RiShawn Biddle's Dailyblog

2003-10-17T19:45:00.000-07:00

WE'RE MOVIN' ON UP...: Yes, I have completed the new RiShawn Biddle Web site and have just launched the new version of the Dailyblog--now the Usual Suspect--as well. You can still come here for old Dailyblog screeds. But change your permalinks to the new site.

And yes, there will be regular updates.

2003-08-11T20:21:00.000-07:00

ARNOLD ALL OVER THE PLACE: I'm not going to be saying much about Schwarzie for the typical I'm-a-journalist-that-has-covered-the-guy-so-I-have-to-remain-objective reasons. But that doesn't mean I won't let others speak their piece. Here's a list that will grow and grow and grow and...:

I don't get the love that Reasonoids are evincing for Arnold: Jeremy Lott--now of the American Spectator--takes aim at his old bosses at the boys on South Sepulveda.

Arnold strikes me as a Hollywood conservative: And Howard Owens is no fan either.

LA Blog Endorsement: Moxie gives her two cents--and the obligatory peek up/near/around her skirt.

And the obligatory LAObserved link: Could Arnold really be "the weakest governor" ever?

Arnie as a Bardlike Figure?: Ask Mark Steyn about it.

Get a Hickey for Governor?: Not that kind you dirty b------s. Matt Welch is talking about a Libertarian gubernatorial wannabe. Here's his picture for you.

2003-08-11T20:05:00.000-07:00

SLOWING GETTING OFF BLOGGER: For those who have noticed I neglected this page, my apologies. Been so busy with reporting, writing and side projects such as finally merging my two sites into one. Yes folks. Within two weeks, the dailyblog (which will get a name more appropriate to its updates) will be a Moveable Type feature of a new RiShawnBiddle.com site. The new design will premiere this weekend while the blog will likely get added the next. So let's give the countdown: 14, 13...

2003-08-11T19:55:00.000-07:00

TELEVISION: For those who didn't receive my e-mail this weekend, I made an appearance on television--Reuters' TV service--talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger the businessman. You can still check it out--as well as look at my mug--on Reuters (now in stories 7-9). For my Arnold story (to which I can't link), just go to LAObserved.com, which does have one.

Meanwhile my Ian Schrager story (sorry, can't link to that either) has been picked up by the New York Times' style section. As one would expect, not very strong on pointing out the operational reasons why Schrager is having trouble and it devotes too many inches to talking about Schrager competitors. But a nice piece and proof once again that the old wastrel's best business stories usually end up in sections than those of the actual business section.

2003-07-26T14:24:00.000-07:00

SHORT HITS: What's happening in the rest of the world:
Tricked-out rides in Baltimore: Of all places. Jesse Walker talks about cars with "Finster-style portraits," "eerie scultpures" and one that has screwed around with the Ford logo. Also, check out his latest piece, this on the flap over the BBC and David Kelley.

Universal: Woth the cost?: That's a question I asked in a story I wrote a few weeks ago (to which I can't unfortunately link). Now the New York Times brings up the same question. It's a little more sexed up with all that breathless mogul crap, but not a bad piece at all. But Vanity Fair--whose stable of writers are the masters and mistresses of sexy mogul business stories--would have done it better. The better piece by those guys at the old decrepit scandalized lady is one by Elvis Mitchell about an effort by Mike Judge--the mastermind behind the scatagorical Beavis and Buttheadand longrunning spinoff King of the Hill--to promote independent animated shorts to the major studios.

Marvel Comics: Dead in the water--again? (via Jim Henley): That's what the Comics Journal's Dirk Deppy is betting as he notes the poor performance of the onetime comic powerhouse's Incredible Hulk at the box office--and its millions of income tied to movie licenses. Guess that means that Marvel boss Avi Arad better turn his attempt to buy Artisan Pictures--the indie flick outfit behind The Blair Witch Project--into a reality.

Nasty Fumento Action: Or in this case, all the latest nastygrams the muckraking science writer has received since writing a Fleet Street style obit--that is nasty, nastier and outright snide--about the not-so-dearly departed dietician wannabe Robert Atkins. Sample insult: "pretty chickensh--." Usual Fumento retort: "You're just an electronic sandwich board."

2003-07-25T20:15:00.000-07:00

FREE MARKET AND CULTURE: PERFECT TOGETHER: That's what George Mason economics professor Tyler Cowen persuasively argues in both his recent book, Creative Distruction and his interview with Nick Gillespie in the latest edition of Reason magazine (already on newsstands, but not yet on the Web). One surprising example of how the market has actually enhanced culture is one I'm listening to now as I write this post: Bob Marley, or more exactly, reggae and its decendant, the dance hall stylings of chart-toppers Sean Paul and Wayne Wonder:

"It drew heavily from American rhythm and blues. It really took off when Jamaicans received American broadcasts of American music. Later, it drew heavily from the Beatles and the British Invasion bands. It's a notion of music that seems as intensely Jamaican, and in a way it is, but it's also drawing on sea chantey and influences from all over the place. And it's drawing on a religion--Rastafarianism--that has a link to Ethiopia.

"Not only is reggae incredibly synthetic, but it's had an enormous influence on global culture. A lot of American rap music came from reggae. Musicians such as Blondie, Paul McCartney, Paul Simon and many others have been considerably influenced by reggae..."

Including the rock group No Doubt, who's origins were in Ska, reggae's horns-heavy immediate parent--and the first music Marley performed while coming up. If you want to read up more on this, a quick primer can be found at the BBC's Web site, where it gives a short history of reggae.

2003-07-20T16:32:00.000-07:00

BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR/SCARY, SCREWED UP, WHAT THE HELL DEPARTMENT: Think of a fascinating, scary, harrowing great film you can only watch once without losing it altogether and what comes to mind is Requiem for a Dream, Darren Aronofsky's tale of a family's drug-induced downward spiral. By the time the movie concludes with Jennifer Connelly's sex romp with another woman in the middle of a strip club, you really appreciate the greatness of the film, yet you're ready to drink yourself into a drunken stupor just to avoid total despair.

Requiem came to mind when I was grasping onto the arms of my seat at Hollywood's sleek Arclight Theater watching another blood-splattered scene of a middle-aged man getting shot up in front of his horrified teen daughter. No, I wasn't watching the otherwise bloodless Matrix Reloaded, but Trainspotting director Danny Boyle's apocalypse film, 28 Days Later. A story about Britain being ravaged by a disease that renders its victims mindless and murderous, it combines riveting cinematography with one of the best scripts of the year as well as a great cast, especially Christopher Ecclestone who played a nebbishy accountant-turned-bloodlusting killer in another Boyle thriller, Shallow Grave.

I won't give too much away about the film for those who haven't seen it yet. But yes, this is probably the best movie of the year. But not exactly a film you should see more than once. And you definitely shouldn't watch this alone. After the movie ended, my guest and I ended up scouring for enough alcohol to numb ourselves.

Now the critics have resorted to describing 28 Days as another flick about "flesh-eating zombies." Which certainly shows why film critics, for the most part, deserve the kind of contempt reserved for lawyers, politicians and used car salesmen. For one thing, there are no flesh-eating zombies. The other thing is that the tale is as much about the two conflicting visions of humanity.

On the one side is the Nietschien/Machiavellian concept of humans as warring beasts who continually kill just to survive because "survival is all there is," a view expressed first by the survivalist Selena (played by Naomi Harris) and then by a group of British army soldiers led by Ecclestone's Major Henry West. The second is a more hopeful view that people want to do more than survive. They hope, dream, love and ultimately, will help their fellow man out. Essentially, the Platonic/Christian/Muslim view of the world, which is expressed by Jim (Cillian Murphy) and by the father-and-daughter duo that accompanies Jim and Selena on their trek towards safety.

As it turns out, both are proven right. Man is essentially survivalist, but also quite interested in helping others as well. Within forty minutes of the movie's beginning, we see Jim's life saved from a group of infected humans by Selena and her partner-in-survival at the moment. Then we see one of Jim's rescuers beaten to death by Selena after he gets infected by with the virus. It makes for great drama indeed.

2003-07-19T15:48:00.000-07:00

NEW LINKS: It's time to put Kevin Roderick--he of LAObserved.com--and a few other names on the long-neglected blogroll. Enjoy.

2003-07-19T15:33:00.000-07:00

The Joys of Wi-Fi: Ever since I got my first laptop (from my old boss at the Dunwoody Crier in exchange for my last check), I've always wondered why no one ever came up with a mobile Internet system.

That's until now. It's close to 3:30 and I'm in a Santa Monica Starbucks typing away on my new laptop and using Wi-Fi. Next to me: Two sisters and a young boy alternating between licking the spoon that he just dipped into some yogurt and grossing out his mother by dipping a toy dinosaur in the white stuff. Behind me, a barrista grinds out another mocha frappucino. And the hotties walk by in front of the window I'm staring through.

Delight. For those folks who don't have a wireless set up, yes, it's the apple pie a la mode. Do whatever you can to get one of these babies.

2003-07-14T13:35:00.000-07:00

BELATED JACK FRANKS WATCH: The twice-convicted felon--whose lowlights have been profiled by your writer--lost a piece of his former empire of sorts according to the Desert Sun. Meanwhile Franks is still holed up in the Federal detention center in Orange County, likely trying to negotiate a plea deal that gets him little time. The Dailyblog will keep you informed. For more on Franks, check out my other site for my special on Franks.

2003-06-25T12:31:00.000-07:00

LOSE SOME F----N' WEIGHT: That's Eightball Magazine's response to news that medical emergency services outfit AMR has created "fat ambulances for fat f--ks" who can't fit in normal-sized vehicles. The scatalogical news site is particularly annoyed that taxpayer dollars--which finance most ambulance trips--may end up wasted in order to "provide help for people who are at a disability due to the results of their own bad habits" including special cranes to lift Walter Hudson aspirants into hospital beds and special sheets that absorb all that nasty sweat dripping from their folds. Eightball's suggestion for these sick porkers: "If you can't fit into an ambulance then you will just have to die. Maybe they can just give them an injection or have a specialist to put them down with an elephant rifle."

Big Boy's got a brand new bus: http://www.eightballmagazine.com/meatshop/meatshop03/030403.htm

2003-06-09T13:09:00.000-07:00

THE BEST SUMMATION OF THE TIMES: From former LA Times writer and Nieman Fellow Kenneth Freed on Romanesko's letters page:

Yes, The New York Times is a fine newspaper and on some days it is great. But on many other days it isn't even good, certainly no better than many others. When that is accepted, perhaps journalists can get on with the business of reporting, writing and editing as best they can.

Well said. While other journalists have bemoaned the Times fall from grace, I've not been bothered by it one bit. For one, the Times is just facing the problems every news organization--even similarly prominent ones such as the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal--has had to deal with. In this regard, the Times is in no worse a position than the others.

The bigger reason why I'm not so bothered: Because I've never worshipped the Times in the first place. I didn't grow up on the Old Haggard Lady, but on tabloids such as the New York Post and the Daily News. I've wanted to get an op-ed into the Journal ever since I was fourteen (and have a couple of rejection letters to prove it.) And unlike those who aspired to become ink-stained wretches at an early age, I only became a journalist after I realized that I didn't want to devote years of my life to studying for the bar. A professor told me I had enough writing talent to turn it into a vocation and I was smart enough to utilize that ability--two years later.

2003-06-05T08:21:00.000-07:00

SIGN OF THE TIMES: One expected New York Times managing editor Gerald Boyd to take a bullet for the team. After all, that's what managing editors do. But Howell Raines himself as well? Proof that the days of the tyrannical big city daily editor a la' Abe Rosenthal no longer works in an age where talent rules. Especially when you have the kinds of scandals and questioning the Old Gray Disheveled Lady has gone through in the past month.

Good luck to the next Times boss. You'll surely need it.

2003-05-16T08:20:00.000-07:00

WONDERS NEVER CEASE: Eric Alterman actually wrote a somewhat fair column about a conservative--this time, Wall Street Journal editorialist John Fund, whose private life was thrown open for public display last year after getting accused of being an abusive cad by two of his ex-girlfriends: A mother and her daughter. Even more amazing, he even vindicates Fund, calls the accusations "too good to be true" and takes lefties who wallowed in Fund's bad fortune--including Village Voice's Cynthia Cotts. Best of all, it's actually a good read. (Courtesy of Jim Romanesko.)

2003-05-14T20:29:00.000-07:00

NEXT MEMBER OF THE RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY: Matt Welch--he of the original warblog and LA Examiner--will join Reason--one of my former haunts and a libertarian magazine--for a temporary stint as associate editor. He gives Brian (Mildman) Doherty some time to write about the Burning Man festival. Congrats.

"I'm tickled to be aboard the Liberty train": http://www.mattwelch.com/archives/week_2003_05_11.html#2008

2003-05-07T21:03:00.000-07:00

DARWIN AWARD NOMINEE, GAMING DIVISION: Somehow professional moralist Bill Bennett has managed to lose $8 million. Not on any investments mind you, but on slot machines, poker games and other high roller stuff. It's his money and he even mentioned in a 1995 article that he won't get on a "high horse" about gambling. But what a waste of money.

2003-04-26T12:16:00.000-07:00

SATURDAY SOLILOQUIES: Thoughts for those who can't get any.

Defending Sadaam Art: That's what Franklin Harris (to whom I just permalinked) does in his latest non-blog piece.

Finally, someone else gets it right about Plato: And that person is Howard Owens, who says: "Geez, Plato really was a totalitarian, wasn't he?" He rightfully notes that the much-lauded philosopher basically believed that people should "know his place in society and stay there" and that Plato's entire "Republic" sounds more like something Hitler or Stalin would have dreamed up.

Why shouldn't we torch the French?: Good question. Matt Welch--who admits to feeling good about bypassing Paris on his last trip--answers that question in his latest National Post column, where he makes a good point about overseas entanglements:

"It can be recalled that apartheid South Africa, the Shah's Iran, Pinochet's Chile and Afghanistan's mujahedeen all "delivered" when we asked for their help against the Communists. We are still paying the human and moral price for those compromises."

Read on.

Polygamy: A Family Value: So suggests Instapundit, who gets it right when he says that "perfectly fine folks can nonetheless live as polygamists."

Kurt Anderson is the man: He admits to admiring Maxim and that many American mags are a tad too dull.

As for me, I'm hanging out at the Times' book festival. Give you word tomorrow.

2003-04-19T15:35:00.000-07:00

SATURDAY SOLILOQUIES: For those poor folks who can't enjoy the California sun:

"You're deeply suspicious of government and want it to go the f--k away.": One of Jesse Walker's college pals sums up the Reason writer's philosophy in terms of the tube. Check it out as well as read his post about Passover.

ANOTHER WRITER JOINS BLOGDOM: Cathy Seipp has her own site. And she likes wussy women's channel Lifetime's new brand extension. Go figure.

DEMOCRATS. REPUBLICANS. ANY REAL DIFFERENCES: More grist for the libertarian "Republicrats" mill: Jim Henley reminds us that the Jackass party is no more interested in protecting civil liberties than the GOP.

POSTWAR IRAQ DEBATE NO 555: My friend Deroy Murdock says the Iraqis need property rights. Agreed.

POSTWAR IRAQ DEBATE NO. 556 OR THERE REALLY WAS NO VICTORY: That's what Justin Raimondo says. Agreed as well.

JEREMIADS DELUXE: Former Reason intern Jeremy Lott has a column. Congratulations to Jeremy. Now somebody please give this talent a full-time job. He would be an asset to any publication.

2003-04-09T07:32:00.000-07:00

SHORT TAKES: Minimalist observations for the busy:

*The Internet—not just for Kazaa alone: The moribund music industry has seen the effects of file-sharing sites such as the now-defunct Napster while the film industry agonizes over whether it will be next. But the next industry to likely suffer: College textbook firms—as well as universities, bookstores and student governments—whom depend on students forking over as much as $100 per book.

Any student with a CD burner realizes there are cheaper ways of getting the material. Either buy the textbooks on Amazon, purchase from another student at bargain basement prices or substitute with course notes (now being supplied online by the professors themselves) and $10 paperbacks from Barnes & Noble. The established suppliers have noticed. According to UCLA’s Daily Bruin, the university’s student government is fretting over sluggish textbook sales, which have dropped 6% to $3.6 million over last year. Besides lowered enrollment levels, they’re realizing that some students have gone the cheap route.

(I would link to the Daily Bruin story, but it seems that their Web site’s not working this morning.)

*The Agonist and the establishment: The recent expose on the blogger who calls himself “The Agonist” and his admitted plagiarism of paid intelligence news site Stratfor, is hilarious just because it embarrasses the established news organizations that sang its praises.

For the past year or so, mainstream journos such as Alex Beam have derided well-sourced, chock-full-of-links blogs like those maintained by Glen Reynolds and Ken Layne—my source for this bit of news—for being mere wannabes. Yet when they finally decided to fully embrace the blogosphere, these Johnny-come-lately’s latch onto a site that, according to Wired News would sometimes claim “a little birdie” as its information source. Such bull gas would raise my eyebrows—if I had even bothered with this trifle of a Web site. Yet these establishment reporters neither checked the Agonist’s facts nor bothered to survey the assorted media sources that provide similar news. If they did, they would have likely turned up Stratfor and noticed the fraud. So they really conned themselves.

As an establishment journalist who also runs his own blog, I must say this comeuppance is well deserved. Yet this is nothing to celebrate. Why? Because for as much journalists hate to admit it, we are people too. And like all but a few absolutely cynical souls, we believe what or whom we want to believe even if we can see the wool being pulled over our eyes. Most of us have allowed ourselves to have been “had” before. And the few who haven’t, eventually will be. But when you make your money on accuracy, it’s best to relegat your embarrassments to areas where everyone knows you’re not an expert, like sex or relationships.

The Agonist gets caught with his pants down: http://wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,58346,00.html

Ken Layne gives the Agonist a good bashing: http://www.kenlayne.com/blogarchives/week_2003_04_06.html#003196

And Colby Cosh is even less kind: http://colbycosh.com/#weat

2003-04-07T08:37:00.000-07:00

“WHO ELSE IS OUT THERE BUT ME?”: Tenets of Journalism no. 245: Old stories never die; they just turn into occasional updates. This proved to be the truth on Thursday evening when I slogged through my full e-mail box and turned up this story about a $246 million hostile takeover bid (mostly assumption of debt) for the parent company of the down-at-the-heels Riviera casino in Las Vegas. I gave the item just a passing glance until I tripped up on the name of a Milanese by the name of Fabrizio Boccardi

Remember Fabrizio Boccardi? My readers will remember that two years ago, I wrote about the exploits—or lack thereof—of the former condominium developer who had left a trail of busted deals and disputed p.r. bills during his then three-year-long stint in Sin City. Despite his inability to pull the trigger, he proclaimed himself “the next king of Vegas” and promised to do nothing less than reinvent Vegas. The bold new plan? Buy a casino and then, hire only scantily-clad hotties to lure gamblers. I’m not kidding.

