"? That seems to imply that some news is fit to print and some is not. It doesn't say "All the news that's true," (it probably couldn't get away with saying that after Jayson Blair anyway), so the veracity of a story shouldn't enter into the equation of whether it ought to be printed.

So what is used to determine what makes the Times? The judgment of its editors. (What pressure they must be under everyday to ensure that they don't miss any news that's fit to print!) How, one might ask, do they and other editors (like, say, those at NEWSWEEK) make those decisions?

Might they weigh, among other things, the impact this news might have on America's image abroad, or the efforts of those currently fighting in a war under its flag? Would it be proper to consider whether a detail as insignificant to most Americans as whether a copy of the Koran was torn or flushed in a toilet during interrogations aimed at gaining information that could lead to the capture of the man who masterminded the killings of 3,000 innocent Americans (well, innocent unless you're a student of Ward Churchill), ought to be printed in their magazine? Was the unsubstantiated report so vital (on the level of, say, the Pentagon Papers) that, after reading NEWSWEEK, that the American people rose up in droves to protest the alleged desecration of a Muslim holy text? I don't remember seeing that revolt reported on CBS (though that doesn't mean it didn't happen).

For that matter, I don't remember reading about these Koran allegations in the New York Times after NEWSWEEK "revealed/confirmed" them. And if the fine journalists at the New York Times didn't find the story fit to print, why should anyone be upset that LaShawn Barber doesn't?

NEWSWEEK Item!

2005-05-18T17:39:00.000-07:00

Ann Coulter pretty much gets the last word on the NEWSWEEK story. Hilarious, and touching.

Breaking News

2005-05-18T03:42:00.000-07:00

Antonio Villaraigosa elected mayor of Los Angeles.

Our reaction: yawn.

(More thoughts to follow. Maybe.)

UPDATE: Nope.

Oh, Please

2005-05-17T21:03:00.000-07:00

The headline: Jane Fonda film banned from Kentucky theaters.

Our first reaction: come on. Please. Of course it's over what she said and did during the Vietnam War, which we assumed and was confirmed by the story.

Look, we get it that people were pissed off at what Jane did. Jane herself has apologized for the incident that led to her being dubbed, "Hanoi Jane." But people, that was 30 years ago. Jane Fonda did not direct the movie "Monster-in-Law," Jane Fonda did not produce the movie "Monster-in-Law," Jane Fonda happened to play one of the roles in "Monster-in-Law." It's a comedy -- about marriage and in-laws. It's not about Vietnam. It's not about Jane. It doesn't have a pro- or anti-war message (that we're away of). Why punish all of the other people involved with the creation of this movie -- as well as all of the people who'd like to see it (and many did/do, as it opened at number one) just because Jane did something wrong 30 years ago?

Yes, that anger is justified. But it also makes the person who possesses it petty and small. It happened a long time ago, it's been apologized for -- you don't like Jane Fonda. Fine. But this is not just Jane Fonda's movie.

And yet...this is America. Theater-owners, like any other business owners, have the right to choose what they'll sell (or in this case distribute) and what they won't. So this particular theater-owner certainly can choose not to show the film. For any number of reasons, that Jane Fonda is in it and he doesn't like her much being one of them. He can even plaster on his marquee "No Jane Fonda movie in this theater," which he did. And he attracted the attention of our old friend, the Associated Press.

Which means that there's a second side to this story. First, we're assuming that what the Associated Press is reporting is true. (If it turns out not to be the case, we'll retract this post.) It's pretty clear that this is being positioned by the AP as a red state nut going all crazy and over-reacting -- read the story yourself. The fact that it took place in Kentucky, which is included in the headline, and not, say, Vermont, seems to be considered fairly relevant to the reporter/editor. The other interesting aspect is the use of syntax. The theater-owner decides not to show "Monster-in-Law" because Fonda's in it; the AP proclaims that "Jane Fonda Film" has been "Banned from Kentucky Theaters." Well, kind of. Just two, owned by the same person. And he didn't ban the movie, he just chose not to show it. But then, that's less dramatic.

We don't feel too sorry for the owner being depicted as a bit of a yahoo -- he invited the publicity by proclaiming it from the theater marquee. It's hardly surprising that the AP took the story and ran with it. They did their part; he did his. He's getting the free publicity, after all, and a feeling among people with certain views that he's sticking it to the right group of people. (How effective one theater-owner can be in punishing Fonda for something she did 30+ years ago isn't really a big concern to them, or the AP for that matter.)

So, to recap: not showing "Monster-in-Law" because Hanoi Jane is in it is stupid. And so is calling someone's decision not to exhibit it a "ban." And somehow, none of us is surprised at any of this. Ah, America.

Dumbest HuffPost post...to date

2005-05-17T17:33:00.000-07:00

Can anyone tell me, are they going to bring back the draft? I have three sons -- all nearly teenagers -- and am terrified that they will. Why don't they make it that just Republican kids get called up?

The blogger? That well-regarded thinker, Kathy Ireland. Yeah.

UPDATE: Wait! It's a different Kathy Ireland. Who goes by Kathryn Ireland. (Even the model Kathy Ireland probably isn't dumb enough to post that.)

So, uh, about NEWSWEEK...

2005-05-17T13:37:00.000-07:00

Everyone's talking about the NEWSWEEK problem. We'd call it a scandal, but it's not really that. It's more of a revelation of the inner workings of a MSM magazine, how it covers stories, the standards it uses, etc. Can we assume that other similar mistakes were made in the past? That's probably a safe bet. Have they also caused people to lose their lives? Hard to tell.

A few years ago, when Ari Fleischer said people need to watch what they say, everyone (well, stupid people) thought it signaled us entering a Big Brother phase. But really, this (the NEWSWEEK, uh, thing) is closer to what he was talking about. It's not about getting the story -- it's about getting the story right. That's the responsibility that all journalists have, bloggers included. People's lives are at stake in the war that we're fighting; it's high time that organizations like NEWSWEEK (and reporters like Mike Isikoff) started taking it seriously.

The Huffington Post

2005-05-17T04:16:00.000-07:00

We've been reading the HuffPost like everyone else out there (don't lie!) and we want to say a few things.

First, these people are not bloggers. They're not getting comments from their readers, and unless a fellow HuffPost blogger takes umbrage at something they've written (and decided to start a little spat), there's no accountability.

Second, Arianna Huffington is annoying as hell. She happens to live in our neighborhood, so that's no surprise to us. But her little MC of the HuffPost bit is already wearing on our nerves. She also seems to have adapted a "messenger to the people" role about blogging; she's clearly trying to position herself as an expert on this emerging form of communication, and she's clearly not an expert. But what do the people know? Idiots, all of them! If only the media would truly report and inform them on...

Which brings us to our third note: stop with the "if only the media would report on..." whining. You want to expose something? Investigate it (or have your assistant investigate it). Then post on it. Then wait for feedback. If people poke holes in it, defend what you've written. Or, if you can't defend it, admit your mistake, stick your tail between your legs and realize that maybe the reason no media outlets are publicizing the conspiracy is because there was no conspiracy. And don't be late for your colonic.

Fourth: poor Byron York. He's playing by the real world rules. Jim Lampley -- a talented sportscaster -- is not. Lampley alleges something. York says, give us a break. Lampley says, you neocons never take us seriously! You're so mean! You can't actually rebut what I said, so you have to say mean things! York then notes multiple investigations that failed to find anything to support the allegations. Yes, notes Lampley, but they didn't prove the allegations were false! And of course they're going to say what they said -- they're part of the conspiracy! Now, the next time some nitwit posts something crazy, do you think that Byron York is going to take the time to rebut it? I mean, I imagine that he has a real life and obviously he has a real job and trying to convince Jim Lampley that Jim Lampley is crazy just takes too much time.

Fifth: this could be a good thing (the HuffPost). If they open it up to feedback. If these bloggers get called on their posts by commenters (and not just fellow bloggers). If they realize that it's about the quality of what they post, not the fact that they said something. And also if they LEARN HOW TO BLOG. Did none of them do their homework? Did none of them (except for the ones who already were bloggers) do any kind of research to find out the market they were getting into? Or did they just assume that they could pretty much redefine whatever it was that we people had established as the form and protocol these last few years? Yeah. Good luck.

Sixth: Nikki Finke usually has some interesting stuff in her LA Weekly column. But the HuffPost piece was sad.

Seventh: Did we mention that we live in Arianna's neighborhood? And that we're young and with it (you know, what the kids are saying these days). And that we're available to join the HuffPost blog? Yes, we're willing to join the HuffPost blog. We'll even make some cookies and bring them over to Arianna's place. Arianna, forget about that stuff we said about you earlier. We really love you and we love the Greek peoples and we love everything Greece-related and we were so going to vote for you in the recall election and you've got pretty much the sweetest gate leading up to your house in the whole neighborhood. So give us a call. We'll meet at Toscana (and we can go Dutch, that's cool). Or email us. (By the way, we're only one person but we write in the plural -- it makes it sound more official! Like we're a committee of thinkers or something!) casualobserver[at]gmail.com

It's Pat!

2005-05-17T03:18:00.000-07:00

Pat Buchanan is back this week with more controversial (!) statements, this time telling the Washington Times that conservatism is dead.

Mr. Buchanan, a former adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan, says conservatism "is at war with itself over foreign policy, over deficit hawks versus supply-siders."

Unnamed phonies, he suggests, have infiltrated the movement.

There are "a lot of people who call themselves conservative but who, on many issues, I just don't consider as conservative. They are big-government people."

Let us say, first, that if conservatism is at war with itself, this is a good thing. The alternative -- standing still and refusing to take a critical look at what you really believe in and why -- is not an effective strategy for long term success. (See: Democratic Party.)

And there does seem to be a disconnect between old-school conservatives (like Buchanan) and the new breed of conservatives (which, for lack of a better term, have been labeled "neoconservatives"). Now, we're not the National Review, so we're not going to get into a big exegis on what conservatism means and the history of the movement, but we can speak about what Buchanan discussed from an anecdotal perspective. We grew up in a red state (that even voted for Dole!) in a conservative, religious household. We went off to college in Los Angeles. A few weeks into our first semester, 9/11 happened. And all of a sudden, everyone was a conservative.

When it came to the defense of our country, there wasn't much debate over the best philosophy for action. We were surprised at how many of our fellow students supported the President and the war in Iraq even in the face of left-leaning professors invoking the spector of Vietnam. These kids, for the most part, were not raised in a traditionally conservative household; instead of going to campus church services, they were in their dorms smoking pot. Socially, they were probably closer to libertarian than anything else. And as far as foreign policy, they were conservative.

These kids (and their parents) are a big reason why John Kerry couldn't beat George W. Bush. Sure, the less solid converts went back to their old ways when things went bad in Iraq, but a sizeable number of the new conservatives stuck with the President after realizing that Kerry didn't understand the War on Terror the same way that they and the President did.

And these people, along with a large percentage of long term conservatives, aren't quite as militant in their beliefs as Buchanon would like. That's the chasm between the old and the new. Whereas Pat and Friends are very concerned with the deficit, most of the new conservatives accept that certain government programs (like Social Security) can be beneficial and certainly aren't evil. As a idealist, we'd like to see the government involved in people's lives as little as possible; as realists, we know it's going to happen to a certain extent, so let's be smart about it.

Part of it, we think, is due to the change-the-world attitude that often infects the country's youth. That makes it easier to accept that the government functioning as a safety net without thinking that the sky is falling. Is this a softening of conservative values? Perhaps, but conservatism has always been something of a fluid notion to begin with; ironic, considering the base meaning of the term, but we're not talking about revising the basic principles here. Only adjusting to what degree they're carried out.

On a recent appearance on C-SPAN's Q-and-A series, Charles Krauthammer listed FDR as the greatest president of the 20th Century (this was before the President made his remarks about FDR at Yalta), in part because he saved democracy by "softening it up." It's easy to forget how communism was sweeping other parts of the world at the time; there were certainly many Americans frustrated with the current system and enamored with the ideas of Karl Marx. At that point in time, we practiced a very pure form of capitalism. Yes, it brought the country great wealth, but there was a heartless side to it as well. When the stock market crashed, that side was fully exposed. Someone had to do something, and because FDR softened up our economic system, he was able to ward off what may have been an impending revolution, one that would have been extremely destructive and difficult to recover from.

And what Pat Buchanan laments about contemporary conservatism sounds do us a bit like the softening up that FDR did back in the 1930s. For hard liners, it's not a welcome change, but in the long term, it might be just what the movement needs.

His other concern, about cultural decay, is not something that can really be controlled or impeded politically (and certainly not legislatively). In the end, the most effective way of turning the tide is to let things get "bad" enough that the majority of Americans see that taking a libertarian point of view on these kinds of social issues is not the best idea. And usually that happens when they start having kids of their own.

Deja Vu

2005-05-17T03:11:00.000-07:00

We're back...again. Another extended sabbatical from blogging has come and gone, and we're rejuvenated. Time to jump back in with all of those impressive thoughts that you've come to expect from the Casual Observer.

A programming note: actually, this isn't a programming note, but it sounded good so we're going with it. Over the last few months (when we've been on leave), we've been keeping an eye on the blogosphere -- from the "inside" and also from what could be considered the outside: the standard MSM-dominated sphere. At times we have gotten our news from the internet, at times from newspapers, and at times from magazines. It's been interesting to see how plugged in one needs to be to keep up with what's going on. As far as we can tell, much of the blogosphere does serve as an echo chamber (especially since the presidential election is over and no longer providing new blogging material each day), with a few stories bubbling up to the general populace and a few notable bloggers weighing in on issues in the vein of the best op-ed columnists out there.

The point is that we've got a new perspective on all of this; one that -- hopefully -- makes us a better blogger. We'll see...

EXCLUSIVE! We are now officially a tabloid!

2005-04-27T14:55:00.000-07:00

Our former USC classmate Arash Markazi has a piece in the latest issue of SI on Campus (yes, it's an actual magazine that Sports Illustrated actually prints that we've actually held in our hands) on Matt Leinart, who was awarded SI on Campus' U-Award. It's apparently the equivalent of Sports Illustrated's Sportsman of the Year, and it's no surprise that it was given to the Golden Boy. But what piqued our interest was Leinart's mention of the special lady in his life. No, not his mom...his girlfriend.

In fact, Leinart has been dating USC freshman basketball player Brynn Cameron since February. The two had been friends since they met in a study hall in October. "I have a girlfriend now who I'm very happy with," says Leinart, who attended a handful of women's basketball games this past season disguised in a hat and an oversized hooded sweatshirt. "I'm a normal guy, just like any other 21-year-old college student, and I'm with someone who treats me normal and that's the most important thing. It's hard to trust a lot of people right now and know exactly what they're after."

Now, you could go to the USC athletic department website to get a photo of Cameron, but only here will you find an additional, non standard-issue photo of the precocious freshman. Yes, we have sources. That are good.

We'd like to note that while we're certainly happy for Bachelor Bob, er, Leinart, the fact that he's dating a freshman still living in a dorm who is perhaps not as hot as the women he's been linked to in the past (Jessica Simpson, Alyssa Milano, etc.) confirms that the lefthander is much closer to the nerd he claims to be than the ladies man most assume that he is. And in light of how much trouble some of his teammates have been getting into, that is probably a very good thing.

Please Stop With the Sexual Assaults!

2005-04-20T15:31:00.000-07:00

Today the Los Angeles District Attorney's office announced that it would not be filing charges against USC cornerback Eric Wright in an alleged sexual assault case that had prompted Pete Carroll to suspend Wright from participating in spring practice. As a Trojan fan, it's nice to know that the talented Wright will be on the field (and not behind bars) when USC begins its quest for an unprecedented third national title in the fall. But apart from our own hedonistic desire for the Trojans to field the best team possible, this most recent incident begs the question, "Just what is it with USC players, rape, and the DA deciding not to file charges?"

For the record, we're against sexual assault of any kind. If Wright had done what was alleged, then he should have been prosecuted and convicted, regardless of the impact that would have had on the fortunes of the Trojans. But these allegations, along with similar charges made (but not brought) against running back Hershel Dennis last fall, no doubt leave interested parties scratching their heads. How does this keep happening?

First, let's make a clear distinction between these rape allegations and the incident between Dominique Byrd and Steve Smith. They don't deserve to be grouped together, especially by those looking to back up the thesis that the sky is falling on the Men of Troy. The Smith/Byrd fight was, like Pete Carroll noted, much closer to a tussle between brothers than the manifestation of real animosity between teammates. The circumstances surrounding the incident indicate that Smith and Byrd are friends, and that they had a friendly disagreement that, regrettably, ended in Byrd suffering a broken jaw. Remember, these are top-flight athletes, so it's not surprising that a confrontation produced said results. Smith expressed remorse and regret over the foolishness of the situation; Byrd has not spoken to the press (or much of anyone, thanks to his jaw being wired shut). On a team of competitive athletes, confrontations likely occur every day (which Carroll seemed to imply in his comments), and though what happened was regrettable, it's not exactly the end of the world.

Now, if the same thing happens again between two different players, then we might start to get concerned that the Trojans really do have a problem on their hands. That's why, though the Hershel Dennis saga was troubling, the Eric Wright situation was much more deeply so. One could write off Dennis as an isolated incident, an instance of a single player exercising bad judgment. But for the same thing to happen to Wright? This deserves a closer look.

That's going to be hard for outsiders to accomplish, whether they be from the local or national media. Even the beat reporters from the local dailies don't hang around the players outside of practice or games, or attend parties at USC, or have friends who live at the apartment complex (Cardinal Gardens) where both of the alleged sexual assaults occurred. We, on the other hand, do.

The first thing you should know is that most of the USC football players are not exactly beacons of virtue. They might be great guys (the ones that we've met all are), but like most college students, they engage in such activities as underage drinking and casual sex. The drinking part we've seen with our own eyes; the sex has happened behind closed doors but we've either heard about it or read it in the LA Times.

Let's break down what we believe may have happened in the Wright case. We're using the Dennis case as a precedent, where it seems that Hershel engaged in consensual sex with a woman who later claimed that she had been raped. That they had sex was not in dispute, but the DA was unable to unearth sufficient evidence to prove that it was not consensual. Also, alcohol and/or drugs were involved. Dennis told the Daily Trojan that, "the girl, she was already intoxicated." So in this case, it seems that Dennis had sex with a woman who was drunk; whether or not she was in the state of mind where she could give consent to that sex was the issue.

