Wha?
From Tuesday's George Will column in the Washington Post: (I added the link)

For example, in his Saturday response for the Democrats to President Bush's weekly radio broadcast, Sen. Edward Kennedy said that the administration's arguments for war against Iraq were not merely, in Kennedy's view, mistaken, they were a conscious dishonesty -- a "distraction." Such statements are perhaps predictable from a senator who recently cited, approvingly, the writings of Karen Kwiatkowski.

The Weekly Standard reports that she, a retired Air Force officer, has written about "the Zionist political cult that has lassoed the E-Ring" of the Pentagon (the offices of senior civilian Defense Department officials). She says the war in Afghanistan was "planned of course before 9/11/01" because of "Taliban non-cooperation" regarding a trans-Afghanistan pipeline. She says that with "Bush and his neoconservative foreign policy implementers" -- those E-Ring Jews -- resembling propagandists such as Lenin, Hitler and Pol Pot, "all evidence" points to "a maturing fascist state" in America and, in foreign policy, "fascist imperialism touched by Sparta revived."

Tony

Fear The Panda
Taiwan's pro-independence president, Chen Shui-bian, was shot yesterday during a parade:

Chen was shot across the abdomen and Vice President Annette Lu was struck in the right knee as they stood in an open-roof sport utility vehicle waving at crowds lining the streets of the southern city of Tainan, the president's hometown.

The injuries were not life-threatening and neither Chen nor Lu lost consciousness or required surgery, officials said. The Reuters news agency said they were released from the hospital several hours later.

Now, I'm not saying the Red Chinese would assassinate someone to influence an election... oh, wait, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Marc

Thwack!
John Kerry's ridiculous claim of support from foreign leaders is a big fat fastbell down the middle, and Dick Cheney lined it into the gap (can you tell that it's spring training?):

But it is our business when a candidate for President claims the political endorsement of foreign leaders. At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his candidacy. American voters are the ones charged with determining the outcome of this election - not unnamed foreign leaders.

Cheney was responding to a Kerry speech which included this steaming cauldron of barf:

If I am President, never again will parents or husbands or wives of soldiers have to send them body armor instead of photographs and care packages. Last month a young newlywed in Virginia who, as her husband was about to ship out to Iraq, gave him a bullet proof vest for Valentine's Day. I can tell you right now: in a Kerry Administration, no one will be getting body armor as a gift from a loved one; it will come from the Armed Forces of the United States of America. We will supply our troops with everything they need.

Cheney took the bat to this one as well:

Just this morning, he again gave the example of body armor, which he said our administration failed to supply. May I remind the Senator that last November, at the President's request, Congress passed an $87 billion supplemental appropriation. This legislation was essential to our ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan - providing funding for body armor and other vital equipment; hazard pay; health benefits; ammunition; fuel, and spare parts for our military. The legislation passed overwhelmingly, with a vote in the Senate of 87 to 12. Senator Kerry voted no. I note that yesterday, attempting to clarify the matter, Senator Kerry said, quote, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

For the record, people like Tom Daschle, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton voted for that $87 billion supplemental that Kerry voted against.

BREAKING NEWS: Athlete complains, gets his way
A deal has been reached by the San Francisco 49ers, the Baltimore Ravens and the Philadelphia Eagles that will send Terrell Owens to Philly. This hours before the NFL's special master was set to issue a ruling on whether or not the trade that sent the former 49ers wide-out to Baltimore in exchange for a second-round pick was valid. Owens claimed he was due free agency, despite his agent having failed to file the proper paperwork before the deadline. Sal Palantonio, who was covering the case for SportsCenter, said last night that it appeared as if the ruling would go in Owens favor, hence the deal. The deal guarantees the Ravens a fifth-round pick for their troubles and sends a defensive end to the 49ers in exchange for Owens. Had a ruling in Owens favor been issued before the deal, the Ravens and 49ers would have received no compensation.

This whole thing seems pretty crooked to me. Heading into this weekend you couldn't find a soul who thought Owens had any kind of chance at the hearing. Then the hearing was delayed, ostensibly so that both sides could appear in person, rather than the conference call that was slated for Sunday. By Tuesday the conventional wisdom is that Owens will win and the Ravens and 49ers scramble to finalize a deal ensuring that they'll get something out of this mess.

Crooked or not, Baltimore dodged a bullet by failing to secure Owens. And after having suffered through the past week, which included Owens telling anybody with a laptop that he's not coming to Baltimore, they probably are breathing a sigh of relief. Meanwhile, Philly has the Leon they've always wanted.

