And Andrew Sullivan, of course, does not let me down.
Yes!

Has Paul Krugman (link requires registration) completely lost it? He sounds a bit delusional.
Don't know about everyone else out there, but I'm waiting for Sullivan to get ahold of this one.
Matthew Hoy is not exactly Sullivan, but he's good. He savages the Krugster a bit here (thanks to InstaPundit for pointing it out).
Nothing like using your column in America's best-known newspaper to point out how sorry you feel for yourself.

As the terror attacks continued Thursday night, the Israeli Cabinet called up some reserves and declared Arafat the enemy. It's about time, really.
For a second, however, it seemd to jar Arafat into action:
"Facing possibly the most extensive Israeli military strike so far in the current confrontation, Arafat said Thursday he was ready for an immediate, unconditional cease-fire. But he stopped short of formally declaring a cease-fire."
Thankfully, Israel said that the PA's "condemnation" (wink, wink) of the attacks were not enough.
So, Arafat has tried to call "time, guys," when Israel starts to move in force against him and his whole hypocritical organization? Too little, too late, it seems to me.
Excuse my hyperbolic tone. I'm trying to get on Alterman's list (see link below) of those who support Israel reflexively. Yeah, I'll tend to do that when we're talking about supporting a liberal democracy over decrepit autocracies and brutal religious dictatorships.
I'm shallow like that.

Well, today is an interesting day for yours truly.
First, it's my last day here at work. If I were a cop, I'd be either a) drawn into a convoluted, sickening, unsolveable case, or b) shot.
Second, I'm moving tomorrow, back into the loving arms of my hometown. I like to call it "Stinktown." See if you can figure out which medium-sized, Midwestern city to which I'm referring.
Third, as I have no new position lined up, I've got a healthy case of the fear going on. But, the whole reason for this move is to shake things up and find a new job. The fear is my friend.
On the upside, I no longer have the ol' day job to lame for keeping me from posting...
If anyone out there in "Media Land" needs a staff writer or editor with dubious ethics, pig-headed, shortsighted viewpoints, and the work ethic of a drunken lemur, I'm your guy.
Just kidding. About those bad things, I mean. I'm a freakin' bulldog. Email me for my resume, if you like.

Should this MSNBC column by Eric Alterman be filed under news, opinion, or sheer idiocy?
And you gotta like how he includes himself, as if to say, "Look, I have faults too! I DON'T know everything...just most things! But I, unlike most, am at least fair."
Please.

The Grand High Sultan of Non-Insane Arabists, Daniel Pipes, says this in The New Republic:


"The plans on the table--Mitchell, Tenet, Abdullah--are superficial solutions to a deep problem. These proposals all assume that the great underlying issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict--Arab rejection of Israel's very existence--has been resolved, leaving only secondary issues like borders, Jerusalem, refugees, water, and arms. But if the Arab rejection of Israel was not self-evident during the glory years of the Oslo process, it has been ever since September, 2000, when Palestinians began the current round of violence. The issue today, as the issue throughout Israel's fifty-four years, concerns the existence of a sovereign Jewish state in the Middle East: The Palestinians seek to destroy this polity even as Israelis seek to win its acceptance."


This article is outstanding. What better person to trust on this matter than Pipes? Edward Said, who says in CounterPunch that Tom Friedman is a Zionist? I think Said is whipping himself up into a frenzy here; I've always found Friedman a bit left on the issue, but at least he's fair. Also, he seemed very thoughtful and almost correct on Meet the Press recently. Almost.
Here, though, is perhaps the best line from Pipes' article: "The Abdullah Plan is a non-starter." Here's what he says about it:


"Once Israelis may have believed that giving up substantial chunks of territory in exchange for signed pieces of paper by their enemies made sense. No longer. Having seen the minimal utility of the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan (in both cases, these spurred anti-Zionist sentiments rather than dampen them) and the actual harm done by the Oslo accords, it is hard to see Israelis going this route again. They will surely demand something deeper and more meaningful than a piece of paper.

Specifically, this means two things from their neighbors: a change of heart and a change of regime. The former means a full-fledged acceptance of Israel's existence, as shown through a willingness to have human contacts--trade, tourism, and the rest. The latter implies a turn toward political participation, so that a treaty means more than one man's whim."


I concur, Dan. I concur.

The Economist has an informative and correct article on the situation in the Middle East after the Netanya terror bombing. The alarmingly accurate title? Shattered.

According to CNN, Arafat is "ready to implement a U.S. cease-fire plan 'without any conditions.'"
Hmm, I wonder if that has anything to do with the IDF tanks circling Ramallah as we speak.
However, I'm doubtful that there really will be no conditions put forth by Arafat. We'll see, I guess.

James Taranto has some great points about the ongoing Arab League summit today on Best of The Web. Great points. As always.

So Boston Public is an exceptionally preachy show, but it might not rise to the level of The West Wing. I don't know -- it might be close between the two of them. One is overtly political, obviously, but the other hides behind a guazy "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?" veil. They're burkas and veils, respectively.
Gee, think a show like The West Wing can be used to skirt campaign finance reform? There's no limit on inane TV shows spouting liberal sentiments right up to an election, and I'm betting that as an election -- even the 2002 Election -- draws near, The West Wing will address current issues.
And people will eat it up, no doubt. It's the soft-core equivalent of the "attack ad," which we all know is the scourge of modern politics. It was incredible -- I watched a debate here in Chicago between Rod Blagojevich and his opponent in the Democratic opponent for Illinois governor, and the first six questions asked had to do with negative commercials. I guess I'd just call that free speech. If the ads weren't accurate, then legal action could be taken -- but it rarely is.

MORE TERROR -- If Bush doesn't call off Zinni and cut off so-called "truce talks" after this latest terror attack, then I truly have no hope for the Administration's response to the Middle East question. 15 dead, 100 wounded, and on the eve of Passover, no less. Horrible.

Did anyone see the VSE (Very Special Episode) of Boston Public Monday night? If you didn't, don't lament your bad fortune - it was crap. Let me lay it down for you: remember, I keep track of this stuff so you don't have to.

First, the episode was billed as "the episode that sparked a national debate," when it more accurately could have been described as "the episode that came to the national debate about an hour late." That rhymes, and you know it does! Admit it!

So the episode was about the use of a well-known racial invective, described on the show as "the ugliest word in the English language." Funny, I thought "Whoopi" was the ugliest word in the...oh, never mind.

Anyway, to get the full scoop on what actualy happened in the episode, you can check here. I won't recap the full episode here; rather, I'll let the good folks at Television Without Pity do that while I bore you with what I thought about it.

And, really, it seems fitting in light of the disproportioately huge deal made over race at the recent Oscars. As far as that goes, I'm throwing my weight in with those who say that Halle Berry describing herself as a "vessel" tends to diminish her own performance. Bet that's the first time you'll see an actress drawing attention away from herself. I didn't see Monster's Ball, but I did hear she was excellent -- that's why it seems a shame to even give any weight to the fact that she migh thave gotten the Oscar due to her race, which, it seems, is what the Academy tried to prove. John Podhoretz (sorry, no link) says that the Academy looked like they were working pretty hard to turn her and Denzel into "tokens," which takes away from the excellent work that they can do. I mean, Denzel's been nominated for 3 Best Actor awards, and won a Best Supporting Actor award (for Glory, an all-time favorite of mine). It's not like he's been ignored; he just hadn't won until this time. Now Jim Carrey -- he's been ignored. Both Berry and Washington won because they were good -- hell, Denzel was fantastic in Training Day -- so why make the race thing such a big deal?

But I digress. What were we talking about? Oh, right -- Boston Public's ham-fisted promotion of Randall Kennedy's book. Like it needed some lame show like BP to get it noticed...it's excellent, from what I hear. The show didn't contribute anything new to the debate, surprisingly -- it just rehashed tired old arguments. Like when Marla, the fiery black teacher, exclaims that "the word needs to go, and so does [Michael Rapaport] for using it!"

OK, here's the thing: discussing something is not the same thing as advocating it. The show missed this point. Just because I'm talking about race here doesn't mean I'm a racist -- hell, just because I disapprove of affirmative action doesn't make me racist either. But, according to some voices on the VSE, white people are not allowed to talk about matters of race with the same candor as black people are.
I guess what it boils down to for this guy is that nobody should be allowed to dictate what other people are allowed to say -- not the government, not co-workers, not interest groups, NOBODY. Now, we all have to accept the consequences of what we say -- for example, if I hurl a racial slur at somebody, I should expect to get the crap kicked out of me. however, I shouldn't be arrested for saying it --maybe for disturbing the peace or something, but there should be no law that says I can't say some word just because others don't like it.

That being said, I think we all know that the "n-word" IS an ugly word, and it has no place in modern society. Come on, we're not stupid -- but why does David E. Kelley think it's his job to tell us that? Randall Kennedy -- OK, he's qualified, but not because he's black. He's qualified because he's an educated man who knows what he's talking about.

Maybe my problem is with these celebrities thinking that their fame is a replacement for education or rationality -- like someone's qualified to be an authority on a subject because they're on TV or in movies. No way -- but I think we all, deep down, know that. It's time, then, that we stop LISTENING to these celebs. They know nothing -- probably less that Joe-on-the-street.