Now, indulge us for a moment. You're a young, beautiful woman. You're at a party. Everyone is drinking. You become intoxicated. You wake up the next morning, and the events of the previous night are murky. And yet, you know that you had sex last night (as a female friend of ours once said, "You can tell when you've had sex.") You start putting the pieces together; you talk with some of your friends about who you were with last night. You were talking with a USC football player. You left with that player, your friends tell you. People saw you enter his apartment. You woke up the next morning in his apartment. Hmmm, you think to yourself, I don't remember wanting to have sex. Was I raped?

We imagine that the woman who made the sexual assault claim against Eric Wright may have gone through a similar experience. Like the Dennis situation, alcohol was clearly involved, this time at a fraternity party where Wright and the woman met and eventually left, together. At some point, they likely engaged in intercourse. The issue, again, was that of consent.

Let's take a look at what the law of the state of California says with regard to the issue of consent as it relates to sexual assault:

Consent: Positive cooperation in the act or expressing an intent to engage in the act pursuant to an exercise of free will. The person must act freely and voluntarily and have knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved. A person who is giving consent cannot be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, unconscious, passed out, coming in and out of consciousness, under the threat of violence, bodily injury or other forms of coercion, and cannot have a mental disorder, developmental disability or physical disability that would impair his/her understanding of the act. [Emphasis added.]

It seems clear, then, that if the alleged victim in either the Dennis or the Wright case was drunk when she had intercourse, she has been sexually assaulted, in the eyes of the law. We don't dispute that, but the reality is that at colleges and universities, intoxicated women have sex all the time, and rarely are claims of sexual assault or rape made. Often it is those women who are the instigators of the act. That's not to allege that happened in these two cases, but it's worth noting that it's not uncommon. What's certain is that once alcohol enters the equation, things get murkier. Buf if these were both cases of men having sex with intoxicated women, they seem to be fairly cut-and-dried, at least according to state law, as long as the prosecutor could prove that the victim was intoxicated. So why were charges never brought in either case?

The most likely hypothesis is that each of the accusers decided not to testify in court, something not uncommon in sexual assault or domestic violence situations. Another possibility is that the accusers (whose identities we do not know) may have been under the drinking age. Would that have had an influence on the prosecutor? It's hard to say. But if the central tenet of the case was proving the accuser was intoxicated, and that accuser was under 21, it may well have complicated the case. A third possibility is that these assaults never happened; that the women were in full control of their faculties and thus able to grant consent in both instances, yet for some reason they felt compelled to make these allegations ex post facto. We don't put much stock in that theory, though when the accused has some level of notoriety (as in these instances), it's not completely unheard of.

So what is a Trojan fan to take from these two regrettable incidents? First, that no matter what Pete Carroll tells his troops, they're probably going to keep finding their way into trouble. And second, if those players want to insulate themselves from facing similar allegations in the future, they ought to stop having sex with drunk girls.

UPDATE: An article in Thursday's LA Times seems to confirm much of what we had postulated:

According to the district attorney's charge evaluation worksheet, prosecutors were considering charges of forcible oral copulation, forcible sexual penetration and rape. The worksheet said the 18-year-old student who made the allegations against Wright was intoxicated on the night she met Wright at a party. When the alleged victim left the party, Wright put a blue pill he said was Ecstasy in the woman's mouth, the report said.

Ann Althouse asks, we answer

2005-04-19T16:05:00.000-07:00

If Jesus wore a t-shirt, what would it say?

New Calvin Klein Ad Campaign Announced

2005-04-18T23:01:00.000-07:00

"Heh."

Our Favorite Jacko Post

2005-04-18T22:55:00.000-07:00

Just when we start complaining that there's nothing interesting in the news, Drudge flashes a Michael Jackson headline. Finally, something surfaces about which we've got plenty to say.

Geraldo Rivera -- yes, the Edward R. Murrow of our day -- apparently alleged on Los Angeles radio station KFI that the current case against Jackson is destined to fall apart when it finally goes to trial. Now, it's not that we'd doubt something Geraldo told us, but considering Jackson's past pay-offs and continuing bizarre behavior, we're going to wait until all the facts are in before making a judgment for ourselves.

Speaking of Geraldo's assurances that Jackson is innocent (of these particular charges, it should be noted), we've been bothered since this fiasco began by the "outpouring of love and support" from Jackson's fans, who say that they just know in their hearts that the King of Pop is innocent. Echoing the critical thinking skills of the left-wing die-hards in Evan Coyne Maloney's recent short documentary on inauguration protestors, the only evidence these Jackson supporters cite is their own love of his music. They transfer that love of a Jackson product over to Jackson himself -- a dangerous but not unprecedented behavior.

From O.J. Simpson to Kobe Bryant, fans of troubled celebrities have always rushed forward to maintain their hero's innocence, with little regard to the evidence or, more importantly, the victims of these alleged crimes. Perhaps Simpson and Bryant are poor examples, as both were exonerated (more or less -- neither was convicted of a crime) in the court system, but it's not as if their fans knew before the end of the trial that would be the case. Similarly, even if these charges against Jackson do not result in a conviction, the quality of his music will not be the reason why.

We should add say that we're also fans of Jackson's music, but that doesn't make us Jacko apologists. We find this situation very sad -- our sympathy goes out first to the victims (if indeed they prove to be) and we also find ourselves feeling sorry for Michael, though certainly not enough to excuse this kind of (alleged) behavior. He was a celebrity by age 9, but even before that he was a singer first and a little boy second. He never went to school -- the kind of school that you and I attended, where we developed our social skills -- a day in his life. His father, as has been documented, was not the most kind. Being a superstar kept him from having any semblance of a normal life, preventing him from being able to go out in public and imprisioning him inside the world he was forced to create. Remember, this was not the life that he chose, but one that was chosen for him.

And then there is his ghastly appearance. An accident in 1984, when his hair caught fire while filming a commercial for Pepsi, may have been what led him to plastic surgery (it's unclear whether he had gone under the knife earlier), which obviously for Jackson has become an addiction. But he also suffers from a rare skin disease called vitiligo, best described as "albino spots" caused by loss of pigmentation. This is a very real condition (several of our family members have it) and one that can be particularly destructive psychologically, especially for a black man and one whose job involves being in the public eye. Additionally, the 46 year-old Jackson also suffers from lupus, according to a source who worked with him on his landmark music video, Thriller.

As to whether Michael Jackson is guilty or innocent, we're not sure. But one thing is certain: his life, which we once thought was the quintessial American success story, is actually an American tragedy.

Original post date: January 26, 2005

The Real Jeff Greenfield?

2005-04-18T22:26:00.000-07:00

Has CNN's Jeff Greenfield learned his lesson? Glenn Reynolds links to a Howard Kurtz article that quotes Greenfield as one of the few defenders of blogs among members of the MSM.

CNN analyst Jeff Greenfield likes many blogs and doesn't much worry about "the baked-potato brains who say you're a media whore. . . . On the whole, I'm real happy to know there are a lot of people watching with the capacity to check me. I don't think that's chilling. It's just another incentive to get your facts right."
As for "smear artists" on the Internet, Greenfield says, "The freedom that it gives anonymous twerps to spew out invective -- that they don't like the way you look or think you're an idiot or a child abuser -- that's just part of the process."

But Greenfield hasn't always been a cheerleader of blogs. We quote from our February 18th post about a speech Greenfield made at UCLA in the wake of Eason Jordan's resignation from CNN, to which Vodkapundit linked with the comment:"CNN's Jeff Greenfield: It's the fault of blogs. Huh?" An excerpt from the post:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From an article in the UCLA student newspaper, the Daily Bruin:

Speaking about American media in a 45-minute speech, Greenfield refrained from analyzing specific incidents of bias in the media, and instead asked people to look inward to determine the root of the alleged problem.

"Are you part of the problem?" Greenfield rhetorically asked.

Finally, someone (from CNN, no less) willing to stick out his neck on the subject of MSM bias and point the finger at...college students?

Greenfield also spoke about the public['s] aversion to reading material that goes against their own core beliefs. To many people, Greenfield explained, "unwelcome info is proof of bias."

Especially CNN executives, who have an aversion to reading the latest ratings showing them getting spanked by, say, FOX News...because that unwelcome information is clearly biased!

Greenfield cited the profusion of various media sources, from satellite news to Internet Web logs, as partially responsible for creating an atmosphere of unaccountability where people struggle to find trustworthy sources.

That's interesting. Blogs creating an atmosphere of unnaccountability? Tell that to Dan Rather. Or Eason Jordan. Or Trent Lott. If anything, the blogosphere and satellite networks like FOX News are the ones holding the rest of the media responsible -- and it's that irresponsibility exhibited by the MSM that has sent people looking for trustworthy sources in the first place. But Greenfield doesn't seem to get that. Big surprise.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We're not quite sure what changed Greenfield's mind, but it's worth noting he wasn't such a staunch defender of the blogger eight weeks ago. We'd posit that Greenfield changing his mind on blogs -- specifically why -- is a bigger story than someone like Adam Nagourney getting his feelings hurt when Mickey Kaus writes mean things about him. It seems, however, that Howard Kurtz does not read our blog and thus, missed out on the big story. (Ed. note: like Greenfield, Kurtz is also employed by CNN...not that there's anything wrong with that!)

UPDATE: Alert reader Mickey Kaus emails to tell us that "at the Dem convention Greenfield was very high on blogs." He thinks the comments we noted were an abberation in the wake of the Eason Jordan scandal. If that's the case, this might just be an even more interesting story than we first thought. Greenfield changes his mind on blogs faster than a blogger in his pajamas can post on it!

Like This -- It Brings Us Back to Blogging

2005-03-03T22:04:00.000-08:00

We found something we want to blog about...so sue us! The Los Angeles Times, reeling from yesterday's mini-scandal over it's North Korea puff piece, puts its foot in its mouth again Friday in an article about imcumbent mayor James Hahn, who might not get enough votes in next week's election to make the May run-off between the two highest vote getters. Not only does the Times seem to dismiss the idea that Hahn's poor numbers have anything to do with his, uh, poor performance as mayor, they take an awkward (and obvious) pot-shot at former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani too.

On rare occasions, a Los Angeles mayor might have the opportunity to preside over some great character-defining crisis. It doesn't have to come on an epic scale like 9/11, which turned New York City's Rudy Giuliani from a term-limited crank into a national hero.

This kind of stuff belongs in the LA Weekly, not the LA Times.

Into the Hammock?

2005-03-03T21:34:00.000-08:00

Certain events -- that is, events from the real world -- have interceded and forced us to go on a short sabbatical from blogging. We imagine that we'll still post occasionally, when we have something truly original to say, but we can't continue to blog daily as we've been doing. So check back, but perhaps with a bit less frequency than usual. And thanks for reading.

Late to the Party

2005-03-01T15:47:00.000-08:00

Even though it's two days after the Oscars and pretty much the whole country is talking about something else, we decided to let our loyal readers out there know what we thought of the show in general and its host, Chris Rock, in specific. No doubt our perfect Oscar Prediction List makes our opinion of the show itself much more relevant.

First, the show itself. Because we watch it from Los Angeles, we're much less sensitive to how long it lasts than our blogging brethren on the east coast. Even a "long" show finishes between 8:00 and 9:00 pm, which leaves plenty of time to get to bed early for a good night's sleep to start the week. We thought this year's show moved fairly swiftly -- no excrutiatingly long commercial breaks, no half time show -- except for the momentum-killing musical numbers. The category from whence they originate, Best Original Song, is really a relic of an earlier era in Hollywood (when studios made musicals and pop stars wrote original songs for films that ended up on the charts) that ought to be, if not abolished, then certainly revamped. Most movies feature either an original score or previously recorded popular music not written for that particular film and thus not eligible for this category. So the Academy needs to get with the times and figure something out.

The other thing that bugged us about the show was the "In the Audience/On the Stage" experiment. We're not opposed to nominees in the less flashy categories getting some facetime on international television, but the firing squad-like nature of all the nominees standing in a line on stage and the fact that the in-the-crowd winners never got anywhere near the stage was insulting to those winners and nominees alike. We understand that the vast majority of the viewership tune into the Oscars to see the stars, but that doesn't mean that the less famous nominees and winners don't deserve to be honored in equal measure.

It's beneath the Academy to let the award presentations for categories like Best Short Film and Best Animated Short Film turn into an in-the-stands sideshow not even worthy of cheesy reality TV. Unlike most of the people who watched the Oscars, we've seen Wasp, the winner of Best Short Film, and it deserved to be honored alongside films like Million Dollar Baby and The Aviator. If anything, Wasp was more moving than either of those films, and its director, Andrea Arnold, should have been accorded the right to step on stage and give her acceptance speech like the rest of the winners not relegated to the audience ghetto. And don't talk to us about "saving time" by eliminating a walk to the stage. First of all, the Kodak Theatre isn't that big (so they're not saving more than a few seconds), and secondly, the Academy can seat the nominees wherever they chose to; they're the ones who stick those nominees in the back.

Now, about Chris Rock. As far as recent hosts go, we could do without Billy Crystal (the Vinny Testaverde of the Oscars) and Whoopi Goldberg. We like Steve Martin in general and enjoyed his hosting gigs. As for Rock, we're not huge fans but much of his act we do find funny. We're not fond of his harsh delivery nor the fact that he's trying to do Richard Pryor material 30 years after the fact. It would be different if he was actually doing something to advance the dialogue instead of trotting out old racist tropes, but hey, that's his schtick, and he's made a lot of money from it.

We liked the first half of his opening set. He wasn't afraid to make fun of Hollywood, and you could tell that he wasn't killing in the room, but we think he might have been killing most other places. We found his "If you can't get Denzel and can only get me, WAIT" bit particularly funny, because that's exactly how movies get made. Tom Cruise is always the first star you try to get for a male lead, Julia Roberts for a female. Then you go down the list. Russell Crowe, Jude Law, Clive Owen, etc. It sounds farcical but it's actually how movies get sold to studios. As for the Jude Law portion, which clearly upset Sean Penn, we agree that he has been in a lot of movies lately, but we do think that he's a pretty damned good actor. Not a star -- not Tom Cruise -- but someone with good looks who can actually act. (He's clearly a better actor than Cruise, by the way.)

The last part of Rock's set, however, was disgraceful. It was pandering to his audience, as the cutaways to out-of-touch movie stars applauding and guffawing clearly revealed. It's not that Rock went political. Fine. That's his choice. What upset us was how he tried to cloak his Bush-bashing with the preface of "Bush is a genius..." as if that would be enough to pull the wool over 52% of Americans' eyes as to what he was about to say. His statement that he thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was "beautiful" was truly laughable, and his joke about Michael Moore (that he should have done the documentary Super Size Me, since he'd already done the research) did nothing to counter his endorsement, though their juxtaposition seemed to suggest that's what he intended. And his Gap analogy was completely wrong. So wrong that we've decided to fisk it.

First, the "cash register decifit." Bush inherited a recession. There never was a surplus -- it was only on paper. Then, September 11th happened, which did, unfortunately, have a negative economic impact. Then, there is Rock's crack that Bush decided to invade Banana Republic. Never mind that Banana Republic and The Gap are owned by the same company (which also owns Old Navy). Bush didn't exactly start a war with a benevolent yuppie-wear store across the mezzanine; he invaded a country whose leader was a vicious Stalin-like dictator who ignored the world at large (if you can use those words to describe the U.N.), funded suicide bombers and gave asylum to our enemies. Oh, and by the way, everyone else in the mall thought he had toxic tank tops, too -- even the man Bush replaced at the register.

But then, if Rock had said all of that, he wouldn't have gotten the laughs that he did. Of course, he wouldn't have embarrassed himself, either.

Not So Perky!

2005-03-01T15:44:00.000-08:00

America's favorite morning show host, Katie Couric, at the Vanity Fair Oscar party on Sunday.

Tooting Our Own Horn

2005-02-27T20:51:00.000-08:00

Maybe you didn't notice, but we, uh, our, um, all of our Oscar predictions were correct. Take that, Roger Ebert.

The Big Winner: Million Dollar Baby

2005-02-27T14:46:00.000-08:00

Everyone else has weighed in with their Oscar picks, so we figure we might as well, too. After all, we are blogging from Los Angeles and like to think we know more about the film business than the ordinary blogger.

Best Supporting Actress Nominees: Cate Blanchett, Laura Linney, Virginia Madsen, Sophie Okonedo, Natalie Portman

Madsen is the sentimental choice, but we think Blanchett is pretty much a lock. (Though we could be wrong.) We saw her work in The Aviator and were very impressed -- as were we with Portman's work in Closer.

Our Pick: Cate Blanchett

Best Supporting Actor: Alan Alda, Thomas Haden Church, Jamie Foxx, Morgan Freeman, Clive Owen

Foxx was better in Collateral (where his supporting nod comes from) than in Ray. Alda is the wistful pick (a la Madsen), but his work in The Aviator, though good, wasn't great, so he won't win. Freeman was the rock of Million Dollar Baby. If people remember that he's never won an Oscar, he's the favorite. Clive Owen did good work in Closer, and is the dark horse.

Our Pick: Morgan Freeman

Best Actress: Annette Bening, Catalina Sandino Moreno, Imelda Staunton, Hilary Swank, Kate Winslet

If Bening wins, it will be good for the ratings -- kids will likely confuse her with Clay Aiken and flock to the TV. (She won't win.) Swank and Winslet are head-and-shoulders above their fellow nominees, but Swank has the momentum. Winslet's work in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, however, was truly amazing, and deserving of an Oscar.

Our Pick: Hilary Swank

Best Actor: Don Cheadle, Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, Clint Eastwood, Jamie Foxx

DiCaprio did good work in The Aviator; people seem to forget that he can actually act. Eastwood wasn't easy to watch, but he was right for the part. Cheadle is a great actor (we didn't see Hotel Rwanda; we assume he was typically good) but his film was too small. Foxx is the popular choice. And the obvious one -- he turned in a great Ray Charles impersonation, but that, to us, is not the essence of acting.

Our Pick: Jamie Foxx

Best Original Screenplay: John Logan (The Aviator), Charlie Kaufman, Michel Gondry, Pierre Bismuth (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), Terry George, Keir Pearson (Hotel Rwanda), Brad Bird (The Incredibles), Mike Leigh (Vera Drake).

That Leigh was nominated is a joke -- he doesn't even write out scripts for his movies. (He had to type up a transcript of the film to submit to the Academy.) Bird will win for Best Animated Film, so he won't here. But The Incredibles was solid storytelling. The story for The Aviator was its weakest link, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Logan's script was poor (we wouldn't be surprised if it was changed by director/producers/stars, which is the norm in Hollywood). Kaufman's script was landmark -- just enough Charlie Kaufman but not crazy enough for it to pull you out of the story. A great film about the nature of relationships for the younger generation.