If Boccardi’s scheme makes you scratch your head—especially after spending a head-turning night at the Venetian ogling its barely-clothed waitresses—imagine listening to the aspiring casino mogul talk about it while chowing down on a steak at Santa Monica’s posh Ivy by the Sea restaurant one Monday evening. Between chewing on his asparagus stalks and constantly adjusting his belt, Boccardi managed to diss more substantial gaming giants such as Steve Wynn and Kirk Kerkorian while divulging little about how he would actually finance the bid.

Unable to pull together deals for famed Vegas spots such as the since-imploded Desert Inn, Boccardi is apparently taking the low-cost route to casino glory. He’s offered to buy Riviera Holdings for a mere $8.50 a share while assuming its substantial debt horde. Barring the acquisition of the whole kit and caboodle, he’s also made an offer to buy the flagship casino, long past its days of Rat Pack-era glory, for just $135 million in cash. One assumes that the rest of his alleged $300 million bankroll—supposedly provided by Houston condo developer Giorgio Borlenghi and French gaming outfit Group Partouche—is being saved for renovations.

But during my dinner with Boccardi—arranged at the behest of busty L.A. flack Eileen Koch—he spent more time talking about other aspects of his life. Discussing his date with a model for the skin rag Perfect Ten (owned by one of Koch’s clients), he bashfully admitted that she found him so fascinating that she fell asleep during dinner. Proving himself to be a name-dropper par excellence, he noted his appearances with Enrique Iglesias, flying Monaco royal Prince Albert into town for an appearance and having met with Vegas big-timers such as MGM Mirage boss Terry Lanni and Barron Hilton, whose Hilton Hotels controls the Park Place collection of gambling joints

When asked about his past, Boccardi gave some quick bits: He claimed to had gotten his start in real estate after his father went bankrupt, then went to build condominiums in ritzy enclaves like Monte Carlo. Attracted to gaming by its cash flow potential, he allegedly tried build a casino in France, but claimed to have been stymied by a change in political fortune. He dropped more names: The Pritzkers of Hyatt Hotels fame for one; real estate vulture Colony Capital was another. (According to the founder of that firm, Boccardi “didn’t smell right.)

But when asked for more details about his grandiloquently-named “Genesis gaming,” Fabrice (as he’s known to some of his friends) kept mum. Why? “If I say more about what Genesis gaming is, in three months’, six months’ time, [casino outfit] Mandalay Bay and Steve Wynn will copy it.” A spokesman for Mandalay’s parent firm responded with a hearty laugh. Wynn—who once hung up on me—wasn’t worth the bother.

Boccardi left me unconvinced; the Riviera execs, reportedly even less so. But at least he did entertain me—and gave me a story, and an update and...

“Who is this man, this entrepreneur, real estate mogul, media darling, advance man?” http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0528/060a.html

News about Boccardi's latest venture: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/gaming/2003/apr/03/514894377.html

2003-04-07T08:29:00.000-07:00

WHY PROTEST?: For a harried writer taking a well-earned break, the prospect of reading LA Weekly is as exciting as perusing the Internal Revenue Code. The creaky alternative rag possesses some of the worst aspects of the Village Voice—notably, simpleminded columnists like Harold Meyerson—without displaying any of its sister weekly’s few virtues (Nat Hentoff and too-racy-for-words sex ads.) Its recent bust-down of muckraking columnist Charles Rappleye as well as the demise needed competition in the form of New Times Los Angeles has made LA Weekly an even more unbearable read.

But this week, the editors—who have recently wasted more pages than usual by littering them with poorly reasoned lefty anti-war pieces—somehow let Henry Sheehan slip a halfway sensible polemic—and tough on his fellow lefties—past their watchful eyes. Wonders truly never cease. Defending those annoying anti-war protest rallies as a way to offer a different “vision of the future” of Iraq than that of the pro-war types, Sheehan argues that those lefitsts who say they should “somehow take part” in the post-war rebuilding phase are just buying into a “simplistic theory of history” that puts them into the “comforting” role of Stalinesque “ideological imperialists.” Says Sheehan: “The left is falling susceptible to the same cowboy impulses it accuses Bush of harboring.”

For those lefties who argue that they should help the northern Kurds fight off the Turkish government, Sheehan wonders “who is going to protect the Kurds from the Kurds”? He notes how the Kurdish Democratic Party—oddly enough, Saddam’s partner in his efforts to evade the UN’s embargo on oil exports—recruited the dictator in its effort to beat back their chief rival, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. He then reminds readers that there is another nasty player in this “complicated” entanglement: The Kurdistan Workers Party, formerly of Turkey, which slaughtered KDP members before that party’s leadership invited the Turkish government—victors of a long-running guerilla war with the KWP—to hand them another can of whipass.

This web of feuding should be enough to give pause to pro-war types who imagine a democratic Iraq. To Sheehan, the very fact that leftists and anti-war types are also contemplating an intervention into Kurdish affairs strikes him as “absurd.” Worst of all, he complains, all this “concern” from the President, pro-war conservatives/libertarians and squishy pro-postwar intervention leftists is mere hogwash:

“[The Kurds] have been treaded badly for decades, yet no one has lifted a finger to help them. Neither the American government nor the American right nor the American left have made human rights for Kurds an issue. These poor, war-encumbered people have lived in the shadow of hot-spot nations, a footnote that parachuted correspondents and cocktail-pary experts use to bolster their worldly bona fides to a credulous audience.”

Sheehan tosses off a few insults and half-baked ideas that weaken his overall argument. Particularly insulting is his description of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as “a blustering old fool;” even I have to disagree with that one. But overall Sheehan nails down the case for continuing to question this war. At the end of the day, this will be the first of many interventions in the Middle East to be proposed by President Bush and his posse of pro-war conservatives and ‘libertarians.’ Anyone who thinks, as ‘neolibertarian’ John Tabin (see below) does, that this unlimited intervention has a “lower risk of expanding global insecurity” have little sense of the risks we’re taking.

“Many Americans are being narcotized into thinking the war will end when the last shot is fired…”: http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/20/news-sheehan.php

2003-04-07T08:12:00.000-07:00

PROFILES OF PRO-WAR LIBERTARIANS/JOHN TABIN: The proliferation of libertarians who support the invasion of Iraq has always been a tad baffling for me. While one can logically argue that invading Afghanistan fits the libertarian concept of defensive war, there is nothing defensive about our government’s war. So why would otherwise sensible free-market types such as Glen (Instapundit) Reynolds—many of whom know about our government’s previous foreign policy misadventures such as arming Saddam Hussein’s political regime in the first place—would support this silly armed intervention?

I’ve speculated in past posts, it likely has to do with their disillusionment with libertarianism after the World Trade massacre. But speculation doesn’t substitute for sound evidence. So a week ago, I e-mailed a few prominent pro-war libertarian pundits and asked them about how their views have changed since the World Trade massacre. Today, the Dailyblog has garnered a response from John Tabin, whose “Neolibertarian” Web site has helped champion the pro-war libertarian movement. Below are his answers, which I’m printing without my own comments (after all, you already know where I stand):

Considering everything that has happened since the World Trade Massacre 18 months ago, do you still consider yourself a libertarian? If so, why? If not, why and what ideological camp would you put yourself into, if any? If you consider yourself a libertarian, do you think that the debate over this war will inevitably lead to you changing your ideological position? If so, why? If not why? What has particularly changed for you since these events?

I'm still a libertarian, but since 9/11 I'm more apt to say "hawkish libertarian" or some such qualifier; on Political State Report, my party label is "(R/L)"; with no 9/11 it probably would have been just an L or at least the L would have come first, but with foreign policy at the forefront of politics I have little choice but to assert an alliance with the Republicans, because they're the only party with a serious foreign policy position that I approve of (I certainly wouldn't vote again for Harry Browne, as I did in 2000, given his post-9/11 commentary.) I'm also attracted to "neolibertarian," in the sense that has popped up lately, largely in the blogosphere, of domestic libertarianism married to an active foreign policy. I realize that "neolibertarian" also indicates a contrast with "geolibertarian," but the Georgist debate on the economics of land is quite arcane, and I like the term in that it invokes the neoconservatives and neo-liberals, who also interested in active foreign policies while distinguishing us from them as least as much as they are distinct from each other.

I've called myself a libertarian for a long time, and I've always felt that
engagement with the world, including military engagement when necessary, was integral to a sensible political program. This never seemed untenable to me, and I've yet to encounter an argument that could convince me that it is.

Did you previously buy into the position advocated by some libertarians that free markets and free trade would reduce or eliminate the possibility of war? If so, has that changed since the World Trade massacres? If not, then why? Do you feel that such a position was, in retrospect, unrealistic?

If anything, 9/11 strengthened my resolve to expand liberty, of which freer trade and freer markets are an integral part. Arab states are for the most part repressive, and (not coincidentally) socialist, enterprises; even the less expansive Israeli socialism is an impediment to peace. This is why I think the much-vilified neocons are, at least for the time being, a natural libertarian ally; their foreign policy demands that every effort is made to expand liberty globally. I don't think the costs of pursuing that goal outweigh the benefits; I tend to think there's a lower risk of expanding global insecurity and domestic government power grabs than some libertarians think there is.

Finally, do you consider the split between pro-war and anti-invasion libertarians to be a difference over an interpretation of libertarian principles? If so, why? If not, why? Do you feel that the split is an inevitable result of libertarianism's position on handling foreign policy? Do you feel that anti-invasion libertarians hold a principled position with which you disagree? If so, why? If not, why? How do you feel about the tenor of debate between pro-war and anti-war libertarians?

It could be seen as a misinterpretation of libertarian principles; the best argument against libertarian isolationism (or "non-interventionism," if you prefer) was written by Stephen Cox, a senior editor of Liberty magazine, in one of the early issues (this would be either the late 80s or early 90s). Cox turned around the reductionist statements of moralist libertarians-- i.e., it's wrong to attack your neighbor-- and said, well, what if your neighbor has a shotgun pointed out the window? Isn't it okay to breakdown his door and stop him from shooting you? And isn't okay to solicit the help of other neighbors? (Cox went on and addressed more sophisticated arguments, too, but I can't quote the whole thing from memory.)

In a certain sense, though, the question of "libertarian principles" isn't all that interesting to me. A theme running through libertarians' internal debate is the question of moralism vs. consequentialism. I come down firmly on the consequentialist side, which is to say I'm not a libertarian because of the non-aggression axiom (i.e., it's immoral to use force first, and therefore nearly all government activity is at some level immoral); instead, I'm a libertarian because I think that, in most cases, more libertarian policy works better than less libertarian policy. (As Ron Bailey has put it, if I thought socialism was better for poor people, I'd probably be a socialist.)

As for the second question, I don't think "anti-war libertarians" can be lumped into one category. Some, no doubt, hold a principled position. Some are obviously driven by some of the ugliest impulses. I won't get into naming names (that would take forever, and I'm already sending this later than I'd said I would), and for the same reason, I won't characterize the tenor of the debate; I'd either be giving too much or two little credit to some people if I did. Since libertarian critiques of domestic policy continue to interest me, I doubt my self-identification will change except as I explained above.

Tabin online: http://www.johntabin.com

2003-04-05T13:03:00.000-08:00

SATURDAY SOLILOQUIES: Hmm...

"HE HAD BEEN AN OLD MAN...": The late Michael Kelly's last column. Read on.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/33595.htm

MAN BITES DOG, PART 400: Professors protest the war--and the students call them nuts? Yes, according to the New York Times (whose editors probably gagged after getting that report.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/05/international/worldspecial/05CAMP.html (Courtesy of Jeffrey Schaler.)

SOMEONE NEEDS TO KEEP IT IN THEIR PANTS: Read it and laugh. http://www.chinpokomon.com/archives/000446.html#000446 (Courtesy of Ken Layne.)

RACE-BAITING WRONG, BUT ANTI-SEMITISM-BAITING RIGHT?: A column by anti-semitism-charging smear artist David Frum celebrating the end of politicians using "the race card." Really? What a rank hypocrite.
http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.14493/news_detail.asp

"HE LOVED TO HURT, HUMILIATE AND DOMINATE THOSE CLOSEST TO HIM": One cop's description of former British soldier Steve Wilson of Birmingham, England, who, according to the guys at Eightball Magazine, deserves a "special place in hell" for murdering his two sons. Among the hardcore sadist's list of misdeeds: Pimping his second wife for sexual services and making members of his family eat the ashes of his first wife, commenting that "the big black lumps are the cancer which killed her." What a guy. <
http://www.eightballmagazine.com/wjh/2003/040403.htm

2003-04-04T08:36:00.000-08:00

MICHAEL KELLY, R.I.P.: A fine columnist and a fine editor who died doing what he loved. Condolences to his family.

A great loss in the world of opinion journalism: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27396-2003Apr4.html

2003-03-29T13:15:00.000-08:00

SATURDAY SOLILOQUIES: All sorts of stuff to read and make fun of:

Corner-ed: Reason zinged National Review and its interesting-in-a-car-wreck-way blog. Now Antiwar.com, home of David Frum nemesis Justin Raimondo, gives The Corner its just desserts. Sample knockdown: A skewering of Kathryn Jean (KLo) Lopez, National Review's online editor best known at the site for complaining about hottie female Fox News anchors:

I [Katherine Jean Lopez]
Posted at 10:25 AM

HAVE [Katherine Jean Lopez]
Posted at 10:26 AM

NOTHING [Katherine Jean Lopez]
Posted at 10:27 AM

BETTER [Katherine Jean Lopez]
Posted at 10:28 AM

TO [Katherine Jean Lopez]
Posted at 10:29 AM

DO [Katherine Jean Lopez]
Posted at 10:30 AM

THAN [Katherine Jean Lopez]
Posted at 10:31 AM

POST [Katherine Jean Lopez]
Posted at 10:32 AM

INANITIES [Katherine Jean Lopez]
Posted at 10:33 AM

ALL [Katherine Jean Lopez]
Posted at 10:34 AM

DAY [Katherine Jean Lopez]
Posted at 10:35 AM

Ouch. Check it out at: http://www.antiwar.com/barganier/ba032403.html (Courtesy of Franklin Harris). Meanwhile, here's Reason's effort: http://www.reason.com/hod/thecorndog.shtml

Makeup please?: Matt Welch get's head-hunted. But not by the Los Angeles Times, but a casting director, who compares his looks to that of Ben Affleck. Says Welch: "I predict profound personal embarrassment soon." Especially if Mrs. Welch (a.k.a Emmanuelle Richard) doesn't get a casting call with him. http://www.mattwelch.com/archives/week_2003_03_23.html#1830

Jim Henley against the neocons: I may have too soon call Jim Henley one of my partners in crime. He's now got a spitting match with oneBill Herbert, who runs something called Cointelpro. Herbert argues that one of Henley's recent posts--a critique of a peace by the surprisingly unlibertarian Ayn Rand Institute--is "is as far off the mark as any blog I've read." Henley's response: "When a site called "Cointelpro Tool" showed up in my referrer logs, I expected something critical and was not disappointed. Check out Henley's response at http://www.highclearing.com/archivesuo/week_2003_03_23.html#003961. As for Herbert, go to http://cointelprotool.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_cointelprotool_archive.html#91548586> and waste your time on him if you want.

Gene Healey's Dictionary: Defining a Neocon theory:

National Greatness Conservatism: n. The vicarious thrill certain right-wing pundits get from watching better men risk their lives.

I don't see Jonah Goldberg, David Frum, Bill Kristol and their pals volunteering for service. Yet they'd draft my younger brother to fight their war in a heartbeat. Perfect definition. http://www.genehealy.com/archives/005324.php#005324

More A-- for the max: Since Matt Welch wants "more a--," here's Raymi the Minx, who seems to like getting naked and has nude photos of Courtney Love. http://raymitheminx.blogspot.com/ (Courtesy of Tony Pierce.)

2003-03-27T07:20:00.000-08:00

HE'S GOIN' TO THE CHAPEL...: Jesse Walker's finally getting hitched. Ex-girlfriends weep as they won't be able to make love to their ex-stud ever again.

"I'm happy, she's happy, and everyone else is blowing each other up": http://jessewalker.blogspot.com/2003_03_23_jessewalker_archive.html#91369278

2003-03-26T14:16:00.000-08:00

INSTAPUNDIT AND ANTI-WAR: From No Lyfe's R. Alex Whitlock in the comments section of a recent post about whether or not discussing the war is worth the time:

"Now, this is NOT to say that I'm letting pro-war people off the hook. I'm about to quit reading Instapundit altogether because every other post seems to be saying "See? We were RIGHT to get into this war. See? See?! Bet the people against it are SORRY NOW!!!"
"
Ouch.

Dissatisfied reader alert: http://www.enetation.co.uk/comments.php?user=nolyfe&commentid=200040869&usersite=http://www.no-lyfe.com/journal/#184

2003-03-26T13:38:00.000-08:00

HOT, SEXY IRAQI S---S WAITING FOR YOU: Some Iraqi love from Adultcheck.

"Rosina can't wait to do it": http://www.hoststudio.com/2002/IraqiWhores/

2003-03-26T12:15:00.000-08:00

THE FRUM FACTCHECKING FILE: One has to admire David Frum for his cojones. Despite getting bashed by both the targets of his recent takedown of anti-war conservatives and libertarians in National Review--as well as by folks such as USA Today columnist DeWayne Wickham, not exactly a friend of conservatives--Frum remains unrepetent.

Take yesterday's post on his "diary" site, which responds to insinuations by Beltway icon Robert Novak--a key target of the hit piece--that Frum's attack was partly motivated by Novak's review of his latest book as well as the mention of the Danielle Crittendon (a.k.a Mrs. David Frum) e-mail incident. Writes Frum: "I suppose I could reply that this is a very strange protest indeed from a man who has spent the past year insinuating that the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy is a Zionist plot against American interests." Adds Frum: "You can understand his point of view: things have come to a pretty pass indeed when a journalist cannot write that the U.S. government is secretly controlled by a cabal of war-mongering, um, neoconservatives without being accused of anti-semitism."

That's interesting since there's no evidence of any of this: According to a quick search on Dow Jones' interactive news service--the Lexis Nexis of the financial news world-- that "Novak" and "Zionist' pulled up just 38 articles and transcripts; the articles written or co-written by Novak mostly cite quotes by anti-Israel types such as the Saudi Arabian publication Okaz, which "described the Pentagon as filled with "either Jews or allies of the Zionist lobby."" This came from one of Novak's columns published last August. Another mention of "Zionist": Noting the World Zionist Organization--and that was from a column from Jan. 23, 1989. Yes, my friends, 1989.

But did Novak ever mention a neoconservative "cabal"? According to a quick search on Dow Jones' Interactive news search site, there are just 57 stories that mention "Robert Novak" and "cabal." Most were related to statements by others, such as New Republic scribe Lawrence Kaplan's Feb. 18 op-ed in the Washington Post that imferred that Novak--along with Hardball host Chris Matthews and columnist Georgie Anne Geyer--were anti-semites in the tradition of Charles Lindbergh and Pat Buchanan. Only two of the 24 articles actually written by Novak citing "cabal" mentioned Israel and both were versions of the same June 21, 1999 column written by Novak about then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's problems with Ariel Sharon over the Palestinians:

"For all the recent difficulties between Washington and Shamir, he is carrying President Bush's mail--however reluctantly--in pressing for limited elections in the occupied territories. But charismatic, controversial Gen. Ariel Sharon is leading an anti-Shamir cabal [emphasis mine--RB] in Likud that favors Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank. Boasting strong grass-roots support, Sharon and his allies will seek a veto of the election plan at the Likud Central Committee session starting July 4."