That's all, I guess. The VSE just got me thinking about that.

As my upcoming move looms over my head like some cartoon anvil, I realize that I'm probably disappointing my fan(s) by not posting very much. Well, jeez, sorry! I'm only one man! Hopefully, my not-too-far-in-the-future (sextuple hyphen word score!) hiatus will make up for it. I promise, I'll be the best ever. Or at least better than I have been...
Want to hear something annoying? The "B" key on this keyboard doesn't work so well; it usually doesn't take the first time I strike it, and I have to go back and fill in all the "b-words." It's especially tough when your name is Blue.
When, O Lord, will my trials end???

I'm sure I don't have to keep linking to Victor Davis Hanson's articles every time NRO posts one, but I will anyway. In fact, someone like me pointing out the fact that he's right seems silly -- kind of like that line in The Thin Red Line, when Nick Nolte's Col. Tall says to Elias Koteas' Capt. Staros, "Oh, and Staros? It's not necessary for you to ever tell me I'm right. We'll just assume it."
Best. War. Movie. Ever. Quite moving, but unfortunately overshadowed by Saving Private Ryan, which was good, but nowhere near the level of The Thin Red Line.

On the upside, I'm finally getting out from under the oppressive thumb or Mr. McArnickle, my oafish boss. I'm sure there will be another soon, but for a couple of glorious weeks, I'll be self-employed. Or, to put a more accurate spin on it, unemployed. Help!

I'm currently gearing up for a move, so I may not be posting as much as I want to over the next week. I'll try, however, to provide my dozen of readers with the subtle wit, artful jabs, and insouciant viewpoints to which they've become accustomed -- or, failing that, I'll just write like I normally do.
Heh.

Good ol' InstaPundit points out that at the The Nation, disagreement equals censorship. In fact, I think that sort of jibes with what the Times writes about college students. That's what liberalism (in all its insidious guises) has beaten into the heads of kids today. "If you disagree, you don't respect my opinion, and my opinion deserves respect! No matter what!"
Pshaw...

An interesting article (link requires registration) in today's New York Times cuts to the quick of what I was trying to point out yesterday about free speech. A quote:

"Much the opposite of boomers at the same age," the authors write, "millennials feel more of an urge to homogenize, to celebrate ties that bind rather than differences that splinter."

These are gross generalizations, of course, but a student's article titled "The Silent Classroom," which appeared in the Fall 2001 issue of Amherst magazine, suggested that upperclassmen at that college tend to be guarded and private about their intellectual beliefs. And in this writer's own completely unscientific survey, professors and administrators observed that students today tend to be more respectful of authority — parental and professorial — than they used to be, and more reticent about public disputation.

"My sense from talking to students and other faculty is that out of class, students are interested in hearing another person's point of view, but not interested in engaging it, in challenging it or being challenged," Joseph W. Gordon, dean of undergraduate education at Yale, said. "So they'll be very accepting of other points of view very different from their own. They live in a world that's very diverse, but it's a diversity that's more parallel than cross-stitched."

The students' reticence about debate stems, in part, from the fact that the great issues of the day — the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the war in Afghanistan — do not engender the sort of dissent that the Vietnam War did in an earlier era. It also has roots in a disillusionment with the vitriolic partisanship that held sway in Washington in the 1990's: the often petty haggling between right and left, Republicans and Democrats, during President Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings and the disputed presidential election of 2000, and the spectacle of liberals and conservatives screaming at each other on television programs like "Crossfire."

"Debate has gotten a very bad name in our culture," Jeff Nunokawa, a professor of English at Princeton University, said. "It's become synonymous with some of the most nonintellectual forms of bullying, rather than as an opportunity for deliberative democracy." He added that while the events of Sept. 11 may well serve as a kind of wake-up call, many of his students say that "it's not politic or polite to seem to care too much about abstract issues."

"Many of them are intensely socially conscientious, caring and committed," he said. "It's just not clear precisely what they wish to commit themselves to."

Now, I'm no boomer, but that's not the way I remember college -- I graduated from Hillsdale in 1999, and I remember an especially heated debate with some of my best friends over the bombing of Kosovo. Have things changed so much in three years that kids aren't willing to argue anymore?
Really, I don't think that's the reason. Rather, I think kids at college have been beaten into submission by multiculturalism, sensitivity trainers, and the notion of lockstep acceptance of everyone else's beliefs, no matter how wacky, illogical, or just plain wrong. I know that if getting shouted down and being called a "fascist," "bigot," or other such liberal argument-enders was par for the course at my college, I probably wouldn't have been so eager to debate my fellow students.
The kicker here is that Hillsdale College, my alma mater, is a very conservative college. And, while the administration can get a bit prickly when challenged, the students absolutely love to argue, debate, and otherwise challenge others' views. They don't call names or scream obscenities; rather, Hillsdale students calmly debate each other. And supposedly, conservatives are the ones who are intolerant towards people different from them.
Again, that's just not the case. Conservatives seem to be less inclined to yell or baselessly accuse those with different views than liberals, and that's becuase we so value free speech. I, for one, love hearing about different points of view, but I also want to be free to take issue with them. I don't seek to hang out only with those who share my beliefs, nor do I endlessly harangue those who disagree. If people don't want to debate, I'll stop -- I don't push my beliefs down people's throats. That's more than I can say for liberals.
And I love being challenged. Bring it on.

I won't even get into why the Democrats are unsuited to blast the loss of personal freedom. Anyone who knows anything about "Newspeak" -- AKA the elimination of words that can be used to offend, criticize, or question anything -- will realize how hypocritical the Dems are being.
I think Democratic pet projects like making "hate speech" a crime or hyper-regulation of all the niggling aspects of life should concern us a little more than video cameras in DC or the sharing of our medical histories with employers.
Are these things a pain sometimes? Yes. Do they making us any less free than other government policies? Not really. Lest some forget, we are at war here, and while that doesn't really have anything to do with the medical history thing, it IS important to remember that terorrists try to blend in with the local populace, and therefore extraordinary measures are sometimes required to combat them. Even video cameras at national monuments are worth it, I think, and as someone on the news said, "No one has any expectation of privacy at the Lincoln Memorial."

It's pretty absurd that Democrats such as Ted Kennedy are up in arms about the so-called "potential privacy violations" posed by the rule changes in the sharing of medical information. I'll let Jonah Goldberg (see link below) explain why; he's better at it than I am. However, what's even more absurd is the person that NBC Nightly News profiled as a "victim" of such a privacy violation. Apparently this woman lost her job because the insurance company told her boss that a disease the woman had would cost the employer more than $4000 a month in medical costs.
Well, I guess she's a victim of some sort of discrimination -- the discrimination that's inherent in and frankly necessary to run a successful business. Is it really that outlandish to expect an employer to hire someone who won't cost him so much money? Moreover, how is that unfair. My view is that such prohibitive costs far exceed the "reasonable accomodations" companies are expected to make for handicapped ("handicapable," as they used to say at my middle school) under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Another excellent article by Jonah Goldberg, as well as an excellent point.

Does this headline from Reuters fill anyone else with a sense of the futility of the whole thing? I mean, how can the peace process be put back on track after two days in which two suicide bombings occured?
Israel seems to be holding up its end of the bargain, but the Palestinians have surprisingly opted not to. Like I said yesterday, it seems that Arafat is powerless to stop this -- although it's not clear that he wants to. But you'd think that he would, since putting a stop to the terror attacks is his only hope in maintaining what little credibility he has left.

A pretty amazing (but frightening)story today from Serge Schmemann in today's New York Times. Thank God he's OK. However, that's more than can be said for the so-called "truce."
Thanks to Rod Dreher for pointing this one out.

I really want to visit Israel.
No, really. I want to go there and see for myself how strong the Israeli people must be to live in conditions such as the current ones. I want to voice my support for Israel; I want to try to convince them that a young, up-and-coming group of conservatives, libertarians, and neocons (presumably) support them in their struggle. I want to show them the future of American conservatism, and the resolve which we can be counted on to muster against terror.
I think younger conservatives such as myself are seeing the futility in dealing with the PA. I hope that our voices will continue to be heard -- blogs are a great way to ensure that -- and the Israelis will understand that we're not planning on being wishy-washy in our support for them when it becomes our turn to lead the country. The day is coming sooner rather than later, I think.
I mean, even someone like Bush, who has in the past made pretty clear his resolve to support Israel, wavers in the face of the Arab world, the State Department (insanely pro-Palestinian!), and the more liberal elements of American society -- the element that says Israel is wrong to defend itself. Why does Bush waver, wobble, and otherwise backtrack? If he takes a tough stand on Israel, conservatives will support him, and New Republic-esque libs will too. It's win-win, and yet he places his Israel policies in the hands of Colin Powell, who never met a concession he didn't like. Powell apparently hasn't heard that once you start giving in to terrorists, you might as well give up the game, because that's when they've got you. They think, "Hmm. Violence got me what I wanted. What happens if I keep it up, and keep pushing?"
I think that's what happened when Arafat walked away from Camp David during the Clinton administration. He saw how much Barak and Clinton were willing to give him, and he thought he could get it all by walking away.
Hopefully, a line will be drawn.
"Across this line, YOU DO NOT...Also, Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please."
Ha. A little Lebowski to lighten the mood.