Our Pick: Charlie Kaufman, Michel Gondry, Pierre Bismuth

Best Adapted Screenplay: Richard Linklater, Kim Krizan, Julie Delpy, Ethan Hawke (Before Sunset), David Magee (Finding Neverland), Paul Haggis (Million Dollar Baby), Jose Rivera (Motorcycle Diaries), Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor (Sideways)

Magees's script was horribly inaccurate, historically speaking. Haggis wrote a great screenplay -- except for the third act. Payne and Taylor haven't written a bad movie yet.

Our Pick: Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor

Best Director: Clint Eastwood, Taylor Hackford, Mike Leigh, Alexander Payne, Martin Scorsese

Eastwood deserves it. Scorsese did good work but not better than Eastwood; he might win because he should have won in the past but didn't. Hackford, who did Ray, is a hack and doesn't belong here at all. Payne is a great writer and a capable director. It's between Eastwood and Scorsese.

Our Pick: Clint Eastwood

Best Picture: The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Million Dollar Baby, Ray, Sideways

If Million Dollar Baby wasn't so good, The Aviator would win. Sideways is a good picture but never had a chance to win this category. Ray, like Hackford, doesn't belong here. Finding Neverland...um, we didn't see it. (But how good can it be?)

Our Pick: Million Dollar Baby

We'll post a scorecard after the Oscars -- accountability!

We Interrupt Oscar-Blogging...

2005-02-27T14:40:00.000-08:00

Diane Diamond has an interesting column in today's New York Post about the genesis of Michael Jackson's relationship with his current accuser.

Michael Jackson surely did a good thing when he called a young cancer patient struggling to survive in a California hospital. The phone call lifted the boy's spirits and for a brief moment helped him re-engage in life.

The entertainer told the 11-year-old about his mystical home called Neverland Ranch, and invited him to visit when he felt better. They spoke about famous people Michael Jackson knew and the show "The Simpsons," and the boy shared his dream of becoming an actor.

But the youngster was seriously ill. His weight had dropped from 100 to just 68 pounds. Doctors warned his parents that few survive fourth-stage cancer and suggested they start thinking about funeral plans. But somehow, the boy endured the cancer and the removal of his spleen, one of his kidneys and several lymph nodes. When the cancer moved into his lungs, he beat that, too. In August 2000, the boy felt well enough to travel. He and his family — his father, mother, younger brother and older sister — accepted Jackson's invitation and were picked up in a limousine and driven to Neverland.

That first night the two boys, aged 11 and 9, slept in Jackson's bedroom, and the rest of the family was guided to guest quarters away from the main house. And on that first trip, the boys told the grand jury, Jackson gave them the gift of a laptop computer.

The children would later tell a grand jury that on that first night, the gift helped bring about their introduction to Internet porn sites — XXX-rated pornography — that Jackson and his adult friend Frank Cascio Tyson helped them reach and navigate. These brothers had just entered an entirely new way of life.

Oscar Fashion

2005-02-27T14:31:00.000-08:00

We really don't care who is wearing what - let Joan Rivers worry about that. But it's going to be hard to top this number that Prince wore back in the 80s when he won the Oscar for Best Song for Purple Rain. (Note: the photo doesn't really do the cape justice.)

The Other Side of Oscar

2005-02-26T23:41:00.000-08:00

For the rest of the world, the Oscars are a magical night filled with entertainment superstars - the closest Hollywood gets to its wistfully-remembered glamourous earlier years. But living in Los Angeles, you see the other side of the Oscars. The business of Oscar. The politics of Oscar. The overkill of Oscar.

Oscar is important to Hollywood for one reason: money. Yes, there's the "prestige" associated with winning an Academy Award, but not for the suits that run the industry.

The Oscars have always been a multi-hour commercial for Hollywood, publicity the networks pay to air, but today that's true to an even larger degree. The biggest movies of 2004, in terms of box office receipts (which is the industry measuring stick) are not going to be talked about much on Sunday night. Spiderman 2 is not up for best picture, nor is The Passion of the Christ.

The movies that will be getting air time -- Sideways, Hotel Rwanda, and Million Dollar Baby, among others -- are not of the blockbuster mold. No, these are different kind of movies. Movies that Hollywood doesn't know how to sell. Clint Eastwood as an aging boxing trainer and Hilary Swank as a wannabe female pugilist? How, the marketing department asks, do we sell that to 13 year-olds in Peoria?

And so the major Hollywood studios have turned to using the Oscars to sell these kinds of movies -- movies that would otherwise have gotten little attention (read: promotion). An Oscar win is worth millions of extra dollars at the box office and in DVD sales.

Most people don't realize that companies like Miramax, Focus Features, and Fox Searchlight are actually divisions of larger studios like Disney, Universal, and 20th Century Fox, respectively. And when a cheap, artsy film is financially successful, those profits can subsidize a studio's losses on a big budget turkey like, say, Gigli. Which is why the Oscars are a big deal to Hollywood. Yes, the prestige of winning an Academy Award is nice, but what that does to the bottom line is more important. Because keeping your job in this industry isn't predicated on how many Oscars you have on your shelf but by how much money you make.

Hyperbole? We think not!

2005-02-26T00:18:00.000-08:00

From Sunday's LA Times Magazine:

"[Oscar host] Chris [Rock] is one of the smartest guys I've ever met," says [Gil] Cates, who has produced 11 Oscars shows. "If he weren't a comedian, he would be a molecular biologist or something. If you take the expletives out, [his work] is social and political satire—he's the De Tocqueville of this century."

Acting Cool

2005-02-25T14:14:00.000-08:00

In the mail today: Acoustic Orphans, the first CD from BT4, an up-and-coming artist we say play at the Whisky a few weeks ago. (Yes, that Whisky.) We're not big into the indie rock scene -- it's just too hard (and expensive) to stay on top of it in a place crawling with young bands like Los Angeles.

But this kid got our attention. Maybe that's partly because we're used to suffering through Green Day wannabees -- BT4 doesn't plug in, so you can actually hear the lyrics, the melody, the song.

We like Acoustic Orphans (and we're hard to please). It's good acoustic rock that's well-produced, with samples and synthesizers that don't overpower the songs. BT4's got a nice vocal range and can clearly play the guitar. It's always exciting to hear someone with talent who has the chance to be on a major record label one day - to tell your friends to listen to so-and-so because one day he's going to be big. We got that feeling while listening to Acoustic Orphans, which might be why we've already told our friends about it.

Listen to previews from Acoustic Orphans at CDBaby.com

Everyone's Favorite

2005-02-23T23:50:00.000-08:00

Forget Doug Wead's harmless Bush Tapes -- some former friends of Michael Moore are revealing what he's really like in the March issue of Vanity Fair.

A former manager, Douglas Urbanski, tells VF that Moore was the "only client I ever fired."

Urbanski says the liberal Moore was obsessively focused on money. "He never had enough money," Urbanski recalled.

Arrogance may have also played a role in Moore's negative political impact with "Fahrenheit."

Urbanski described Moore as "exasperatingly rude."

"We walked out of restaurants because Michael found the service too slow," he remembered.

Some other interesting tidbits:

Moore once thought he could be the "the biggest star of a sitcom in America." He likened himself to the next Jackie Gleason. "I can be bigger than Jackie Gleason and I don't know why it's not happening ... I am a movie star," Moore said.

Moore is still angry with Mel Gibson, whose Icon productions backed out of producing "Fahrenheit." Moore claims Gibson backed out of Fahreheit after being threatened with no more invitations to the White House. Gibson's spokesman, Alan Nierob, told VF that Mel has not accepted any invitations from the White House, "so why would he be concerned about not getting one?"

Moore is also miffed with Gibson because TIME magazine wanted to feature both he and Gibson as possible co-Persons of the Year. But Gibson balked at the idea he would sit down with Moore for an interview with TIME.

As for Disney and its CEO Michael Eisner backing out of plans to back "Fahrenheit," Moore sees more conspiracies. He suggested to VF that a Saudi investment in Euro Disney caused Disney to bail on him. Previously, Moore has alleged that Eisner was worried Bush's brother, Fla. governor Jeb Bush, would pull tax breaks that benefits Disney's Florida theme park.

Changing Their Tune? (Not Likely)

2005-02-23T20:58:00.000-08:00

The New York Times prints a story that presents our military efforts in Iraq in a surprisingly positive light...in the sports section. Pete Thamel writes about the friendship between Duke basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski and Bob Brown, a colonel in the Army serving in Iraq who played for Krzyzewski at West Point.

Brown has experienced an array of emotions since arriving in Iraq late last year. He oversaw the elections in Mosul last month but also had to deal with a suicide bombing at a mess tent in December that killed 22 people, including 14 American soldiers.

In both situations, triumphant and tragic, Brown said he leaned on principles that Krzyzewski taught him.

After the bombing at the mess hall, Brown said, everyone was evacuated within 20 minutes, which he estimated saved 10 lives. He credited communication and teamwork in a time of chaos for the smooth response.

He said those same tenets were also used when organizing the Iraqi elections.

"It was like playing the undefeated team in the N.C.A.A. championships and we kicked their butts," Brown said. "The terrorists tried everything they could, but the elections were an incredible success."

And get this: the Times didn't follow that paragraph with a contradictory quote from Juan Cole ("Col. Brown clearly does not speak Arabic...") to balance out the positiveness. In fact, Thamel even managed to slip this closing paragraph past the sensors...er, editors:

"The idea of teamwork is what's making us successful in Iraq," Brown said. "I learned a lot about teamwork at West Point, but nowhere more than on the basketball court from Coach K."

Successful? Thank goodness the Times hasn't been our sole source of news. Otherwise we wouldn't know what Brown was talking about!

Dispatches from a Parallel Universe

2005-02-23T15:35:00.000-08:00

The rain in Los Angeles has lifted -- at least temporarily -- so we turn our attention to Sunday's Oscar telecast. It's another opportunity for our favorite Hollywood activists to tell us what's wrong with this county.

“As long as you salute the right wing, you are endowed with great intelligence and patriotic spirit. But anyone else who speaks up with independence is some sort of traitorous bastard. It’s such a tired act,” says Hollywood activist Mike Farrell (M.A.S.H., Providence) defending [Oscar host Chris] Rock’s right to be funny. “I just turned down a Geraldo interview about why Hollywood is out of step with the rest of the country. This is such bullshit.”

Yeah. Interesting.

This Is What Happens When You Teach Animals To Communicate With Humans

2005-02-22T15:13:00.000-08:00

The story of the day:

Two women who helped care for a famous gorilla have sued the foundation nurturing Koko, saying they were fired for refusing to show the animal their breasts, lawyers said on Friday.

The lawsuit says the president of the Gorilla Foundation, Francine Patterson, sought to have the women bond with the gorilla by performing "bizarre sexual acts with Koko."

"Through sign language, as interpreted by Patterson, Koko 'demanded' plaintiffs remove their clothing and show Koko their breasts," the lawsuit said.

"Patterson pressured plaintiffs to perform such acts, regularly and consistently, and on at least one occasion, outdoors where others could see," the lawsuit added.

Reuters seems to miss out on the most important part of the story: Koko is a female gorilla...which means she's a lesbian!

The Tragedy Continues...

2005-02-22T15:04:00.000-08:00

The tragic unintended economic consequences of a Hollywood breakup reverberate throughout the world:

Sculptors in London's Madame Tussaud's museum were forced to break up a waxwork figure of Hollywood superstars Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston embracing following their separation last month.

"It involved quite a lot of work, because they were entwined and had their arms around each other," said museum spokeswoman Diane Moon Monday. "Jen had one of her hands on Brad's chest and her other hand was resting on his bottom."

The procedure, which involved remolding their arms, cost around 10,000 pounds, or the equivalent of $19,000, and the separated figures have been put back on display with their backs to each other.

Like middle-aged women who believe they once again have a chance with Pitt, you'd think that Moon would want the two to stay estranged. But apparently not.

Despite the cost of separation, Moon is hopeful the couple, who separated in January this year, will reunite.

"We would like them to get back together again because that would be a nice happy ending and we don't mind spending the money entwining them again," she said.

It seems that Moon hasn't heard that Aniston is, uh, switching teams.

Rain, Rain, Go Away

2005-02-22T02:15:00.000-08:00

For those of you unfamiliar with this prodigious blog, we're based in southern California. Most of the time, we get to laugh and snicker while the rest of the country endures frigid winds, ice storms, blizzards, tornadoes, hurricanes...you get the picture. About the only things you have to worry about out here are earthquakes (no small matter) and rain. Yes, that's right, rain.

When it comes to water falling from the sky, most southern Californian are pansies. They're girlie men. But not us. We're originally from the midwest, so we know what real weather is like -- and that includes real rain storms. The rain that you've been hearing about in the news over the last few days isn't quite as apocalyptic as it's been made out to be. The problem isn't the rain itself, but the flooding (which is caused by the poor drainage systems more than anything else) and the telegenic mudslides.

We're used to sunny, clear days with a day or two of rain every four months or so. Over the past few years, rain has been quite rare. In fact, we were -- were -- in the midst of a lengthy drought. But now the rain has returned, which shouldn't come as a surprise to any southern California resident. February is notorious for bringing wet weather to the southland. Unless you're living in a canyon or at the foot of a mountain or on a street with clogged sewers, it's usually a nice change of pace.

Of course, now that we've had clouds and rain for a few days, we think it's time for things to get back to normal. And by normal we mean sunshine and 72 degrees.

Bush Breaks Out the Vaunted Ass-Palm?

2005-02-22T01:53:00.000-08:00

More info for those of you unfamiliar with the nomenclature...

UPDATE: Chirac returns the favor?

Back to Regularly Scheduled Programming

2005-02-22T01:34:00.000-08:00

There's an interesting piece in Tuesday's NY Times about Netflix, the online DVD rental subscription service. We just happened to sign up for Netflix at the beginning of this month, and already we've seen nine movies, with more on the way. Because of our day job, we watch more than the average person, but we think the service is a good deal even if you're not a power user.

If you figure that most DVDs cost between $15 - $20, paying a little under $20 a month for unlimited (er, three at a time) rentals without the threat of late fees is very reasonable. There aren't any hidden fees (such as return postage) and Netflix has a very impressive selection to choose from. It's that selection that really sets them apart from your neighborhood Blockbuster or local library. If it's out on DVD, you can get it from Netflix. And if you live near a major metropolitan area, turnaround time is minimal; you send one back and two days later the next arrives. It's not as fast as FedEx overnight, but it's also not bad, considering you aren't paying for shipping. True, you can't make an impulse rental like you can in the video store, but most of us rent things that we've already added to a mental list of movies we want to see. Netflix just let's you write that list down and sends you those DVDs in order.

We're not getting paid to shill for the company (and we doubt that they're going to buy a BlogAd on this site), but we'd recommend their service. If you don't have an extra $20 a month to spend, then don't spend it. But if you can spare the cash and rent a decent amount of movies, and don't want to have to worry about late fees, you ought to investigate signing up.

UPDATE: We just stumbled upon this Netflix user blog. It's a good mix of praise and criticism.

Who Cares? (Um...We Do)

2005-02-20T23:40:00.000-08:00

It appears that our previous post on Dan Rather hasn't ignited the firestorm we thought it would. That's fine -- what each blogger finds linkworthy is their prerogative. But before everyone writes it off as just a tempest in a teapot, let's take a look at it again and try to figure out if it really is a newsworthy story.

Back in 1965, while covering the Vietnam War for CBS, Dan Rather helped carry a wounded U.S. soldier, which was caught on film by Rather's cameraman. Rather then requested that the incident not be aired by the network. Dan Bauder included this anecdote in his piece on the retirement special CBS is airing on Rather's final night.

While reporting in Vietnam in 1965, Rather helped carry a wounded soldier to a helicopter and held a tourniquet to stop his bleeding - but the footage was never aired at his request.

Bauder's source was Susan Zirinsky, who is producing the special, has a longtime working relationship with Rather and was at one time known as his personal producer, a position that Mary Mapes seemed to inhabit the last few years.

In the March 2005 issue of Texas Monthly magazine, Gary Cartwright (who has produced several made-for-TV movies at CBS, all based on his fiction writings) interviewed Rather and others at CBS News about the memos and Rather's career. One of the people he spoke with was Zirinsky, who showed Cartwright clips of Rather's work during the turbulent 1960s. One of the clips was of the aforementioned Vietnam incident. This is how Cartwright described what he saw:

On this last clip I see a soldier rush to help a fallen comrade and hear him call out, “We need some help here.” Then I see a very young Dan Rather hurrying toward them, yelling, “I’ll give you a hand.” Moments later Rather is carrying one corner of the litter as they evacuate the dying Marine. “Note to New York,” he says on film a little later. “Don’t use that part of me carrying out that wounded soldier.” “Of course CBS used it,” Zirinsky tells me. “It showed our humanity.”

Cartwright doesn't mention Rather holding a tourniquet (as Bauder does), but that doesn't mean it wasn't in the footage. That's a discrepancy that can be easily resolved by viewing the clip. (It's worth noting that Cartwright has but Bauder has not; he was only repeating what Zirinsky told him.) We're assuming that did hold a tourniquet but Cartwright neglected to mention it in his story. Fair enough.

But what Cartwright quotes Zirinsky as saying -- "Of course CBS used it" -- clearly conflicts with what she told Dan Bauder. Before we go any further, let us point out that this controversy has nothing to do with Dan Rather himself. He clearly acted heroically in the field, and that he didn't want the footage to be used is admirable. The headline of our previous post (Another Rather Lie?) was written before all of the additional reporting was done and added in the form of updates. Prior to finding out who Bauder's source was, it was conceivable that this story had come from Rather himself. That's why we added a question mark to the end -- and then went to work to find the answer. It's "no." Let's be clear: other than that he's the individual depicted in the footage, this has little to do with Dan Rather.

It does, however, have everything to do with one of the following: Susan Zirinsky and Gary Cartwright. Either Gary Cartwright misquoted Zirinsky when she said that CBS aired the incident (which is what Matthew Sheffield at RatherBiased thinks happened), or Zirinsky changed her story between January 11th (when she met with Cartwright) and last week. If Cartwright's at fault, this whole incident is just another example of why people don't think they can believe much of anything they read in newspapers or magazines. But because Cartwright quoted Zirinsky directly, instead of paraphrasing what she said, we're not ready to jump to that conclusion just yet. If the quote is accurate, Cartwright is absolved of any journalistic malfeasance.