The most recent use of "cabal" by Novak? This column from last January 2 (in the Chicago Sun-Times) criticizing Republicans opposing the nomination of anti-Clinton prosecutor Charles LaBella:

"More than an injustice to a valued public servant is at stake. The anti-LaBella cabal threatens plans for President Bush to win approval of California federal judges in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Maneuvering over nomination of U.S. attorneys normally does not engage George W. Bush personally, but he might consider intervening for Chuck LaBella before it is too late. "

So Novak hasn't said anything about a neoconservative cabal driving war. But did he infer or imply such points? A simple search of "Robert Novak" and "neoconservative" brings up just 38 articles, mostly by other writers (only 9 by Novak himself along with a few transcripts). None refer to Jews and neoconservatives. "Robert Novak" and "neocon"? Seven articles and transcripts pulled up, none written or with utterances by Novak. "Robert Novak" and "Jew." No columns by Novak after July 19, 1998 in which he briefly mentions that Conn. Sen. Joseph Lieberman is an orthodox Jew.

A search of "Robert Novak" and "Israel" and "Chicago Sun-Times" pulls up 431 citings, only 66 of them listing stories and transcripts published after the World Trade Center massacre of Sept. 11, 2001. In one piece, Next Target: Saddam? which was written a month after the massacre, Novak merely mentions that the United States' relationship with Israel may influence the direction of the war on terrorism. Here is his one line about conservatives of any kind:

"There is strong feeling among American conservatives that an attack on Iraq is essential to protect U.S. national interests, and that keeping Arab states as members of the anti-terrorist coalition is neither possible nor desirable. In their view, Israel is ally enough."

So far, the evidence is underwhelming. One of Novak's columns--this from last August 22 about how the government may balance its relationships with both Israel and Saudi Arabia--another longtime U.S. ally, mentions State Department apparatchik Richard Perle as being "a staunch friend of Israel" who may have influenced the results of a Rand Corp. briefing that offended Saudi officials. Novak's observation? "Perle's arrangement of the briefing is seen in Washington and Riyadh as part of a campaign to recast longstanding U.S. policies with strong, though certainly not unanimous, support in the White House and the Defense Department. " Here's another paragraph from the column:

"Ever since the Sept. 11 attacks, conservative journalists and politicians have pounded on Saudi customs and mores that had not seriously disturbed a relationship between the two dissimilar countries over the last 60 years. Beneath that buzz was a proposed new strategic concept: forcible removal of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, which in turn would undermine the Saudi regime--the domino theory in reverse. The proposed American imperium would produce a democratic Middle East, safe for Israel. "

Again nothing about neocons or Jews or anything referring to the religious/ethnic affiliations of Bush administration officials supporting the invasion of Iraq. How about the "Sharon's War" column of last December 26, the one oft-cited by Frum and others as evidence of Novak's anti-semitism, "unpatriotic" behavior and Jew-baiting (two odd claims since Novak is, surprise, surprise, Jewish)? At best, the column merely suggests that the President has launched this war in part because out of support for Israel. But there's nothing anti-semitic about the piece. And it isn't "unpatriotic." Essentially, Frum has no case against Novak and is just smearing the guy. But read the first seven paragraphs (including the two that offended Frum) for yourself:

""Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, having just returned from a weeklong fact-finding trip to the Middle East, addressed the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations Dec. 16 and said out loud what is whispered on Capitol Hill: "The road to Arab-Israeli peace will not likely go through Baghdad, as some may claim."

"The "some" are led by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. In private conversation with Hagel and many other members of Congress, the former general leaves no doubt that the greatest U.S. assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime. That view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason U.S. forces today are assembling for war.

""Military force alone," Hagel told his Chicago audience, "will neither assure a democratic transition in Iraq, bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians, nor assure stability in the Middle East." Indeed, the senator returned from the Mideast more concerned than his prepared speech indicates. As the U.S. gets ready for war, its standing in Islam--even among longtime allies--stands low.

"Yet, the Bush administration has tied itself firmly to Gen. Sharon and his policies. Gen. Amram Mitzna, the new Labor Party leader challenging the heavily favored Sharon in the Jan. 28 election, is denied access to senior U.S. officials.

"In private conversation, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has insisted that Hezbollah--not al Qaida--is the world's most dangerous terrorist organization. How could that be, considering al Qaida's global record of mass carnage?

"In truth, Hezbollah is the world's most dangerous terrorist organization from Israel's standpoint. While viciously anti- American in rhetoric, the Lebanon-based Hezbollah is focused on the destruction of Israel. "Outside this fight [against Israel], we have done nothing," Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the organization's secretary- general, said in a recent New York Times interview. Thus, Rice's comments suggest that the U.S. war against terrorism, accused of being Iraq-centric, actually is Israel-centric.

"That ties George W. Bush to Sharon. The prime minister says astonishing things to U.S. visitors. He once rejected hope for negotiations, contending that Arabs and Jews will kill each other for a hundred years. More recently, he promised to put a Jewish settlement on top of any high ground."

Novak gets indignant: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16764-2003Mar23.html

And Frum gets bitchy: http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary032503.asp

2003-03-25T10:28:00.000-08:00

THE QUESTION OF WAR NEVER ENDS:

The problem for pro-war types is that they haven't thought through the implications of "pre-emptive" invasion. The other problem fo

The other problem is one of polemic: The pro-war side has engaged in the kind of cheap-shotting for which they would have decried leftists such as Eric Alterman. Consider Rand Simberg's response at Justin Raimondo after the anti-war libertarian dared to be principled and knock protestors in San Francisco for their thuggish behavior: "Lie down with dogs, get up with flees, Justin." Or David Frum's recent smearing of anti-war conservatives and libertarians as anti-semites and "unpatriotic." The pro-war side cannot demand a serious debate and then behave hypocritically.

2003-03-24T15:59:00.000-08:00

MONDAY MADNESS: Stupid things--and people--to ponder:
*Piping hot bigotry in 30 minutes or less: Meet Joseph Pearce, an alleged former neo-Nazi-turned-theologian who's attained respectability thanks in part to a fawning interview with that basher of anti-semitism, National Review. Now meet his chief patron: Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan, who's also allegedly tied to a group that "serviced" Pinochet during his takeover of the socialist Chilean government. Wanna slice? http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/stories/032003_story06.htm

*"Woman Found In Britain With No Spine": So declares Eightball Magazine, which tears into one Jill Dale for putting up with her husbands 100-plus infidelities as well as bash other women for doing the same. Why? Suggests Eightball: "There's some kind of masochistic tendancy there that's so deeply rooted that being aware of it doesn't change anything." Yup. http://www.eightballmagazine.com/wjh/2003/032103.htm

*No donut for you: Montgomery County police chief Charles Moose, who exacerbated that public relations nightmare known as the D.C. sniper crisis, won't be allowed to write a book or consult on a movie about the case. Not that he would have deserved one dime in the first place. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mooseethics1.html

*And her parents paid $36,465 a year for this?: This darling senior at Tufts won't get an award from alumni because she used gestured a vulgarity to former President Bush. She in turn accuses the university of "silencing" her. She should have went to charm school. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/081/metro/Tufts_senior_loses_award_after_insult_to_elder_Bush-.shtml

*More Alterman for the ounce: David Shaw has lunch with Mr. Snooze and they agree: Libertarians and conservatives only imagine that the media is narrowly center-left. Just saved you the trouble of reading that boring bit of claptrap. But if you must: http://www.calendarlive.com/printedition/calendar/suncal/cl-ca-shaw23mar23.story (Courtesy of Matt Welch.)

*Nasty, dirty, smelly, stinky mutha' f---in' pig: Meet Amanda Phillips, a 23-year-old mother of three who allegedly allows her kids to wallow in "cat feces, roaches, soiled clothing and garbage." Naturally, Phillips' water is about to break for the fourth time. http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1699&dept_id=46371&newsid=7448979&PAG=461&rfi=9

2003-03-24T12:30:00.000-08:00

LOST ANY FRIENDS DUE TO ARGUMENTS OVER THE WAR AND 9/11?: Patio Pundit asks this question. My answer: I don't know if I've lost any friends due to all this. But I have gotten into tough arguments with friends and acquaintances who are pro-invasion. That's going to happen: Friendships are fragile things anyway; throw down a major issue such as the World Trade Center massacre and fissures that were likely always there get exposed because of politics.

What we're seeing now a political realignment of sorts: Disaffected leftists who may oppose this invasion, but don't oppose war in general and have some libertarian sympathies will end up realigning with libertarians because hard-core leftists won't tolerate them. Or they'll do a Hitchens and get picked up by conservatives. You'll see center-left and center-right types (a.k.a. your New York Times/Washington Post types and their National Review/American Spectator counterparts) form alliances because they're not that different from each other: Both believe in big government; they only differ in their goals.

As for conservatives and libertarians, there's just a split that will never fix itself. It's been coming since the end of the Cold war and for good reason: Conservatives only give lip service to free minds and markets while the concept of liberty is central to libertarianism. While you'll see occasional alliances on some matters (social security for example), conservatives and libertarians will continue to battle on social (cloning) and foreign policy (defensive war vs. "preemptive" invasions such as this one).

Finally, there are going to be Reagan-era libertarians (Virginia Postrel, Reynolds, etc.) who will become aligned with conservatives within the next ten years. One reason: They're getting old; age can change points of view. The other reason: Because they had bought into the conceit that dollar diplomacy (a.k.a free trade can fix anything) would restrain ideologically-driven and power-hungry types such as terrorists. Now, any old-time libertarian/old whig such as Hayek could have told them otherwise; so could this newbie libertarian. But it took the World Trade Massacre to prove to them that their conceit was wrongheaded. Now that they're disillusioned, they're casting the whole baby out with the bathwater.

Good question: http://www.patiopundit.com/archives/002706.html#002706

2003-03-24T10:29:00.000-08:00

DOES INSTAPUNDIT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANTI-INVASION PUNDITS?: Noticed that the Minute Man hasn't linked to anyone from the anti-invasion crowd--the Reason guys, Jim Henley, Gene Healy or myself--and have sent him an e-mail yesterday asking why. Now, it is his site and therefore, he has a right to his editorial judgement. But as anyone who reads this site knows, I post commentaries from pro- and anti- invasion writers with only the consideration that the stuff's any good. Why? Because 1) readers should get the perspective of both sides, even if it's tinged with my commentary and 2) it's just good business. But as I've mentioned before, the proprietor of one's site does have the right to exercise his or her own editorial judgement.

I'll post Mr. Reynolds' response when I receive one.

2003-03-24T08:10:00.000-08:00

SCENES FROM A PROTEST: As you know by now, I think the invasion of Iraq is a silly adventure. But I think the lefty anti-war protestors have behaved sillier still. Their sit-ins have caused traffic jams and their protest rallies have ruined many a commuter’s workday; signs comparing President Bush to Hitler have distracted people from legitimate objections to this war. As I put it to one police officer during a recent rally at the Federal building in Los Angeles’ tony Westwood neighborhood: “This is the first time I’ve ever supported police brutality.” (The officer then offered me his baton and asked “wanna help?”)

So befitting my disdain for protestors and demonstrations, I found myself—in the middle of one. I was heading for the Los Angeles Press Club’s Hollywood offices on the Saturday afternoon before the Oscars when I got caught up in a rash of protest rallies that tied up traffic all along Sunset and Hollywood boulevards. Being the kind of guy who doesn’t mind checking out the antics of peaceniks—besides I had a reporter’s notebook in hand—I decided to stay around and survey the action. Here’s my recollection of Saturday’s theatrics:

3:21: At Sunset and Ivar, I encounter a Black guy peddling “Give Peace A Chance” t-shirts. “Three dollars, three dollars” he shouts. Proof that a Black man with t-shirts will turn any situation into a money-making opportunity.

3:51: After stopping by the Press Club, I arrive at the northwest corner of Hollywood and Vine, where a motley crew of demonstrators bang on giant water containers and chanting all sorts of nonsense. In the middle of the intersection, protestors are staging a sit-in. The crowd cheers as a few of the participants are escorted into one of the black-and-gray Los Angeles County Sheriff’s buses. Then protestors shout. A man in black sunglasses and black jacket, more of a bystander than anything else, shouts “fight the power,” then laughs. He says: “I just wanted to see if anyone would join in.”

3:53: “Save Iraqi children.” A woman in black lace and a veil aimlessly wanders around the crowd. “The first time the word pollution was used was to describe the spilling of blood,” she mutters to no one in particular. “God does not want pollution. No more pollution.” Then she shuts up.

3:55: “A people… united… will never be defeated…” Another protestor is arrested, but I didn’t get a description. I’m too busy warily watching the massive Doberman in front of me. Apparently he wasn’t impressed with the course of events: It cocks its head, bows it, then lays down at the foot of a protestor standing on the star of a long-forgotten radio star named Jessica.

3:57: A short brunette asks a couple of demonstrators “can I move up front to take a picture.” They allow her to pass. It’s probably the most civil the crowd has been since I got here.

3:58: More chanting of “A people… united… will never be defeated.” That’s all.

3:59: A Rubenesque white girl donning a white t-shirt is arrested. The crowd cheers.
Meanwhile, there’s a conversation between a dirty, dreadlock-wearing middle-aged white guy banging on a water container and a voice in the crowd:
Unknown voice in crowd: “Where did John go.”
Dreadlock-wearing middle-aged white guy: “John went to jail”

4:00: Dreadlock-wearing middle-aged guy asks me: “Is that shorthand? Or is that another language?” Me: “I can read it. That’s all that counts.”

4:01: “Police! Police!” The crowd cheers as some cops drive away in two GMC Yukons.

4:02: “You filthy cops.” A butch white chick is arrested. Standing to the left of me is a young Arab woman in a Seventies track jacket and designer jeans. Her face is covered. On the back pocket of her jeans is a sign with the name of one “Majahid Abdul. 51.” It claims he “disappeared in the U.S.A.” Attorney General John Ashcroft probably knows of his whereabouts.

4:04: “No. War.” A big-bellied white guy, probably a college student, is arrested.

4:05: Indecipherable chant. One of the officers removes a black-and-silver knapsack from the middle of the street. Holds it by the strap. Probably fears there’s a bomb inside. More likely someone’s entire life.

4:06: “Shake your booty for peace.” No one does. At the intersection where the sit-in occurs, one of the participants is yapping on his cell phone. Probably making plans for a night on the town—after he gets his parents to put up bail.

4:07: Hip urban hottie, donning a tan Kangol hat and jeans is the next arrestee. She has some sort of blue sticker on her white t-shirt. Too busy checking her out to notice what that thing says.

4:08: Another hottie in a black tee is escorted to the Sheriff’s bus. She blows kisses to the crowd. I have to admire her moxie.

4:10: “We should be scared of the police… Especially at a peaceful protest… Why are you scared of us? Why do you arrest us?” Scruffy bearded black guy and a middle-aged suburban white couple head for the paddy wagon. Racial equality is achieved!

4:11: “This is a peaceful protest.” A white guy wearing a Kangol is also arrested. Best advertisement for Kangol hats the manufacturer will probably ever have.

4:12: Chunky guy in black t-shirt arrested. Can’t tell what the writing on the t-shirt says? Then a corporate-looking white guy in an orange polo follows behind him. He doesn’t seem pleased with his predicament.

4:13: “We want peace. Arrest the police.” I ask one red-mustachioed officer “are you having fun.” “I’d rather be home,” he responds. I can’t blame him. Meanwhile another sit-in participant, a tall, dreadlock-donning black guy that college-age latte liberal white girls dig, gets arrested. Now he’ll have a good “I’m all about peace” story to tell those chicks before they smoke some weed and have hot sex.

4:14: I talk to a middle-aged white guy—donning a t-shirt from Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (R.A.W.A.)—standing to my right. He complains about the lack of mainstream media coverage of this latest protest. “There were four news helicopters flying overhead. Now there’s just one police helicopter,” he says in disgust.

4:15: “No more war.” A shutterbug stands on the trashcan in front of me and takes photos. Turns out he’s photographing one of his friends, a demonstrator at the sit-in; she’ll soon join her compatriots in the black-and-gray bus. Oh, one just escorted just now.

4:16: Bespectacled white chick arrested. She seems displeased. Meanwhile the R.A.W.A. t-shirt-wearing white man asks me to write something about “sustainable economies.” Ugh. “If we had a sustainable economy, we wouldn’t have war.” Apparently he fails to consider such conflict-starters as religion, money and power. But I’m too busy to mention such details.

4:17: First an overweight bespectacled white girl is arrested. She is immediately joined by a young Chinese gal in a belly tee and yellow Capri pants.

4:18: Another white girl is arrested. The crowd cheers. Then another squadron of law enforcement arrives. The crowd boos. At the same time, another Yukon drives past the crowds. They cheer again.

4:19: A commanding officer, probably days away from collecting his first pension check, gets on the megaphone and tells a gaggle of protestors on the “southwest corner” to vacate the premises. Supposedly they’re involved in an “unlawful assembly.” Whatever.

4:20: “Not war. Preach peace.” Arab guy in reddish-brown cap arrested. Another Asian gal follows him.

4:21: A middle-aged white woman, who apparently decided to go braless, walks away from the sit-in to the waiting sheriff’s bus. She bounces towards the bus; so do her tits. A ghastly sight. One white dude is also arrested. Another, standing to the back of me, shouts: “We’re on the Iraqis’ side.” How nice.

4:23: Another arrest. How many still involved in the sit-in? “Thirty left,” says a demonstrator.” The aging police commander then gets on his megaphone and announces: “People on the northwest corner, you’re still in violation of an unlawful assembly.” Intones another officer, apparently ready to crack skulls: “We’re not fooling around now.”

4:25: The cops start moving folks off the northwest corner. I stand on a trash can to get another look, then stare at one officer, Olea, badge #18451. I ask: “Isn’t this side walk public property.” Officer Olea #18451: “Not now.”

4:26: While one set of cops push the crowd and I up Hollywood Blvd. towards Ivar, another set coming from Ivar tell us to go back towards Vine. There’s confusion and arguing between the officers. Finally one of them tells us to walk up Vine Street towards some parking lots. Screams one protestor: “Get your acts together.”

4:29: I cut-through a parking lot behind the Pantages theater. I then walk down a street back to Hollywood Blvd. Some guy passes by me with a sign made of brown cardboard. Looks like an ad for an ambulance-chasing attorney. Police brutality anyone?