I guess this is what the Palestinian Authority means by a denounciation of the suicide attack that killed seven people:
"A Palestinian Authority spokesman denounced the Bus 823 attack. PA officials stated in a series of media interviews that such attacks harm Palestinian national interests because they furnish "extremist Israelis with a way to cover up their attacks against the Palestinian people (emphasis added -- ed.)." Officials also noted that the PA's efforts to bring an end to the IDF siege on Palestinian villages requires all Palestinians to "refrain from military acts against civilians in Israel." The PA leadership suggested that such attacks are liable to delay the implementation of a cease-fire agreement and of the Tenet and Mitchell plans."
And maybe the attacks should be denounced because they kill innocent civilians.
Really, I think what the PA meant to say is that the attacks harm Palestinian interests because no sane country likes to negotiate with or otherwise placate a group of muderous thugs. Oh well. At least the PA only blamed Israel once whilst they "denounced" the attacks. Progress is being made, I suppose. Still, the latest bombing proves, I think, just how willing the Palestinians are to follow through on the peace plans.
I'm not sure Arafat could stop the terrorists at this point even if he wanted to. The situation just keeps getting worse.

I know, we're waaaay overdue for a site overhaul here, but my design and HTML skills are lacking at best. Luckily for all you Heads Heads (ha!), my friend Brock has promised to help me jazz up the ol' site in a week or two. I'm gonna take him up on it, too.

Does anyone else out there think Subway shill Jared's new wife is kinda cute? Hey, me too -- a little too cute to be married to a dork like Jared. Sorry, man...I'm proud of you for losing all that weight, but you're still kind of goofy-looking.

If anyone out there in the world of academia -- be you professor or student -- reads this site, you should get in contact with Josh Mercer. Josh, a fellow Hillsdale alum, has answered Stanley Kurtz's call and set up a sort of "meeting place" blog for campus conservatives. True, it's designed for students who start conservative publications (even though it's gotta be discouraging to do so on many campuses), but I'm sure anyone who's into seeing academia trip over itself to bash America will enjoy it.

I'm currently locked in a fierce battle for washer/dryer rights here in my apartment building. In fact, I think I must be going up against M.C. Escher or something, because whoever I'm dueling with has a very unique perspective on washer/dryer usage. Or maybe there are more people trying to horn in on it, and I've rolled them all into one mighty, seemingly invincible foe. It's tough to tell.

That's all for now. Am quite tired, and I want to read a bit more of Sam Tanenhaus' biography of Whittaker Chambers before I sack out.
I've read it once before, but noticed it the other day (noticed, fell over, whatever) and picked it up again and now...can't...put...it...down!

The Hindustan Times also has a very interesting cricket section. Informative, quirky, confusing...everything you've come to love about cricket.

So I guess that settles it then. Bin Laden didn't do it.
Wait a minute...can I get a source on that? Oh, it was Osama Bin Laden's half-brother that said that.
Maybe I'm a little quick to debate this point, but I think we should still at least bring OBL in for questioning. We can hold him for 24 hours on some trumped-up traffic violation, all the while working him over with the ol' rubber hoses.
I know where we can get the hose...

If anyone is looking for a Web site that provides a decent amount of links to newspapers, both foreign and domestic, then check out World Net Daily's selection. The site links to a whole shmear of great sites -- a fun way to see how much the rest of the world dislikes the U.S.
But you know what? I guess being liked isn't as important (or shouldn't be, anyway) as being safe from random, muderous acts. Just my opinion.

For reasons on why Boston Public sucks so bad, please visit Television Without Pity. It's one of my favorite sites in the whole world.
This just in -- in a promo for next week's show, the announcer claims it's "the episode that sparked a national debate." That's right, it's the episode where the dreaded "n-word" was used.
Funny, I thought the show dealt with it because rational, educated people were already discussing it. You know, like in that one book, by that one smart guy -- the book they used on the show. Randall Kennedy must be getting a nice chunk of change for the publicity among the dim-witted Boston Public viewership. Which is OK, since I'm guessing that most people in BP's key demographic didn't happen to pick up The New Republic issue where it was reviewed -- or any other serious publication in which it was reviewed.
Jeez, this show has a high opinion of itself if it thinks that it was the show that got the ball rolling on the topic. I'm ashamed that I've spent any amount of time watching it.

And for cryin' out loud, a character just said "We can't be social workers. Just teach!"
And yet, next Monday, each teacher will have his or her own little project to solve in 50 minutes or less.
I will bet any reader a bright, shiny quarter that David E. Kelley and his writers will have forgotten that extremely insightful (and correct) admonition -- just teach, don't indoctrinate, meddle, or otherwise pester -- in about two minutes.

Man, is Boston Public the preachiest show ever or what? Well, maybe it's second, right behind The West Wing.
In truth, I think the show is sort of a soapbox for David E. Kelley's political beliefs. Activist teachers who horn in on every aspect of the kids' lives, a KGB-esque Social Services Department, and so forth.
I don't remember high school being so...surreal. I certainly don't remember kids having panic attacks from being pushed too hard by teachers or teachers being so damned concerned. Don't get me wrong -- I had pretty good teachers in high school. However, they weren't so nosy as they are this show.
I guess that's why it's a TV show, though. My high school experience probably wouldn't have made for good watchin'.

The local FOX channel just ran a spot for the news tonight -- and I quote:
"Do 'quick mops' really work? We put them to the test!"
Wow, that's hard-hitting, incisive local news. I almost forgot the primaries for the election were this week.
Call me a news snob if you must, but I'd think they could run some stuff about that.

Back after a brief hiatus...

Sorry I've been fairly sporadic in posting. It's St. Patrick's Day weekend here in Chi-town, and I have guests in from out of town. I'll be more regular soon.
Also, the NCAA Tournament is on, and I'm riveted.
Stupid Ohio State, losing to a 12th-seeded team!

Anyone want to lay odds on which side is the first to break the cease fire?
I suppose it's a fair-ish deal, in some sort of bizarro world. Just like this is a fair and balanced article.

"Zinni arrived during the bloodiest period yet in 18 months of fighting. In March alone, 192 people have been killed on the Palestinian side and 62 people on the Israeli side. March also saw the largest Israeli military operation since the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, with Israel deploying 20,000 troops in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in response to a string of Palestinian bombings and shootings.

And the death toll continued to rise. Witnesses and Palestinian security officials said Saturday that Israeli soldiers shot and killed a taxi driver driving through central Hebron in an area under curfew. The army said it was unaware of the incident.

In Gaza, a man shot when Israeli troops entered Jebalya Camp last week died of his wounds Saturday.

In Nablus, Palestinian militia executed two men convicted of collaborating with Israel. The two men had already been sentenced to death in a Palestinian security court, but escaped from prison a week ago after Israeli shelling. It was the third instance this week of militia killing collaborators."

Does anyone see anything strange in the above passage, as quoted from the MSNBC article?
Notice this implication: Israelis kill cab drivers and random refugees. Palestinians kill collaborators who are averse to their noble cause.
I also like how it doesn't mention the Israeli civilians that the Palestinians not only kill, but actually target.
The article also by noticing a fairly surprising turn of events. It seems that the EU has reaffirmed its support for a Palestinian state. I guess it was the nonstop terror bombings that finally convinced them that the Palestinian deserved a state.
It kind of reminds me of an Onion "Our Dumb Century" headline: "Hinckly, Foster to Wed: Foster 'Very Impressed' by Lone Nut's Attempted Assassination of President Reagan."

Another great article by my man Victor Davis Hanson.
VDH, I have some questions for you, too:
1) Can I call you Vic?
2) Where do you "profess?"
3) Can I go to grad school there?
and
5) Will you be my mentor?

And hey, while we're on the subject, what's the deal with The New Republic anyway? I thought this was supposed to be a liberal magazine, and yet they're right in line with me on most things. They support the war, they support Israel -- it's great!
I think I've mentioned before that conservatives seem to regard The New Republic as the architect of the New Deal, and therefore it should be condemned, castigated, or at best ignored. I disagree -- while that may or may not be true (and as far as I know it is), I think that's OK. I don't get all worked up about disparities between conservatives' and liberals' respective economic policies. I'm more of a libertarian about such things anyway, but that's all personal preference. I like how The New Republic seems to base itself in reality, whereas another liberal rag, The Nation, obviously doesn't. In fact, I propose that those two magazines never be mentioned in the same breath again. The Nation is downright embarassing now, but I have more respect for The New Republic as each day passes. Kudos!