Which leaves us with Susan Zirinsky. It's quite possible that when she talked to Cartwright, she thought the clip had aired. Then, sometime before she talked to Bauder, she learned that it hadn't aired. If that's the case, it's her responsibility to call Cartwright and correct herself. Even if the magazine's already out (we're not 100% positive, but we think it is), they have a right to know and their readers deserve a correction. The rest of us who've seen these conflicting reports deserve to know which one is the truth.

That's assuming that CBS didn't air the footage. If it did, Zirinsky has major explaining to do, the Associated Press has a retraction to print, and the rest of us have a question to ponder: why would a CBS employee lie about actions the network took forty years ago against the wishes of the man they're currently forcing out of the anchor chair?

Another Lie From Rather?

2005-02-19T16:52:00.000-08:00

Dan Rather -- in any form -- seems to be bad luck for journalists. In a recent Associated Press article on CBS's "one-hour prime-time tribute to Dan Rather," reporter David Bauder writes:

While reporting in Vietnam in 1965, Rather helped carry a wounded soldier to a helicopter and held a tourniquet to stop his bleeding - but the footage was never aired at his request.

Oh really? That's interesting, because we just read an article in Texas Monthly ("Dan Rather Retorting") and there seems to be some, uh, misunderstanding:

While showing me a video of old clips of Rather in action, [48 Hours Mystery executive producer Susan] Zirinsky tells me, “Dan will do anything—anything.” The clips are live reports from a Louisiana civil rights march in 1962, in which dozens of blacks were teargassed; that ugly moment in history when Governor George Wallace blocked the door of the registrar’s office at the University of Alabama, in Tuscaloosa, to prevent two blacks from enrolling; and the jungles of Vietnam in 1965. On this last clip I see a soldier rush to help a fallen comrade and hear him call out, “We need some help here.” Then I see a very young Dan Rather hurrying toward them, yelling, “I’ll give you a hand.” Moments later Rather is carrying one corner of the litter as they evacuate the dying Marine. “Note to New York,” he says on film a little later. “Don’t use that part of me carrying out that wounded soldier.” “Of course CBS used it,” Zirinsky tells me. “It showed our humanity.” [Emphasis added]

No word yet on whether Bauder's false reporting was meant as an homage to Rather. Or if Bauder's misleading source was a CBS press release (we demand an investigation!) or Rather himself.

UPDATE: If the Vietnam anecdote did come from CBS, then someone is lying -- either the press contact at CBS who gave the info to Bauder (and perhaps the rest of the media, via press release), or -- more likely -- the CBS press contact's source. Who could very well be Rather himself. [See further update below: RatherBiased finds out from Bauder who his source was.]

GIANT UPDATE: The Rather Special is being produced by Susan Zirinisky. Zirinsky is quoted at length in the full-version of the AP article we cited above, which makes her the probable source of the anecdote. And if not, she certainly didn't make an effort to correct the AP. (Because she was quoted in it, we're pretty sure she read the article.) Somewhere along the line, her story seems to have changed. WHY?

ANOTHER UPDATE: An earlier post from RatherBiased has some background information on Zirinksy:

Zirinsky, incidentally, worked for Rather for decades as a producer of the "CBS Evening News" and as the executive producer of "48 Hours." She also made some waves during the first Bush adminisration for attending an interview the president gave to CBS (but not to Rather who was persona non grata after his infamous ambush interview) and shouting at her colleagues to confront Bush on Iran-contra.

THE LATEST UPDATE: The big question that needs to be answered is why CBS/Zirinsky would lie about whether they aired Rather's assisting the wounded soldier. Because it makes for a better postscript than, "CBS News ignored Rather and ran the piece anyway"? Airing it against his wishes doesn't seem to be something that would be all that damning to network and certainly not to Rather. If anything, lying about such a small point undercuts the power of what the story is supposed to illustrate about Rather's character. By not getting it right, CBS/Zirinsky/the AP are shining a big, bright light on the kind of credibility problems that got Rather in trouble in the first place.

WE LOVE TO UPDATE: RatherBiased has done some additional reporting, contacting David Bauder of the AP. Bauder confirms that Zirinsky was his source for the Vietnam anecdote.

After conferring with Bauder, we're inclined to think that the discrepancy is arising from some unclear wording on Zirinsky's part since she was also the source for Bauder's statement that CBS had not used the footage.
At this point, it seems likely that Zirinsky meant to say that CBS did not use the video back in the 1970s [sic] but did decide to use it in the upcoming Rather-hosted self-tribute CBS will be broadcasting on the day of his retirement from the "Evening News" anchor desk.

In other words, Bauder stands by his story and thinks that the Texas Monthly writer misquoted Zirinsky. We're not willing to believe (as RatherBiased seems to) Zirinsky "meant" to say that CBS did not air it back in the 60s but would air it on the day of Rather's retirement. Read the passage from Texas Monthly again:

On this last clip I see a soldier rush to help a fallen comrade and hear him call out, “We need some help here.” Then I see a very young Dan Rather hurrying toward them, yelling, “I’ll give you a hand.” Moments later Rather is carrying one corner of the litter as they evacuate the dying Marine. “Note to New York,” he says on film a little later. “Don’t use that part of me carrying out that wounded soldier.” “Of course CBS used it,” Zirinsky tells me. “It showed our humanity.”

When Zirinksky says, "Of course CBS used it," that sounds like past tense to us. And it doesn't sound like unclear wording, either.

According to the article, Zirinsky showed him these clips on the day after the Thornburg Report was released: January 11th. The AP article was written more than a month later. Either Zirinsky found out she was wrong, or she decided to change her story.

It's unlikely we're going to get a straight answer from anyone at CBS, but certainly if they did air the piece, there's someone out in the blogosphere who remembers watching it. If we start hearing from these people, we'll know that Zirinsky was lying, and that the AP report was wrong. If not, Zirinsky ought to come forward and explain herself, and then see that the Texas Monthly article is corrected.

The NY Times is Smart!

2005-02-19T14:47:00.000-08:00

In a breaking story, the New York Times reveals that a friend (or former friend) of President Bush's taped many of their conversations between 1998 and 2000. It seems that the geniuses at the Times have learned their lesson from Dan Rather:

The New York Times hired Tom Owen, an expert on audio authentication, to examine samples from the tapes. He concluded the voice was that of the president.

Apparently the guys at PowerLine were unavailable.

New Calvin Klein Ad Campaign Announced

2005-02-18T09:33:00.000-08:00

"Heh."

Jeff Greenfield: Foot In Mouth?

2005-02-18T00:00:00.000-08:00

CNN's Jeff Greenfield spoke this week at UCLA at an event that was sponsored in part by the Daniel Pearl Foundation. Pearl's father, Judea, is a professor of computer science at UCLA; he and his wife Ruth run the foundation. It was the third in a series of annual lectures on journalism and international relations held in Daniel Pearl's memory. (Pearl's widow, Mariane, has been in the news recently because of her an affair with flavor-of-the-month Eason Jordan, though it appears that Jordan has moved on and is now dating former screen siren Sharon Stone.)

We learned of Greenfield's speech in the UCLA student newspaper, the Daily Bruin. It might seem a little unfair to call out a student operation, but its article neglects to include some very important parts of Daniel Pearl's story.

A prominent writer for The Wall Street Journal, Pearl was kidnapped and executed in 2002 while doing a story in Pakistan. His captors released a home video documenting Pearl's death and demanding the release of prisoners and warning other American journalists in Muslim countries.

But why was Pearl captured and killed? Because he was Jewish and suspected of being a spy. His captors titled that home video, "The Slaughter of the Spy-Journalist, the Jew Daniel Pearl." That's particularly relevant information, especially considering that Greenfield's lecture was given at the Yitzhak Rabin Hillel Center of Jewish Life at UCLA and that like Pearl, Greenfield is a Jewish journalist. And it's quite ironic that it's not included in the article, in light of this, the very next paragraph:

The Daniel Pearl foundation, run by Pearl's parents, has sponsored the lecture series as an attempt to continue and promote what they described as their son's legacy of unbiased reporting. [emphasis added]

We disagree with their assessment of his legacy (that's not to insinuate that his reporting was biased; we simply think that his legacy is more related to illumating the depravity of the Islamofacist enemy), but assuming for a moment that they're correct, couldn't leaving out a key part of the Pearl story -- his heritage and its integral role in his death -- in an article on a lecture given by the foundation established in his memory be construed as an example of biased reporting?

But let's not sit here and pile on the Daily Bruin; they're still learning. Greenfield, on the other hand, has been a professional journalist for a long time. What's his excuse?

Speaking about American media in a 45-minute speech, Greenfield refrained from analyzing specific incidents of bias in the media, and instead asked people to look inward to determine the root of the alleged problem.

"Are you part of the problem?" Greenfield rhetorically asked.

Finally, someone (from CNN, no less) willing to stick his neck out on the subject of MSM bias and point the finger at...college students?!

Greenfield also spoke about the public['s] aversion to reading material that goes against their own core beliefs. To many people, Greenfield explained, "unwelcome info is proof of bias."

Especially CNN executives, who have an aversion to reading the latest ratings showing them getting spanked by FOX News...because that unwelcome information is clearly biased!

Greenfield cited the profusion of various media sources, from satellite news to Internet Web logs, as partially responsible for creating an atmosphere of unaccountability where people struggle to find trustworthy sources.

That's interesting. Blogs creating an atmosphere of unnaccountability? Tell that to Dan Rather. Or Eason Jordan. Or Trent Lott. If anything, the blogosphere and satellite networks like FOX News are the ones holding the rest of the media responsible -- and it's that irresponsibility exhibited by the MSM that has sent people looking for trustworthing sources in the first place. But Greenfield doesn't seem to get that. Big surprise.

UPDATE: Speaking of Rather, we just broke a story that one of the stories being told about his "legacy" isn't exactly accurate. Is it too late for CBS to re-edit their special send-off? Maybe they'll decide that the anecdote is fake but accurate. (You should read our post now before Instapundit links to it, then brag to all your friends.)

NOTE: We've refrained from mentioning the name of the article's author because his editors are equally likely to be responsible for what is or wasn't in his piece. We're not claiming that any of the parties involved were biased; just that they left out some very important information. Because the Daily Bruin is run by students (and therefore more prone to misquoting than, say, the professionals at the New York Times), we acknowledge the possibility that Greenfield's remarks were taken out of context or incorrectly paraphrased. If Greenfield believes this to have happened, he (or the Daniel Pearl Foundation) is welcome to provide us with a transcript of his remarks (shades of Eason!) and we'll gladly post it here.

Steroid Mania!

2005-02-16T21:43:00.000-08:00

Mark McGwire in Oakland and later with St. Louis

There's been much talk in the sports world recently about former baseball player Jose Canseco's new tell-all book, most of it centered around his allegations of steroid use by potential Hall of Famers like Sammy Sosa, Ivan Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, and, most notably Mark McGwire.

That Canseco writes about injecting McGwire in the buttocks while both were members of the Oakland A's is particularly interesting, not so much for the shock value of one 250 lb. man injecting a substance into another 250 lb. man's ass (after all, Canseco claims this took place in the Oakland locker room, in the heart of the Bay Area) but because, unlike fellow home run record-breakers Sosa and Barry Bonds, McGwire had generally been considered as a clean player, at least as far as steriods were concerned. (McGwire admitted taking androsterone, a supplement later outlawed by Major League Baseball, during the season he broke Roger Maris' home run record. Canseco thinks McGwire put a bottle of andro in his own locker as misdirection, to ward off talk of steroid use.)

Tony LaRussa, the man who managed McGwire and Canseco in Oakland, came to McGwire's defense as soon as Canseco's allegations surfaced in the media. Wednesday, he told 60 Minutes II (yes, that fine institution) that he knew that Canseco had been using steroids; earlier he went on record as saying that McGwire's growth was natural. But we're not convinced.

As a rookie, McGwire hit 49 home runs -- an incredible number during the 1980s. He was clearly a talented player with seemingly preternatural slugging ability. But that doesn't mean he didn't take advantage of that ability -- intensify it -- by using steroids.

Whether or not you believe Canseco is a credible source, it's clear that among baseball players, steroid use was not a taboo. It wasn't looked down on. No one, including managers like Tony LaRussa, stepped in a told players to stop.

How likely is it, then, that while Canseco was reaping the benefits of juicing up, his teammate McGwire watched and then, instead of trying to take advantage of Canseco's secret weapon, he went off to the weight room to try to match Canseco's unnatural physique in a natural manner? When there was no peer pressure in baseball not to use steroids.

McGwire (and anyone in similar circumstances) would had to have had an incredible moral compass for that to be the case, a rock solid sense of right and wrong. But great athletes -- and McGwire certainly qualifies as that -- are not always the mythical, moral heroes we make them out to be; they're very human, with flaws just like the rest of us. So to expect McGwire to resist such a temptation -- well, it's not the first conclusion we'd jump to.

That's not to say that McGwire didn't resist. We're just acknowledging it existed (in the form of Canseco, who says that McGwire did succumb), and that our common sense says Canseco is probably telling the truth. Remember, McGwire's ability rapidly deteriorated after his record-breaking season -- a sign of possible steroid use.

We'll probably never know the truth, and as far as we're concerned, that's just as well. What matters, at the end of the day, is not that McGwire did or didn't take steroids. What matters is that the hundreds of thousands of kids trying to emulate his physique know that using steroids is not a safe way to do that.

Why We Love Our Governor

2005-02-15T16:27:00.001-08:00

Perusing the Drudge Report this afternoon, we noticed this headline: "California Considers Taxing Drivers -- By The Mile." Our initial reaction was that this was likely another instance of the California legislature attempting to penalize citizens who do things like drive environmentally unfriendly cars under the guise of curbing pollution. Think of it as a morality tax, similar to the taxes states place on cigarettes: the equivalent of a punitive tax on SUVs in an effort to prevent people from buying them, because, as we all know, anyone who drives an SUV hates the environment and deserves to be punished. In years past, stories like these were doubly troubling, because it was likely such measures would be passed into law. Today, however, our first thought was: the Governor would never let that happen.

Yes, we mean Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger has restored a healthy dose of common sense to the statehouse, and not a moment too soon. Under Gray Davis it had been a haven for liberals looking to test out their radical (and often debilitating, economically and otherwise) ideas on the people of California. That's part of the reason that the state was in such bad shape when Davis was recalled back in 2003, and why Schwarzenegger was the perfect man to replace him. Yes, he is the most politically astute politician California has seen since Ronald Reagan, but good political instincts don't necessarily mean you'll do a good job once you're elected. The reason the Governor has started to turn the state around isn't all that complicated: unlike most of the elected officials in Sacramento, he has a lot of common sense. And he's not afraid to use it.

We think it's partly due to his background, growing up around communism in Austria, then coming to the United States with little more than his insatiable drive to be the best. He made his money the old-fashioned way: by earning it. He knows what it takes to build a successful business, and he understands why small businesses are vital to the state's health, economically and otherwise. He's lived, worked, and succeeded in the real world; unlike career politicians or those who have never worked in the private sector, Schwarzenegger doesn't need a bevy of "experts" to tell him what works and what doesn't. Thank goodness he has veto power over any crazy idea to come out of the General Assembly.

* * *

After reading the article about the per-mile tax, we realized that our assumption was incorrect. It seems that as more and more people buy hybrid cars that use considerably less gasoline, states are concerned that they will bring in less revenue from their gasoline tax. As a possible replacement, Oregon is testing a new "per-mile" tax measured by a GPS system installed on the car itself.

If the gas tax is intended to be equivalent to a service fee for using the state's roads and highways, it makes sense that a per-mile tax would be a better gauge of what that fee ought to be, as it factors out the wildly divergent miles-per-gallon rates of various types of automobiles.

However, it should be noted that integral to this tax being levied is the state knowing, at all times, where your car is. From a community safety/law enforcement standpoint, that might be a good thing, but in terms of civil liberties, it certainly is not. Also subject to debate is the nature of the gas tax itself -- is it really meant to be a road use fee, or is it meant to be a tax on gas? We thought it was a tax on gas. We're aware that taxes go toward the construction and upkeep of our roads and highways, but we didn't realize the relationship was so direct. (Nor should it be, in our opinion.) Changing the tax seems to be a way for states to maintain their revenue levels. But we don't think the purpose of taxation is so that the government ensures it brings in x amount of dollars, regardless of the particulars of each tax.

Replacing the gas tax also eliminates part of the reason why people are buying higher-mileage hybrids in the first place. Certainly states don't want to discourage their citizens from buying these more environmentally-conscious automobiles.

We admit, however, that if states are intent on obtaining the amount of revenue they're accustomed to by whatever means necessary, the per-mile tax being discussed is preferable to the alternative, which is simply increasing the gas tax -- an unlikely move but not out of the realm of possibility. Doing anthing that raises the price of gas, especially now, is not going to be a popular move, but it could be justified by a politician as an environmentally important measure in that it would potentially spur on more citizens to buy hybrids. But that would penalize anyone without a hybrid (most of us) or the means to buy one (again, most of us).

So, what's the best move? We're not sure. But we know one thing: as long as Schwarzenegger's in office, we don't have to worry about every kook proposal discussed in the statehouse being signed into law anymore. And that's why, next year, we think the Governator will be soundly re-elected...that is, elected for his first full term.

More Intrigue!

2005-02-14T16:19:00.000-08:00

The New York Post is reporting (rather cryptically) that Heisman Trophy winner Matt Leinart is considering leaving USC for the NFL.

The Post has learned that two-time Heisman Trophy winner Matt Leinart is considering attempting to qualify for the supplemental draft, which would allow him to play in the NFL this fall. Leinart would either have to graduate USC in May or drop out of school to qualify, according to Greg Aiello, the league's VP of public relations.
"The purpose of the supplemental draft is not a means for players to avoid the regular draft," Aiello said. "You have to qualify."
Should Leinart enter the supplemental draft, which would be held in July, the 49ers would have the best chance at the top pick, but it would not be guaranteed. The league would conduct a weighted lottery with teams divided into three categories — those with six or fewer wins, non-playoff teams and playoff teams.
A Southern Cal spokesman told The Post that Leinart, who lost offensive coordinator Norm Chow to the NFL's Titans, has alerted the school that he didn't plan to graduate until after the fall semester.

The Post neglects to mention how they learned that Leinart is "considering" leaving school, but let's assume for a moment that what they're reporting is true. It's not surprising, considering this Bill Plaschke column from last week about Leinart's displeasure over Norm Chow's departure. In it, Plaschke insinuates that the main reason Leinart decided to return for his fifth year was to spend another year learning from Chow. Now, of course, we all know that's not going to happen. So it's not a stretch to assume that Leinart would be upset enough to look into how he could still go to the NFL. (He missed the league's early-entry deadline, which was in mid-January.)