4:31: Near the curb on Hollywood Blvd., a photographer and an old-man take pictures of a woman wearing a black robe and a low-cut nightgown. She has rollers in her light brown hair and some facial mud on her face. She’s not exactly an antiwar activist: She carries a sign saying “Warfare not welfare.” The “yes to welfare, no to warfare” demonstrators, who stand across from her, aren’t exactly amused. I ask Ms. Warfare what does she call herself. She says something indecipherable; the old man calls her “crackface.” She smile, then leaves. When asked what was that all about, one of the protestors groaned “I don’t know where she came from.”

4:38: I walk down a side street, then walk along Selma to the intersection it forms with Vine. On the north end, twelve cops on bicycles stand guard against a group of protestors on the southeast and southwest corners. On the northeast: A blonde-haired rocker dude with two of his adoring fans.

4:41: I meet up with New Times movie critic Luke Y. Thompson on the southwest corner. Dressed in black street clothes, he’s dressed to protest. But that wasn’t his initial intention. Says he: “I just came out for lunch and decided to stay.”

4:48: Walk back to Hollywood and Vine, cutting through a parking lot across from the Red Line subway station. An attendant lounges in a chair. Cell phone in one hand, the other on his crotch.

4:50: Scene from a conversation between a straw-hat-wearing woman and youthful bespectacled white guy in front of the Pantages:
Woman: “There are no Democrat tents here.” Guy: “Yeah. It’s all about the Green party.”

4:52: More shouts. More cops.

4:59: I cut through some parking lots and walk down to the corner of Hollywood and Ivar. Notice all the suits and well-dressed women walking past me. I wonder aloud to a grandfatherly type in a white hat and suspenders whether “they were working for the Oscars or Scientologists. Same difference, I guess.” A hottie in black leather turns to me, points to her shorter, cigarette-puffing friend, and announces that “we are Scientologist.,” Then points to the sign on the building across the street; it has a declaration by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard that “ideas, and not battles, make the forward progress of mankind.” She asks: “Do you like it?” Says I: “Sure do.”

A couple of minutes—and some pleasantries later—black leather hottie and her friend walk away to the parking lots up the street. I look at the sign, then at the girl. Then the grandfatherly man looks at me. He smiles and asks: “Are you parking enforcement?”

“No,” I say. “I’m just checking out her ass.”

2003-03-23T13:08:00.000-08:00

FOLLOWING THE WAR: More stuff for the war-obsessed:

Geneva Convention for you: For anyone who dares go into Iraq or has family members in the military, here's a copy of the Geneva Convention provided by the International Red Cross' site. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVFULL?OpenView (Courtesy of The Command Post.)

Want to watch some Al-Jazeera: Check out this site for video. http://www.ish.com/news/Al-Jazeera.html#

Stupid war statement: It's bad to resist war. So says Slate's Will Saletan who complains that anti-war and anti-invasion types "contribute to the political strength of the enemy regime" as well as "encourage uncertainty about the war's outcome, increasing the likelihood that the regime's soldiers will fight and die." Whatever. http://slate.msn.com/id/2080389/#antiwar

2003-03-23T13:03:00.000-08:00

HEADS UP TO IHS: Just learned that the Institute for Humane Studies' Libertyguide provides a link to the Dailyblog. Thanks much.

A helping hand: http://www.theihs.org/libertyguide/links/links.php/accounts/member.php

2003-03-23T12:18:00.000-08:00

FOLLOWING THE WAR: Right now, I'm working on my piece detailing yesterday's protests in Hollywood (don't ask how I got in the middle of that crap). For now, check out what's going on, including comments for and against the war:

*"As American as Mark Twain": Gene Healy correctly notes that opposing the war efforts of the government is truly patriotic. Take that Frum. http://www.genehealy.com/archives/005259.php#005259

*Lefty antiwar type Max Sawicky says the same thing: http://www.nowarblog.org/archives/001131.html#001131

*"Bush rapes his country; Saddam and his sons only rape little girls": Oy, vey. Stupid protest signs
http://moxie.nu/moveabletype/archives/000679.php#000679

*Another American victory (yay): U.S. Army beats Iraqi counterparts at another girly-named Arab city. http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WAR_BRIEFING?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

*Bad Flags: New York Post puts American flag motif atop masthead. Ivory tower journalists wring their hands in worry. Matt Welch rightfully drubs them. http://www.mattwelch.com/archives/week_2003_03_16.html#1781 [Oh, the story originally appeared in Newsday, a Post competitor. Sounds like Newsday's handwringing too: http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/ny-bzflag223185134mar22,0,2261639.story?coll=ny%2Dnews%2Dprint]

*Libertarians--good for politics: So says the Wall Street Journal's Susan Lee, who somehow managed to sneak this piece past Gigot, Henninger & Co. Says Lee "Libertarian thought, with its fluid cultural matrix, offers a better response to some of the knottiest problems of society" such as gay marriage and other areas where "economics, politics and culture clash so intimately" as opposed to the conservativism espoused by the rest of the Journal's editorial board. As one would also expect, it doesn't appear on Opinionjournal.com, so there's no link. (Courtesy of Jeffrey Schaler.) UPDATE: Opinionjournal.com's James Taranto sent me the link to the polemic--on Opinionjournal.com. "You might have bothered to check," writes Taranto. I had that coming. My apologies. So here's the link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110003062

*POW watch: American soldiers weren't supposed to be captured in this war. Now we find out ten GIs have turned up in Iraqi hands. Yes, soldiers are paid to die. But this is still a tragedy. These fine folks and their families will be in my prayers. http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_PRISONERS?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

2003-03-21T18:42:00.000-08:00

SOMETHING FOR THE HAWKS TO FAWN OVER: A photo of the bombing for your pleasure.

Down, down and away: javascript:%20rs("ss","http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/ts/032103shockawe&tmpl=sl&e=2",750,580);

2003-03-21T18:25:00.000-08:00

DAMN STRAIGHT: This from Jim Henley:

"Public Notice - If you seriously maintain that "neoconservative" is a code word for "Jewish," you are an ass. The only question is whether you're an ignorant ass, one who somehow missed a thirty-year-plus intellectual tradition and yet feels unaccountably qualified to comment on political matters, or a dishonest ass."

This is the neocons' race problem: On one hand, they insist that Blacks and Hispanics who complain about code words are playing the race game. But when neocons insist that anti-invasion types use "neocon" as some sort of anti-semitic code word, they're doing the same thing. Don't insist on a colorblind and ethnicity-blind nation when you're playing the same game.

Henley tells it like it is: http://www.highclearing.com/archivesuo/week_2003_03_16.html#003922

2003-03-21T17:56:00.000-08:00

FOLLOWING THE WAR: As one would expect, I'm not exactly going to spend 24 hours a day following what's going on with this war. After all, my specialty is feuds, fights and commentaries on the dumb things both leftists and conservatives say. Besides, why do what everyone else is doing? However we will comment on what others are saying about what's happening with the war--even those who have different opinions than your commentator of record. For now, here are some quick news hits:

Going, going...: An entire division of Iraqi soldiers go out like Schiabetta: http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WAR_DIVISION_SURRENDERS?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Grabbing a slice: The Turkish government--which didn't want to help the U.S. without some financial compensation--move into Northern Iraq: http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WAR_TURKEY_TROOPS?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Dumbest f---ing way of showing dissent; A "vomit-in." San Francisco? That's right. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2003/03/20/heaving.DTL

She has a point: My former Reason boss, Virginia Postrel, thinks libertarians and leftists misuse the term "empire" to describe the philosophical leanings of the current political regime. I agree. How about the old George Washington term excess entanglements? Or as guest blogger Marty Dekom would put it, idiotire. http://www.dynamist.com/scene.html

Dumbass: Saddam lookalike waltzes around California's state capital--and doesn't get bombed. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=573&e=1&cid=573&u=/nm/20030318/od_nm/iraq_saddam_lookalike_dc (Update at 6:47 p.m.)

2003-03-21T17:50:00.000-08:00

ENCOURAGING FUNDAMENTALISTS?: That's what Salon's Jake Tapper thinks of the Iraqi invasions. Turns out that Muslim fundamentalists--who already have a hard-on for western blood--are calling for a jihad against the United States and think this is the second chapter of the Christian/Muslim crusades of centuries' past:

"North of London, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, the head of Al-Muhajiroun and one of the U.K.'s leading Islamists, tells Salon that the war hasn't even started yet and young men are flocking to Iraq to fight the United States. Bakri says that he himself knows individuals who have sneaked into Iraq from Iran, Syria, Turkey and Jordan -- "the gate to Iraq is open," he says -- because "imams in the mosques, the scholars, and the muftis have called for jihad." While the governments of various Arab countries stay mum on the pending Iraq war, "they let their own religious institutions call for jihad," Bakri says, rattling off a list that includes the muftis of Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the Salafi mufti in Kuwait. "

Now, I'm not going to agree with Tapper that it's all or even mostly, our government's fault. These fundamentalists have been looking for reasons to support greater levels of terrorism against our country since the Israel defeated the Egyptians and Jordanians in the Seven Day War. But this ill-thought-out invasion won't help. I guess we should prepare for more bloodshed on our streets.

Tapper taps on the heart of Islam: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/20/imams/

2003-03-21T08:23:00.000-08:00

DEAD WRONG--OR WE'RE ALL TRAITORS NOW: The David Frums aren't exactly known for being a tight-lipped couple. Mrs. Frum a.k.a Danielle Crittendon (she of the awful polemic against career women and the equally abysmal Amanda Bright @ Home Web fiction series) is best-known for e-mailing to her friends--and the entire world--that her husband allegedly coined the phrase "Axis of evil" for President Bush to use in last year's State of the Union address. This apparently didn't sit well with Bush or anyone else in the administration not known for tolerating loose lips: Frum's doesn't have an office at the White House or any affiliation with the Bush brigade anymore.

Happily, the world hasn't heard much from Mrs. Frum since then. Guess she took her own advice and went back barefoot into the kitchen. But apparently Mr. Frum hasn't exactly figured out when to shut up. Now he seems to be smearing anyone who opposes this ridiculous conflict. Today on his "diary" at National Review's online edition, Frum has taken it upon himself to tell Democrats that "it is their duty to say nothing that might tend to embolden or sustain the enemy."

This probably applies to anti-war Right-wingers too: In a stroke of Alterman-like nastiness, Frum has now joined National Review's resident bad boy Jonah Goldberg in smearing anti-war conservatives and libertarian such as Beltway icon Bob Novak and accused Murray Rothbard acolyte Lew Rockwell (he of his eponymous Web site and the libertarian Ludwig Von Mises Institute) as anti-semites and "unpatriotic." In his mind-numbing cover tome (which I bet Rich Lowry let run unedited out of fear of it may put him into a coma), he also accuses them of making "common cause with the left-wing and Islamist antiwar movements," claims they "deny and excuse terror" and alleges that they "explicitly yearn for the victory of their nation's enemies."

What's his evidence for all this, besides their respective anti-war stances? According to Frum, some of these anti-war conservatives and libertarians not only have the temerity to "approvingly cite" sympathetic opinions from lefties such as cartoonist Ted Rall, but they dare to link to their Web sites too. Based on Frum's reasoning, I should qualify as both an anti-semite and a traitor to my nation; same could be said for most of the writers at Reason Magazine, my former stomping ground, as well as most bloggers, especially many of the pro-invasion types.

Besides this flimsy bit of evidence, Frum cites some of the anti-invasion polemicists' own writings: His laundry list for Novak includes a statement in one of his columns that Osama Bin Ladin's Al Qaeda is a far greater terrorist threat to our country than the anti-Israel Hezzbollah. Now most within the intelligence community as well as those whose relatives died in Al Qaeda's attack on the World Trade Center wouldn't exactly disagree with him, but Frum fails to note this. As for Rockwell, who may tie with Antiwar.com's Justin Raimando for the title of being the most strident anti-war libertarian? A quote from a column in Spintech in which he claims the "real evil empire" is "the U.S. military state" as well as an alleged statement that the United States should surrender. Alleged is the proper word for most of this since Frum doesn't exactly devote much time to citing his sources.

If you believe Raimondo--one of the "unpatriotic" types cited in the piece--Frum also conveniently leaves out a lot of facts. Answering Frum's claim that he was spreading around an anti-Israel conspiracy theory that Israel was "implicated" in the World Trade Center massacre, Raimondo notes that Frum fails to mention that this came not from him, but from a four-part series on Fox News; the rumors were then then picked up by a number of other outlets. Asks Raimondo: "Are the edtiors at Fox News, Salon, and Die Zeit in on some sort of plot to defame the state of Israel?" As for Frum's inference of anti-semitism against Raimando--based on a claim that he "repeatedly dropped broad hints" that the post-massacre anthrax attacks were the work of a Jewish scientist--Raimando notes that he "did not raise the subject" (emphasis his) in his own report on the allegation.

In essence, Frum's merely slinging mud. While he's probably right that some of his targets are anti-semites--notably former "conservative's thinking man" Pat Buchanan as well as Joseph Sobran (who got rightfully knocked around by Bill Buckley in an early-Nineties book on anti-semitism)--Frum seems less interested in actually debating the merits of his opponents' arguments than in mere name-calling. Who can blame him? After all, it's easier to tar your opponents as bigots and traitors than admit that there's no evidence to justify our government's invasion of Iraq.

"The antiwar conservatives aren't satisfied merely to question the wisdom of an Iraq war," claims Frum. He in turn, isn't satisfied with questioning the merits of their arguments.

Frum threatens Democrats: http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum-diary.asp

And calls his other ideological opponents all sorts of nasty names: http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp

One of them takes him to task: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j032203.html (Courtesy of Jeff A. Taylor)

While a Canadian blogger wishes the Frum and his wife would just disappear: http://neuroti.ca/archive/2002_02_01_index.php#10187831

2003-03-20T17:25:00.000-08:00

MORE FUMENTO FOR THE POUND: Our favorite muckraking science writer has just hooked up with Scripps-Howard News Service (home of my friend Deroy Murdock). Writes Fumento: "[New York Times science scribe and Atkins supporter Gary] Taubes's "wannabe" medical writer is now the science and health columnist for Scripps-Howard." Slinging more mud at Taubes, Fumento adds: "Now the only thing I want is for somebody to offer me $700,000 in exchange for my integrity. I'll tell them, 'What kind of a whore do you think I am! Make it $800,000 or forget it!'" (Groans from my friends on South Sepulveda Blvd. would be appropriate here, I guess.)

2003-03-20T09:34:00.000-08:00

WIN THE WAR, BUT LOSE THE WAR: As I have said here numerous times before, I'm against the invasion. Why? Because there is no evidence that Iraq has threatened our national security and economic interests, the only justification for war. President Bush hasn't proved that the Iraqi government possesses nuclear weapons, hasn't shown they have the capacity to build and deploy them, and doesn't have any evidence that Saddam financed terrorists such as Al Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the World Trade Center massacre. Iraq's military hasn't bombed our cities, captured the oil fields of our allies or done much more than perhaps defend its borders against attack--by our military.

Other justifications for invasion are little more than last refuges for those unable to justify war on concrete grounds. The democratization argument fails because history has shown every successful movement for democracy--including the American and French revolutions--have required the spilling of blood by those who want it. So far, the Iraqis haven't shown that they're willing to die for freedom. Besides, we didn't exactly rush to the aid of those Chinese students in Tiannamen Square when they were crushed by China's Communist regime. As for human rights: While it is terrible that the Iraqis live in a police state, their plight is no different than that of Iranians, Saudis and the Tutsis. Yet our government isn't exactly chomping at the bit to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia--whose leaders had funded Al Qaeda--or Rwanda.

This 'pre-emptive' war is absolutely unjustified; supporting it isn't exactly patriotic. But now that it has begun, the question becomes whether our government will actually reap long-term success in its efforts at regime change. Besides the untold billions American taxpayers will have to fork out in order to help rebuild Iraq, President Bush and his charges will have to figure out how to establish a government that will not only govern in a democratic manner--strange concept in this strongman state--but can keep Iraq from splitting into a multitude of warring ethnic-based states.

My prediction: Bush and his successors will not succeed. The provisional government will last just long enough for the United States to be able to withdraw troops with little embarrassment, then fall as the Kurds, Sunnis and other ethnics engage in a battle royale for independence. Within the next ten years Iraq will be split into several new nations, each of which ruled by an autocratic regime. A few of the non-Kurdish areas of the former Iraqi state will be controlled by Muslim fundamentalists who will likely support anti-American terrorists, while the governments of the Kurdish states (and yes, there will be more than one) will systematically slaughter Turks and other minorities. They in turn will wage guerilla campaigns in order to achieve liberty and vengeance. Meanwhile, expect a war between those Kurdish states similar to the Korean and Vietnam conflicts.

All this trouble in the Middle East--which our government will have helped foment--will force future American presidents into interventions without end. Among the myriad long-term costs: Lost opportunities to truly curtail terrorism by both targeting the nations that have actually funded those activities--Saudi Arabia for one--and adapt our military to fight the new kinds of wars we will have to deal with by this century's end. As for Bush and the other invasion hawks? Their credibility will go down the toilet--if they had any to begin with. But that will come too late.

Gene Healy bemoans this event--and suggests ways for our foreign policy apparatchiks to handle things (they won't take the advice): http://www.genehealy.com/archives/005213.php#005213

2003-03-13T17:18:00.000-08:00

THURSDAY TURN-ONS: Something to enjoy before the weekend.

*Shaved pussy?: I'm love tigers and other big cats. The small domesticated ones that slink around a girlfriend's apartment? I can do without. So I have to applaud the person that dared to shave off most of this critter's fur. Hopefully the stuff was used to line someone's gloves. (Courtesy of Ken Layne, who's upset about the matter.)

Bad kitty: http://michaeltotten.blogspot.com/2003_03_02_michaeltotten_archive.html#90418284

*Great movie review site: Folks who scour the Rotten Tomatoes movie review site should already be familiar with James Berardinelli, the engineer by day who does an even better job of reviewing movies than the dean of film critics himself, Roger Ebert (who oddly enough, also reads Berardinelli's critiques.). For those who can take time out of their schedules and enjoy fine film criticism--a rare thing to be found--then check out Berardinelli's Web site. Berardinelli gets it right most of the time (I do have to disagree with his high regard for the box office bom Saving Silverman, which he calls "consistently funny) and he can dish out a snide remark when needed.

Jimmy D at his best: http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/

*Ms. Cleo--Candidate for sainthood?: From the guys that gave you the Landover Baptist Church Web site, Betty Bowers, the self-proclaimed "America's best Christian" dishes it out to all sides. Sample quote: "It worries me that she may be criminally liable for duping an audience verily begging to be deceived and fleeced."

"Will the FCC, in its stated desire to protect the American public from chicanery, turn its attention to other people on TV who hawk the future like it was theirs to sell for an exorbitant fee?": http://www.bettybowers.com/misscleo.html

2003-03-11T09:35:00.000-08:00

TUESDAY TOPICS: Conversation material for the water cooler"
*More Alterman for the ounce: Philip Nobile--he of crusades against Don Imus' bigotry and teardowns of Alex Haley (for making up much of what he wrote in Roots)--is once again aiming at Mr. Snooze for being a "hypocrite excelsis." What did the left's Ann Coulter do this time? Attacking Coloring the News writer William McGowan--who took Alterman to task for misstating facts related to the publishing of McGowan's book--for allegedly smearing scribe Seth Mnookin when Alterman did the same thing to the late New York Post editorialist Eric Breindel some years ago. Snarls Nobile: "Alterman may have better politics than McGowan, Ann Coulter, and Bernard Goldberg, but he is just as sleazy." Well said.