Lawrence Kaplan has a great article in The New Republic about the Army's new-found morale and sense of purpose. He talks about how the Battle of Gardez (AKA Operation Anaconda) finally exorcised the "ghosts of Vietnam," a term which frankly makes no sense to me anyway.
Kaplan talks about the so-called "Powell Doctrine," in which ground forces' main priority is force protection. What an idea! Use the troops whose sole reason for existing is to get on the ground and move in a coordinated, strategic fashion to do act as a sort of rear-echelon guarding force.
I don't get why this mentality came from the Army; specifically, as Kaplan notes, from the post-Vietnam officer corps. In my estimation, it wasn't the Army that failed in Vietnam -- it was an obvious failure of policy. If the politicians -- and no party, neither Republicans or Demcrats is innocent here -- had let the Army do what it needed to do, Vietnam would have ended differently. There's little doubt in my mind of that. But instead the Army was handcuffed and hamstrung at every term, and were essentially limited by problems at home -- the politicians directed the Army based on the public's perception of the war. I doubt that this is what von Clausewitz had in mind when he noted the relationship between force and politics.
But now, it seems, the Army has a bit more faith in the tried-and-true science of ground troop-based combat. As Kaplan notes, the success at Gardez should indicate that ground troops get the job done. Bombing, using proxy armies, and that sort of thing work up to a certain point, but nothing works like ground forces. I've said it myself -- the only way, I think, to win a war is by use of an overwhelming ground force, followed by military occupation of the vanquished country. Trust me, it works.

The Israel situation seems all but hopeless. One should expect the U.N. to condemn their "illegal occupation" of Palestine, but President Bush? Not you too!
Why would, according to Bush, the U.S. help engineer the U.N. Security Coucil's resolution which calls for a Palestinian state?
It must be because Bush is trying to build his case for attacking Iraq. Because if Bush is simply bowing to world pressure for the U.S. to speak out against Israel, that would be bad, in my opinion. Why side with the U.N.? Honestly, what kind of weight should something from the U.N. carry at this point anyway? It's proven itself time and again to be fiercely anti-Israel, and it seems in order to curry favor with potential allies, the U.S is trying to distance itself from Israel.
Bush's once-unequivocal support for Israel is wavering like crazy lately. I don't see how any U.S. president, except maybe Clinton or Carter, would attach his support to such a resolution.
It's a shame, really. I've said it before -- Israel and the U.K. These are our allies. These are states that support us fully, and we should be willing to do the same for them. Our support of Israel is obviously more controversial than supporting the U.K., but that doesn't mean it should be any less solid.
It's dismaying how much our leaders waver in the face of world pressure. It seemed, after 9/11, that we were willing to do that which was in our best interest, for the first time in a long time. Now, it's fading -- and, like InstaPundit suggests, so might our confidence in the Bush Administration's policies.
And I'd hate that, because I love Bush -- I think he's a great, natural leader. I love his administration, and I'd hate like hell if it started to take things in the wrong direction.
Bush, from me to you: Your dad did things the wrong way. He was too much of a politician, and I thought (and still think, truthfully), that you were more than that. The old man, however, at least once said something right on -- "Stay the course." Now go out there and do it.

I've always enjoyed watching "Antiques Roadshow," and maybe for the wrong reasons: I get a chuckle when people bring in nice objects that the experts "oooh" and "ahhhh" over, only to turn the piece over and see where somebody made a ham-fisted attempt to, I don't know, add a drawer or fix a leg or something.
The expert doesn't really care, because maybe he likes what he's about to say as much as I do:
"If THIS weren't here, then it might be worth...I don't know, $60,000, $70,000. But with this, it's around $25."
Heh.
But "Antiques Roadshow," like so many other things in our culture, has gotten a bit softer, kinder, and more feel-good. They don't show too many things like that anymore. Now, except for only rarely, most folks walk away happily clutching their new treasure.
So what's a guy like me to do? Easy. Watch the British version!
And now, top five reasons why the British version is better than the American version:
5) The experts are more cheeky. They jibe, they cluck, and sometimes dodder on and on. Same goes for the old, tottering but still whip-smart attendees.
4) The stuff is older. No mystery why there. Also, the people are much older. And they never bring in mounted fish or something from the 1970's.
3) There are Scots on the British version. I'm waiting for fight, preferably containing a headbuttin' and kickin'.
2) There is some REALLY cool Great War and World War Two stuff on there, as well as some pretty interesting political artifacts from the 19th centtury, and the occasional royal treasure (you know, stuff from nobles, letters from the royalty, and so forth).
1) It's about half and half as far as disappoint versus jubilation. That is the least I can abide. I need to see the hangdog expressions as people walk away, cursing their decision to paint that damn chair.
Awesome! A commode disguised as a chest of drawers. Also known as a "thunderbox." Heh.

I was extremely moved -- as I'm sure most Americans were -- by CBS's "9/11" last night. I found myself in awe at the bravery of the firefighters and filmmakers, horrified by the sounds and images that were captured on film. It was indeed like a disaster movie, except we of course know it was all too real. For many who watched, including myself, it hit very close to home.

I lived in NYC for about six months -- I moved to Chicago in March of 2001 -- and could not help but feel pain for all those who were suffering just out of view of the Naudet brothers' cameras. I worked in 3 World Financial Center, which is directly across the walkway (which crossed the West Side Highway) from where the north tower once stood. I passed through the World Trade plaza every day of the six months that I was there. Hence, I reognized much of the footage that was shot within the tower. The escalators where the firemen were trapped when the south tower collapsed, the lobby of WTC 1, and so on -- it was all too familiar to me.

Being from Ohio originally, when I moved to New York I was in awe of the World Trade towers. I never grew tired of standing between the buildings while smoking a cigarette, watching the wind whip between them, picking up papers and swirling them around in what I liked to call "garbage tornados." It doesn't seem so clever of me now, of course -- the debris flying around on that terrible day made anything I ever saw there look like heaven.

The towers always seemed so invincible -- soaring above everything else around, even the fifty story building I worked in. I had a window facing east, so when I sat down the North Tower blocked out everything else. I miss that view, and I hate the fact that I'll never have that view again. It exists only in my memory, and in the memories of those who were there on 9/11, including many of the people I worked with.

I never went to the top of the towers; a bunch of us from work were going to go to Windows on the World one night, but it was inexplicably closed. I never again made the effort to go. I have some souveniers that I've kept in the wake of 9/11 -- nothing of any value, but they help me rememer how much I liked the entire WTC complex. An empty bottle of aspirin purchased at the Duane Reade in the mall, a bookmark (and accompanying books) from the Borders -- that's what I physically have to remember how many times I walked through those buildings. I remember what a kick I got out of the name of the soup kiosk -- "Hale and Hearty Soups" -- and the vaugue feeling of being ripped off every time I ate at the Sbarro's. Discussing being ripped off with friends -- friends who walked 18 miles that day to escape the collapse. Running through the lobby when I was late, jostling others trying to get to the N&R trains occasionally. Taking the outside escalator, the last leg of my walk to work before I walked through the now-missing walkway that led firefighters to safety.
Walking into the courtyard between the towers, squinting as I fumbled for my sunglasses, thinking that these buildings were amazing, strong, beautiful, and awe-inspiring. Pointing out to foreign tourists where the different trains were, or how to get to Broadway. Taking pictures when people asked me to (just like a real New Yorker might!), but never taking any for myself.

I never thought I needed to. I never thought they would someday be gone.

Gotta go to -- gasp -- church now. Be back to post in a while.

I'm simply amazed how the issue of our support for Israel -- that is, who we blame in the Middle East for the current violence, how to broker peace, and so forth -- doesn't seem to follow any party lines at all. I used to think it was strange that Republicans were such vociferous supporters of Israel, then I thought it odd that Democrats supported Palestinian statehood.
But it really should be across-the-board support in this country for Israel. Like I've said, liberal democracies should support each other, end of story. Anyone in this country who doesn't support Israel is a cursed bleeding heart -- like Juan Williams, who's blabbing on right now, accusing Sharon and Israel of murder.
"Unlike Palestinian attacks, Israeli reprisals are not primarily aimed at civilians." -- Brit Hume.
Right on, Brit!

Sunday morning and watching FoxNews. Trent Lott was just on, defending Bush's nominee for the Circuit Court of Appeals, Thomas Pickering. Now Senator John Edwards is on, bobbing and weaving while trying to explain why he's been such a jerk during Pickering's hearings in the Judiciary Committee.
Edwards blasted Pickering for being an advocate rather than an ajudicator. The details are a bit too convoluted to get into here -- and I'm not sure I fully understand them --but Edwards and his coterie of Senate Democrats on the committee seem like they're blasting this guy because they don't like him, simple as that.
And, they don't like him because he's conservative, white, and from the South. Edwards is still trying to point out Pickering's advocacy, but it seems to me that accusations of judicial advocacy is something like projection. That's what lefty judges do, and I think Edwards is calling on these things in order to bolster his case.
Oh wow! Edwards "places blame" for the situation in the Middle East "squarely on Arafat's shoulders." Maybe I was wrong about Edwards all along.

Well, it's Saturday night, 7 PM, so you all know what that means: that's right, time for COPS!
Have I said before that I love this show? Yeah, I think I have.
Watching COPS prompts a running dialogue to commence in my head -- the ol' high art v. low art debate. It's especially going tonight, since I'll have to cut my COPS viewing short tonight in order to go to the the-a-tah...
Yep, gotta go see a play tonight. I dunno...give me good movie or cockfight any day. Uhh...and by cockfight, I of course mean a night at the opera!
Wow, the cops just busted this guy's window. Kinda like that scene in The Usual Suspects, except I don't think they're going to kill him. They pulled this guy over in Des Moines, IA, for driving slowly through a residential part of town honking his horn and waving a cross. Then he took off, and of course, a chase ensued. They got him, though.
Luckily, the cops dedicated seven cruisers to said chase, instead of hunting down murderers and burglars. I'm not saying that public nuisances shouldn't be dealt with, but the cops surely could have opted not to turn it into a manhunt. As someone who's been pulled over quite a few times, cops sometimes seem like they're not doing much other than hassling people.
But, I suppose they have their jobs and they are laws to enforce. It's just that there are so many, you know?