Speaking of Philly, here's what Philadelphia 76er Allen Iverson had to say about his decision not to dress for a recent game. Iverson had been injured and missed several games in a row. He was not cleared by trainers for Sunday's game, but said he could play. When the coach told Iverson that he'd be coming off the bench because of his injuries, Iverson felt otherwise.:

"I'm a starter. I've been a starter here for eight years. I'm not a sixth man," Iverson said after the game [Sunday]. "I'm a starter. I know in this league ... if someone comes back from an injury, if he's a starter he starts. What's the difference? If you're going to cut my time down, cut my time down. It doesn't make any difference. I'm a starter."

Tony

Jacques Kerry For Prime Minister
OK, now I'm convinced that John Kerry has lost his mind. A Boston Globe reporter gave Kerry a prime opportunity to back away from the claim that foreign leaders want him to beat George Bush. The Globe reporter, Patrick Healy, now says he made a mistake in transcribing the Kerry statement:

"I mistranscribed a key word," explains Patrick Healy, a political reporter for the BOSTON GLOBE who covered the event in a pool capacity.

"Listening to the audio recorder now, in the quiet of my house, I hear 'more leaders' and I am certain that 'more leaders' is what Senator Kerry said."

So what does Kerry do? He repeats the claim!

In a telephone interview, the Massachusetts senator and presumptive Democratic nominee said "it's no secret" that some countries are "deeply divided about our foreign policy. We have lost respect and influence in the world."

He continued: "I stand by my statement. The point is not the leaders. What's important is that this administration's foreign policy is not making us as safe as we can be in the world."

THIS is the issue that Kerry finally decides to have some backbone about? The one time in his life he isn't going to flip-flop? He's going to run as the guy who Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder want to have in the White House? Sweet Jesus.

Marc

"It's Time Someone Had The Courage To Stand Up And Say: I'm Against Those Things That Everybody Hates."
Is there anything that can't be headlined with a Futurama quote? From a piece in the Miami Herald via Kausfiles:

"I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world," Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning.

Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: "And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him."

It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote -- as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton's reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton.

There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.

Kerry on Elian:

Asked in the Herald interview last year about sending Elian back to Cuba, Kerry was blunt: "I didn't agree with that."

But when he was asked to elaborate, Kerry acknowledged that he agreed the boy should have been with his father.

So what didn't he agree with?

"I didn't like the way they did it. I thought the process was butchered," he said.

Marc

"Professor, When Did You Become So Obsessed With Politics?"
"The very instant I became old."

Liz was describing a political conversation she had with her grandmother (who will be voting Republican in November for the first time in her life), and I thought of something that hadn't occured to me before.

It's conventional wisdom that old people have disproportionate political power because of their high turnout compared to other age cohorts. So why has so much ink been spilled over the political impact of the "jobless recovery"? Old people don't work! Some of them have never worked. No amount of unemployment is going to affect their social security checks. The stock market has been doing fairly well, so their portfolios are safe. And Bush just gave them a big fat new entitlement. Is there any economic reason for old people not to vote for Bush?

This is important because all the social issues help Bush amongst the elderly. One of the things that caused Liz's grandmother to become fed up with the Democrats is gay marriage. That issue alone should drive the last few elderly Catholics out of the Democratic party. Bush's religiousity is also a strength with these voters, regardless of affiliation. Several times I have been helping old women find a book about Bush, and they will say something like, "I'm glad we have a Christian in the White House."

This Week is coming on in a few minutes, so I don't have time to look up the numbers on how old people voted last time. I would guess they went narrowly for Gore. But I don't see them going Democratic this time.

Marc

Terps saving best for last
The Maryland Terrapins silenced what little doubt remained surrounding their chances at earning a spot in the NCAA tournment with their 87-86 win over third seeded Wake Forest during the quarterfinals of the ACC tournament at the Greensboro Coliseum. (Click here for complete box score)

The Terps, who came into the game after back to back wins over North Carolina State and Virginia, are now set to face NC State in the semi-finals this afternoon at 4pm. The Terps split with the Wolfpack in their two matchups this season.

Maryland out rebounded the fifteenth ranked Demon Deacons by ten and were surprisingly 8% points better than Wake at the line. Free throw shooting has plagued the Terps all season, but they managed 24 for 32 from the chairty stripe last night, a whopping 75% from a team with the lowest free throw percentage (66%) in school history.