A Nobile blast: http://www.poynter.org/forum/?id=letters (Fourth item).

Questioning Alterman's "intellectual honesty"--or lack thereof: http://216.247.220.66/archives/rogues/nobile1-21-99.htm

Meanwhile Jeff Jarvis meets Alterman--and learns why so many dislike him: http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2003_03.html#003094

Alterman and McGowan--on the same stage. No catfight took place: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1834539

*"Rude Jews"?: That's what former porn industry muckrakerr--and Orthodox Jew convert--Luke Ford calls attendees of a recent event on Israel. Among the antics: Booing a sound technician who apparently didn't do his job well and one man who "constantly shouting out of turn." Expect Ford to be thrown out of his fifth synagogue pretty soon.

Giving reporters the business: http://www.lukeford.net/

*Send her to the back of the historical bus: That's what Eightball Magazine suggest should be done with Rosa Parks, the near-dead Civil Rights icon who decided she wouldn't attend the NAACP Image Awards because she disapproves of round-bodied comedian Cedric the Entertainer, who made jokes about her in Barbershop. Sample diss: "You see Rosa Parks is to the civil rights movement what Ringo Starr was to the Beatles." Ouch.

Should she be an "Outkast"?: http://www.eightballmagazine.com/diatribes/volume02/diatribes004/diatribes63-83/diatribes63.htm

Meanwhile, check out this piece about the "Hip-Hop police": http://www.eightballmagazine.com/meatshop/meatshop03/031103.htm

2003-03-08T11:19:00.000-08:00

THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE BUSH: Today, I'm heading out for Catalina. Which means you're not going to hear from me for the rest of the week. Instead, enjoy the smooth rantings of my friend Marty Dekom, whose pursuit of the libidinous barely overmatches mine. Last time the world heard from Marty, he told me how he could go to "tree-hugging rallies and listen to AC/DC" just by turning on his Walkman. Today, I'm giving him permission to slap down President Bush Suge Knight-style. Take it away:

Pardon if my rant does not conform to typical norms, I'm a guest on this blog. Besides, I was dreaming when I wrote this, so sue me if I go to fast.

I'm a staunch Republican because the party once came damn close to representing the principles I hold dear. So I've never been in love with George Bush, really I looked upon the 2000 election as My Scion of Wealth and Privilege can beat up Your Scion of Wealth and Privilege. Funny note about that- GB failed to sway 91% of Black voters in 2000, and to make damn sure he doesn't get the remaining 9 in 2004, he sends Helmut von Ashcroft to attack the University of Michigan's diversity admissions policy. I once liked John Ashcroft, until I realized that his concept of privacy rights and mine are, shall we say, a bit different. Something about those trading freedom for security deserving neither sticks in my mind.

But anyway, are there really white kids out on the streets today because they couldn't get into college, while some Black kid did? Frankly I think assigning value to ethnicity is a really bad idea, just as assigning anything arbitrary value is a bad idea. It devalues value, driving the market away from valuable traits like character and into stuff we have absolutely no control over, like who our parents were. But here's a president who if he were born George Bushkowitz would have never attended Yale, attacking a non-merit system. Again, is the cream of caucasia forced to wear funny hats and nametags, and sling fast food because of this? This hobby horse of Republicans needs a break. If we must pick on the swarthier-than-thou, let's go fuck with Indians hording casino wealth instead.

Can I say 'fuck' or is this a family show? (From the editor: Say whatever you want.)

But speaking about bombing a third world nation back into the Stone Age, and speaking of sharp departure from American tradition, is anyone bothered by this war-thing? For 50 odd years we believed that a country with weapons of mass destruction, if attacked by same, would Mutually Assure Destruction. So we hung in this deathlock Mexican standoff for decades because we believed our system would ultimately prevail. And it did! Tyranny is unnatural and only survives with the accommodation of the afraid. By the logic of our successful policy, if Saddam has these weapons, and I'm sure he does, and if he's attacked, then…he will use them, which is exactly the event we want to prevent.

Okay, this McTyrant has a net worth of $4 billion USD. Obviously his motivations for being King Shit of Turd Mountain are not spiritual. In fact I think he'd be a Mormon tomorrow if it suited his purposes. Surely with all the intellectual horsepower in Foggy Bottom we could come up with a strategy of squeezing him until he pops, without the clumsiness and cost of total war. Besides, one doesn't 'give' freedom; let Iraqi boys fight and bleed for their own democracy. Something about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants comes to mind.

And if that weren't enough, the thought of America the Invader revolts me. We've always been the Good Guys, ejecting invaders of all shapes and sizes. But here we're going to pound some ass merely because we don't like someone. Can't we at least fake it, a modern Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, if you will? I don't like Iraq any more than you, and probably a lot less. But there are a lot of people in that category for me- Syria, Libya, North Korea, France, Iran, parts of Israel and pretty much all of California. But look, that doesn't mean we should put our bits at risk with this ridiculous idea of careful war, that we can punch our bad neighbor in the nose but not make him bleed.

But voters get what they deserve, let's just hope it's not smallpox. So in honor of America's choosing the candidate of least offensive common denominator, I hereby award our president the Middle-Brow Jackass Trophy, awarded for substitution of popularity for leadership.

Same as it ever was.

Marty on tuning out, Walkman-style: http://reason.com/9910/fe.rb.personal.html

"Dissecting Martin Dekom": http://members.aol.com/mdekom/

2003-03-07T16:16:00.000-08:00

THE FRIDAY FOLLIES: A little light reading.

Alterman the truthless--again?: Coloring the News author William McGowan joins a long list of pundits who are pissed off with Mr. Snooze and won't take it anymore. What this time? McGowan accuses Alterman of misstating the facts about why his Coloring wasn't published by one particular publisher. "To ignore this publicly available information, and to fail to reach out to me for my side of the story, seems selective or sloppy---maybe both." I'd bet a dollar on both. (Courtesy of Jim Romanesko.)

Nastier than they want him to be: The Smoking Gun got their hands on an arrest affidavit for former 2 Live Crew leader Luther Campbell filed by prosecutors in Dorchester County, S.C. Seems that Mr. Me So Horny once again violated the rules of good taste by parading around some naked women during one of his performances, one of which used a beer bottle as, well, just read for yourself.

Boy-crazy; book-crazy; or angry at the world: This from one Sara Rimensnyder: "I went to bed last night very, very frustrated."

"Hope those pasty-faces enjoy another four years of Davis-imposed chaos. The rest of us taxpayers surely won’t": One of my posts from a year ago this week about the incompetence of California's Republicans. Enjoy.

"Your account is quite at odds with the facts of the matter and is edged with considerable jaundice": http://www.mediabistro.com/content/archives/03/03/07/

"Two strippers, under the direction and control of Luther Campbell, removed all their clothing from the waist down...": http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/lcampbell1.html

A dirty ditty: http://www.xyno.de/lyrics/lyr_mesohorny.html

Not that kind of frustrated?: http://saragrace.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_saragrace_archive.html#90251680

Davis made Simon his "prison bitch"--predicted here a year ago: http://rishawnbiddle.blogspot.com/2002_03_03_rishawnbiddle_archive.html#10493295

2003-03-07T10:50:00.000-08:00

FUMENTO VS. REASON, PART II: As you read yesterday (and for the previous two days), the feuding between muckraking science writer Michael Fumento and New York Times' Gary Taubes over the effectiveness of the Atkins diet has escalated to a shouting match between Fumento and Reason--which Fumento claims ran Taubes' lengthy reply to Fumento's piece after being threatened with a lawsuit. Yesterday, Reason editor Nick Gillespie called Fumento's behavior "bizarre" and wished him well "in his new line of work." Today, Fumento has sent me his own reply, which I'm running in full:

I appreciate that Nick Gillespie has found a new line of work as either a psychologist or psychiatrist. In so many words, I'm mentally ill. How convenient. But I don't think it works. As I said, the case relies for the most part on obviousness. Taubes's letter was over 20 times the average Reason letter. Don't trust me on that; go to one issue of Reason Online after another and look for yourself. By my count, they tend to top out at about 450 words. Do you think that's because nobody ever sends in a letter longer than that? The longest responses ever to a Reason piece occurred on two occasions, once replying to a pro-Duesberg article and another replying to an article by the late Edith Efron. In both cases, the total length of the replies was 5,000 words or about half the length of the Taubes letter. BUT in both cases, those responses were by a plethora of writers including supporters.

"To say there is absolutely no precedent for the Taubes letter is a gross understatement. Why did he suddenly break the rules multiplied by 20? Why did he run a letter almost twice the length of the original piece? How often have you ever seen that? Why did he run a letter which is so clearly unedited, to a point where the littlest parts of Farquhar's emails are left in? Again, look at some letters to Reason. No matter how whacky the context of the letters may be, they appear to be fairly well-written. Why? They're edited, of course.

"One way or another, it was a disgrace to both Reason and Gillespie to give any letter writer anything near that space. His assertion about the web allowing more space is baloney. First, why does Reason still cap online letters? Second, even with the best computer monitor, much less the average one, print is far easier to read. The longer the letter goes, the more important the difference. That's why Jacob Weisberg at Slate says he decided to limit articles to 1,200 words. (I know, because I originally sent the piece to him and he said he wanted it but I'd have to cut it to 1,200 words!) Maybe Weisberg's limit is a bit short; after all, Salon runs a lot longer. But look at the length limits at Forbes.com. Further, if the web is infinitely accommodating, why is it that Gillespie asked me limit my response to 9,400 words to only 1,000 words!

"Add to this that Taubes himself told me that he had threatened legal action against the Washington Post when he found out that the Sally Squires piece would be negative and he said that he did get got some things cut out, plus an 1,100-word letter to a newspaper that usually runs letters no longer than 300 words. So he's got a bit of a track record on these things -- science writing by litigation. (It was at that point, by the way, that I doubled my liability insurance to $2 million in the assumption that Taubes would threaten to sue me if he found out my article was going to be negative. But I managed to keep it a secret till it ran.)

"Gillespie also says he had the letter about five days before sending it to me, hence there was no hurry to comply with a Taubes demand that he post it at the same time that my article was posted. The first problem is that the email exchange shows that's exactly what Gillespie wanted to do: Fumento and Taubes side-by-side. Again, so far as I know there is no precedent for that at Reason. Pieces are posted and letters come afterwards. The second is that he was in such a hurry that he apparently had Taubes's letter formatted to HTML the instant he got it, then sent it on to me in that manner apologizing for it being coded. The darned thing was in fact impossible to read and my wife spent two hours stripping away the coding.

"Ultimately, there is absolutely no excuse for Gillespie to run in the letters something that practically competes with War and Peace or Atlas Shrugged. All that's left to debate is the explanation. As far as that goes, I must invoke the cliche about walking, talking, and quacking like a duck. Okay Nick, if you insist it's not a duck I want a DNA test from a top-notch lab showing it's a pig or a cow. Otherwise, I rest my case."

Apparently this war of words will continue on for a long, long time.

Check out yesterday's post: http://rishawnbiddle.blogspot.com/2003_03_02_rishawnbiddle_archive.html#90245232

2003-03-06T18:12:00.000-08:00

THURSDAY FOLLIES: Read them. Ponder them. Or just mock them:

*Tokers or Terrorists?: Deroy Murdock observes John Ashcroft's latest pot crackdown and wonders why the attorney general would bother on such a "foolish and futile" effort when the nation is more concerned about Al Qaeda cells. Writes Murdock: "[Potheads] would sob if the Sears Tower were awash in flames. Their backpacks likelier contain bluegrass CDs than plastic explosives."

*Better than actually reading the book: Muckraking journalist James Bovard actually slogs through Bob Woodward's unreadable tome on Bush and pulls together a cogent analysis of the president's wrong-headed path to invading Iraq. Sample teardown: "It is almost comical to recognize that Bush believed that September 11 somehow gave him the right to demand submission and conformity from every other government on Earth. And yet that is the impetus of U.S. foreign policy."

*We want ugly girls to read the news: National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez complains that Fox News' female anchors show "way too much" of everything and should stop wearing "see-through blouses." Whatever.

Bong hits against terrorists: http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock030403.asp

Foreign policy run amok: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0305d.asp

And Kathy Jean complains about Fox News' hotties: http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_03_02_corner-archive.asp#004510

For additional insight into Ms. Lopez's complaints, check out her own photo: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.isibooks.org/news/imgs/ny9.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.isibooks.org/news/bpphotos.html&h=179&w=200&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkathryn%2BJean%2BLopez%2B%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

2003-03-06T08:40:00.000-08:00

BATTLE ON SEPULVEDA (Originally posted 3/05/03 as http://rishawnbiddle.blogspot.com/2003_03_02_rishawnbiddle_archive.html#90201209, but since revised): Not-so-typical fight between a writer and an editor: Writer claims that monthly he wrote for had ran response to piece under threat of a lawsuit. Then editor of said magazine sends e-mail to folks claiming accusation is false.

Muckraking science writer Michael Fumento, whose fight with New York Times scribe Gary Taubes was detailed by this writer yesterday, mentioned on the National Association of Science Writers' usegroup that Reason magazine only ran Taubes' response to Fumento's March story after being threatened with a lawsuit. That accusation was noted by David Appell, on his Web site. When Reason editor Nick Gillespie learned about this, he dashed off an e-mail to Appell, science writer Oliver Baker (whose correspondence with Fumento started this latest controversy) and several editors that "absolutely nothing of a legal nature came up or was discussed." Adds Gillespie:

"I ran the reply in the interests of good and thorough journalism--as most of you know, it is Taubes' writing on the Atkins diet that is extensively and, in my opinion, persuasively critiqued by Fumento in "Big Fat Fake." As I explained to Fumento in a February 27 email, I decided to run Taubes' reply at the length he submitted it at for two reasons:
"a) we can publish differently on the Web than in print...and b) his reply to my mind helps your case rather than hurts it. All the words in the world don't make for a convincing argument--length, like size, doesn't matter."

Fumento's response?:

"I know this sounds awfully lawerly (somewhat explainable by my being a member of the bar), but let the facts speak for themselves. The Taubes letter was about 20 times the length of the average Reason letter. Log on now and take a look at some other letters. It was obviously unedited, yet it's Reason's policy to edit for brevity. Try sending a thousand-word letter to them and see what happens to it. It was almost twice the length of my original article. Excuses about the Web having unlimited room don't cut it, because it's actually harder to read off a screen. To say that this is the longest letter Reason has ever run doesn't do it justice; the only comparisons I've found are two articles that had responses each totaling about 5,000 words. BUT they were written by many different people, both pro and con.

"I know Taubes threatened to sue the Washington Post over the Squires piece because he told me so at the time while I was interviewing him for the Reason piece. (I went right out and doubled my personal liability policy to $2 million.) But again, that the Post published his 1,100-word response rather speaks for itself when their average letter is about 200 or so words. Finally, Reason was in such a hurry to run the Taubes letter as soon as my article was posted that they
sent it to me already coded in HTML. Try responding to a 9,400-word letter with code every few lines and see how much fun it is. It obviously doesn't reflect well upon a magazine that it caved into a nuisance suit, so Gillespie's response was to be expected. And don't expect Taubes to come to my aid and say, "Yeah, I threatened to sue 'em, so what?" Having given up on doing good old investigative science reporting, Taubes first went into infomercials and is now doing science by litigation."

(Oh--and full disclosure: I was the Burton Gray Memorial Intern for Reason in 1999.)

The original report by David Appell: http://www.nasw.org/users/appell/Weblog/#March_4_2003

Update: One can surmise that Fumento won't be writing for Reason anytime soon. Here's Gillespie's response:

"I intend this to be my last few words on this matter. As a journalist and especially as an editor-in-chief, I'm used to being on the receiving end of all manner of wild, odd, and totally false accusations. However, Mike Fumento has set a new standard by calling me--the editor who just published a feature-length article by him *and* defended that article in a public letter--a liar.

"In insisting that Reason ran Gary Taubes' reply to "Big Fat Fake" because of threatened legal action, Fumento throws together an unconvincing case of conjecture that surely fails to convince anyone of anything other than Fumento's own rather sad self-absorption. Why he cannot accept the simple truth in this issue is beyond me. On Feb. 20, Taubes contacted me after reading the article and told me he wanted to reply. I told him to go ahead and he sent me his response on Feb. 25. We posted it, along with a final response by Fumento, on Reason Online on March 4. Taubes and I never discussed anything of a legal matter. As I stated previously (quoting from a Feb. 27 email to Fumento), I decided to run Taubes' reply at the length at which he submitted it because we could do so easily on the Web and because I thought the length and content of the reply helped Fumento's case substantially.

"Fumento's bizarre behavior does not particularly interest me, even as a pathetic tragicomic spectacle, except insofar as it attempts to slag my reputation and that of Reason's. We don't cave in to nuisance writers--even, alas, when they have written for Reason--any more than we cave into "nuisance lawsuits," real or imagined.

"When properly edited and restrained from indulging in the sort of baseless invective he has displayed regarding this matter, Fumento is capable of producing good stuff, including "Big Fat Fake" in the March issue of Reason. Sadly, these days he seems more interested in spinning out e-mail accusations that have no basis in fact and only redound negatively to his own reputation. I wish him well in his new line of work."

2003-03-05T16:24:00.000-08:00

SIGNS THAT YOUR UNION PROTEST IS IRRELEVANT: Imagine you are the boss of a nurses' union, say, the Service Employees International Union, and you're looking for someone from the hit NBC drama ER to gain more press for your latest protest rally, this time at a Burbank-based unit of the nonprofit Provident Health System. Who would you choose: Sultry Sherry Springfield, the ex-NYPD Blue and Guiding Light star reprising her role as Dr. Susan Lewis, hottie Ming-Na (one of the voices in Final Fantasy), the lovely Maura Tierney of Newsradio fame or Troy Evans, a 50-something bit player (nothing against bit players, of course) who counts among his movie appearances, a part in Fudge-A-Mama, whatever that is, and the movie version of My Favorite Martian. Now you know the answer and so do I. But guess which one the SEIU picked? Yes, the last one. And they keep flooding my e-mail box with press releases puffing this too.

Troy is in the air...http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=news&start=0&num=1&q=http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030305/lawv002_1.html

Troy's bio (sans photo), courtesy of Internet Movie Database: http://us.imdb.com/Name?Evans,+Troy

2003-03-04T15:52:00.000-08:00

LET THEM EAT LARD: Perhaps Michael Fumento was bored with raking anti-Ritalin types over the coals or just exhausted from writing all those nastygrams about busty legal eaglette Erin Brockovich. But if he was looking for a fight (and he usually is) with rotund diners looking for a see-food diet, the muckraking science writer and controversy hound couldn't have picked a better bone of contention than the debate over publicity-seeking dietician wannabe Robert Atkins and his health-eschewing regimen.