Moore's been called out tonight. He's railing against an Eskimo woman WHO LIVES IN ALASKA about drilling ANWR for oil. Joh Schneider (late of Dukes of Hazzard fame) points out that she lives there, her people own the land, and Moore doesn't want her to develop her land. Simple as that. Moore doesn't want people to own anything. At least that's what it sounds like he's saying.
Basically, Bill Maher and Michael Moore are being exposed for what they are: "limousine liberals" who support a noble cause, such as preserving the environment, but they are unable to see how such policies hurt working people. These kind of people aren't able to see the forest for the trees. Bill Maher says "You lose your job because of logging regulations? Get another job!" Well, Bill, it's not always that easy. People do what they have to; if you live in an area that has lots of trees, it would make sense to sell it for profit, or work for a company that does just that. If you're sitting on land that houses a ton of oil, why shouldn't you be able to sell it?
Michael Moore is like a Communist -- he wants to achieve his political goals at any cost. Marxists in the Soviet Union wanted to create the perfect socialist society, but they knew not everyone would go along with giving up all that they had worked for. So what's the solution? Get rid of those people and take their stuff anyway. Moore wants to do the same thing via the legislation route. Take everything away from people who rightfully own it and place it in the public coffers for idealistic purposes.
That doesn't sit too well with me.

Michael Moore spews some idiocy tonight on "Politically Incorrect." He says, "The U.S. is the only country to put an adjective like 'popular' in front of 'vote.'" That's right, he's still insisting Bush is illegitimate. He wants to abolish the elctoral college; apparently he's unable to wrap his head around the idea that the electoral college keeps the smaller states in the game, so to speak.
The guy is clueless. Abso-freakin'-lutely clueless. I can't talk about it anymore. My head hurts.

The Guardian calls the Saudi prince's "solution" the last hope for peace in the Middle East. Somehow, I don't think Israel would agree. Sure, the Arabs like it, as do the Palestinans; I mean, what's not to like? Sure, Israel will still exist, but I'm sure the Arab world, using Palestine as its chess piece, will think of something.
The funny thing is that David Hirst actually acknowledges that it's not much of a plan at all -- "more of a vision," he calls it. What a deal for Israel! Give back the land you occupied to keep yourself safe after the 1967 War, and we'll stop trying to annihilate you as a nation -- for now, anyway.
The whole thing seems more like a threat than a plan. Didn't the Arab states attack Israel in 1967 in the first place? Wasn't that the third such war, in which most of the Arab world attacked what they perceived as a weak Israel because they hate the Jews as a people, and don't want them to have land that is as much theirs as anyone else's?
Yeah, that's the one. Face it -- the Arabic world will NEVER accept Israel as a legitmate nation that exists where it does geographically. Period. If Israel gives up now, it's over for them. When you start giving in to terrorists, that's an endgame.
Israel really does consistently show remarkable restraint against its muderous neighbors -- it's a proven fact that Israel has the stronger armed forces, and yet they, like the U.S., as a democracy take it upon themselves to limit unnecessary casualties, even though both nations' enemies murder civilians without a second thought.
I will never get the world's prejudice against the Jewish people and the idea of an Israeli state. I don't understand why the rest of world (most of which -- hell, even Switzerland now -- is in the U.N.) wants to take back what it gave Israel not 60 years ago. How short our memories are.
Hmmm...annihilate the Jewish race. Sounds vaguely familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Of course, you'd never hear it put that way in the respectable European press. They just want the killing to stop, right?
And the fact that Hirst calls the Saudi Crown Prince who came up with the plan a "strong, straightforward, and uncorrupted" leader. I didn't think there was any such thing in Saudi Arabia.
Honestly, when will the U.S. stop giving billions in aid to those countries that breed terrorists, try to kill us and our allies, and don't even have the decency to pretend to support us?
OK, I'll stop now.

Who says the U.K. press isn't shoulder-to-shoulder with the U.S. in the war on terror? More importantly, who says the U.K. press has something against Israel?
Actually, maybe someone should introduce the writers of the London Independent to the U.S. State Department. They might hit it off real nice...

Here's a beauty of an objective "news story" out of one of your friendly neighborhood Islamic Republics.
This item is catergorized as news in The Tehran Times. Seriously.
Oh well...luckily the Iranian Human Rights Commissioner and the Secretary General of Lebanese Hizbollah have finally gotten an audience with Mary Robinson, the UN's High Commissioner on Human Rights. That oughta be a productive meeting.
"Sir, there seems to be a 17-year gap in your records. I don't show ANY human rights issues in that time. Oh, wait. That's how long it's been since we questioned a country other than the US on human rights abuses."

A nice little bit of anti-Americanism (and the usual European anti-Semitism) from some yahoo named Robert Fisk. It appears in ArabNews, a Saudi Arabian English-language daily. No doubt this paper exhibits the objective, rational journalism that the rest of the world is known for -- a style we Americans, in our simplistic fashion, have a tough time with.

Andrew Sullivan expresses concern that Katrina vanden Heuvel is able to boast that subscriptions to her magazine, The Nation, have skyrocketed to a robust 112,000 since September 11, up from 95,000 in 2000. Sullivan worries about what this fact says about the emergence of an anti-war left. However, I think James Taranto knows the real reason:
"Or maybe they don't even like the anti-American garbage but just want to read Christopher Hitchens."
I don't know about anyone else, but that's the only reason I read The Nation.
Do yourselves a favor and don't click on that link to The Nation. I only included it in the interests of fair and unbiased reporting.

You know, something just struck me: was Larry King the first blogger ever?
Seems eerily familiar...Of course, if he was, he was bloggin' before it became bloggin'.
Blog what I blog? Blog.

Bit of an error in one of yesterday's posts; it seems the Colin Powell was testifying in front of a House subcommittee. I mistakenly reported that he was speaking before the Senate. Shut up.

I wonder -- does the UN place its humanitarian projects near buildings what could possibly be considered military-type targets on purpose? Is it raging idiocy or something done to make the Israelis look bad?
Seriously, putting a school for the blind near a known supporter of terror (Arafat, I'm looking in your direction) -- that's not too smart. As Bart Simpson once said, "Well, there's bound to be some splashback."

HA! The Best of the Web strikes again! But, sadly, it could have been ME who broke this one. Damn that day job!
Anyhoo, James Taranto reports on a curious tale of the U.S deporting some suspected Israeli spies who were posing as students. Art students. Who go door-to-door selling artwork. Seems they were, according to the AP, going door-to-door with the more insidious motive of gaining access to sensitive government buildings and homes of high-level government workers.
There is just one hole in theory, as I see it. You see, about six months ago, some of these purported spies came to my parents' house. The guys sold my parents on the artwork, and both parties went away happy.
The students were raising money for their education, they said.
I probably should say that my parents are not high-level government hacks -- they don't even live in Washington DC. I suppose there are a few 'State Secrets' in Toledo, Ohio, but I'm guessing not too many.
If only I had known there were spies afoot, I could have stopped those cursed Israeli art students (a bunch known for their straight-up, conservative attitudes the world over -- they always love helping their governments!) from finding out where my parents have postioned their couch!

If you really want the straight dope (sorry, Cecil Adams) on what the Arabs think about Israel and the U.S. -- even those Saudis who just want peace in the Middle East -- check out The Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web daily feature. James Taranto doesn't pull any punches and actually reports what the Arab press and leaders are really saying.

And The West Wing unleashes this gem:
Some woman: "If women were the only voters, the Democrates would win every time. If men were, then the GOP would be the left-wing party."
Is that a fact?
Well, what I typed above isn't totally in sync with what I heard. It went a little something like this:
Some woman: "Women are kind, caring individuals. They always do what is right. And what is right politically is voting for Democrats, because they, too, are compassionate and achingly sincere. Even the man who headed it as President and chief voice box for eight years -- Bill Clinton, the guy who treated an unending stream of women like glory holes with legs. Men, except for those who are Democrats, are reactionary bastards who want to kill everyone and step on those who are different in any way."
Well, like I said, that's just what I heard.

Man, that new David Fincher movie, Panic Room, looks good.
I believe my position has been pretty clear on The Finch. He's great. Possibly the best director to come from the music video scene. Spike Jonze is great too, but he's only directed one movie. We'll have to wait and see on that one.
If anyone's got any other candidates for this honor, please let me know.