But considering what teammate Mike Williams went through last year with the NFL Draft, we'd be surprised if Leinart really leaves. (It should be noted that if Leinart does qualify for a supplemental draft and decides to leave, unlike Williams, he doesn't have to worry about a court ruling preventing him from playing in the NFL.) Steve Sarkisian, the new co-offensive coordinator, was Leinart's quarterback coach for his first three years at USC, and since Sarkisian spent last season coaching quarterbacks for the Oakland Raiders, he'll be able to prepare Leinart for the next level almost as well as Chow, who, before being hired by the Titans, had no experience coaching in the NFL.

Happier days for Carroll and Leinart

More important -- and again, that's assuming that the Post's report is true -- is the damage the Chow situation has done to the relationship between Leinart and Pete Carroll. When Leinart announced that he was staying, it was clear that Carroll had heavily lobbied his quarterback to remain at USC (much of Leinart's comments to the press echoed earlier statements made by Carroll), but it sounds like Leinart made that decision under the assumption that Chow would still be at USC. If Carroll was -- as most reports indicate -- considering "replacing" Chow before Leinart made his decision but neglected to tell that to his quarterback, it constitutes a major breach of trust between a coach and player who appeared to have a great relationship up to that point.

Leinart is clearly the leader of the team (as well as a bona fide college football superstar), and Carroll can't afford to spend next season butting heads with him. Remember, Leinart just had surgery and will be sitting out spring practice (another reason why he's unlikely to turn pro), meaning that he'll have plenty of time to fester a grudge while sitting on the sidelines watching John David Booty lead the first team offense. If Carroll is smart, he'll do whatever he has to do to make up with his star quarterback -- assuming Leinart stays. If he decides to go pro, well, we all know how Carroll feels about players being irreplaceable, but then again, he did seem to lobby Leinart awfully hard to stay for one more year...

Our guess is that Leinart did inquire about a supplemental draft -- it would be foolish not to investigate all of his options -- which would confirm that he really is upset about the Chow situation. Unlike the rumors about Chow and Carroll, the conflict between Leinart and Carroll certainly seems real -- and we'd wager that it will have a bigger impact than Chow's departure on how the Trojans fare in 2005. That's why, of everything written about the Trojans in the last two weeks, this is the big story.

UPDATE: On Friday, the Daily Trojan ran an item about Leinart possibly leaving:

Bob Leinart, father of USC quarterback and defending Heisman Trophy winner Matt Leinart, denied that his son would petition for a supplemental draft to enter the NFL.

"No, he's not going in the supplemental draft," the elder Leinart said Thursday. "He can't, because he's not taking enough units this semester to graduate. But even if he could go in the supplemental, he wouldn't."

A couple of thoughts. First, as long as Bob Leinart is acting as Matt's spokesman and not speaking of his own accord, we think it's fine that Dad is the one handling talking to the press. Leinart has been dealing with intense media scrutiny for a long time, and there's no reason that his father shouldn't be able to take some of that pressure off of his son. This is a smart move.

Secondly, though it's nice (as a USC fan) to hear Bob deny that Matt is going to leave via a supplemental draft, we don't put much stock in what he says. Nothing personal against Mr. Leinart, but so much has been said and not said since the flareup between Carroll and Chow that words don't carry a whole lot of weight anymore. Mike Williams said last year that he was going to stay at USC, and then decided to go pro. We don't have a problem with that -- athletes, like the rest of us, retain the right to change their minds. But that means we're not naive enough to believe everything they (or their fathers) say.

Finally, Bob Leinart, it seems to us, has got it wrong. He told the Daily Trojan that Matt couldn't go in a supplemental draft because he's not taking enough units to graduate this May. But according to the NFL's Greg Aiello (quoted in the NY Post story), Leinart would be eligible for a supplemental draft if he either graduated OR dropped out of school. Thus, he doesn't have to graduate to leave for the NFL -- there are worse things in the world than finishing a few credits short of a degree from USC, especially when you're making millions of dollars playing in the NFL.

Boi From Troy notes that Leinart left an awards ceremony early to make it back to campus for a class, but we don't take that as a sign of Leinart's intentions. He saw what happened to Mike Williams last year, who was declared ineligible for the 2004 season not because he decided to turn pro, but because even before he made that decision, he had stopped going to class. Leinart's smart enough to know he ought to keep his options open, which means going to class and retaining his NCAA eligibility, regardless of what he's planning to do right now.

That being said, we still don't think that Leinart is leaving. Yes, going in a supplemental draft would be a way of -- potentially -- avoiding ending up with a woeful team like the San Francisco 49ers. But all of the reasons Leinart gave for staying at USC still apply. The only thing that's changed is the presence of Chow and his relationship with Carroll. Leinart knows that Chow isn't coming back (and that he's not likely to end up being drafted by the Titans), and we know that Pete Carroll is too smart to let Leinart remain upset with him. That's why we think Leinart will be back in the fall.

And even if he's not, we'd still bet on the Trojans to win it all.

Triumph Strikes Again

2005-02-12T20:00:00.000-08:00

From tomorrow's New York Times Magazine: finally, an interview by Deborah Solomon worth reading! (We've noted Solomon's poor -- even for the Times -- interviews here, here, and here.) This time, she's talking to a puppet...and, surprisingly, rising to the occasion! Well, sort of. Triumph the Insult Comic Dog (and owner Robert Smigel) has a talent for using Solomon's brand of denseness as a breeding ground for humor. Here he discusses his nomination for Best Comedy Album at the upcoming Grammy Awards.

The Grammy judges are notorious for bad choices, so you might actually win.

In that case it will be the first Grammy to ever go to an album with a song dedicated to roundworm.

I see your album is up against one by Al Franken, as well as another by Jon Stewart.

Forces to be reckoned with, yes? They sure took down the president. And Franken's liberal radio is really taking off. I own a conch shell with more listeners.

It's vintage Triumph, but apparently Solomon didn't get the memo. And she seems to be bitter that she's being upstaged by a plastic dog puppet.

I realize your full name is Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog, but your obsessive disparaging of celebrities is unbelievably boring. Do you ever think about anything else?

You're trying to turn this interview into something serious. I'm just a two-dimensional character.

Then Triumph gets back to doing what he does best.

This happens to be an excellent age for puppets, what with ''Avenue Q'' winning a Tony for Best Musical. Don't you agree that puppets are flourishing?

Sure, just look at the president -- wait, I've got Al Franken's jokes here by mistake.

Then, unlike any of the real live people she's interviewed, Triumph actually calls out Solomon, throwing a textbook "some people say..." question back in her face:

Some people say dogs are what Democrats profess to be, because they are so inclusive and welcoming of people regardless of social class. What do you think?

You're not going to get me, liberal media, but I do grasp the concept. Like a lot of Democrats, we dogs can remain loyal for reasons we can no longer understand.

Professor Nut Job

2005-02-11T16:08:00.000-08:00

For the last three and a half years, we've been living in an alternate universe: on a college campus. Our loyal readers (or those who scroll down to the next post) know which university we're talking about -- in fact, we went back to this undisclosed institution of higher learning last night to visit some friends. We make this uncharacteristic personal disclosure as a preface to our comments on the current Ward Churchill controversy.

There's been much discussion as to whether or not Churchill ought to be fired for his reprehensible comments about the victims of 9/11, much of it framed within the context of the First Amendment. That's all well and good, but, to paraphrase another nutty professor, Juan Cole, you pundits out there were not in college six weeks ago. We were. Thus, our opinion supersedes yours. (Okay, okay, we don't really believe that, but we do think that our recent proximity to the world of academia gives us a unique and post-worthy perspective on the Churchill flap.)

What's been lost in the controversy is the fact that there is more than one issue at play. (It should be noted that David Horowitz tried to point this out, but it seems that all anyone heard was his opposition to firing Churchill.) First of all, the First Amendment, as any college graduate should know, does not protect all speech. It prevents Congress from making any laws abridging the freedom of speech. Therefore, the Churchill situation is clearly -- clearly -- not a First Amendment issue. So let's stop discussing it as such.

It is, however, an issue of what our society deems to be appropriate. And that's where things get murkier.

The University of Colorado, Churchill's employer, is partially funded by taxpayers, and it follows that Churchill is thus responsible to those taxpayers (who provide 7% of the university's budget). Many have used that argument to support a Churchill dismissal; aside from the 7% figure, its flaw is that it renders the opinions of all non-residents of Colorado irrelevant in determining Churchill's fate. And most people who have been citing it are non-residents.

That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that Churchill shouldn't be dismissed. In fact, we think that he should. Here's why:

What Churchill says as a professor at an institution of higher learning (yes, we know...try not to snicker) ought to be "protected," in our estimation. He and all of his colleagues in America's colleges and university should be allowed to say things that are controversial -- whether they're from the far left or far right. Neither the university nor the taxpayers should fire people who say something that they disagree with, or which is unpopular. If it happens to Churchill, what's to keep it from happening to a conservative professor who condemns reparations for slavery or says something negative about affirmative action? That's not to equate his comments with those positions, but remember, college campuses are not controlled, generally speaking, by political moderates but by hypersensitive members of the left.

Now, just because Churchill should be allowed to make outrageous claims doesn't mean that others -- his students, fellow professors, interested third parties -- shouldn't be allowed to stand up and say, "Those claims are outrageous!" Academic freedom is a two-way street (something forgotten -- or conveniently ignored -- by most radicals like Churchill), and having a debate about his comments transforms them from mindless vitriol into a worthwhile academic experience. We could segue here into a lengthy discussion on pursuit of the truth and the existence of objective truth and the notion that we all have our own truths, but we won't bore you with that. Just know that, when presented with the facts that disprove his claim, Churchill will likely fall back on the "that's your truth, this is mine" meme which has been such an impediment to the progress of academia.

However, those points aside, Churchill does deserve to be dismissed -- but for a different reason: his shoddy scholarship. In the real world, it's called dismissal with just cause, and Churchill's academic negligence has been duly documented: lying about his military service and falsely claiming to be an American Indian are likely just the tip of the iceberg for a man who trained members of a terrorist group in firing weapons and making bombs in the mid-1980s. The University of Colorado has opened an inquiry into Churchill's past, but, unfortunately, it appears as if it too is conflating the contentiousness of Churchill's comments (which should not be a factor) with the relevant question of their veracity, as well as the accuracy of his curriculum vitae.

At a special University of Colorado Board of Regents meeting Feb. 3, Chancellor Phil DiStefano announced that he and two University deans would launch a ''thorough examination of Professor Churchill's writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works'' to see if he had overstepped the bounds of proper faculty conduct [emphasis added]. DiStefano said the review would provide due process for a decision whether to fire Churchill, a tenured professor.

This is exactly the wrong way to deal with Churchill. Who decides what constitutes "the bounds of proper faculty conduct"? Such a subjective standard is not just inadequate -- it's dangerous. That's why those calling for Churchill's scalp -- er, head -- need to be careful. It's one thing to remove Churchill; it's quite another to do it for the wrong reasons. Pandora's Boxes don't come labeled as such. Otherwise, no one would ever open one.

More on Chow & Carroll

2005-02-10T15:45:00.000-08:00

Arash Markazi, a former classmate of ours at USC who currently writes for Sports Illustrated On Campus and SI.com has weighed in on the Norm Chow/Pete Carroll Breakup Saga. Markazi has been around the program as a sports writer for the Daily Trojan (the school newspaper) since Carroll's first season and we put more stock in his analysis than most of what's been written up to this point. Markazi seems to confirm that there really was a rift between the head coach and his offensive coordinator, one that developed after Chow told Tim Layden how much he loved working for Carroll.

Chow never wanted to leave the college game. If he had it his way he would be a head coach at a major university. His ideal job would have been to take over the struggling Stanford program, but it was offered to former Pittsburgh coach Walt Harris instead.

But something happened from the time Chow was turned down for the Stanford job to the time he accepted the Titans position this week. The beginning of this saga probably can be traced to Dec. 15, when USC defensive line coach Ed Orgeron was named head coach at Ole Miss. Following his hiring, Orgeron offered the offensive coordinator job to Trojans receivers coach Lane Kiffin. The 29-year-old passed. Was it a simple case of wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time or was their something more?

It had been rumored for weeks Carroll was considering shaking up his staff. After winning back-to-back national championships, it made as much sense as taking a smooth-running Porsche into a Jiffy Lube. The person who would benefit the most from the shakeup was Kiffin. Under the wide range of scenarios Carroll had drawn up for his staff, the one constant was that Carroll and Kiffin, the son of Carroll's mentor and Tampa Bay Buccaneers defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin, would assume greater roles with the offense[...]

Chow will not say publicly he was forced out, but those close to the situation say Carroll basically opened the door for his offensive coordinator's departure. One of the reasons Chow wanted to leave was the uncertainty he had regarding his role on the team. He was told there was a chance that he would be named assistant head coach and quarterbacks coach, which sounds like a promotion and an expansion of his responsibilities but, in reality, was a demotion. Carroll never gave Chow the commitment he felt he deserved from his head coach.

While Carroll will receive heat from fans and media members who believe he pushed out Chow, it's not clear if the tension was caused from a clash of egos. Or perhaps it simply was a situation in which Carroll felt the need to expedite Chow's imminent departure in favor of having two of college football's top young offensive assistants in Kiffin and Sarkisian[...]

Some people in the USC athletic department believe Carroll might be relieved to see Chow leave because Carroll had grown weary of the rumors surrounding Chow's imminent departure or because Carroll was tired of hearing that Chow was the reason for the Trojans' success on offense. That kind of talk went against Carroll's program-first ideology. It was also not true in Carroll's mind since Chow didn't have the carte blanche on offense that people thought.

Not only did Carroll assume a greater offensive role following the 2001 season, he promoted Kiffin to "passing-game coordinator" last season. It was a title that Chow, the most proficient passing guru in college football, didn't love and at times resented as was apparent during one practice before the Orange Bowl when the two were involved in a shouting match.

After following this story for the last few weeks (news of a Chow/Carroll rift surfaced just prior to the 2005 Orange Bowl), we tend to think that Markazi's got it right. It's been clear ever since Norm Chow arrived at USC that his goal was to become a college head coach, and Carroll said he understood that when he hired Chow.

We suspect that Carroll believed Chow was going to get the Stanford job (after all, Chow certainly did) and had begun preparations for dealing with his loss. As Markazi notes, Lane Kiffin had already taken on more responsibilities in the USC offense, no doubt to learn from Chow and smooth the transistion when Chow left. (More on Kiffin from the Orange County Register's Steve Bischeff, a Daily Trojan alum himself) When Chow didn't get the Stanford job, the pieces were already in place to succeed him, and he became expendable.

Whether Chow's departure was exacerbated by a personality conflict will likely remain unanswered, but it's not clear that another successful year at USC would have helped him achieve his goal of becoming a head coach. What more could he do with the Trojans that he hadn't already done? His last two quarterbacks won the Heisman Trophy and his last two teams won the national championship. Would another Heisman for Leinart or another national title sway athletic directors who weren't otherwise convinced of his worthiness?

As for Carroll, the perception will be that he ran off his resident offensive genius. And maybe he did. But after four seasons, three Pac 10 titles and two national championships, he's earned the benefit of the doubt, at least in our minds. Perhaps he realized that Chow wasn't going to get a head coaching job without NFL experience but didn't think the offensive coordinator would leave of his own volition. Or he thought that the constant speculation surrounding Chow's next job was having a detrimental effect on the Trojans (though that didn't seem to be the case as far as recruiting was concerned), and that with next year's team being so talented and experienced, he could afford to break in a new offensive coordinator. Or, as some allege, he really was jealous of the credit Chow was receiving for USC's success, though we find that a little hard to believe. Five years ago, Carroll was on the ash heap of coaches (along with luminaries like Rich Kotite and Wayne Fontes); today, he's stands alongside his successor in New England, Bill Belichick, as the most successful coach of the 21st century. That he's lived life at the bottom of the mountain makes him much more likely to appreciate things at the top.

Can he stay there without Norm Chow? We're about to find out.

UPDATE: LA Times columnist Bill Plaschke, who first broke the story of the rift between Carroll and Chow, writes about a very interested third party: Matt Leinart, who stayed for his fifth year in large part to continue to learn from Chow. It doesn't sound like Leinart is too happy about Chow's departure.

"This was about Matt and Norm," said his father, Bob. "They were doing this together. One last year together."

Insulting the Bay Area?

2005-02-09T19:44:00.000-08:00

Another non-sequitur from the NY Times:

Salon [the online magazine] has its headquarters in San Francisco, so the fact that it has had a long, strange trip makes sense.

The Truth!

2005-02-09T14:17:00.000-08:00

Former lovers, er, coaches Carroll and Chow

Sports Illustrated's Tim Layden offers a different narrative in the Pete Carroll - Norm Chow break-up saga: that Chow was frustrated about not getting the Stanford job (which went to Pittsburgh coach Walt Harris, a friend of Carroll's) and decided he needed to make a change to make himself more marketable to college athletic directors.

Two possibilities: First, Chow began to realize that he might never be hotter than he is right now, off two national titles and two Heisman trophies (Carson Palmer and Matt Leinart). He is 58 years old. If he ever wanted to jump, this was the time. Second, top college programs often seek head coaches with NFL experience, like Harris and Charlie Weis. If Chow is successful with Titans, it's a big, bold line on his resume, maybe the one he needs to become a head coach in college three or four years down the road. If he's not successful, he won't have any problem going back and finding a coordinator's job in college.

Layden also does his best to douse the flames on the Carroll/Chow Falling Out story:

When I talked to Chow in mid-January, he raved about Carroll's football brain and the challenge of working with and against Carroll every day in practice. He acknowledged that Carroll has had a major role in shaping the USC offense, even though he's regarded as a defensive mind.

UPDATE: We reserve the right to change our minds! New infomation has come to light, man! This is a very complicated situation! (Lot of ins, lot of outs, lot of what-have-yous.) Read our most recent post on Carroll/Chow Breakup 2005.

Corey Feldman Mania!

2005-02-08T15:28:00.000-08:00

According to ABC News' website, former child star Corey Feldman is about to go public with some information about his [former] friendship with Michael Jackson, which dates back to the 80s. It's almost as easy to make fun of Feldman as it is of Jackson (see this comprehensive post on Jacko), but we're not prejudging Feldman's interview as a publicity stunt. (For that, we'll wait until we hear what he says.) But it does give us a reason to tell one of our favorite Corey Feldman stories (there are just so many!).