Free throws, in fact, were the deciding factor as Maryland guard John Gilchrist went to the line with 3.7 seconds left and the game tied at 86. Gilchrist made the first, giving the Terps the one-point lead. He then deliberately missed the second. A short rebound made it impossible for Wake Forest to push the ball up the court, and the Terps held on to their third victory in twelve days.

Though Gilchrist emerged as the star of the game, five Terps scored in double digits, with Gilchrist and Travis Garrison (who also had 10 rebounds) leading the team with 16 points a piece. Nik Caner-Medley and Chris McCray followed with thirteen points each while center, and former AC Trojan Jamar Smith finished with eleven.

While Maryland is a virtual lock for a tourney bid, there are several teams that have already wrapped up automatic bids by winning their conference tournaments. The NCAA tournament selection show is slated for Sunday evening and will be broadcast on CBS.

Tony

My LEGO Site
I have finally gotten around to putting together a site for my LEGO stuff. You can see it here, and I will add it to my links on the left. It is not entirely finished yet, but you can get a good idea of what it will look like. Let me know what you think!

Marc

As far as ads go, Bush is in good company
Were the recent Bush campaign ads, which used September 11th imagery, over the top? There has been a smattering of protesters , including several family members of 9-11 victims, as well as Democrats of all stripes, who say yes. Today, in fact, protesters are expected at a Long Island ceremony where Bush will dedicate a monument to the victims of the terrorist attack.

Protesters aside, it's hard to ignore the fact that Bush was president when these attacks occurred. And few would argue the fact that Bush performed admirably in the wake of the attacks, particularly in the first few weeks, as we as a nation tried to sort out what had happened and what our response should be. Bush needs to remind voters of his steady hand during these tumultuous events. Further, he needs to remind the country (and he does need to remind us, we have an unbelievably short memory) that the attacks were only a few years ago, and that we are far from being out of the woods.

Washington Post columnist David Broder offers a historical perspective on this issue, one which I think should help to settle the matter. Broder points out that Franklin Roosevelt's actions during the 1944 presidential campaign make Bush's use of the 9-11 attacks seem mild, even timid.

Will this put to rest the issue? Probably not, as I suspect most of the people vocal in their opposition are unlikely to have supported the president no matter what he might do, save maybe him showing up at their house and giving them a nickname. But, as I said, Americans have a short memory these days. We believe that the events of our day are the most important events of all time, from the O.J. trial, to the contested 2000 election, to these Bush campaign ads. Broder's piece provides a little historical prospective on this matter. And historical perspective in America is as needed as it is in short supply.

Tony

It was really only a matter of time
From Tuesday's Santa Rosa Press-Democrat:

Responding to a question on his Web site asking why he doesn't "just play the cards you were dealt?" Owens responded, "Sometimes you have to do what's in your heart to do, just can't settle for whatever. Rosa Parks didn't! You have to stand up for your rights and that's what I plan to do, win or lose!" (Owen's chatroom shorthand has been edited for clarity.)

Tony

Bring me the head of Otis Spunkmeyer
An anti-smoking group has recently published a report which argues that PG-13 films which depict characters smoking should be given an "R" rating in order to prevent children from viewing such images. The report, which nearly made me vomit, raised concerns about the number of PG-13 films last year (80) that contained scenes where characters smoked. From the article:

He'd like to see more PG-13 movies that feature smoking - like "Matchstick Men," "Seabiscuit" and the Oscar-winning "Chicago" - get slapped with an R rating

Note that two of the above films where set in a time and place where smoking was both widespread and acceptable. The group said it would be willing to grant exemptions to films which depict historical figures, who actually smoked, smoking. So at least we wouldn't have to see a movie where Winston Churchill sits in his bathtub downing packs of M&M's.

You know, there are legitiment criticisms to be hurled at the tobacco industry. It's likely that they kept the negative side-effects of smoking a secret for a long time. It's also likely that they did, at one time, aim advertising at children. But is there a mad rash of children lighting up because they saw Chicago? (Why, I'd think you'd be more concerned with children getting ideas about murdering abusive husbands, but I guess that's just me.) This isn't about protecting children, it's about legislating against bad habits. And it's really fucking scary.