Give That Man a Muzzle:
The AP reports that Colin Powell has made some, um, contentious remarks to the Senate about Israel.
"Speaking to" Ariel Sharon (which must have been tricky, since he was nowhere around), Powell said:
"If you declare war against the Palestinians and think you can solve the problem by seeing how many Palestinians can be killed — I don't know if that leads you anywhere,"
Yeah, Mr. Secretary -- I think that's Sharon's main objective. I'm sure it has nothing to do with stemming the ever rising tide of Palestinian suicide bombers, nor defending that proper borders of the the nation he was elected to preside over.
Powell is starting to sound like he's getting his cues from Arafat and the Saudis as opposed to the Bush Administration. I guess no one should be surprised at his anti-Israel rhetoric. As The New Republic is fond of pointing out, the State Department has an unabashedly pro-Palestinian bent. Has for a long time.
Powell's heart apparently went out to the Palestinians, who he claims live in constant fear of attack by the Israelis. Well, maybe if they wouldn't target civilians in shopping malls and sidewalk eateries, the Israelis wouldn't HAVE to exact reprisals.
Look, here's the thing: Israel has been under constant assault throughout its 50-year history -- from every hostile Arab nation that surrounds it. And it's been under verbal assault from the majority of the rest of the world -- Europe and the UN, mostly. In fact, the UN has become little short of a "gang up on Israel" body. Should the U.S., Israel's sole ally in the world, really be sending such mixed signals regarding its support?
Mr. Powell, please, for the love of republican democracy, pipe down. The U.S. should defend the rights of our allies specifically and the rights of democracies -- especially liberal, secular democracies like ours -- generally.

National Review's editor, Rich Lowry, is like the Jack Kerouac of the hawk set, I swear. If Kerouac laid the groundwork for the 60's countercultural revolution (which I think he did, in a sense -- he popularized it. Sure, Ginsburg may have been its soul, and Cassady was its...oh, never mind.), then Lowry did the same thing for young conservatives. He made it OK to be young AND conservative again! He did back in the 90's, anyway.
Anyhoo, another excellent article on the current battle. I, however, would have titled the article "In On the Kill Taker." A little shout-out to Fugazi, you know? Though I'm doubting that the members of the aforementioned DC-based punk band are staunch supporters of the war, it would still be kind of funny.

The New York Times had an interesting headline today (link requires registration). It says, "U.S. Forces Take Dominant Position in Cave Battle."
Really? Is that different because it's usually the French leading an international coalition of troops into hostile territory?
There is an implication therein which does signal a slight shift, though -- the article says there are now roughly 1000 U.S. troops engaged in the battle. That's a decent sized force, at least when compared with what we've seen so far.
In my estimation -- which is hardly expert, I'll be the first to admit -- the notion that it takes overwhelmingly superior force to win battles (and therefore wars) seems to be coming back into favor. I still say the only way to TRULY win a war is a mighty push with ground troops, ending in occupation. Period. I mean, look how the Gulf War ended after such a rout by the U.S. -- nothing was solved except for the liberation of Kuwait. The reason, besides obvious policy flaws, is that there was no occupation and no attempt to affect a change in Iraq's leadership -- the very thing that caused all the proelms in the first place. Quick fixes don't usually make much a difference in a war.

I know, I know...I didn't post anything last night, even though I assured my legions of readers (disciples? comrades? what?) that I would primarily post on nights and weekends. Go ahead, say it. I'm a liar, and my clothes are hopelessly out of style.
The reason why I didn't post last night is beacuase I saw the three unwatched videocassettes sitting on my couch and -- well, I panicked. They're all due tomorrow, so I needed to get some watching in. Slack-jawed, uninterrupted-by-thought movie-watchin'. What a hoot.

I'm sure that, as the Voice insists, the only reason these terror alerts are issued is to keep Bush looking good. That's gotta be it. It couldn't be that he doesn't what something like 9/11 (remember that, Noam?) to happen again.
Even if there is some selfishness in there -- Bush doesn't want American killed on his watch, we as Americans don't want to be killed, and so forth -- who cares? Isn't the main, number one job of an elected government to keep its citizens safe? It's called the Social Contract, and folks smarter than Noamy-boy have been saying it for a long time. And I'd be hard-pressed to disagree.
The government must keep us safe. I can do most of the government's other jobs myself -- spend my money, regulate my life -- but I can't fight wars on my own. So I'm choosing to stay in on this particular social contract. You don't like it, Noam, you can vote with your feet. Please.

When The Village Voice quotes Noam Chomsky, it's like a Rosetta Stone for a conservative writer. It's the key to understnding how hysterical liberals are.
Speaking in regards to the FBI's issuance of "terror alerts", Chomsky unleashes this bit of delusion:
"It's second nature for any system of power to try and inspire fear," Noam Chomsky, the noted linguist and author of 9-11, tells the Voice. "Bush's managers realize they only have one card to play. Would you direct him to focus the attention of the population on tax cuts or other gifts for the rich? Or on the Enron scandal, or the deliberate destruction of a decent environment for our grandchildren? Or would it be preferable to construct the image of a noble hero driving evil from the world while the population huddles in fear of monsters from whom our dauntless savior will rescue us? No choice."
Oh, man. He just doesn't get it, does he?
There are other beauties in the in the Voice article, but for my money, that's the best/worst.

Do Shut up.
Reading an article in The Telegraph (thanks to Andrew Stuttaford for pointing it out in NRO's The Corner), I noticed this pearl of anti-Americanism:
"In the current issue, one columnist offers his New Statesman earnings to anyone who will kill President Bush though, given the notorious stinginess of the magazine's payments, that is unlikely to prove a tempting offer."
Buh? Is that all the Telegraph has to say about that vile piece of inflammatory language. I hope some major news outlet picks this up and expresses some outrage.
I like, however, the fact that the Telegraph points out that some British journalists who question the knee-jerk anti-Americanism are getting silenced. Shows some of them still have a brain, and are trying to say the right things.
Oh well -- f**k 'em. We've got Hitch and Sully (and Blair, I guess) on our side. Who else do we need from over there?

Koppel Makes Impassioned Plea in Support of Self --
Kinda sounds like an Onion headline, doesn't it? But it's not -- he really has an op-ed (link requires registration) in today's New York Times, essentialy insisting he's still very relevant.
Well, that's the point to which he finally gets after giving us his resume. OK, Ted, we know you've had a good career in journalism, ut that isn't really the point, is it? In today's youth-driven marketing culture, is it any surprise that Nightline lags considerably behind the other latenight shows? News flash, Ted -- Leno and Letterman are funny, and you are not.
Anyway, it's not like AC needs another news show jsut lying there on the schedule. In fact, I don't think there's room for the news shows that saturate television already. I mean, MSNBC, FoxNews, CNN, CNN Headline News, the "news magazine" shows like 20/20 and Dateline (on sooooo many nights a week! Augh!) -- where does it all end? Slap the nightly national news and endless local news on top of that, and WE'RE DYING HERE! TOO MUCH NEWS!
There's so much, in fact, that the news magazines and local news are really scraping the bottom of the barrel for "stories" these days. I live in Chicago, and one week the featured stories (you know, the "What is To Be Done"-type stories) were as follows: ATM Safety, Chicago's Porn Connection, and Cell Phone Courtesy. Come on. There's obviously a lack of hard news out there, and the crap that people are using to replace it is lame at best.
That being said, I gotta be fair to old Ted and Nightline in general -- it's pretty decent, hard network news, for whatever THAT'S worth. But it's a) in a bad time slot; and b) overkill. Most people are saturated, and that's why networks (both local and national) are running softball, lame stories.
I'm a news junkie. Most of my fellow bloggers are too. But the vast population isn't, I don't think. And while the great unwashed might not fully understand why they think Letterman is funny, they definitely know he's funnier than Ted Koppel.
But what is, then, to be done (much thanks to Lenin for that phrase)? I say, ABC, why not let Ted in on a another program, or give him one on a cable channel or something. He's a decent journalist (if a bit lefty, but hey, big surprise), and his experience demands some decent treatment. Wait, doesn't he host something else anyway?
"Tonight, on Wings. Ah, who cares?"

Mean old Mr. Kandursky is really up in my grill today -- something about "wasting company time and resources."
Well, Mr. O'Malley, I guess that's where you and I differ. I see consolidating the office's rubber bands into a giant ball as an EXCELLENT use of company time. And the resources part? I'm not wasting them. I'm trying to make them easier to find!. See if you can miss a 500-pound rubber band ball that sits in the corner! When you need one, it'll be there, Mr. Tondanska. You withered old specimen. You're just jealous of my youthful vigor and ingenuity.

Whew. I'm bushed. It's tough being right -- politically, that is. Heh.
That being said, I would welcome the opportunity to get back into a newsroom. It's fun being the odd man out. And really, the press needs to diversify a bit. Isn't diversity supposed to be great, anyway? Come on, get some real firebrands in there -- look how much everybody loves that "right vs. left" stuff. I'm ready -- who wants me?