Mr. and Mrs. Corey Feldman

It takes place in late December of 2003, around New Year's Eve. One of our friends, of the female persuasion, was sitting in a hotel lobby waiting to meet some friends. Feldman and his wife approached, and asked her if she'd like to join them in a three-some. No "Hi, I'm Corey. What's your name?" and then some small talk and then "Wanna have a three-some?" Corey got right to the point. Our friend was, uh, flattered (she's a Goonies fan) but wisely turned down the request.

In Lieu of Lame Cat Photos

2005-02-08T02:34:00.000-08:00

Yes, this is a photo of an elephant taking a crap in a specially-designed elephant toilet. Ah, progress.

Tom Friedman Is Making Sense

2005-02-05T22:24:00.000-08:00

From Sunday's NY Times:

The U.S. should announce that it is lowering the reward for bin Laden from $25 million to one penny, along with an autographed picture of George W. Bush. At the same time, it should reduce the $25 million reward for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the chief terrorist in Iraq, to one pistachio and an autographed picture of Dick Cheney.

Don't get me wrong. Bin Laden and Zarqawi have murdered thousands of people. I want them brought in dead or alive - and preferably the former. If I thought $100 million would do it, I'd be for it. But these megarewards clearly are not working, and in many ways they are sending the totally wrong signals.

First, both of these guys are obviously megalomaniacs, who think the world is just hanging on their every word and waiting for their next video. All we are doing is feeding their egos, and telling them how incredibly important they are, when we not only put a $25 million bounty on their heads, but in the case of bin Laden, double the figure. We are just enhancing their status on the Arab street as the Muslim warriors standing up to America, and only encouraging other megalomaniacs out there who might have similar fantasies to follow suit. We should be doing just the opposite - letting these two losers know that we don't think they are worth more than a penny or a pistachio.

But there is an even more important issue of principle at stake. We should not be paying Iraqis or Arabs or Pakistanis to get rid of their problem. Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are a curse on their civilization. Their capture will have meaning or real value to them, to us and to the world, only if it is done by Arabs and Muslims for the sole purpose of purging their civilization of these two cancer cells.

Also, if bin Laden's or Zarqawi's own neighbors turn them in for nothing, it will have a much greater deterrent effect on others.

Comedy!

2005-02-05T19:11:00.000-08:00

Deborah Solomon weighs in with another "culturally edifying" interview in the New York Times Magazine, this time with MPAA head Dan Glickman (who looks a lot like Uncle Fester).

Some of our favorite, uh, zingers:

Have you met President Bush?

I did see President Bush at the Alfalfa Club dinner in Washington recently. The president looked over to me, and he said, ''Hello, Glick.''

You mean he got your name wrong?

Well, he has nicknames for everyone.

Is Glick a nickname?

I don't know. It's the name he called me, so what was I going to say?

[...]

Have you ever experienced a setback?

I was voted out of Congress in 1994. It is not great to be fired from your job, particularly so publicly. But a month later I was picked to be secretary of agriculture. When one door closes, another opens. But you have to be standing right by the door.

What if the door opens too quickly and breaks your nose?

Well, it could. But you still have to be right by the door. It can just as easily open for you as it can against you.

Indeed, what if the door opens too quickly and you get smashed in the nose? See, we would never have thought to ask that question!

The More Things Change...

2005-02-05T19:06:00.000-08:00

Richard A. Clarke, still getting it wrong:

Zarqawi and his followers do oppose democracy in Iraq, but they do so partly because they believe that the continuing electoral process (a constitutional referendum is planned for October of this year and a national election for December) is an American imposition. In this they are joined by the many Iraqis who simply want an occupying army to leave. In addition, Zarqawi's group seeks support from the Sunni Arab minority, which in any democratic process will lose power as compared with what it had in the decades of Baath Party rule [...]

President Bush's democracy-promotion policy will be appropriate and laudable at the right time in the right nations, but it is not the cure for terrorism and may divert us from efforts needed to rout Al Qaeda and reduce our vulnerabilities at home. The president is right that resentment is growing and that it is breeding terrorism, but it is chiefly resentment of us, not of the absence of democracy. The 9/11 Commission had a proposal similar to the president's, but more on point: a battle of ideas to persuade more Muslims that jihadist terrorism is a perversion of Islam. Most Middle East experts agree, however, that any American hand in the battle of ideas will, for now, be counterproductive. For many in the Islamic world, the United States is still associated with such acts as having made the 250,000 person city of Falluja uninhabitable. Because of the enormous resentment of the United States government in the Islamic world, documented in numerous opinion polls, we will have to look to nongovernmental organizations and other nations to lead the battle of ideas.

Apparently he missed coverage of last week's election.

Must-See TV

2005-02-03T17:51:00.000-08:00

This embrace, between Iraqi Safia Taleb al-Suhail and Janet Norwood, was the defining moment of last night's State of the Union address. As many have noted, it was difficult not to be overcome with emotion at a gesture that was so symbolic and yet at the same time so personal. That al-Suhail's father had been killed by Saddam's regime and she could thus understand what it meant for Norwood to have lost her son in the battle for Fallujah added to its power. What made the moment even more special was that it was clearly (at least, clear to non-conspiracy theorists) an unscripted, spontaneous gesture -- a signature image in this President's legacy of remaking the Middle East.

Another Less-Notable Hug at the SOTU

2005-02-03T17:49:00.000-08:00

Zzzzzzzzzz

2005-02-01T19:51:00.000-08:00

It's been a slow news day, as far as we're concerned, which is why posting has been, um, "light." Also, we've been experiencing trouble with our internet service provider (Adelphia, in case you were interested -- we didn't think so) so browsing, let alone blogging, has been difficult. But we notice that proto-blogger Andrew Sullivan announced that he's taking an extended leave of absence to concentrate on other things, like writing books.

We started reading Sullivan before the 2000 election, before the word "blog" even existed; indeed, Sullivan was one of the first real bloggers, and his literary pedigree no doubt attracted other serious writers to join in the online conversation. Sullivan's skills helped to define the meritocracy upon which the blogosphere is based: his rise was due to the quality of his writing, not his level of notoriety or the circles in which he traveled. That a British homosexual former editor of the New Republic would become one of the country's most-read conservative thinkers is a testament to just how good his website -- er, blog -- really was.

So good, in fact, that as his readership continued to grow and his site required more bandwith, he started losing money. The "Tipping Point" model he created, asking readers to donate in lieu of charging a subscribtion fee, was effective enough to keep things afloat, but by no means provided him a salary.

The arrival of BlogAds changed that, but, ironically, their timing coincided with his uncharacteristic wavering on the Iraq War that drove down his readership numbers. After taking a vacation from blogging in August 2004, he returned from Provincetown with a different mindset; upset about the President's position on same-sex marriage, he began questioning the management of the War and the capability of the President. For a man who had a clarity of vision reminiscent of George Orwell and made the case for war much more eloquently and often than anyone in the administration, Sullivan's tack was too much for many of his loyal readers to accept (us included).

It wasn't that he was changing his mind -- it was that he seemed to be changing his mind without without reason ("excitable Andrew," Mickey Kaus called it). Here was a man who had been a veritable rock up to, during, and certainly after Baghdad fell, and now he seemed to be twisting in the wind. A man who had lauded the President's vision and resolute leadership was now endorsing John Kerry for president. It was quite un-Sullivan-like. And, because of the blogging meritocracy he helped create, many of his readers turned elsewhere.

Now, after the historic Iraqi elections, a moment that vindicated not just the President but Sullivan as well, he is taking a break from the responsibilities of daily blogging. In many ways, it's apropos, for Sullivan's mission has been accomplished. The freedom for Iraqis of which he so eloquently wrote has been achieved -- perhaps not in perpetuity but certainly more than symbolically. Their voices have been heard, and now Sullivan, who spoke for them for so long, can be silent.

For now.

Hate Bush? Love Freedom?

2005-01-31T17:49:00.000-08:00

Instapundit links to an account of a Bush-hater who went to the polls in Washington, D.C. over the weekend to interview American Iraqis voting in the Iraqi election.

You may think that you have felt dumb before, but let me tell you something: until you have stood in front of a man who knows real pain and told him that you are against your country's alleviation of his country's state-sponsored murderous suffering, you have not felt truly, deeply, like a total fucking moron.

Sick to our Stomachs. Thanks, NYT

2005-01-31T01:50:00.000-08:00

Bob Herbert wrote a column in Monday's NY Times that we did not find edifying. Normally we don't get too excited (or, uh, excitable) when we read something we disagree with, especially in the Times, but in light of the courageous acts of millions of Iraqis on Sunday, we think we might be experiencing a little righteous indignation. It's not that Herbert plays the Chicken-Little-the-sky-is-falling-in-Iraq card (he does); it's that he starts out the piece acknowledging the power of the statement made by the Iraqi people, but only as a rhetorical device, using it as a setup for his grand reveal of how things "really are."

You'd have to be pretty hardhearted not to be moved by the courage of the millions of Iraqis who insisted on turning out to vote yesterday despite the very real threat that they would be walking into mayhem and violent death at the polls.

At polling stations across the country there were women in veils holding the hands of children, and men on crutches, and people who had been maimed during the terrible years of Saddam, and old people. Among those lined up to vote in Baghdad was Samir Hassan, a 32-year-old man who lost a leg in the blast of a car bomb last year. He told a reporter, "I would have crawled here if I had to."
In a war with very few feel-good moments, yesterday's election would qualify as one. But (ah, yes, the magical BUT) as with any positive development in Iraq, this one was riddled with caveats. For one thing, dozens of people were, in fact, killed in election day attacks. And shortly after the polls closed, a British military transport plane crashed northwest of Baghdad.

So there was no respite from the carnage. (Mentioning the crash seems to us to be quite the non sequitur. He might as well list all the traffic accidents in Baghdad -- no respite from the carnage!)

And we should keep in mind that despite the feelings of pride and accomplishment experienced by so many of the voters, yesterday's election was hardly a textbook example of democracy in action. A real democracy requires an informed electorate. What we saw yesterday was an uncommonly brave electorate. But it was woefully uninformed.

Much of the electorate was voting blind. Half or more of those who went to the polls believed they were voting for a president. They weren't. They were electing a transitional national assembly that will have as its primary task the drafting of a constitution. The Washington Post noted that because of the extreme violence that preceded the election "almost none of the 7,700 candidates for the National Assembly campaigned publicly or even announced their names."

It's interesting that Herbert quotes the Washington Post directly but fails to reveal his source for his claim that "half or more" Iraqis went to the poll thinking they were voting for a president. Not that we wouldn't give Herbert the benefit of the doubt -- it is the New York Times, after all (snicker) -- but if what he says is true, it's an important part of the story. If it's just his conjecture, it's very disingenuous.

The desire of the U.S., as embodied by the Bush administration, is to exercise as much control as possible over the Middle East and its crucial oil reserves. There is very little concern here about the plight of ordinary Iraqis, which is why the horrendous casualties being suffered by Iraqi civilians, including women and children, get so little attention.

Yes, yes, no blood for oil. We got the memo. It's one thing to spout it while commenting on a Kos post; it's quite another to print it -- completely unsubstantiated and unsupported -- in our nation's "paper of record."

In large swaths of the country, death at the hands of insurgents seems always just moments away. It's also extremely easy for innocent Iraqis to get blown away by Americans. That can occur if drivers get too close - or try to pass - an American military convoy. Or if confusion arising from language barriers, or ignorance of the rules, or just plain nervousness results in an unfortunate move by a vehicle at a checkpoint. Or if someone objects too vociferously to degrading treatment by U.S. forces. Or if someone is simply suspected, wrongly, of being an insurgent.

Now Herbert alleges U.S. soldiers of killing -- no, "blowing away" Iraqis for arguing or looking suspicious. Again, it would be nice if these were backed up by any facts. Herbert supplies none, leaving us to assume that he does not possess them. In light of the job our forces did in preventing carnage at the polls Sunday, this is shameful.

Crime in many areas is completely out of control. Kidnapping for ransom, including the kidnapping of children, is ubiquitous. Carjackings are commonplace. Rape and murder are widespread.

Sounds like New York City! But joking aside, Herbert's broad generalizations (once again, absent of anything to support them) are a hallmark of poor writing and would incur the wrath of our sixth grade English teacher. But not, apparently, any editor at the New York Times.

It appears that Herbert wrote this column prior to the election, and then was forced to amend it after its unexpected (at least to him) success. So he tacked on some paragraphs at the beginning, then left the rest, and in so doing, turned a bad column into an indefensible one.

Dispatches from the Rear

2005-01-30T14:59:00.000-08:00

We just got off the phone with a friend of ours who was an opponent of the war in Iraq from the very beginning. He seemed to be of the Pat Buchanan school of thinking, that we were just getting ourselves into a lot of trouble, and that we had no business being there. We didn't call to talk about yesterday's election, but it came up. Here is what he said:

I think it is one of the most magnificent things that's happened in the past ten years.

It proved to us that yes, there are critics of the war who can acknowledge that yesterday's election was a huge success and also a vindication of sorts -- provided that things continue on the current path. Our friend was even talking about the power of freedom and his hopefulness that these elections in Afghanistan and Iraq are a signal of where the Middle East is headed. No bitterness in his voice. Only pride -- in what our soldiers and the Iraqi people have accomplished.

We'd posit that there are many other war critics out there who feel the same way. Here's hoping that they're welcomed onto the bandwagon of freedom, and not taunted with I-told-you-so's. Because we're all on the same team here -- war critics, war supporters, and, as is now clear, every Iraqi citizen.

Getting Misty-eyed

2005-01-30T07:43:00.000-08:00

It's been quite a day for the people of Iraq -- enough to cause cynical louts like us shed a tear. We defer to Mohammed and Omar, the blogging brothers at Iraq the Model:

Is there a bigger victory than this? I believe not...

Could any bravery match the Iraqis'!? Let the remaining tyrants of the world learn the lesson from this day...

These are stories that will be written on the brightest pages of history...

Today, there's no voice louder than that of freedom.

News You Need To Know

2005-01-29T16:09:00.000-08:00

Even in the midst of moving, this story is worth posting (via Drudge):

A Slovak man trapped in his car under an avalanche freed himself by drinking 60 bottles of beer and urinating on the snow to melt it.

Rescue teams found Richard Kral drunk and staggering along a mountain path four days after his Audi car was buried in the Slovak Tatra mountains...

He had 60 half-litre bottles of beer in his car as he was going on holiday, and after cracking one open to think about the problem he realised he could urinate on the snow to melt it, local media reported.

He said: "I was scooping the snow from above me and packing it down below the window, and then I peed on it to melt it. It was hard and now my kidneys and liver hurt. But I'm glad the beer I took on holiday turned out to be useful and I managed to get out of there."

Now, call us crazy, but couldn't he have just poured (or spat) the beer on the snow instead of drinking it all and then urinating? Unless he had to "warm" it first, to maximize the snow melting. Then it would make complete sense. Or if he was an alcoholic.

Update!

2005-01-29T14:31:00.000-08:00

We're moving today (in the real world, not the blogosphere -- which means actual work), so don't expect any insightful commentary until tomorrow (or late tonight if you're lucky!). Yes, because everytime you click on those links to the side of this post, we make a fraction of a cent, we've been able to upgrade to a considerably nicer new HQ. So keep clicking and soon we'll be blogging from Malibu!

In the News

2005-01-28T16:46:00.000-08:00

From today's Studio Briefing:

The Rotterdam International Film Festival has canceled a screening of Submission Part One, Theo Van Gogh's film about a Muslim woman who is forced into a marriage with a man who beats her and who is later accused of adultery when her uncle rapes her. Last year, Van Gogh was killed by an Islamist militant, who left a message on the knife that he used, blaming the movie for his act. The writer of the film has since gone into hiding. The film had been scheduled to be shown on Sunday during a discussion on freedom of speech in film at the festival. The producer of Submission, Gijs van de Westelaken, said Thursday, "We do not want to take any chance of endangering anyone else who participated in the film."

The President Assists the NY Times

2005-01-28T14:58:00.000-08:00

An excerpt from the President's interview with the New York Times:

And I believe there will be a Palestinian state. I'm surprised you haven't asked me the question about it, so I'll ask myself: How are things going? They are going fine. Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] - he's got the will of the people with him, and that inspires leaders. That gives a leader a sense of - an extra sense of purpose.

And Abu Mazen has shown strength in the early phases of his administration. And he is consolidating security forces in Gaza. He is sending assurances that he will put a 100-percent effort into protecting the people on both sides of the issue from terrorists. And to me, that's an impressive start.

Gladiators of the Gridiron

2005-01-28T13:00:00.000-08:00

Next weekend is the Super Bowl (yes, we know, we only watch it for the commercials, too) which has us in a football mood, it seems. The big question surrounding the game is whether or not the Philadelphia Eagles' star wide receiver, Terrell Owens, will play. He injured his ankle on December 19th and has yet to be cleared by doctors to play, though he vows he will be on the field next Sunday.

The late Mike Webster with a photo of himself during his playing days

We've been reading with much interest a series of articles on ESPN.com about the late Mike Webster, a Hall of Fame center for the Pittsburgh Steelers and the former owner of four Super Bowl rings. Webster played back in the days when men were men, and the physical pounding he receieved over the course of his career took its toll, turning a college honors student into a mentally disabled drifter.

His family is suing the NFL over disability compensation it believes is owed to them (Webster's mental problems weren't acknowledged until the late 90s), but the merits of their particular case wasn't what fascinated us about Webster's story. No, what we found intriguing was the relationship between the sacrifices Webster made with regard to his body, the glory they earned him (Webster was named one of the best 75 professional football players of all time), and the costly toll they took after he retired, alienating him from his family and in essence if not in fact causing his death.

His days were filled with pain from his numerous football injuries. He often slept only a few hours each night, usually sitting up in a chair because the ache was too great to lie down. By that time, he was taking Vicodin regularly and, at different times, Darvocet, Ultram and Lorcet. He also had a regular prescription for Ritalin and used Paxil and Prozac to dull his demons. Sometimes, the only thing that brought him relief was a black Taser gun. He would ask Sunny or his son Garrett to stun him into unconsciousness, usually in the thigh but sometimes in the back and neck. When no one was there, which was often, he would try to do it himself.

Webster was certainly not the only former professional athlete tormented in retirement by injuries. Who knows how many former athletes (and their families) battle with the after effects of years of subjugating their bodies to what can only be characterized as physical abuse?

Webster's oldest son, Colin, tells the story of the doctor, who, upon examining an MRI of Webster's, asked if he had been in a car accident.