It seems to never fail that every time I read a newspaper there is an article like this one. Obviously there are free speech conerns out the ying-yang here, but that's not what's bothering me today. Every day, in every corner of this country, armed with what I can only imagine is a fistful of government dollars, activist groups are going out of their way to limit our personal freedoms and seek to put the burden of child-rearing where they feel it should belong: on the elite that knows best.

Smoking is just the beginning. Soon, Baby Boomers will realize that they can no longer eat the way the want to. And, they'll go about making sure everybody's life is as miserable as theirs by legislating and litigating against "Big Fat." You can already see the seeds of this movement. Today's Washington Post, in fact, has an article about a recent study saying that obesity is rapidly approaching smoking as the number one cause of preventable death. Don't think for a second that the same people who waged the war against smoking aren't gearing up for a battle against Big Macs and Twinkies. A "fat tax" anyone?

Is smoking bad for you? Certainly. Is over-eating and not exercising a sure-fire way to an early grave? Without a doubt. Is it the government's place, (or anybody's place, for that matter) to tell me what substances I can put inside my own body? It certainly seems that way.

And the worst part is, this isn't even a debate. There are no pro-smoking lobbies. There are no organizations dedicated to making sure the public can eat at McDonalds. Outside of maybe NORML, there are no organizations dedicated to protecting bad habits. (In the course of researching this article I did find a website against the numerous public smoking bans. www.bantheban.org, but I think they were more concerned with the economic impact of the smoking ban, rather than the infrigement on personal freedom)Plus, the demographics of this debate suggest that the game is already played and won. Boomers are reaching the height of their power, and there will be no stopping them.

First it was restaurants. Now bars. Could apartment buildings be next? Or how about bus stops? Surely a second-hand smoke argument can be made here.

I'll tell ya, I don't think of myself as a "gloom and doom" kinda guy, but this is going to be a really scary country in another twenty years or so.

Tony

John Kerry: Superfraud
Blogger's Note: This started out in the comment section, but then grew to post-size proportions.

"He is saying that he wants to be an activist president resolving many issues that are important to the African American community," Meeks said. "Kerry was simply stating that he wanted to follow in the footsteps of Clinton in addressing issues that are important to African Americans."

Actually, what I think Kerry is saying is: "I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing or how I got here."

Like a number of other Kerry moves, this comment strikes me as either exceedingly stupid or exceedingly cynical. Either he's too dumb to realize that, as a former Bonesman, he's going to look disingenuous at best, ridiculous at worst, if he portends to being able to understand the plight of black America. (Clinton, remember, was at least poor and from the South. Joe is more black than Kerry.) If Kerry's not that dumb then his comment is an example of pandering of the lowest kind.

It's good to see a black leader call one of these liberal, elitist, whiteies out. I'be been saying this for a while now, but one day it's going to be true: there will come a day when black people in this country will wake-up to the fact that the Democratic party takes them for granted.

Black Americans will grow tired of John Kerry's (who is just the latest example) pandering for votes and offering nothing in terms of ideas. They will realize that their cultural values are much more in line with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. And they will look around their neighborhoods and notice that the Democratic welfare-state has failed them.

I honestly believe that Black America will continue to put itself in a precarious position if they continue to allow themselves to be in the back pocket of white Democratic candidates. Candidates that never seem all that concerned with black issues until they are running for something. I'm not saying that this calls, neccessarily, for defection from the Democratic Party. But as long as the party continues to act in such an insulting manner, defection could emerge as the only alternative.

I realize that these comments are a little controversial and I can imagine that I'm coming off as just another white guy who knows best. But my thoughts on this come from a look at reality, something John Kerry would be best to check in on.

Tony

None More Black
I saw this Kerry quote a few days ago, but forgot to post it.

President Clinton was often known as the first black President. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second.

Marc

Working For A Living
Welly, welly, well. My first two days of training have gone pretty well. Most of what I will be doing at the circulation desk is on the computer, and I have a big head start on my fellow circulation assistants there. Along with a anime fan who is younger than me, I am the only person under 35. I am also the only male.

Lest you think everyone who works in a library is a stuffy old maid, read this month's issue of BUST, which features a piece on hipster librarian chicks (and some nice pictures of Tina Fey). The story also mentions a few library-related blogs, such as The Lipstick Librarian and Librarian.net, and a picture of a "library action figure". The male librarian stereotype is not much more flattering. Linda Absher of Lipstick Librarian envisions a male library action figure "wearing a spotty, yellow knit tie and a sweater vest".

Come to think of it, I did wear a sweater vest on my interview (but with a brown tie!).

Marc