Andrew Sullivan's article on the panic-stricken Democrats is priceless. They really are reaching for just about anything they can, and it's not working too well. Sullivan's right (like he usually is about such things), and anyone who saw a shifty and desperate Tom Daschle bob and weave his way throgh the Sunday news shows can vouch for that.
It almost fits right in with Jonah Goldberg's G-File today. He goes after a Washinton Monthly article that says conservative pundits are more aggressive than their liberal counterparts. Goldberg agrees -- sort of. He says it seems that way because conservative pundits are always labeled as such, while liberals are just called journalists or something similarly generic. The reason, as Goldberg shows, is simply due to the fact that there aren't very many conservatives in your basic newsroom -- they tend to hang around the conservative press rather than in those places.
Boy, do I know that firsthand. I worked for BridgeNews, a financial news service, in NYC beginning in October 2000 -- remember what happened soon thereafter. A little imbroglio known as Election 2000 was going on, and I felt like the proverbial turd in the punch bowl, what with being surrounded by liberals and all.
It was rough. Whenever things would go Gore's way, a mighty cheer would rumble through the newsroom, kind of like the way Sebastian Junger describes feeling bomb concussions in this month's Vanity Fair. Well, it felt like that in retrospect, anyway. If something good happened for Bush, all I could do was make a few smug remarks to the people near my workstation.
I probably should have spoken up, but I was new, from out of town, and slightly afraid of getting shouted down. Hey, it happened occasionally anyway. It was worth taking one for the team, though, when things ultimately went the way of the good and virtuous.
The thing was, for some reason I was amazed at how low Gore was willing to sink in order to avoid losing that election. I shouldn't have been -- I lived through eight years of Clinton. Anyway, is it any wonder that conservatives are sometimes aggressive? The Dems are can be vicious, they'll say anything if they think it will work politically, and most importantly, they have the full, unquestioning support of the media -- the very people who convey events to mst people in this country.
Damn right we're loud. We're not going to be shouted down just because the mainstream press gives lip service to liberals.
Hey, I'm all for journalists being objective. I'm just not for journalists who happen to be conservative always being called that, while no one ever calls out liberal journalists in a similar way. Furthermore, I don't buy the fact that Republicans are more willing to exploit political situations. Republicans are just trying to be heard over the din. The Dems and the media tried like crazy to pin Enron on Bush -- in fact, some libs stil haven't let the 2000 Election go. They'll say "Bush isn't legitimate" or some such nonsense. They'll call him stupid, and even some of the mainstream press' praise of Bush is pretty backhanded. They'll do anything they can think of to trip him -- they want that House. And Sullivan does a great job of drawing attention to it. I just hope the public will notice it too.

Heh. No better way to get some traffic on the 'ol Web site than to muddle through the names of some Simpsons episodes. I know where to find them, I'm just too lazy. Take that, fellow nerds!

The Simpsons is running the "George Bush moves to Springfield" episode tonght; a minor classic. Not as good as, say "Last Exit to Springfield" (aka Union Boss Homer) or the one where Homer becomes a missionary. Nor the one with the Movementarians. "Lemon of Troy," or the one where they go to Australia? This one isn't nearly as good. But hey, I'll take it.
"When I was a pup, Grover Cleveland spanked me on two non-consecutive occasions."
Haw!

My computer went a little freaky-deeky on me, but I think everything's OK now. Appy Polly Loggies.
I suppose I should be grateful; my laptop's had a nasty, brutish, and short life, and it's been pretty pleasant the whole time. I can even get a Tab from it when I want to. Kudos to the good people at Fujitsu!
It is absolutely freezing in my apartment right now! It's colder than it's been all winter here in Chicago, and the radiator is only now getting warm. What is this, the Stalin-era Soviet Union? I suspected something was up when I had to stand in line at the market for two hours to get half-kilo of day-old meat, a limp head of cabbage, and a loaf of coarse dark bread. Then my neighbors disappeared. Now this.
You know, as long as we're on the subject, I collect Communist propaganda. There, I said it. Now I know this fact may anger some people with whom I identify with politically -- National Review (sorry, don't have the exact link) ran an article last week decrying some Russian fashion designer's use of some Soviet symbolism, etc. I agree with them, though -- Communism bad. Capitalism good. Stalin evil, kill many.
However, I don't think it's bad to try to preserve some of that stuff, because then you're constantly reminded of the power of symbolism, as well as what a dark era that was. And I personally collect it because it reminds me of the late professor that taught me about it. He was as anti-Communist it gets, having had suffered under its bootheel, but when he taught it, he tried to convince me of its merits before he destroyed it theoretically from its base. That way, the students got to see its allure -- how insidious and seductive such a vile creed can appear to the young and idealistic. His methods certainly helped me steer clear of its trappings, some of which ARE attractive. Who doesn't strive for equality? Who doesn't want everyone to have enough?
The rub, of course, is that forced equality is just as bad as the basest tyranny. Is there a more terrifying notion than the Rousseauian ideal of being "forced to be free"? That's radical egalitarianism. Fall a bit further, and you have socialism, which is just rest stop away from Marxism, and then bam! You have to slaughter some 30 million of your citizens because won't cheerfully go along with the plan.
Well, I guess since it's really warming up now, I can stop going on about the horrors of collectivism. Yay capitalism!

Check out Victor Davis Hanson's article on NRO today. It examines why, oftentimes, battles are not won by the side that enjoys the most obvious advantages -- numbers, home terrain, and so on. Rather, he suggests morale, discipline, and a soldier's knowledge of his own equipment are far more decisive in warfare.
VDH (as I like to call him -- we're bros. Right on, VDH! VDH? It's me, Blue! Ah, he must not have recognized me.) is a great historian. From what I understand he was originally trained in the classics, but I guess you can't study Greece and Rome without learning something about how armies fight wars, take territory, and succeed in empire-building. Anyway, he's parlayed his knowledge of the ancient world into a precise understanding of the nature of our present conflict. And he's almost always right on.
Gah! Mr. Buckleman! Of course I'm working on those reports!

Now that Old Man Thompson isn't breathing down my neck anymore, here are some things I found interesting today thus far:
1) The excellent Glenn Reynolds (you may know him as The InstaPundit), apparently heard the same thing I did this morning -- or maybe he read it, I don't know. Anyway, I heard on NPR that in the ongoing assault against al-Qaeda forces contains elements from the Australian, Canadian, French, German, Danish, and Norwegian troops.
Huh? Norwegian? Granted, they put up a helluva fight against Hitler until that bastage Quisling sold 'em down the river. But I just don't automatically think of Norway as being a participant in Central Asian campaigns. They were, however, once a formidable military power, along with Sweden and Lithuania. About 600 years ago, but formidable nonetheless. Fierce, even.
2) Kinda scary that the Germans are getting a taste for non-German blood, don't you think? Oh, great, that's just what the world needs -- a Germany that remembers how much it likes to fight wars.
3) I got no beef with the Canadians and the Aussies. Solid, solid fighters. The Danes? Ehh. Can't think of their their greatest hits, so to speak. The French? Way too easy to slag on them, so I'll let readers come up with their own, more apropos mental images and captions.
4) And Reynolds makes an excellent point -- I wonder what the numbers are? I mean, the force is mostly French, right? Right?
I'll have more in a while. Mr. Hackman, my jerk of a boss, just stared at me really evilly, so I'l post again after I beat him into submission.

Well, here it is during business hours, and like I warned the posts are few and far between. But I'm on lunch now -- this is my time, Mr. Vickersman, not yours! Just because I choose to sit at my desk and eat doesn't mean you can pelt me with work duties on my lunch hour!
Geez, my boss will never learn. You can't clip my wings, Mr. Torres -- I'll fly as close to the sun as I want!

Remember, posts during regular business hours may be somewhat scant. I have a day job, and I won't be able to get to the bloggin' very much. If something really torks me off though (or gets me thinking -- I can be postively influenced occasionally), you can bet I'll post something.
You see, if I still had a writing job, I could post all day. Hint hint, publishers, editors, and such -- I'll work for embarassingly low wages, you don't have to respect me, and you can take all the credit. You need a freelancer to go get in trouble somewhere overseas? Somewhere no sane person would go? That's me! You need someone to slump in a chair and watch wires all day? Hey, I did that! Hell, I'll do anything, as long as it involves writing. Keep me in mind, everyone -- you know where to find me.

OK, just one more post, and then it's bedways...
Watching an old episode of the X-Files -- you know, the one that FOX usually shows late Sunday night? It's a good one, where the kid has the stigmata, and he's protected by that weird looking actor who was in The Hills Have Eyes. The guy looks like Peter Garrett from Midnight Oil, if Big Pete were flung down a flight of concrete stairs as a young child. Call me shallow if you must, but I'd be afraid of that guy at first glance. Of course, once I got to know him, I'm sure it would be a real bonding-fest.
Anyway, remember that episode? Remember how good the X-Files used to be? It's on its way out now, of course, but back in the day it was more of an event than a television show. I used to lock my doors and screen my calls on Sunday nights during college. I started to lose interest soon after graduating, partly because (OK, I'm really ashamed of this) it showed opposite Jack and Jill. OK, start mocking me.
All right, you can stop now.
I think it's because I liked Amanda Peet a lot, but also because my best friend and I (who are easily amused) used to repeat ad nauseum during the show, "You see, the GIRL'S name is Jack, and the GUY'S name is Jill! Get it? Get it?"
And so forth...like I said, we're easily amused.

I wish I could think of something witty and engaging to write tonight, but I'm just too beat. I'll leave you with this thought:
"You gotta go down, Bohdi. People trusted you and they died!"