"Yeah," the old center said, "about 350,000 car accidents."

Because of advancements in medicine and protective equipment, today's players have a lesser chance of following in Webster's footsteps, but they still are at risk. It's not uncommon to hear about an injured player taking a cortisone shot before a big game -- a decision that in the moment seems like a noble and laudable one, but one that certainly could have lasting consequences. It's worth keeping in mind the plight of Mike Webster in those situations.

Is Terrell Owens listening?

Enjoying the Cold

2005-01-28T01:42:00.000-08:00

Mea Culpa

2005-01-26T14:41:00.000-08:00

Trying To Stay Awake

2005-01-26T13:53:00.000-08:00

Our apologies for the sporadic posting over the last day or so (especially in light of our prolific blogging over the weekend), but there just doesn't seem to be that much out there which strikes our fancy.

Maggie Gallagher is involved in some payola scandal, apparently, but Instapundit says it's not as bad as it sounds.

Ted Turner is making an ass of himself again, as if anyone cares (or would have noticed had Drudge not splashed it all over yesterday).

The New York Times had a mildly interesting editorial in today's edition about the current subway delays caused by one of the many homeless who inhabit NYC's subway tunnels. It's amusing (at least to us) to see a paper that so often lives in a liberal world of make-believe have to confront a very real problem that personally affects them so deeply. While clearly trying to create a much more nuanced argument, the editorial board's essential message was: Get the homeless out of the subways, dammit! But as with every dark cloud, there's always a silver lining, even for the Times: their unfamiliar dose of common sense led to one of the Times' best editorials of the year!

Star Sighting!

2005-01-25T14:41:00.000-08:00

We must admit that our earlier "celebrity-sighting" is much less enlightening than Soxblog's similar first-hand account of running into 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta.

Shortly after 9/11 I was reading the coverage of that horrible day. I was focusing on a profile of Mohammed Atta. In this story I read that he and I had worked out at the same World Gym in south Florida. After reading this, I knew exactly who he was – Mohammed Atta was that skinny little asshole who worked out like a nut on the machines (never wiping them) and when he was done he went into the self defense class held primarily for the benefit of blue-hairs who were unduly concerned about muggers. You read that right – the killer of thousands was learning the tricks of the trade in a class intended for snow-birding grandmothers.

Soxblog's point -- that these terrorists, while certainly able to do much damage, aren't necessarily the killing machines they're often made out to be -- is an important one, especially as we turn our attention toward the elections in Iraq. If one assumes that we're fighting against near-mythic religious zealots, it doesn't seem crazy to try to talk nice and not "inflame" the Arab world, to keep from potentially creating more terrorists. But if, as we suspect, most are more like Atta, the President's tough talk makes a lot of sense. And it's worked before with an enemy that many thought was more than our equal. Remember the Soviet Union?

Back To Work...Kind Of

2005-01-24T23:23:00.000-08:00

Her father having recently returned to the Senate, Alexandra Kerry is back to work as well, surfacing over the weekend at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah. You'll recall that last year the filmmaker and sometime actress (she seems to be a favorite of David Mamet, who cast her in bit parts in his movies State and Main and Spartan) turned heads with a see-through dress at Cannes; this year, in the heart of Mormon (and Bush) country, she took a much more modest tack at the premiere of Why We Fight, a documentary on the Iraq War and the forces driving American militarism. The film features prominent policy wonks like John McCain, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol...and Graydon Carter?

A tired-looking Alexandra Kerry at the premiere of Why We Fight

The Pac 10: Impressive!

2005-01-24T20:55:00.000-08:00

In addition to winning the Heisman Trophy, USC quarterback Matt Leinart was named by the Pacific 10 Conference as their Co-Offensive Player of the Year (an award he shared with teammate Reggie Bush). One would think that the Pac 10 would be particularly proud of Leinart, arguably its best quarterback since John Elway, especially in light of his recent decision to return to USC as a fifth year senior.

But alas, the conference didn't even spell his name right on the trophy. (No word on whether Leinart's name was misspelled last year as well, when he won the same award.)

New Stem Cell Controversy

2005-01-23T22:41:00.000-08:00

According to a report in Monday's LA Times, all human embryonic stem cell lines approved for use in federally funded research may be contaminated and thus potentially unusable for medical therapies. Now, this is the LA Times, so we'll hold off making any grand pronouncements until the rest of the scientific community has a chance to weigh in (we're talking about scientists in the blogosphere, of course), but this could be very big news. Expect to hear a lot more about it in the coming days -- but remember, you heard it here first.

Impressing Junior

2005-01-23T21:35:00.000-08:00

If you happen to have a child in college right now, you can earn some "Cool Points" by casually mentioning The Facebook in your next conversation. Trust us -- it's the Next Big Thing, and a lot cheaper than an iPod (like, free, dude). An online directory of college students' profiles that is interconnected with more than 300 colleges and universities (and still growing! Wow!), it is, as this LA Times article notes, extremely addictive. (Trust us.)

The site is "a huge time waster," said Liz Pardue, 22, a Pomona senior majoring in psychology who quotes Buddha and Charles Darwin on her listing. "It's fun, but it's about the most superficial contact in the world."

Which is exactly why we love it.

Obligatory Johnny Carson Post

2005-01-23T21:16:00.000-08:00

Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show" certainly was something, but, honestly, we're already getting sick of people talking about how much they loved him. Not that any of those feelings are invalid, mind you, but we get the impression that all these "remembrances" have more to do with the teller and less to do with Carson. It's pretty clear to us that he succeeded in keeping his personal life a mystery to the public (unlike one Britney Spears, as we've noted) but from the way people are talking about him, he comes off as a good friend. No, he wasn't -- he was a hell of an entertainer, and maybe even transcended that a bit. But it's hard for us to buy his death as a "personal" loss for anyone other than members of his family or his close (true) friends.

That's not to deny his profound impact on the medium of television, or the development of comedy. The LA Times has a nice piece about his penchant for helping out young comics (Letterman, Leno, Roseanne, etc.) by showcasing up-and-coming standups. That benevolent assistance may be the best indicator of Carson's personal character, though we'll probably never really know. Which is likely just what Johnny wanted.

So, we say: Johnny, rest in peace. We hardly knew ye.

Bitch Set Me Up!

2005-01-23T14:17:00.000-08:00

Our old friend (not personally, of course) Marion Barry is back -- you may have already heard that he's on the D.C. City Council and making a fuss about the city having to foot some of the bill for inaguration security. What we love about Marion is his out-and-out honesty, in our current Age of Euphemism. In an interview with TIME magazine, he talks about his recent election success:

Without being egotistical, I knew I was going to win. I'm one of the best political strategists in the country. God blessed me. I wasn't surprised. I knew I was going to win.

Not Again!

2005-01-23T13:52:00.000-08:00

We wish we were kidding folks -- we really do. But it seems as if "60 Minutes" has done it again. First fake documents, and now this:

60 Minutes did a profile on Manchester United goalkeeper Tim Howard last week. Nice piece, but the show never mentioned the fact that Howard lost his starting job a couple months ago. The piece made it sound like he was still United's No. 1 keeper, which is just ridiculous and very misleading.

Now, this certainly doesn't rise to the level of Rathergate, but, come on, people at CBS News, what are you thinking?! Time to hire someone to be the fact-checker! (Hmm...we're currently unemployed...Mr. Heyward: casualobserver@gmail.com!)

It's one thing to have something like this happen in a hit-piece on a President running for re-election -- people just assume it's politcal bias -- but when it occurs in a story about soccer (the red-headed stepchild of sports as far as most Americans are concerned), we start to think that "60 Minutes" is just populated with a bunch of idiots.

Ah, Syndicated Columnists...

2005-01-23T10:35:00.000-08:00

The Boys at Powerline (specifically The Big Trunk -- cool nicknames, guys!) have apparently turned into a Pulitzer-lobbying organization (how about a blog category this year -- I nominate Powerline!). They recently called for Steven Sharkansky to receive one for his coverage of the Washington gubernatorial election, and today, they want Mark Steyn to get one, too!

In the categories of commentary and criticism, will somebody please get Steyn a Pulitzer for his his work in the Sun-Times, the Atlantic, the New Criterion, and National Review? He is in a class by himself.

We agee (or concur; whichever you prefer); Steyn consistently hits it out of the park. He reminds us of another friend of ours on the op-ed page, Dr. Krauthammer. Check out his prescient piece from last Friday on our enemy in the next great conflict. It's worth noting that each of our great struggles in the 20th century was birthed in the preceding one: Hitler's rise to power was greatly aided by the punitive attitude the world took toward Germany after The Great War; The Iron Curtain was the product of the U.S. - Soviet alliance to beat the Axis in WWII; and we're all aware of how our aid to fighters of the Soviets (like one Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan) has come back to haunt us in our present conflict. So who is our current ally in the War on Terron that will be our enemy in the next great struggle?
Krauthammer just might have the answer.

Related: Steyn's column on, well, what's on his mind. Via Powerline.

The Man In Charge

2005-01-23T10:17:00.000-08:00

Ann Althouse (that's Professor Ann Althouse to you, my friend) takes a (mild) jab at Harvard president Larry Summers -- not for saying what he said, but for being dumb enough to think that he might be able to say what he said without provoking the reaction he got when he said what he said (yes, it's complicated, we know).

He would be woefully oblivious if he hadn't noticed the ideology in the academic culture he's working in. Those who are committed to science ought to be scientific enough to observe and analyze their own surroundings.

We're well aware of the academic ideology she refers to, having spent the last few years at a major research university (that haven of diversity and dissent...or not), but we're not sure we agree with Prof. Althouse that anticipating that what you're about to say might be a little controversial has much to do with this particular controversy; just as it's hard to anticipate what a crazy person might do, it's difficult to predetermine who on campus will be offended by what. No doubt President Summers is aware that he has a talent for pissing some academics off (see: West, Cornel), but that certainly shouldn't stop him from saying things which are controversial. His "self-awareness" of their potential controversiality (is that even a word? We don't care; we're using it) seems to be a tertiary or secondary issue at best.

For the best, most level-headed response to this whole flap, check out Will Saletan's piece on Slate.com. We'll hold off on the proverbial Saletan Election joke, just because that's the kind of people we are. (Our friend Soxblog has also weighed in, but we've been less impressed with his verbiage on the subject; he's a Harvard alum with a less nuanced view of the situation, so he never took the time to break down the situation and expose the ludicrousness [another potentially invented word!] of it like Saletan has.)

UPDATE: Because we've gotten a link from Soxblog (a very rare thing indeed), we feel it's necessary to point out that the above note is not a criticism of his blog, just us acknowledging that he wrote a bit on the subject but not with the breadth and depth that Saletan did.

UPDATE AGAIN: Proof of just how plugged in Summers is to what's happening on his campus is this anecdote from an LA Times piece on thefacebook.com, an online directory (think Friendster) for college students that just turned a year old and is rapidly becoming the Next Big Thing.

Nonetheless, Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers, welcoming new freshmen in the fall, quipped that he already knew them from perusing [thefacebook.com].

BONUS: Lawrence Summers' Facebook profile*

Redeeming Value?

2005-01-22T23:05:00.000-08:00

We'll admit, we were almost just as mad as Jeff Jarvis over Sarah Boxer's irresponsible piece on Iraq the Model in the New York Times earlier in the week. It's not like we believe much of what we read in the Times anyway, but occasionally we'll find something interesting (like Manohla Dargis, who we even liked when she was at the LA Times) in the paper the Times' Sunday magazine. (Can we all agree that it beats the hell out of PARADE?) Deborah Solomon usually says something horribly cocoonish, offensive, or hilarious (usually a combination of all three -- we noted one such instance here) in her interviews, and there's usually at least one feature worth reading. In this weekend's edition, it's a darkly fascinating look at the rehabilitation of a child molester. We haven't got a snarky comment for such sensitive subject matter -- even we have some amount of taste.

Snobbery

2005-01-22T22:44:00.000-08:00

No, we don't have a Windows-run computer. (And neither should you, but you'll figure that out for yourself in due time.) As far as Apple is concerned, we're true believers, (typing these very words on a state-of-the-art iMac G5 right now!), and we've been helping friends and family make the jump from the Dark Side over to the joy that is using a Macintosh. (Okay, so it's not all seashells and balloons, but compared to our -- and most people's, from what we hear -- nightmare with Windows, using a Mac is pretty close to bliss.)

What's that? You prefer your PC? Fine, don't get one -- it's not like you could right now anyway, according to this report. The new Mac Mini is flying off the shelves so fast that you have to wait three to four weeks for yours (you switcher, you!) and this obvious sign of strong demand for a risky product (just the computer -- no monitor, no keyboard, no mouse) is, predictably, drawing Chicken-Little-the-sky-is-falling responses from analysts who seem to make careers out of underestimating Apple.

Tim Deal, an industry analyst with Technology Business Research:

"It's a good sign; obviously people are excited about it," said Deal. But he added, "You want to be able to meet demand at this stage of game, or it's a good way to destroy your brand loyalty."

Well let me put your worst fears to rest, Mr. Deal. A three- or four-week wait is not going to destroy brand loyalty among Apple customers (who, we know from personal experience, can be almost religious in their reverence for the company and its fearless leader, Steve Jobs, peace be upon him), but even if it was, it wouldn't matter because the Mac Mini is a product specifically targeted at new Apple customers who want to switch from the Windows world -- that is, customers without any brand loyalty to Apple! So destroying non-existent loyalty with a three-week delay probably isn't that much of a concern to the folks at 1 Infinite Loop up in Cupertino! Nor will it be much of a concern for people buying Apple stock based on the Mac Mini's already strong performance (Jiminy Christmas, even Lileks got one!).

Now, Mr. Deal, who is the real analyst here?

The Excitable Boi From Troy...

2005-01-22T22:36:00.000-08:00

...sounds like he's trying to whip up a scandal involving L.A. mayor Jim Hahn (not like that would be too hard). He's reminding us of Andrew Sullivan (and Drudge) with cryptic lines like BOIFROMTROY EXCLUSIVE *** -- but what do we know? Check it out for yourself. It just might be scandal-worthy.

Oh By The Way...

2005-01-22T22:22:00.000-08:00

We ran into Britney Spears at the gas station last week. No, really. (We're HQ'd in Los Angeles, just north of KausFiles HQ, in case you were wondering.) In lieu of sending in a cheesy "celebrity sighting" to Defamer (one of our favorite sites, by the way -- and juicier than a Georgia peach), which we're not that interested in doing, we're going to disclose what happened to you, our loyal reader(s).

As Matt Drudge would say, *EXCLUSIVE*... must credit US!!!

...So we're sitting at a stoplight (having just been to Ralph's to restock our toilet paper collection) when a black Escalade drives by, the passenger window down halfway. We spot a girl in the passenger seat, and we say to ourselves, "Selves, that is Britney Spears." We were right, but only halfway -- her name now is Mrs. Federline. So Britney pulls into a gas station on the corner of that intersection, and, even though we'd just gotten gas two hours earlier, we realized we were dangerously low on chewing gum. So we decided to pull into the gas station as well -- but not before two SUVs pull in behind the Escalade, jerk to a stop, and spit out three photographers each. It looked like an FBI swat team converging on a crazy man at the gas station, except that the man was Britney Spears (whoops, Federline, at least for now) and she wasn't crazy, just potentially pregnant. Whatever she was going to do at the gas station, she decided against and got back in the Escalade, which was being driven by a large black man named Britney's Bodyguard. She did not look amused -- who would with those guys following you all day. And we felt for her -- enough that it's going to be awfully hard for us to buy a copy of US Weekly again without feeling very, very guilty.

Of course, paging through it at the counter is another story.

UPDATE: And yes, Mrs. Federline was wearing shoes, which we've been asked more than once while recounting the tale.

We're Back!

2005-01-22T21:59:00.000-08:00

What, you thought that we were like 95% of the people on Blogger who start a blog and post everyday for three months only to lose interest and let it languish without updates for weeks, months, even years (!) only to be viewed by the lonely late-night surfer paging through Blogger?

Well, we're not (like them, that is). No, we simply went on vacation for a few weeks (into the hammock, a certain formerly-level-headed Brit sometimes calls it) but forgot to tell our readers (all seven of them). It was really more like a sabatical, which we spent learning and growing in knowledge and learning things about knowledge. Semester break, our contemporaries call it -- but to us, it's just one long study break, which just supplies us more time to study. Ah, youth and knowledge. Never the twain shall meet, in most cases...

But, as the title of this post indicates, we're back! And, we presumptuously say, better than ever. We've become known for our innovative photoblogging during the presidential campaign, but our New Year's Resolution was to integrate both image AND text (novelty!) in our posts in 2005. We thank our supporters, including linking friends Soxblog and Vodkapundit, and hope to provide more and more exciting linkable material in these next few weeks, months, years, etc. "Think big!" is what we always say, and for once we're actually listening to ourselves (which is harder than you might think).

So sit back and read and laugh (guffaw even -- it's okay!) as we return to the blogosphere, not content to rest on our laurels until we get tired at 3:15 p.m. tomorrow and decide to take a nap. But until then...

This is the kind of thing...

2004-11-05T11:50:00.000-08:00

...that's going to help unite the country.

It's the cover of this weekend's LA WEEKLY, an alternative newspaper that -- surprise -- leans a bit to the left. Still, it's hard to see how depicting the newly-reelected President as a blood-thristy vampire wearing a six-pointed star (almost-veiled reference: Satan) is in anyway constructive.

Why We Read The Bleat

2004-10-22T13:52:00.000-07:00

Thursday:

Laura Bush will always be, in the public imagination, The Librarian. Even for Democrats, who like to fantasize that behind her smile lurks a curious, even progressive ally, their spy in the White House, reading with her Itty Bitty book light in bed late into the night.

Uh – wha? Do they actually fantasize that she stays up late reading subversive literature?

“What’re you reading, Laur.”

“Oh, the Vagina Monologues.”

“Don’t bother. We’re gonna win Vagina and West Vagina this year ZZZZZZ.”

Separating Church and State...at Your Convenience

2004-10-17T18:28:00.000-07:00

Earlier in the week John Kerry canceled his plans to attend a West Virginia church service when his campaign was told that any discussion of politics was off-limits. Sadly, it's not at all uncommon for a politician to take the pulpit and transform a Sunday morning service into a political rally. We've seen video of such occurences on C-SPAN and in campaign-documenting documentaries (that sounded redundant!), and frankly, it always leaves us with a bad taste in our mouths. Just as we're not big fans of the Catholic Church telling us it's a sin to vote for a particular candidate, we consider services at a church or synagogue or mosque to be a safe haven from political harangues. For all the talk about a separation between church and state, some politicians don't seem to mind blurring that boundary during an election year.