Last December, he took science journos to task for not only failing to properly vet the results of a study touting Atkins' diet, but for failing to take note that the paper was paid for by Atkins himself under a "long-term funding arrangement." Apparently not satisfied with pissing off scores of Atkins acolytes--many of whom he mocks on his "Hate Mail" page (accompanied by numerous photos of round-bodies for scatalogical effect)--Fumento decided to go after New York Times writer Gary Taubes, who helped start up the latest march to fatdom with his Times magazine piece last July. Besides tearing into Taubes' piece for containing " few actual data", Fumento notes various studies contradicting both Taubes' and Atkins' conclusions. More damning, he cites some of Taubes' sources who claim to have been misquoted by him and take the guy to task for being "selective" in his fact-finding. Taubes' story, claims Fumento, is a " a short study in the sorry state of scientific and medical reporting."

Taubes isn't exactly slobbering over Fumento's handiwork the way he'd likely savor a juicy porterhouse. Today, Reason magazine, which ran both of Fumento's pieces, published Taubes' interminable reply--or bruised ego-soother if you will. Calling Fumento's piece a "noteworthy exercise in vitriol, and perhaps self-aggrandizement," Taubes says Fumento's piece wasn't "legitimate journalism" parrtly because it allegedly fails to quote sources for Taubes' piece which actually think his thesis has merit. Complaining that Fumento is "defending" dogma, Taubes also compares Fumento to the loathable fellows at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Writes Taubes: "It's understandable that the food police might object to an article suggesting that bread and potatoes are not where it's at."

True. But three steaks a day isn't exactly going to keep the pounds off either.

Fumento dishes out some facts: http://www.fumento.com/fat/lard.html

And hands out another heaping serving of vitriol: http://www.reason.com/0303/fe.mf.big.shtml

While Taubes slings some dirt: http://www.reason.com/0303/fe.mf.big.shtml

Which leads to another serving from Fumento: http://www.reason.com/0303/fumentoreply.shtml

Meanwhile, some dieters give Fumento the cauliflower: mento.com/hatemail/hatemail13.html

2003-03-03T19:19:00.000-08:00

REYNOLDS RESPONDS: From Instapundit himself via e-mail:

"I'm unhappy with the Vatican for what it does. And you're criticizing Israel for what it does. I think, though, that the Vatican's behavior toward Israel is based on what Israel 'is.'"

Hmm. Perhaps I'm dense, but it seems to me that Reynolds still hasn't provided a compelling case for smearing the Catholic Church. Now one can take Meryl Yourish's slap-dash laundry list of past bad acts by the Church. But it still doesn't prove Reynolds' case. For one, Yourish cannot cite one example of last two or three popes advocating anti-semitism. Second, none of the instances mentioned have anything to do with Israel save for the two, including the item about diplomatic recognition. And even that one is weak: After all, most of the world hasn't given diplomatic recognition to Taiwan either and some would argue that it's government is the legitimate representative of all the Chinese people.

If we're going to create a list of prior bad acts by the Catholic hierarchy--including all the stuff going back to the Spanish Inquisition--let's put together a litany of indiscretions by the Israelis. Let's start with the fact that Israel continued doing business with Apartheid-era South Africa long after other nations imposed sanctions against it? Signs that the Israeli government is bigoted towards Africans? Or perhaps, the kidnapping of Nazi apparatchik Adolph Eichmann. After all, he was an Argentine citizen and some Nazi-lover could argue that his rights were violated (which would be funny since Eichmann wasn't exactly an advocate of human rights for Jews.). Or the scores of assasinations of Arab political leaders committed by the Mossad.

Silly points, huh? Yup. Yet Reynolds and his allies are trying to use a similar batch of faulty arguments to advance their position that the Church leadership are nothing but bigots in red robes. You guys will have to do better than that.

Meryl Yourish argues--weakly: http://www.yourish.com/archives/2003/mar2-8_2003.html#2003030304

Tacitus gets in on the action: http://www.tacitus.org/archives/000481.html#000481

2003-03-03T16:18:00.000-08:00

INSTAWRONG: Glenn Reynolds doesn't exactly take prisoners when he answers his critics. Jesse Walker, my former boss at Reason, on the other hand, is a more mild-mannered sort. So I was a tad surprised and fascinated when I checked out Instapundit's site and read on as the King of Blogs accused Walker of being "unfair" and "misleading."

About what? As it turns out, Walker took Reynolds to task for charging the Catholic Church with anti-semitism, which Reynolds has surmised from the fact that Pope John Paul II & Co. haven't exactly given their blessing to the Israeli government's handling of the latest Palestinian Infitada. Walker was also quite displeased with Reynolds' decision to link to a picture of a Catholic cleric who was photographed holding hands with Yasser (Mas'er) Arafat. Chides Walker: "Got that? A church leader posed with a political opponent of a state run by Jews, therefore his church is anti-Semitic."

Reynolds didn't take too kindly to Walker's statement, claiming that Walker left out such details as the fact that much of the original post consisted of reader's comments. "As a professional journalist and upholder of high standards, Jesse no doubt made these omissions out of a spirit of fairness and professionalism," wrote Reynolds with naked sarcasm in the comments section of Reason Magazine's "Hit and Run" blog. But take a quick read of the first paragraph of Reynolds' original post:

"Some readers have challenged my statement below about increasing anti-semitism from the Vatican. But the Vatican has consistently taken the side of Palestinians, and Arab Muslims generally, against Israel and Jews, to the point where I can't really believe any excuses that it's not about antisemitism."

Or this line:

"Sorry -- readers can defend this sort of thing if they like. But to me it's just another sign that the Vatican -- whose retreat from antisemitism was at any rate recent and shallow -- has no moral ground to stand on."

Reynolds has no leg to stand on. He plainly calls the Church anti-semitic and essentially bases the accusation on the fact that the Church has issues with Israel's handling of the Palestinian matter. I'm no fan of the church, but even I have to take umbrage at this smear--and no matter what Reynolds claims, it is a smear as nasty as any thrown around by loony lefties such as Alterman. Reynolds should know better.

But let's take the logic behind Reynolds' accusation of anti-semitism as far as we can. Based on what he's saying, Jesse is an anti-Semite because he's not exactly a fan of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Considering that Jesse's half-Jewish, this is laughable. On those same grounds, I should also be called an anti-Semite because I think Israel's treatment of both Palestinians and native Arabs is comparable to the Jim Crow laws Southern states enacted and enforced throughout most of the 20th century. Same accusation could be flung at an estimable list of critics that would include Lebanese writer Michael Young and columnist Robert Novak.

If we want to take Reynolds' faulty logic to its illogical conclusion, we should accuse Reynolds of being anti-Papist, essentially following in Catholic-bashing tradition of the Know-Nothings of the mid-1800s. Since Catholicism is the majority religion of Irishmen, Mexicans, Spaniards, Italians and French (well, when they're not practicing Atheism), Reynolds must also have prejudices against these ethnicities too. Silly accusations? Certainly. But so is Reynolds' smear and claim that Walker's characterization of it is "misleading."

Reynolds gets mad...: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/007896.php#007896

At Jesse for giving him the business: http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/000947.shtml#000947

The nastygram that started this spat: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/007864.php#007864

2003-02-24T15:01:00.000-08:00

WHAT A SHOW: I'm not one for working on Sundays. Besides the fact that I have to scurry around for stories on Monday and work on side projects on Saturday, I can use one day of rest. Oddly enough, this did not happen thanks to the remodeling being done on my apartment (and the subsequent rent increase).

But I won't bore you with the details. Instead, let's consider Saturday's Freedom Film Festival panel on blogging. Besides the usual backslapping (after all, the establishment press couldn't care less about our ever-expanding world of interesting writers), the panelists and I actually managed to put on an interesting show. Cathy Seipp--she of bashing Maureen Dowd--did a fine job of moderating things while we, the cast of misfits and ex-porn industry reporters, did our best to shoot our mouths off on topics such as the political leanings of various sites, the "irresponsibility of Andrew Sullivan and speculation by Emmanuelle Richard that video blogs may become more popular than the plain old text version, especially among French teens who may have some discomfort with the English language.

Here are some highlights, courtesy of Luke Ford and a number of audience member who kept copious notes:

Matt Welch on ideologues after 9/11: "September 12th was a bad day for idealogues of any stripe. Anyone who had their set formula for how the world works wrote or said something enormously stupid."

Mickey Kaus on why Andrew Sullivan is "irresponsible": "Andrew is energetic and smart. He will go after you with hammer and tongues and any weapon that is available to you."

Eugene Volokh on why video blogs may not be ready for prime time: "a picture is worth a thousand words, but there are few sets of a thousand words that can be effectively captured in a picture.”

Ford on the popularity of his site: "A lot of people read my website because there's a certain inherent drama in reading the musings of a mentally ill man."

Meanwhile, check out some of these other sites for their observations of Saturday's event, a good number of which I'll permalink to within the week:

Rand Simberg thought it was less cool than a previous event--and that's the way he likes it: http://www.interglobal.org/weblog/archives/002168.html#002168

While Luke Ford quotes us in painful detail: http://www.lukeford.net

Dancing intersperses her observations with her own blogging experiences: http://www.errant.org/dancing/archives/000648.html#000648

And Joshua (Not Kevin) Ferguson took pictures: http://www.unfossilized.com/Shoot!/

Howard Owens writes about the after-party--and the Thai Elvis: http://www.howardowens.com/index.cfm?action=full_text&ARTICLE_ID=950

Joh3n presents "A Mark Goodson Blog Production"--and wasn't happy I didn't talk about the "technology gap": h3n.com/rant/archives/000035.html

Seliot didn't realize this panel would be so "pale": http://www.seliot.com/archives/000104.html

And Tony Pierce talks about his blog of "love": http://www.tonypierce.com/blog/2003_02_23_blogarc.htm#90365444

2003-02-22T12:28:00.000-08:00

THE FUTURE OF BLOGGING AS FORETOLD IN THE PAST: While thinking about some of what I will say at the American Cinema Foundation's panel on blogging (tonight at 7p.m in the American Film Institute's Mark Goodson screening room for those who want to join the happy party), I turned up this prediction from a piece I wrote last July:

"So another chapter in personal publishing closes and what an episode it was? As Layne notes himself, bloggers have proven that they can scoop almost any mainstream news outlet any day of the week and feature more insightful commentary than the average opinion page. It has also forced many publications into a me-too mode, leading them to either create their own blogs or bring in the big names of the blogosphere. Mickey Kaus has already been made a part of Slate. Expect Andrew Sullivan and the mighty Instapundit to be swooped up by other publications within the next few months. Big city dailies will eventually join the blogosphere as well."

Sullivan has yet to be picked up by his old pals at The New Republic or anywhere else yet, but Reynolds now runs another blog at MSNBC's Web site, joining a group that includes the useless Eric Alterman. My old bosses at Reason have their own team blog and more will come. By the end of this year, expect the New York Times, the New York Post and a few other big city rags to pull together their own offerings.

As for the future of blogging and personal publishing as a whole, I have a clue. But you'll have to wait till tonight to here it.

Rememberances of things...: http://rishawnbiddle.blogspot.com/2002_06_30_rishawnbiddle_archive.html#78431187

Meanwhile, check out one of the panelists, former porn industry muckracker Luke Ford...: http://www.lukeford.net/

And Emmanuelle Richard and her "Naughty Bytes"...: http://www.emmanuelle.net

As well as her not necessarily better half (yeah, Mr. LA Examiner himself)...: http://mattwelch.com/warblog.html

While you're at it, read his latest column too...: http://www.nationalpost.com/review/story.html?id={3557B126-33AC-47A1-9CD5-416CB2AD9B7D}

Also, check out Welch's other better half...: http://www.kenlayne.com

Catch up on the latest from Mickey "the only reason to read Slate" Kaus...: http://slate.msn.com/id/2078738/

Eugene (Mean Gene) Volokh...: http://www.volokh.blogspot.com/

And Heather (Oral Fixation) Havrilesky: http://www.tinylittlepenis.com/

2003-02-22T11:49:00.000-08:00

INTRODUCING A WELL-SCRUBBED BUNCH OF LIBERTARIANS: Thomas Szaz protege and addiction critic Jeffrey Schaler sent me this link to the college branch of the otherwise discredited Libertarian Party at American University. Check out a picture of these upstanding young men and women protesting the Patriot Act. I have to say the young lady in the black sweater in the foreground is especially pleasing to the eye.

If they all could only be Libertarians: http://www.aulibertarians.com/pictures.html

2003-02-14T16:45:00.000-08:00

MORE ALTERMAN FOR THE OUNCE II: A reader sent me this link to one of Alterman's columns from July 2001, in which he accused bowtie-donning columnist George Will of cribbing his words, in this case, a passage from a piece Alterman wrote in 1989 about Chris Mathews, the perpetually angry liberal host of "Hardball." But as Brian Carnell of LeftWatch had noted at the time Alterman made the accusation, Will actually wrote those words first as a blurb for Mathews' book. To quote the headline of Carnell's piece, a play on Alterman's own words: "Say What You Will about Eric Alterman, He's Still an Idiot."

Alterman thought he called a spade: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010716&s=alterman

Carnell calls Alterman a dunce: http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000013.html

2003-02-14T12:20:00.000-08:00

SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: Yes, I'm on another panel, this time on blogging, with such Web luminaries as Matt Welch and Luke Ford as well as UPI columnist Cathy Seipp. Check it out next Saturday at the Freedom Film Festival being hosted by the American Cinema Foundation. You'll even learn something.

Panel -A-Blog-Blog: http://www.cinemafoundation.com/free03/fff03_blogging_index.html

2003-02-14T09:23:00.000-08:00

MORE ALTERMAN FOR THE OUNCE: Matt Welch read the comments to G. Beato's recent post about Eric Alterman--mentioned yesterday on the Dailyblog--and didn't like what he read, particularly from TalkLeft, the site that Mr. Snooze has contracted to handle his blogroll. Turns out that Alterman chooses his links based on their political persuasion:

"One of Eric's hard and fast rules for a link is you have to have a link to him on your blog (another is that you have to be a progressive or liberal political blog). We just did a quick look but we didn't see a link to Altercation on Soundbitten."

Welch isn't too pleased by this. He writes: "for a journalist to apply a political litmus test for linkage … that’s just shameful, in my perhaps antiquated view of what journalism should be all about. For a progressive journalist to insist on the tribute of a link as the minimum pre-condition to even be considered … words defy me." I can't disagree. As one will notice, while this site links to plenty of libertarian- and conservative-leaning types, it also permalinks lefties such as Ann Salisbury as well as iconoclasts like Welch and his LA Examiner cohort, Ken Layne. Why? Because I enjoy reading their blogs and I link to sites that I enjoy. Besides, it's also good business. After all, readers are readers, no matter their ideology, something even a not-so-sharp pundit like Alterman should know. Oops, my apologies. I forgot that we're talking about Eric Alteman.

Welch gives Alterman the business: http://www.mattwelch.com/archives/week_2003_02_09.html#1664

The offending comments: http://www.soundbitten.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=199

Oh, and here's a link to TalkLeft: http://www.talkleft.com

And Media Minded rips Alterman's arguments about a less-than-liberal media: http://mediaminded.blogspot.com/2003_02_01_mediaminded_archive.html#90313466

2003-02-13T17:47:00.000-08:00

TEAR A PAGE: Great minds think alike, as do morons and convenience store robbers. But can a sloppy lefty pundit who has never had an original thought of his own actually share the same viewpoints a book, say one written by Matt Drudge, as a freelance writer who reviewed it in the Washington Post 16 months ago? Hmm. Check it out for yourselves: Take this scathing critique of "The Drudge Manifesto" by one Eric Alterman--yes, the one I made quick work of last year--in his latest claptrap:

"Of the 247 pages contained in The Drudge Manifesto, the reader is treated to forty blank pages; thirty-one pages filled with fan mail; twenty-four pages of old Drudge Reports, a thirteen-page Q & A from Drudge's National Press Club speech; ten pages of titles and the like; six pages of quotes from various personalities like Ms. Lewinsky and Madonna; four pages of a chat transcript; and, well, a great deal more filler. That leaves the reader with just 112 pages or barely 45 percent of actual book. (And even nine of these are Drudge poetry.)"

And here is a passage from an Oct. 2000 Washington Post book review by writer and Soundbitten blog editor G. Beato, which I double-checked via an article search:

"Indeed, while "Drudge Manifesto" runs 247 pages, it takes a lot of filler to reach that length: 40 blank pages; 31 pages of fan mail; 24 pages of Drudge Report reruns; 13 pages of a Q & A that Drudge did at the National Press Club three years ago; 10 pages of titles and other book boilerplate; six pages of quotes from Drudge's favorite philosophers (Monica, Madonna, etc.); four pages of a chat transcript; three pages that include nothing but a large zero; two pages that include nothing but a large numeral 1; one page that includes nothing but a tiny zero; and one page that includes Drudge's favorite Web sites. Which leaves, in the end, 112 pages of new material, including nine pages of poetry."

Marvels Beato: "Obviously, he's been watching me from afar." Obviously. (Courtesy of Jesse Walker.)

Coincidence?: http://www.soundbitten.com/archives/week_2003_02_09.html#000199

2003-02-06T16:31:00.000-08:00

PREDICTIONS FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS: A space shuttle explodes, another celebrity-linked murder and the nation is marching towards another war. Two thousand three has surely been an eventful year and it's not even half-finished. Since things can only get more surreal, your blog proprietor will prognosticate on the rest of the half-year it will be:

March: "Sesame Street" will finally reveal that Bert and Ernie are lovers in a special episode on the consequences of gay bashing. Special guest Nathan Lane will take on the role as the head of the local Pink Pistols group that teaches the long-closeted twosome how to fire their guns (no, not those) and another special guest, "Will & Grace" star Sean Hayes will teach Bert how to tweeze his unibrow. Oscar the Grouch will be vilified as a Christian conservative gay basher while we will also learn that Elmo also has a little sugar in his tank--and a membership in NAMBLA. Holy "South Park"!

April: Astronomers high on weed and laughing their heads off after reading Charlotte Observer scribe Doug Robarchek's column on name changes, will finally re-name the dog planet of Pluto after the candy Bit O' Honey. Disney executives, angry about the name change will lobby Congress to change the planet's name back--as well as demand payment for years of trademark infringement--while the firm that owns the Bit O' Honey trademark will also sue for infringement. Candymaker Mars Inc. will also sue the third planet from the sun that shares the same name for violating its copyright; the company will settle the suit in exchange for a contract to distribute Snickers, M&Ms and Mounds bars to its possible inhabitants. Meanwhile pieces of the former Pluto will finally reach earth; they will then be broken into bits and sold in caviar jars to folks like Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen for $250,000 a piece. The rocks will not taste like Ring Pops.

May: Whitney Houston will start her own bible ministry for crack whores modeled on the "Betty Bowers Christian Crack Whores" parody Web site. Houston will also put out a charity album featuring the stylings of the ever-naked Christina Aguilera and porn loving former weed fiend Snoop Dogg. The proceeds will help keep supposed "R&B King" Bobby Brown's in the alleged rock cocaine-and-beer-fueled lifestyle to which he's accustomed.