Just as President Bush's discussion of his religious views in the third debate came off as honest and real (in contrast to Senator Kerry's fumbling we're-all-God's-children everything-is-a-gift-from-God routine), we've noticed that although the President is a regular churchgoer, he doesn't seem to feel the need to climb the pulpit and campaign. Senator Kerry, on the other hand, won't even attend a church service unless he can spout off his talking points. The difference is another distinction between the two candidates, reinforcing the impression (and remember, impressions aren't necessarily untrue) that Kerry is a nuanced flip-flopper without much integrity, integrity, integrity, and that the President is, while flawed, honorable, decent, and a real human being.

UPDATE: We got some reader feedback (I know, I know -- hard to believe, and yet, true) in the comments section, calling us, well, nasty things that you can read for yourself. Perhaps we sound like conservative hacks in this post, but the truth of the matter is that only one presidential candidate has been hijacking religious services and turning them into sessions of political proselytizing. (His name starts with John Kerry.) It's one thing to get up on the stump and talk about why someone should vote for you, but it's quite another to get up in the pulpit and do the same. In our book, it's cheap and out of line, and shows a lack of respect for religion and especially those parishoners who have come to church for spiritual sustenance and instead are forced to sit through more partisan politics. Say what you will about the President (and Andrew Sullivan has said most of it), but at least he respects churchgoers enough not to turn Sunday mornings into just another opportunity to make a campaign appearance.

Breaking News

2004-10-17T15:45:00.000-07:00

The New York Times has announced that it is endorsing...John Kerry for President.

What a surprise.

Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we've seen [emphasis added]. He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.

I can't wait to find out who's getting the CBS endorsement!

Shameless Sullivan-Stealing

2004-10-16T20:56:00.000-07:00

Poseur Alert: Jack Witt in Sunday's New York Times Magazine:

Barbecue is theophagy, a way of consuming the divine past and claiming it as your own.

Talking Down to World Leaders

2004-10-16T20:48:00.000-07:00

It's not just John Kerry who's blatantly dissing our allies. Take this exchange in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, between pandescender Deborah Solomon (her interview with poet laureate Ted Kooser was an instant classic) and Poland's foreign minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz:

Solomon: You once said President Roosevelt made a mistake when he agreed to divide the world and give Poland to the Soviet Union. Are you saying that Roosevelt sold out to Stalin?

Cimoszewicz: No one can deny that in Tehran and Yalta, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill decided about the postwar construction of the world, placing Poland on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain.

Solomon: Didn't you manage to study in the U.S. during the Communist era?

Cimoszewicz: As a Fulbright scholar I was at Columbia University in 1980 to '81. Every weekend I walked the streets of Manhattan. My favorite place is Central Park. Once a year I love to have a real American steak, but once a year is enough.

Solomon: What else do you admire about American culture?

Cimoszewicz: George Gershwin, great film scores, ''Walking in the Rain.''

Solomon: You mean ''Singin' in the Rain''? Walking in the rain is what you did during your time in New York.

Thank You, NY Times

2004-10-09T19:16:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow's New York Times Magazine features a cover story on John Kerry. How much you wanna bet it's going to be a puff piece?

Read it for yourself -- you know it will have some gems that only us on the outside of the cocoon would notice. Like the following, for instance -- Kerry's immediate reaction on 9/11.

''You know, my instinct was, Where's my gun?'' Kerry told me.

Sounds like the kind of level-headed leader I want in charge of the country in a time of crisis.

Or not.

Recap!

2004-10-08T19:43:00.000-07:00

Sixty-plus posts on the debate...but we've got more to say!

The winner? Er...push?

The answer is: it depends. Kerry is smooth. We all know that. But unlike last week, Bush presented himself as someone I (and the rest of the country) could actually see ourselves voting to be President for another four years. As bad as he was last Thursday, he redeemed himself tonight.

Was it enough to stop the bleeding and get him back to where he was before the first debate? That remains to be seen. But I think the President's performance revealed, more than anything else, the kind of person he is: spirited, self-deprecating, and resolute. He was good on his feet -- the timber line especially -- and he reminded the electorate of the humanity they saw after 9/11.

So who won? Bush didn't lose -- and that counts as a win.

Okay...

2004-10-08T18:00:00.000-07:00

Here we go, folks. Liveblogging the debate. Welcome to Casual Observations.

6:00 - Hey, remember that fake memo CBS aired? Whatever happened with that?

6:01 - Some audio feedback on Gibson. Maybe it's just my crappy TV. (Hey, gimme a break -- I'm a swing voter!) Did Gibson just say these people were picked by the Gallup folks? What do you think MoveOn.org has to say about that?!

6:02 - Halperin memo on Drudge -- check it out when you get a chance. CBS redux? Kerry comes out with the biggest fake smile I've ever seen. But what does that mean?

6:04 - Kerry too wishy-washy? No way! And Kerry wants to thank everyone. Thank YOU, Senator Kerry!

6:06 - Kerry supports Bush on pretty much everything. But he'll carry out his agenda better! The 1.6 million jobs is misleading...let's see if Bush nails him.

6:07 - Bush looks much more relaxed than last week. Howard Dean...argh!!!

6:08 - "After 9/11 we had to look at the world differently..." Bush is 100% better than last week.

6:09 - Check out the fat guy in the front row!

6:10 - Kerry is dodging. Will it work?

6:12 - Bush brings up the last debate -- ballsy!

6:13 - Kerry talks directly to Bush -- ballsier! And Bush starts taking notes!

6:14 - Senator Kerry quotes other senators...who cares?

6:16 - Bush uses the power of incumbency..."the other day in the Oval Office..."

6:17 - Bush is hitting this one out of the park. "Kerry's plan sounds familiar...it's the Bush plan." Zing.

6:18 - Kerry's starting on Osama bin Laden. Can Bush knock the ball back in his face?

6:19 - Europeans hate us. So what? Bringing up Reagan? Nice.

6:20 - Bush's "popular president" stuff was money.

6:22 - Kerry keeps going back to Iraq -- if, like last week, Bush muffs the responses, it's smart, but if, as it appears, Bush is on his A game, it might prove not too smart tomorrow morning. Before the DNC floods the polls.

6:24 - Kerry's position on Iran...let's see how he dodges!

6:25 - Kerry: Non-proliferation...that's a winner!

6:26 - Bush: Scowl line...why Bush is popular with regular guys.

6:28 - the Draft! Fear!!!

6:29 - More facile! No penis jokes, please.

6:30 - Is Bush going to take the "the guy who ran Daddy's war" endorsement as an opportunity to note that Kerry voted against the Gulf War? Stay tuned!

6:33 - No further terrorist attacks! She must be a Bush plant!

6:34 - Kerry's not doing poorly...but Bush is matching him.

6:35 - Has anyone noticed the red light/green light stuff tonight?

6:36 - "The test is not if you've added money?" That sounds like a Democrat to me!

6:38 - Drugs...domestic policy...snooze.

6:39 - Missourah? Spoken like a true Missouran!

6:40 - Senator Kerry: George Bush sucks! By the way, vote for me! (More Shrum populism -- a sure winner!)

6:41 - Bush needs to start talking about Senator Kerry's record. Or someone should. Perhaps Charles Gibson.

6:44 - Kerry: I'm a lawyer, too! That's a winner!

6:45 - Sen. Kennedy...er Sen. Kerry. Oops! (Well, same thing...)

6:46 - Giving Bush a chance to pace back and forth -- liberating him from the podium -- has helped keep him from the curse of the funny face.

6:47 - Labels don't mean anything! Just ask Hitler! Er, I mean the President!

6:49 - "We have a deficit." Duh. But blaming it on Clinton, bringing back the War on Terror...heading toward a good save.

6:53 - Kerry: "We wanted a tax cut..." Who, the Democrats?

6:54 - Kerry's pledge - what a doofus! Stop looking at me, it freaks me out!!!

6:56 - Bush is awfully folksy. Hello Ohio. Hello Pennsylvania.

6:58 - "We did it. And I was there!" 98 votes to raise taxes?

6:59 - Bush the Environmentalist. Please, please talk about drilling for oil in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge. And who voted against it. (Hint: he's on the stage with the President tonight. And his name isn't Charlie Gibson.)

7:02 - Red Sox joke. Stupid. "Don't throw labels around. Labels don't mean anything!" Especially if the label is L-I-B-E-R-A-L, right, Senator?

7:03 - "I believe in science!!!" "I was in Kyoto -- I know what happened!"

7:06 - Scoring the Debate: If you accept everything Bush says, he's winning. If you accept everything Kerry's saying, then he's winning. So, America: Who do you trust?

7:07 - Sub-chapter S corps?! The wonks rejoice!

7:09 - I own a timber company?! Need some wood?! GENIUS. The sound byte of this campaign. Advantage: W.

7:10 - Patriot Act question...hmm, is that guy really undecided?

7:11 - Kerry gets a softball Patriot Act question. He'd better hit it out of the park.

7:13 - Are most of the women questioners tonight for Bush? Sure seems that way to me.

7:14 - Michael J. Fox wants us to do embryonic stem cell research! (We are. Just not research sponsored by the government - ed.)

7:16 - Kerry: "I want the future!"

7:17 - Background check: are the audience members still with the debaters?

7:19 - Supreme Court question...zzzzzzzzzz

7:20 - Dred Scott case? Can you say pandering to African-Americans?

7:22 - Interpret the Constitution according to the law? You've got it backwards, Senator Kerry.

7:23 - Catholicism helped lead Kerry through a war...FIRST MENTION OF HIS VIETNAM SERVICE TONIGHT...a NEW RECORD. Then Kerry reminds us that he's married to Teresa. Negative points.

7:25 - Bush is zinging Kerry up and down. He's great in interacting with an audience.

7:26 - "It's not that simple." Kerry's stance on everything.

7:28 - Bush's response to Kerry's abortion response: did he not get the memo that Kerry thinks life begins at conception?

7:29 - Final questioner: who do you think she's voting for?

7:30 - Bush is handling this question -- this difficult question -- the exact right way.

7:31 - Using the same lines from last week's debate? Stale.

7:33 - Kerry's big closing statement is centered on alliances? That's the best he can do?

7:34 - Kerry: I have a plan, I have a plan, I have a plan... Do Americans really believe politicians anymore when they talk about about their plans? I don't think so.

7:35 - The "Have A Beer Test" -- rather have a cold one with Bush or Kerry? (Is Teresa coming too? - ed. Er...)

7:37 - We made it!!! Thanks for sticking with us.

A Line We Would Have Used...

2004-10-04T08:31:00.000-07:00

...if we, and not Karl Rove, were behind the controls of Bush's brain last Thursday:

"You'll forgive me, Jim [Lehrer], for struggling a little bit tonight. The truth is, I'm at a distinct disadvantage -- you see, it's awfully hard to prepare to debate Senator Kerry, because it's more or less impossible to predict in advance what his position on the issues will be on the day of the debate. His task, on the other hand, is much easier. I've made my positions clear, both to him and the American people. I'd imagine they might discover that what makes it hard to debate Senator Kerry might also make it hard to vote for him."

Debate Musings...and More!

2004-10-03T21:56:00.000-07:00

I saw the first hour of last week's debate in an auditorium at the communication school of the university I attend. It was packed with students, and there were some professors professing before and after, of course.

My impressions? Kerry destroyed Bush.

Part of that was the audience -- everyone was laughing at every Bush guffaw, every pause, every strain or funny face. Kerry got reverent respect, Bush did not. So maybe it seemed worse than it was. But I really thought Bush was losing the election before our very eyes. I hope that the company I was with had something do to with that, that everyone didn't see it how I saw it. But it was not good for Bush, regardless.

I'm not a die-hard Bush backer. But I think he gets it. "It" being the world after 9/11. For Kerry to try to outflank him as tougher on terror is proving to be not a bad strategy, but it's too late in the game for me to buy it. I've heard all of his waffling. Plus, his plan, and I wish that Bush had called him on it, is the same as Bush's! Get our troops out ASAP, train Iraqis to protect themselves -- that's what Bush is already doing. That is our strategy.

Sharing the burden with our allies? Yeah, we'd love everyone to share the burden. But it's not that Bush didn't convince them as well as Kerry could; it's that helping us out in Iraq wasn't and isn't in their national interests -- however moral or immoral they may be. Is going into Iraq the right thing to do? I know that it's easy to second-guess after no WMD, but what if the President hadn't acted? Did he really have a choice?

Kerry saw the same intelligence Bush did, and agreed with the decision to go into Iraq. Kerry would have done it a different way, he says. How? With more allies, he says. Well, that's impossible to prove, and, even with more allies, who says things would have turned out differently?

As for not having a plan to win the peace, obviously things didn't turn out how we expected. But it is a war, after all, and even the best laid plans change when you engage the enemy. And I think that this administration is doing a better job changing the plan when it needs to be changed, without making it seem like things are out of control -- and I'm talking especially about the 80% of the country which is stable and safe. What we've accomplished in Iraq in a year and a half is really incredible. And Afghanistan? People were saying what they're saying about Iraq today about Afghanistan two years ago, and they're holding elections, they're a free nation, it's amazingly stabile. That's a hell of an accomplishment.

Kerry's "we outsourced getting bin Laden" was a cheap shot -- Colin Powell said it was an outright lie. And speaking of Powell, did he "lie" to the UN and the rest of the world? I don't think he would do that. And that to me shows that neither he, nor Bush, nor Blair, nor Kerry, was lying or intentionally misleading. Whether or not Saddam really had those WMDs, he clearly disobeyed the UN resolution (as he had with all the others), and I think that the President was frustrated that the UN didn't hold up their end of the bargain and ensure/protect any kind of legitimacy they had.

Frankly, I'm not a big UN fan, after finding out about how they let Saddam take advantage of the oil-for-food program (ask Kofi Annan about that) and their lack of doing anything about what's happening in Darfur. When things like this arise -- problems that the UN was created to deal with -- and they don't, it makes it hard for me to believe that they have any kind of moral authority on issues like Iraq.

Issues like gay marriage and abortion really don't have much to do with whom people will vote for, I don't think. This election is about national security. If I thought that Kerry would do a better job than Bush with national security (and that's a hard sell, considering that al Qaeda is at 25%, Saddam is in jail, and we haven't had another attack since 9/11), I'd vote for him, but for his position on abortion. For me it's a decisive issue, but I don't think it is for most people. Neither is gay marriage. Now, I know in some conservative enclaves that's different, but it isn't most other places in the country. As far as where I stand, I'm fine with civil unions that give gay couples the same legal rights as married couples. Creating gay marriage is something that they need to take up with their churches, not their government.

The rest of the domestic issues are non-starters, I think. People are voting national security. Philosophically, I am more of a Reagan conservative when it comes to government involvement. I think that what Bush said at the convention, about bringing social security and the tax code into the 21st century, are big deals to someone my age. And something that you'd never hear a Democrat say -- their core constituencies are a loose union of federal program beneficiaries (teachers' unions, etc). It really restricts them in terms of policy. And giving different groups money to keep them happy? Not what government is for.

I give Bush credit for his tax cuts helping to turn around the economy. He did inherit a recession -- not cause it. The statistics bear that out. And his tax cuts have made an impact. It would be nice to see that massive tax code overhaul during a second term.

For me, I'm voting for Bush -- not without reservations -- but he sees the big picture in a way that Kerry doesn't. He understands the world that we live in, the ideology that was at the heart of 9/11 and what it takes to prevent that from happening again. In a way, I feel bad for Kerry -- he's been waiting his whole life for this moment, and if not for 9/11, he probably would beat Bush hands down. But fate intervened, and he couldn't find a good-looking position that would get him the nomination and then the presidency. I might not like everything about Bush, but at least I know where he stands. With Kerry, I don't even think he knows where he stands. That would be funny, except that in the world we live in, it's scary.

Gimme a Break

2004-09-26T22:03:00.000-07:00

Memo to John "F" Kerry: You're not a Kennedy, okay pal? If that's what you wanted to be, you should have married that lady on Dateline before the Governor of California beat you to it. Playing touch football in the park doesn't make you look Kennedyesque -- it makes you look stupid. Yes, it's better than kitesurfing...but just as pretentious.

Hey, I understand that you're grasping at straws here, but if you're going to try to do stuff to make people connect you with JFK, at least try to find something that's not such a blatantly obvious ploy. Like, I don't know...make a great speech or something. That would be considered Kennedyesque, wouldn't it? Or how about just not coming off as such a jerk? It would at least be a start.

New Campaign Slogan

2004-09-26T21:44:00.000-07:00

"Vote for the person I'm pointing at, people!"

What the Hell Happened to Us?

2004-09-26T21:21:00.000-07:00

Three weeks ago, we were the toast of the town -- a Vodkapundit link in the midst of all the Memogate madness -- and we spiked at over 1,200 pageviews. Then, disaster struck. We decided to start listening to our readers (actually, just the reader who took the time to write us an email) and changing our color scheme, even though we'd previously vowed not to kowtow to such impervious demands. The result? We kept changing colors faster than John Kerry changes positions on Iraq (sorry, had to do it), and in the ensuing mess, we torpedoed into an ugly freefall. Today we're down to about 5 pageviews a day, including the 4 times we check the site each day just to make sure it still exists.

Obviously, we've got a problem. Is it us? Or is it the readers? Not sure (but clearly, not us). We've started to add some photos to the mix and we're really going to try to start writing some linkable posts to attract a few more readers. In the meantime, enjoy us wallowing in our own self-pity. We coulda been a contender! But no! We had to change the colors!

Kerry Photo of the Week

2004-09-24T17:35:00.000-07:00

Prescience!

2004-09-24T10:55:00.000-07:00

A day or two after the Memogate story broke, we called for former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite to weigh in on the controversy. Today is September 24th, and finally, Sir Walter has broken his silence. Like the good member of the Old Media that he is, Cronkite urges caution and patience (one recalls Col. Buck Turgidson's "I'd hate to judge before all the facts are in..." in Dr. Strangelove) before deciding what he thinks of all this commotion. Walter, come on! This is the blogosphere! We don't have time for the kind of fact-checking they do at, say, CBS!

"We must wait while CBS management conduct the investigation they have promised. We can then decide what our reaction should be," said Cronkite, 87, who was in Boston Thursday night to pick up an award.

"The reaction at the moment of course is embarrassment for everyone who is connected to CBS, and that embarrassment, I hope, will be squashed in time as we know what happened," he said.

I wouldn't bet on it!