June: Michael Jackson will admit he still sleeps with kids--and likes it. Damn, already happened.

July: Fox announces the debut of its latest reality series, called "Celebrity Jailhouse." Seventy-five million Americans will watch as Mike Tyson grabs former President Clinton and gives him the "Oz"-ing of a lifetime in the prison kitchen. CBS will attempt to top that by hiring Tommy Grand, the Mr. Rogers-sounding former host of "Cheaters" to helm another real-life prison show called "Tossed Salad Video"--use your imagination--while NBC and ABC put out their own prison reality series heavy on the faux gravitas.

August: Miss Cleo predicts that Congress will levy taxes on breathing--and she'll be right.

Check back with me in six months.

From the guys who brought you Landover Baptist Church: http://www.bettybowers.com/crackwhores.html

2003-02-06T07:49:00.000-08:00

"I'M BAD, I'M BAD, YOU KNOW IT...": America's favorite pop star weirdo--formally known as Michael Jackson--is reportedly "devastated" about the recent documentary and interview he did with Martin Bashir, the bespectacled reporter for British television network ITV. Hmmm. Maybe he shouldn't have talked about how he continues to sleep with children, especially in light of past events which we know too well. Or perhaps, as the guys at Eightball Magazine have put it: "Any adult that thinks it is that fucking important that sleep with kids in the same bed with them has got issues." (Courtesy of the Drudge Report.)

"I'm starting with the man in the mirror": http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=765&u=/nm/20030206/people_nm/jackson_reaction_1&printer=1

"That is a hell of a case of Vitiligo you've got there Mike." http://www.eightballmagazine.com/diatribes/volume02/diatribes002/diatribes21-41/diatribes37.htm

Martin Bashir's greatest hits--Diana, Au Pair killer, and now Jacko: http://www.itv.com/news/Tonight441650.html

2003-02-05T14:11:00.000-08:00

KUNT-NER?: The American Prospect editor (and Business Week columnist) complains that coverage of the Columbia disaster was overblown in his latest pan of kitty litter. In one particular bit of cat dropping, Kuttner whines on about the fact that the press actually did its job--investigating why the shuttle blew up and who was responsible for the tragedy--instead of delving into why space missions and the experiments performed on them yield so few scientific results:

"Wouldn't it have been unseemly to focus on these blemishes amidst tragedy and mourning? In fact, journalistic skepticism was much in evidence, but it was mainly skepticism about who fell down on the job. Wasn't NASA warned about the tiles? Weren't these craft getting old? Did Congress stint on the money? This is fine as far as it goes, but it still leaves the media in the overall role of cheerleader for the underlying premise that there is something uniquely heroic, ennobling and scientifically essential about the entire enterprise..."

And one wonders why he runs the American Prospect, which has none for the future. I would say more, but Matt Welch and Ken Layne done such a good job, it wouldn't be worth more of my efforts.

A column unworthy of Tidy Cat...: http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/02/kuttner-r-02-05.html

Written by someone Ken Layne considers an "asshole" (too nice of a slur for him, I'd say)...: http://www.kenlayne.com/blogarchives/week_2003_02_02.html#003028

And mocked uproariously by Welch...: http://www.mattwelch.com/archives/week_2003_02_02.html#1638

By the way, speaking of cat manure, here's a video of it, courtesy of the Web site for Beetle Juice, the Howard Stern curiosity: http://www.jollydwarf.com/ClipCatShit.htm

2003-02-03T14:14:00.000-08:00

WALLS OF JAIL: There was a time when someone with fame, power and a fat bankroll, could hide his demons under a wad of cash. Rock Hudson and any member of the Kennedy family are names that come to mind. Today, even the rich are having trouble orchestrating coverups--if they get that far. Latest example: Phil Spector, the eccentric (high-class term for really, really f--ked-up) rock producer responsible for such annoying staples of oldies radio such as "Da Doo Ron Ron" and "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin." He just got nabbed by police officers in the podunk Los Angeles suburb of Alhambra, Calif. after finding a woman's lifeless body (meaning fertilizer for the cemetery) inside his not-so-humble abode. They should have also booked him for producing the Beatles' worst song, "Let It Be."

"I met him on a Monday and my heart stood still." (And now he's in jail. And he's in jail.): http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2003-02-03-spector-arrest_x.htm

2003-01-28T05:57:00.000-08:00

IF IT WASN'T FOR BAD LUCK, HE WOULDN'T HAVE NO LUCK AT ALL: First, former syndicated columnist Bob Greene loses his job with the Chicago Tribune for a decades-old indiscretion. Now his wife--who had to suffer through his public humiliation--dies of heart failure. Expect any one of Greene's longtime detractors to eventually make sport of this latest bad break.

Epitomizing a Cream lyric: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/showcase/chi-0301280133jan28.story

2003-01-25T15:59:00.000-08:00

DING DONG BELL, P----N' IN THE WELL: The devilish folks at Eightball Magazine describes what happens to an African man dying of AIDS after he was caught making a deposit of sorts into a community's primary water source:

"Although he was, like I said, in an advanced stage of AIDS and very emaciated everyone that heard what he had said dropped what they were doing and immediately started beating his ass down like he was a 300 pound linebacker. When they finally stopped he was in a coma. As well, they should..."

"Sulayit who ended up just lying on the side of the well beaten to a pulp was later picked up by other villagers who had gone to fetch water and carried to his father's home. Doctors say that he is not going to pull out of this one for two reasons, one, the beat down was too sever and two, he was already in such a bad condition to begin with..."

Eightball suggests he deserved the beat down. I can't possibly disagree.

The kind of commentary you'll never find in your local newspaper: http://www.eightballmagazine.com/diatribes/volume02/diatribes002/diatribes21-41/diatribes29.htm

2003-01-25T15:51:00.000-08:00

WHY THE NEW YORK POST IS INDISPENSIBLE: Check out its front page headline, courtesy of the Ombudsgod.

Axis of what?: http://nypost.com/images/front012403.gif

2003-01-25T15:49:00.000-08:00

A BLOGGER'S LAMENT: Onetime American expatriate-turned-soon-to-be-big city news editor Matt Welch hates what the New York Times will likely do to the International Herald Tribune:

"In expatriate life, where backpackers, soldiers, multinational professionals and diplomats seldom mix, all these tribes (and others) found common ground every day over the same morning paper. The thing managed to feel and smell like Europe, which is something only a handful of U.S. papers can honestly say about their own hometown. Now, the familiar smell of croissants and rickety trains is giving way to the foreign whiff of bagels and loud cabbies."

As a New Yorker, I should be a tad insulted about the whole bagels and loud cabbies insult. But it's too good a column to get upset over such anti-Big Apple references. Read on.

"And the Paris staff was always sneaking in "medical" stories about the virtues of drinking red wine by the barrel": http://www.nationalpost.com/review/story.html?id=8E76A6F2-3F2F-4F47-A5DA-1FBEF674823E

2003-01-23T16:58:00.000-08:00

INTERESTING CHOICE OF WORDS: Apparently former porn reporter Luke Ford--now one of L.A.'s most savage media profilers--can't get away from using old industry terms. Like "fluff" for example. Check out his choice words for one writer's recent front-page story. And yes, she's female.

"Yes, I've read the book.": http://www.lukeford.net (Third item.)

2003-01-17T15:53:00.000-08:00

SEX, COPYRIGHTS AND MICKEY MOUSE: Reason's Jesse Walker has a great piece on the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Bono Act, replete with a hilarious 'interview' with Disney's resident rodent.

"I got to have sex, I got to use drugs, I got to explore the whole underground comix scene. It was liberating": http://www.reason.com/links/links011703.shtml

2003-01-17T15:47:00.000-08:00

FINKE-D: Luke Ford--once the enfant terrible of the porn coverage beat--profiles Nikki Finke, the LA Weekly columnist best-known for her complaints about Disney and her lawsuit against the New York Post. Sample quote: "She's an attention-seeking hotshot." The piece isn't as fascinating--in a car-wreck sort of way--as his recent profile of Cathy Seipp. But it will do.

"Finke owes her career to the Gay Mafia": http://lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/nikki_finke.htm

2003-01-13T17:30:00.000-08:00

OH, I'VE DONE A BOOK REVIEW TOO: A short one about linguist John McWhorter's latest damning of the state of Black America for the Weekly Standard. First stop your snickering, then read on.

Short but good: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/002/108beqyt.asp (Password required.)

2003-01-13T17:25:00.000-08:00

The Kinko's Feud, Part Deux: Last May, I broke news about the surprising behind-the-scenes feud between Kinko's founder Paul Orfalea and the buyout firm that now controls the copying giant. Now the company is cutting ties with Orfalea by joining the buyout firm, Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, in buying out Orfalea and his former partners. Click the link and read more about it.

Out of toner: http://www.forbes.com/business/2003/01/13/cz_rb_0113kinkos.html

2003-01-13T17:20:00.000-08:00

A QUICK ONE WHILE...OOPS: You know the world's gone to crap when even Pete Townshend--a.k.a. the thinking man's aging dinosaur of a rock star for the Who--gets tagged in a child porn sweep. Hopefully he's not guilty.

"I'm free." Not.: http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TOWNSHEND?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME

2002-12-03T09:49:00.000-08:00

ARROGANCE AND JOE KLEIN: You can either despise Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam for his embarrassing blogging article, or just pity him for being a junior league version of pre-New York Times Style section Alex Kuczynski. But he does write a good column on occasion. The latest one is a treat: Besides a juicy tidbit on the feud between Boston University's bellicose chancellor John Silber and feisty movie mogul Jeff Katzenberg, Beam found time to sling some mud at someone who deserves it--Joe (Anonymous) Klein, whose latest assault on the sensibilities of the average reader is a puff piece on Mass. Sen. John Kerry in the New Yorker. According to Beam, Klein not only described Kerry's first wife--who hasn't exactly been yapping on and on about her ex-husband-- as a depressed nutcase who wasn't much of a mother, but didn't even bother giving her a courtesy call before the piece went to press. Worse of all, Beam notes that the assertions about the former Mrs. Kerry didn't come from the senator himself, but from one of his alleged friends, former Colorado Senator Timothy Wirth. Beam describes Klein's effort as a "drive-by journalistic sliming" and he is right.

As one would expect from someone who'd write dribble such as "Primary Colors," Klein isn't a tad bit sheepish about the matter. According to Beam, Klein says it was an "entirely accidental" characterization. If Klein would have just left it at that. But then he claims that Beam was "making a tremendous mountain out of a molehill.'' Faulty reporting and arrogance to boot. Nice way to earn that fat paycheck, Joe.

A Beam on the right target: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/337/living/A_slight_problem_with_Kerry_profile-.shtml

2002-11-27T15:06:00.000-08:00

HAPPY THANKSGIVING: Eat all your can and enjoy your family as much as possible. Later.

2002-11-27T13:07:00.000-08:00

"RUSHDIES" NEEDED HERE: Novelist Salman Rushdie--he of "The Satanic Verses" and Shi'ite Muslem death threats--has an excellent piece about Islamic fundamentalism and the dearth of opposition in today's New York Times. After categorizing the latest death threats and outrages, Rushdie wonders why have few moderate Muslims have tried to counter the fundamentalists:

"Where, after all, is the Muslim outrage at these events? As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not screaming?

"At least in Iran the students are demonstrating. But where else in the Muslim world can one hear the voices of the fair-minded, tolerant Muslim majority deploring what Nigerian, Egyptian, Arab and Dutch Muslims are doing? Muslims in the West, too, seem unnaturally silent on these topics. If you're yelling, we can't hear you."

Rushdie thinks his fellow outcasts will likely push for an end to Islamic fanaticism because the moderates "cannot cannot or will not insist on the modernization of their culture — and of their faith." And he's right: Every case of social change, be it the American Revolution or the overthrow of Communist governments in Russia and other Eastern European states, has been led by political outcasts. Centrists come in late in the game--and only after all the hard work has been done.

Getting the Salman treatment: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/27/opinion/27RUSH.html

2002-11-27T12:59:00.000-08:00

LATE READING FOR EVERYONE: While taking aim at Tom Daschle for his Rush Limbaugh rant and the New York Times for its take on the Roger (Fox News) Ailes affair, Russ (Mugger) Smith gives Paul Krugman some grief. What for now? This time, for a piece Krugman wrote on how some Republicans--namely the President and Weekly Standard" boss Bill Kristol--have attained status and distinction thanks to family connections. After Smith lists the numerous Democrats with family connections, he then tears into Krugman's supporting argument that similar establishment lefties withstood similar criticisms thanks to their principles:

"This is comical. Consider the Kennedy clan: were those "high principles" in evidence when Teddy was let off the hook in the drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne when a normal fellow would’ve spent time behind bars? How about patriarch and bootlegger Joe Kennedy’s cutting deals with the Mafia during JFK’s 1960 election? Or his corralling of sycophants like the Times’ Arthur Krock, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Ted Sorensen and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley on behalf of his sons? And what about the lenient treatment of any number of third-generation Kennedys by the police after misbehaving, or Patrick Kennedy using the family’s Massachusetts compound as a money factory in 2000 when he was in charge of fundraising for Democratic congressional candidates?"

Says it all, I think.

Mugger goes mugging: http://www.nypress.com/15/48/news&columns/mugger.cfm

2002-11-23T16:53:00.000-08:00

LEN DOWNIE, BILL KOVACH AND THE IVORY TOWER TYPES SHOULD LEAVE JOURNALISM ALONE: That's what Matt Welch writes in Reason's December edition--and I happen to think he's right.

Saving journalism from the elitist worrywarts: http://www.reason.com/0212/cr.mw.woe.shtml

2002-11-23T14:57:00.000-08:00

READS LIKE TEEN SPIRIT: Proving once again that some conservatives not only lack perspective, but a sense of humor too, the Wall Street Journal's Nancy DeWolf Smith bemoans Kurt Cobain and his recently-published diaries. While chiding Entertainment Weekly for comparing Cobain to Da Vinci and knocking Newsweek for putting Cobain on the cover, Smith whacks the founding father of Grunge for his "banal musings" and "sadistic fantasies." What gets her particularly hot and bothered are several passages that detail "homosexual rape and homicidal rage," especially his rantings during high school. One passage that seems to bring Smith's blood to a boil: An early set of lyrics he wrote which was later turned into song:

"Eventually, Cobain penned the lyrics to "Floyd the Barber," which appear in his diaries this way: "Floyd breathes hard I hear a zip/pee pee pressed against my lips. . . I sense others in the room/Opey, Aunt Bee I presume/They take turns in cut me up/I died smothered in Andy's butt." Before the song was recorded by Nirvana a person of taste changed the last word of that verse to "snot." And I suppose a person could read "Floyd" as a bitter commentary on our foolish mainstream dreams of happy Mayberry."

Wolf finds Cobain's diaries to be "icky." I just find them to be funny--and oddly familiar. It reminds me of some of the rubbish my mates in high school and I would compose: Dirty ditties about Maria's frilly panties. Songs about belching, skullf--king and "free-balling." When we weren't writing the raunch, we'd talk about it when we were tired of talking about girls and sports. Occasionally we'd even say--or scream--something twisted while standing in crowded subway cars just to freak people out.

Our random musings from hell were tame compared to Cobain's. But it's same difference. And chances are, many of you readers have done the same thing during those supposedly halcyon days. Back then, most of us--including the outcasts--were phony nihilists and faux sophisticates who were both a bit angry and plenty confused. We were bored with interminable lectures, perplexed by our developing bodies, and searching for our own identities. And school-sponsored extracurricular activities rarely did the trick. So we would indulge in our dark sides--whatever they may be--for both amusement and escape.

Smith would probably argue all this is the result of a soulless and amoral modern world. But the reality is adolescents have been indulging in sick, twisted, deviant--and oh so fun--behavior since the end of the ice age. One example: The Salem witch trials of the 17th century. When Elizabeth Parris and her cousin claimed they were suffering some sort of illness caused by witchcraft, they were likely playing a sick joke on their parents. Heck, I'll bet they thought the resulting witch trials were a blast.

Now none of this is news to anyone. Well, anyone but those handwringing social conservatives too old to remember being young and too ignorant to understand anything at all. And one can definitely say that Smith can be categorized as one of the latter. She is partly right in noting that Cobain's journals are hardly works of art. But Smith fails to see his collection for what they really are: Not the rantings of a madman, just more crap from adolescence we'd leave in our parents attics. The kind of stuff we'll occasionally check out and read and chuckle over, then throw back into boxes to collect dust.

Nevermind the dead: http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110002651

Tony Pierce wonders how Smith got her jobhttp://tonypierce.com/blog/2002_11_17_blogarc.htm#85698043

2002-11-22T18:37:00.000-08:00

CAN'T WE JUST GET ALONG? SURE: Amid the hoopla over John J. Miller's screed blaming libertarians of all stripes for Republican losses in congressional elections, his colleagues at National Review--specifically, Jonah Goldberg and his crew at its online edition--actually allowed Boston University law professor Randy Barnett to lecture the Grand Old Party Poopers on how to bring free minds-and-markets types back into the fold. On the to-do list Barnett dared to issue Republicans: Actually try to defend the First Amendment (no Operation TIPS-type police state measures), nominate more conservative judges with a libertarian streak and oppose regulation that violates the principles of Federalism (e.g. President Bush's 2001 education reform bill, which has already proven to be a failure). Barnett also counsels the GOP's conservative leaders to stop their "gratuitous snide remarks" about libertarians in general:

"Nothing turns off libertarians more than the sort of wholly gratuitous snide remarks about libertarians in conservative publications. By gratuitous I mean they show up even in articles about policies with which libertarians and conservatives agree. The more libertarians feel unwelcome in the coalition that is the Republican party, the more they will vote Libertarian."

As anyone who reads this site knows, I'm in wholehearted agreement. But it may take some time for Republicans--and conservatives such as Goldberg--to get it. Complaining that libertarians--including Reason magazine, NR's chief rival on the Right--for deriding conservatives like him as "morons" (something that I can't find anywhere), Goldberg decides to go for the gutter by linking to the Web site of one Bruce Sommer, an admitted Trekkie who encourages visitors to e-mail him if they have the controversial Pretty Good Privacy encryption system. Now Goldberg could have linked to numerous other sites run by rather presentable folk who are also libertarians. But it would be too high-minded of him to do so.

Goldberg giveth...: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-barnett112202.asp

...And taketh away: http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/02_11_17_corner-archive.asp#001146

2002-11-22T17:58:00.000-08:00

JUST ONE CALORIE: If true, this story proves once again that fact is stranger than you know what: Eightball Magazine reports that a supposed porn actress named Kim Kelly will put herself on a liquid diet of sorts at the end of this month. The liquid in question? Yes, a certain creamy bodily fluid that only comes out during sex. According to Eightball, Ms. Kelly, who wants to lose 20 pounds by the end of the year, plans to stick to a daily regimen of six meals--presumably two drinks for breakfast, two swallows for lunch and a big gulp for dinner. We don't know whether she plans to spit at any point during these meals--and don't care to find out.

I never said this was a family Web site: http://www.eightballmagazine.com/diatribes/diatribes052/diatribes1085-1105/diatribes1092.htm

2002-11-14T11:10:00.000-08:00

AGENDAS?: As a helpful reminder about the recent woes of Tenet, the Santa Barbara, Calif. hospital chain that was once a Wall Street darling, someone from the Service Employees International Union--the big healthcare labor group--sent me an e-mail announcing their "Tenet Monitor" newsletter and Web site. Among the tidbits on the site: News about a San Francisco Chronicle piece on an FBI probe of the firm and an "investor relations" section noting the company's poor stock market performance. Beautiful.

As one should expect, the SEIU isn't detailing all of the Tenet's low lights just out of the goodness of its own heart. It has been waging a fierce campaign against the company to boost their member's wages--and in turn, help boost its own union dues--including a walkout by SEIU-allied nurses at Tenet's L.A.-based Queen of Angels-Hollywood Presbyterian hospital last May and an October press release blasting chief executive Jeffrey Barbakow for having the temerity to cash $111 million worth of his own stock options. "Does it make any sense that one person takes in $111 million last year," asked Luisa Blue, who runs the union's Southern California "Nurse Alliance." When I see her salary--and those of her likely well-paid bosses at union headquarters--I'll make that call.

Public relations: Another union art form?: http://www.TenetMonitor.com/

A critique of pay packages--Tenet's, not theirs: http://www.seiu285.com/articles/content.cfm?ID=6293

2002-11-14T10:36:00.000-08:00

DECRIMINALIZE HATE: Eightball Magazine's the Unfilter thinks hate crimes laws are, well, read on:

"If you're going to punish someone for grossly breaking the law, and infringing upon the rights of another human being, fine. But why should what they believe have any bearing on the way in which they're punished? That doesn't make any sense at all. It does nothing more than to lend another shade of gray to an already entirely convoluted and seriously backward legal system. Outlawing discrimination is one thing. If it's clear that I didn't get a job solely because of a melanin surplus, that's fucked up and illegal. But using it as a tack-on to some other crime is just plain meaningless."

Amen.

"Does that mean that if he'd purposefully steered into me, but said he had no problem with Indians, he'd just be up for battery? ": http://www.eightballmagazine.com/crashland/2002/111102.htm

2002-11-14T08:37:00.000-08:00

ANOTHER REASON TO LEAVE THE NEW YORK CITY AREA: Let's imagine you're a midlevel employee at, say, AOL Time Warner in its New York City headquarters and you drive in and out of the city--yes, a lot of people drive to the big rotten apple--from your home in Hoboken. You'll hand the Port Authority six bucks to get into the city (you'll pay nothing when you go back home), then pay the city another 8.25 cents every time you buy lunch, a diet-busting snack and a few of those frothy lattes from Starbucks. On top of that, you'll tithe another 8% to the city government on the amount of money you spend every month for a space in one of those sketchy parking garages. On a banner day--lunch for four at Steaks Frites, a couple of books at Barnes & Noble, even four lattes to stay awake for that dinner at Tavern on the Green with the missus--and you will made a $30 contribution to the city's bureaucracy. In a year, you will have paid at least $700 in various city sales taxes. Yet you're not costing the city much because all you do is drive on the city's already-pothole-cratered streets, walk on the sidewalks and use the office toilets three times a day.

But New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, now looking for ways to avoid cutting $6 billion worth of overpaid union hacks and bureaucrats on the city's bloated payroll, reportedly wants private sector employees living outside the city to pay a few dollars more. Actually, at least a thousand dollars more. According to today's New York Post, Bloomberg has proposed to reinstate the old income tax the city used to collect on the millions of such commuters--struck down by the courts and the state legislature just a few years ago--and increase that by a six-fold to 2.7%. For the hypothetical midlevel employee at AOL Time Warner who makes, say, $70,000 a year, that means an additional $1,890 a year out of his or her pockets and into the city government's bank account.

Pack your bags for Florida--or Los Angeles, where there is no commuter tax.

Another reason to not hand Bloomberg a second term: http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/62151.htm

2002-11-13T19:55:00.000-08:00

GETTING IT ONLY TWO-THIRDS RIGHT, PART 2001: Occasionally the lefty op-ed commissars at the New York Times lets a sensible column or two slip through their well-manicured hands. The latest: Wednesday's piece advocating marriage and two-parent families by writer and "Frontline" correspondent Alex Kotlowitz. Claiming "a shift in the winds" among African-Americans and others living in the inner cities, Kotlowitz not only argues that more people are looking to dump the Samsonite wedding and choose the more traditional form of commitment, but that the lefty types who eschew marriage as something for squares "haven't done enough to emphasize the importance of marriage in reinforcing the bonds that hold society together."

The piece gets better. Kotlowitz actually notes that conservatives--who have long argued that government should step in and make sure every Keyshawn and Rashwanda should get hitched--make too much of marriage's ability to cure social ills. That is true. But then Kotlowitz makes an intellectual leap into the abyss after mentioning an anectdote about how Chicago public housing boss Vince Lane enticed eight umarried couples into tying the knot:

"What's happened to the couples since? Most have split up, which should come as no surprise. The stress of not having money, of living in decrepit housing, of sending children to poorly funded schools would take its toll on even the most committed relationship. So how then might we help get couples to the altar? By pushing marriage? Or by helping ease the strains in people's lives?"

Huh? Perhaps Kotlowitz has never been in a long-term relationship, but anyone who has can tell you that empty wallets and dilapidated shacks have little to do with split-ups and much to do with the fact that the relationships aren't exactly based on such important notions as mutual respect, honesty, shared interests and communication. Which ultimately explains why no government cannot engineer a social good.

The New York Times lets another one in: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/13/opinion/13KOTL.html

2002-11-13T18:31:00.001-08:00

SOMETHING WE KNOW THE GOP WON'T DO: My friend Deroy Murdock has laid out a pro-free market to-do list for President Bush and the Republican Congress. Among those important items: School vouchers, a flat tax and the right to opt out of paying union dues. Here's a couple of more:

"Pension freedom: Beginning in 2017, Social Security is scheduled to pay more benefits than it collects in taxes. The so-called Trust Fund is merely a vault full of promises. Nonetheless, some Americans like the idea that Uncle Sam will see them through retirement. Let them keep Social Security. But let others devote part of their payroll taxes to individually owned investment accounts. "It's your pension. It's your choice...

"Medical Freedom. Seniors who admire Medicare should be free to stick with it. Others, may prefer the bipartisan approach of Senator Breaux and Rep. Bill Thomas (R., California). Seniors could opt for vouchers to purchase private health insurance with superior features such as prescription drug coverage. Others could open Medical Savings Accounts. Seniors should be offered Medicare or this broader menu. "It's your health. It's your choice."

Nice plan indeed, if it had any hope. Considering all the finger-in-the-wind moderates sitting in those plush Senate seats as well as the continued reign of their once and future majority leader, Trent Not a Lot of Balls, the chances of a free minds and markets agenda passing beyond the Capitol's dome is likely a pipe dream. But hey, dream on.

"Republicans can win that fight, so long as they promote their principles with energy, intelligence and wit" (Something they likely don't have.): http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock111302.asp

2002-11-13T18:31:00.000-08:00

SOMETHING WE KNOW THE GOP WON'T DO: My friend Deroy Murdock has laid out a pro-free market to-do list for President Bush and the Republican Congress. Among those important items: School vouchers, a flat tax and the right to opt out of paying union dues. Here's a couple of more:

"Pension freedom: Beginning in 2017, Social Security is scheduled to pay more benefits than it collects in taxes. The so-called Trust Fund is merely a vault full of promises. Nonetheless, some Americans like the idea that Uncle Sam will see them through retirement. Let them keep Social Security. But let others devote part of their payroll taxes to individually owned investment accounts. "It's your pension. It's your choice...

"Medical Freedom. Seniors who admire Medicare should be free to stick with it. Others, may prefer the bipartisan approach of Senator Breaux and Rep. Bill Thomas (R., California). Seniors could opt for vouchers to purchase private health insurance with superior features such as prescription drug coverage. Others could open Medical Savings Accounts. Seniors should be offered Medicare or this broader menu. "It's your health. It's your choice."

Nice plan indeed, if it had any hope. Considering all the finger-in-the-wind moderates sitting in those plush Senate seats as well as the continued reign of their once and future majority leader, Trent Not a Lot of Balls, the chances of a free minds and markets agenda passing beyond the Capitol's dome is likely a pipe dream. But hey, dream on. , Murdock's plan has almost no chance of making it. But it seems he hasn't lost a lot of hope that the GOP its once and future Senate majority leader, Trent Not a Lott of balls, can actually make a go of it.

2002-11-08T18:03:00.000-08:00

WHY A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT AND A GOP-CONTROLLED CONGRESS DOESN'T MAKE A TOILET BOWL'S WORTH OF DIFFERENCE: Dwight Meredith of P.L.A.--whose blog occasionally reads like something written by a member of the PLO (just kidding)--gives the reason in hard numbers.

Who hands out just as much pork as the Democrats?http://pla.blogspot.com/2002_11_03_pla_archive.html#84200764

2002-11-08T17:55:00.000-08:00

BOO-HOO: Seems that Brink ("Invading Iraq is great, let's pop open a Coors") Lindsey's unhappy that anti-invasion libertarians are knocking around his pretensions to libertarianism. I would sympathize with him, but then I would also have to sympathize with Catholics who oppose abortion, but want to remain in the faith as well as support Republicans who support abortion, but want to remain part of the GOP. And I sympathize with neither of them.

"This particular line of attack really burns my toast" (Then stop toasting your bread): http://www.brinklindsey.com/archives/002568.php#002568

2002-11-08T17:39:00.000-08:00

ONE BIG HOMEBUILDER AND A VERY EMBARASSED INSURANCE GIANT: For those tender souls who prefer soft profiles to hard-hitting muckraking, I've got a story about how John Shea and his cousins turned kept their 121-year-old family business private and independent in Forbes' annual private companies list. And for the rest of my sleaze-loving audience, here's my follow-up to the scandalous saga of Nationwide's golf course deal with twice-convicted felon Jack Dean Franks. Enjoy.

Everlast: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/1125/171_print.html (Free Password required)

""This is such b.s.": http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/1125/056_print.html

And check out the story that started it all: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/1029/088.htm

2002-11-08T16:05:00.000-08:00

ELECTION DAY 2002--A POSTSCRIPT: Since the rest of the punditocracy--including bloggers--were blabbing on and on about the campaigns before Election day and the results the day after, I decided to take a temporary rest from all of that and let it all sink in. Here are two of my conclusions:

Gray Davis: In the end, we're all screwed.
Consider this: Despite running the most inept major party political campaign in the 21st century--and he's set a bar for incompetence no one else will set out to beat--Bill Simon still managed to gain 42% of the vote and help deny Gray Davis a majority. Which proves that 1) the Republicans could have sent Davis packing if they had chosen a better candidate (i.e. former L.A. mayor Richard Riordan or the more palatable Bill Jones, California's outgoing secretary of state) and 2) the next Democratic candidate for governor will make sure he panders to the state's lefty special interest groups heavily and often. No matter: Another four years of Davis means even worse times for the rest of us taxpayers.

Georgia's Gubernatorial shocker: It really isn't.
Having lived in Georgia for five years--and consider it my adopted hometown--I thought I had a better clue about how the peanut state's gubernatorial election. My thoughts: Roy Barnes would win a typically close reelection. After all, he was running against Sonny Perdue, who until recently, was best-known for handing over his powerful job as the state senate's majority leader when he switched from the Jackass party to the GOP.

But I forgot three things things. One was that Georgia's Republican party chairman--and campaign architect--is none other than Ralph Reed, the crafty former boss of the Christian Coalition; the second being that Georgia is on its way to becoming as much of a one-party state, this time, Republican, as California. The last? Barnes' reputation as a heavy-handed tyrant who will even attempt to subvert the state's constitution, say create a public education panel to bypass the Republican school superintendent who opposed the governor's reforms, just to get what he wants. He even quietly supported construction of a controversial $2 billion, 59-mile road project in the Atlanta suburbs despite opposition from residents. The occasional strong-arm is coin of the political realm, but you can only go so far. And Barnes apparently went way too far. Just read the remarks I culled from Atlanta-based friends and acquaintances such as Rob Stalder:

"At the end of the day, it may be just a blind arrogance on the part of Barnes. He felt he was invincible and could stomp on anyone he felt like stomping on along the way, which came back to haunt him at the end. He's like a playground bully; for a while, everyone fears him. However, when there's any hint of weakness or vulerability, the other kids turn on the bully in a hurry.

2002-11-04T11:32:00.000-08:00

RISHAWNBIDDLE.COM: I've finally done a full renovation of my RiShawnBiddle.com Web site--including targeting the links to the right frames. Check it out. You'll like the way it looks--and even be able to access the Dailyblog from there too.

Handiwork: http://www.rishawnbiddle.com/

2002-11-02T12:33:00.000-08:00

SCARING SENIORS INTO GOVERNMENT HEISTS: Deroy Murdock nails the DNC for duplicity--and fear mongering--over Social Security in his latest column. A fine read.

"McAuliffe's adventures in retirement-asset management": http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock103102.asp

2002-11-02T12:12:00.000-08:00

SOME BELATED THANKS: People who deserve a high-five or two--and would have gotten it if not for a super-busy schedule:

Ted Habte-Gabr: For throwing a great dinner for Catherine Crier two weeks ago. Your guests were great. And the guest of honor herself was a delight.

Nick Gillespie and Mike Alissi: For keeping my mug filled with beer during their recent L.A. visit.

Ann Salisbury: For linking me to her fine site.

And to everyone else I've met or talked to --and didn't get into a fight with--over the past two weeks. You're all the best.

2002-11-02T12:03:00.000-08:00

KEEP IT ALIVE: The Jewish World Review--perhaps the best place to read up on your favorite columnists--could use a few dollars or more. Brothers and sisters, please spare some.

"Fight the good, long fight": http://www.jewishworldreview.com/

2002-11-01T19:17:00.000-08:00

STIRRING DEMOCRACY FROM WITHOUT?: Not-so-typical barroom argument: Over drinks at Santa Monica's Daily Pint, this blog's proprietor stepped into a discussion about that topic du jour, our nation's possible invasion of Iraq. From there it descended into an otherwise friendly debate between and Matt Welch--yes, that Matt Welch--over whether Germany, whose Hitler-led, Holocaust-minded dictatorship was overthrown at the end of World War II, could actually be considered a real democracy.

For the most part, the argument was an exercise in beer-soaked bluster. But it brought up one of the pro-invasion camp's more clever--and yet more ludicrous--arguments for invasion: That an invasion of Iraq would lead to the creation of a sustainable democracy. With such a democracy squarely in the middle of the most anti-democratic region of the world--and that would include the socialist theocracy known as Israel--dictatorships in the rest of the Arab world, especially our supposed Saudi allies, would tumble into history's septic tank.

For the pro-invasion side, it's an especially nice way to deflect broadsides by invasion opponent, especially those who insist that Saudi Arabia--which actually funded Al Qaeda's murderous horde--should be the target of our military might. My friend, former book publishing firm boss and writer Thomas Lipscomb summed it succinctly during one of our correspondences. Says Lipscomb: "The way to take out the Saudis is to democratize Iraq and Iran first... then it just falls like a rotten apple as its people see what happened with their neighbors."

The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, began advancing the argument long before this latest invasion debate with headlines such as "Liberate Iraq, unleash democracy." Supposed libertarian bloggers such as the notorious VodkaPundit--who can't bear a civil argument with anyone who opposes him--also parrot this contention. Breathlessly writes the blogosphere's Eric Alterman-lite: "Imagine: a prosperous, multiethnic, multireligious democratic republic in the heart of the most politically and economically backwards region on earth."

What evidence does the pro-invaders use for this assumption? Try World War II. Citing America's occupation of Japan--whose bloodthirsty regime our government deposed--they contend that the United States can beat back Saddam's already-exhausted military forces and install a democratic-leaning government. As Jonah Goldberg puts it (probably after it received his mom's approval): "Democratizing Iraq would be hard, probably requiring military rule similar to Douglas MacArthur's post-WWII Japan. And the goal would be the same: to transform a belligerent enemy into a valued democratic ally and trading partner." With a little bit of sugar and magic--not really sugar and magic, but close to it-- as well as the gratitude of the Iraqi people--set free from Saddam's murderous reign, this government will help create a prosperous nation with its own city on the hill. Citizens in other Arab nations--envious of the Iraqi's newly-found freedom--will then force out their kings, sheiks and mullahs.

It's a beautiful, umm, daydream. But their arguments go counter to what history has shown us time and again: That democracies cannot be installed by outsiders. Really? Really. Consider these great democracies: The United States, France and Great Britain--the last, technically a constitutional monarchy, but the kings and queens have long been empty thrones. What do all three have in common? They all became democratic through the will of their respective citizenries. And they paid a price in blood. We know about our own American revolution, civil war and battles over equality for Blacks and other minorities; France and Britain arrived after centuries of civil wars and rule by oligarchs of all types.

Democracy, in essence, has to be something a nation's populace clamors for, and more importantly, will bleed for. This means the citizens must take to the streets and protest against tyranny. They have to arm themselves and be willing to die for freedom. Don't believe it? Think about the students who rose up during the "Prague Spring" only to be jailed or murdered by the former Czechaslovakia's communist junta. Or the Chinese students in Tiannanmen Square who were beaten senseless by that nation's regime. Even think about the Soviet Union, where the Andre Sakharovs of their nation suffered mightily at the hands of the communist government just to get something close to democracy.

Any attempt to simply install a democratic regime will fail spectacularly. Look at our nation's efforts with the Philippines. Yes, its citizens now choose their leaders, but it took a homegrown democracy movement to make it happen after decades of American military rule, Japanese wartime occupation and the martial law of Ferdinand Marcos. What about the successful American occupation of Japan? Yeah, what about it? Well, it really didn't work. Since "I Shall Return" MacArthur packed his things and left the land of the rising sun, it has morphed into a sclerotic one-party state where things don't get done unless you're a construction company executive or a member of the Yakuza. Now some would argue that at least the Japanese have a choice. You could say the same thing for Russians living under the Soviet regime two decades ago or for Zimbabweans living under Robert Mugabe's government today. But could you do so and keep a straight face? Certainly not. After all, real democracy provides for a choice of politicians with diverse and divergent ideologies, not merely a list of flunkies working for the same autocracy.

So pro-Iraq invasion types can make this argument all they like, but it doesn't have much history to back it up. But since people not only like to repeat history, but work their hearts out to do so, expect the Iraqi invasion to be another example for a future essay when another "pre-emptive" attack comes under discussion.

VodkaPundit's punch-drunk musings: http://www.vodkapundit.com/archives/002670.php

And Jonah Goldberg's claptrap: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20020731.shtml

2002-11-01T17:40:00.000-08:00

A BASH OF THE WELLSTONE FUNERAL ANTICS: And a well-deserved one at that. Courtesy of the New York Post, of course.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/49931.htm