OK, I just had a really bitchin' screed written up about NPR, but I couldn't post it because my damn operation timed out. Sonofa! I'll get back to it later, but right now I'm weeping bitter tears of rage and despair -- I'll never be able to recreate it! Never! (You have to picture me banging my head on the keyboard a la that composer from Sesame Street -- you know, "A-B-C-...A-B-C...oh, I'll never get! Never!")
Also, thanks to Brittany for the heads up on the links thing. I'll get to that too. I have watch Point Break now, though.
I can't believe it -- someone actually read this site! And I don't even know her! I mean, I emailed my sisters and begged them to read the site, but wow -- someone actually came across the site and read it. Brittany, I may have to give you a prize. Do you like vinyl (records, that is)? If so, write back...I'm sure I've got something you want.

You know, I'm sure everyone knows that The Onion is possibly the funniest Web site out there. But I wonder if everyone knows how spot-on their AV Club is as well. It's really the only source for movie reviews I trust anymore, and I've given all the regulars a real chance -- Salon, The Chicago Reader, The Village Voice, and so forth. But the guys from the AV Club seem to be the only movie reviewers who have a sliding viewpoint -- they can watch a dumb but entertaining movie, and LIKE IT FOR WHAT IT IS. I mean, they don't feel the need to hold everything to a high art standard, even though those are the flicks they primarily like.
I mean, I love art-house movies. I LOVE THEM. But I also am able to appreciate an entertaining but low-brow movie for its entertainment factor. Case in point, of course, is Point Break.
It's a fine line, I guess, but one that I think needs to be drawn. Hollywood should be called out for movies like Pearl Harbor -- big, overblown blockbusters that have few, if any, redeeming qualities (I regret to say I saw that it. I feel sick about it). But how could you not like a movie like X-Men, even though it wasn't necessarily a thinker or even very complex? I think if one really likes films, you have to develop almost a dual set of standards -- hold things accountable up to the level they're going for. Rank 2 Days in the Valley low, becuase it tried unsuccessfully to rise to the level of Pulp Fiction. Similarly, rank your Tony Scott-directed action flicks high, because they surpass the level for which he seems to be shooting (Crimson Tide? Great. A brainy flick? No, not really, but does that fact make it any less great or entertaining?).
Also, while I'm on my soapbox. if you don't live in a town where The Onion gets distributed for free, I recommend you get a subscription -- the features that aren't available online are excellent too. Its "picks of the week" section are vital reading.

I also really enjoy Flak Magazine. Good music reviews, funny features, and a running thing where Sean Weitner discusses what happened on the latest episode of 24. All hail Keifer!

So, since I don't really know how to set up a permanent links column, I guess I can lay some down for you in a post. I'll figure it out, though -- I'm determined.
Here are a few favorites:
National Review, The Onion, Andrew Sullivan's blog, The New Republic, Instapundit, Television Without Pity, and FameTracker.
I'll throw more on the site as I think of them.

See, I can learn pretty quickly -- just figured out how to do that headline thing. But it's so damn big...
Got a little story I need to tell. So I go into the video store tesrerday, and a new woman is working. I do my customary "5 general releases/5 days/$5" thing, and I proceed to the checkout. She looks up my account, and says, "Seems like you've rented Point Break before." Well, duh. Of course I have -- it's the best bad movie ever!
But what the hell? Is it her job to point out my renting habits? I know what I rent! Or is she trying to make me feel dumb for liking Point Break? Lemme tell ya, it's not going to work -- NO ONE can make me feel like a dummy for liking Point Break. The movie is hilarious, especially Gary Busey as Angelo Pappas.
"Utah! Gimme two!"

I Need Help!

I wanna do something like Glenn Reynolds does on his brilliant blog Instapundit, but my HTML skills are pretty nonexistent. If anyone can give me tips about how to add links, favorites, etc., I'd appreciate it.

Just a note -- I don't really think Daschle is a conspiracy theorist. He just sounds a bit shrill about not getting what he thinks is his due of control over the war. Well, that's checks and balances for ya. The Prez is the Commander in Chief. You guys control the purse, as well as approve treaties and so forth. You've got your role in foreign policy -- be content with it. If you REALLY don't like the course of the war, yank the bucks. Kiss your reelection goodbye (not like such a bill would get passed anyway), but at least you'd exert some "much-needed" control.

Uh-oh. Senator Daschle's been reading William Cooper's Web site. He's hinting at a conspiracy that extends far behind the so-called "shadow government." He can't believe that nobody in Congress knows what this "secret government" is doing -- I'm guessing it's made up of the global elites who run the world, including the press, and secretly pull the strings. CFR, Bilderberg, and so forth.
Daschle can't wait to leave so he can put on his foil helmet -- gotta block those mid-reading rays.

Dateline -- FoxNews.
Chapter the First, in which Sen. Daschle mules and whines about not knowing as much about the War on Terror as he thinks he should. Come on, Daschle! War calls for some major secrecy -- just look at the well-known Roosevelt/Truman gap in communication at the end of World War Two.
I mean, the executive branch (designed to act quickly -- see below) needs to keep some cards close to the old vest -- the more people know about potentially sensitive subjects, the more enemies will be likely to find out. It seems that Daschle is mostly upset about being cut out of the loop here. He keeps insisting that he doesn't know enough -- "I'd go to my office after this interview, but frankly, President Bush hasn't told me where it is. It's partisanship at its very worst."
Face it, Daschle. Especially in a situation like the one in which we're embroiled now, some plans, contingencies, and future targets are going to be kept secret. The press can't keep their mouths shut, the Congress can't keep quiet, so the nexecutive branch is doing what it needs to keep these plans safe and therefore effective.

Listening to NPR Weekend Edition this morning, and heard an hilarious interview with Neil Pollack, one of Dave Eggers' cronies from McSweeney's. The guy is funny, no doubt -- gearing up for the release of the paperback version of The Neil Pollack Anthology of American Literature, NPR ran a bit where Pollack was riffing on Garrison Keillor. I laughed out loud when Pollack referred "Sven Svenquist and Lars Larquist."
I just might have to pick that book up. Comes out on Tuesday, the soothing voice on NPR informs me.
Quick question: does one have to be a liberal to be an accepted satirist? Otherwise, I'll bet outlets like NPR would accuse you of being mean and bigoted, and generally ignore you. They wouldn't touch a conservative or libertarian satirist with a 10-foot boom mic. I'm just wondering.

Christopher Buckley's piece on President Bush in the new Vanity Fair is a bit brief, but insightful nonetheless. Here's one thing that got me thinking:
"[Bush's] predecessor was a brighter intellect, perhaps one of the brightest ever to inhabit the White House. He would have happily stayed up for an all-night bull session debating the nature of evil, quoting Schopenhauer and Neibuhr until the birds started chirping. Is such complexity of mind an asset or a liability in a commander in chief."
To answer Buckley's question, I think it's a liability. However, I'm not convinced that Buckley addresses Bill Clinton's trait that would have been the main liability in our current situation -- his almost perverse, all-consuming drive to cover that 'vital center.' Christopher Hitchens looks at this in his book No One Left to Lie To. To paraphrase Hitchens, Clinton practiced "triangulation" to an absurd degree -- he was always seeking to alienate his opponents and pander just enough to enough different demographics to win the necessary support. Now, that's politics -- fine for an election or for getting part of one's agenda passed, but a war is something completely different, and requires a different set of skills.
The executive branch of our government is designed to act quickly and decisively (props to Prefessor Craig). let the Congress deliberate -- that's their job. The President's job is to act quickly when it's necessary, like when our contry is under attack, especially when it's such a new and baffling kind of attack. Clinton would have felt the nation's pain all right, but he also would have tried to feel the terrorists' pain. We don't need that right now.
What we needed was what Bush gave us. Reassurance coupled with resolve and reaction. Clinton's advisers were all theorists -- they would have deliberated for far too long, probably for such a long time that any action later taken would have been almost worthless (missile strikes on asprin factories, I'm looking in your direction). Bush's advisers are tough old birds, real take-charge politicians. I mean, look at their photos (done nicely by Annie Leibovitz ). I don't know about you, but just those faces give me a whole lot more reassurance than any amount of lip-biting and pain-feeling could ever have. I know what kind of action those faces are capable of.

Stuck in the middle of Outkast's performance on SNL. I'm not a huge hip-hop fan (though Paul's Boutique by the Beastie Boys is a favorite), but this seems interesting. Not your standard stuff. That's what I'd heard about Outkast, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

By the way, if you're reading this, and I piss you off, or you want to give me a hale and hearty "right on!", you can email me. Try bderkin16@hotmail.com. I'd link to it, but I'm not sure how. Chances are good it won't be too tough for me to address your concerns on the site. I'm not exactly swamped at this point. Come on, email me -- I dare ya!

I gotta give Matthew Hoffman a big "right on" for his article on John Walker Lindh in The New Republic. He suggests that the U.S. strip Lindh of his citizenship and hand him back to Karzi's government. I think that's brilliant. He wants to support a lawless, brutal Central Asian state by fighting for their way of life? Fine -- off you go, sonny. Don't forget to tip your executioner so he makes a clean cut, and doesn't hack at your neck like a soup bone. He's getting a far better break here than he ever would over there. Come on, John -- those are the ideals you were championing. Why don't you submit to their enlightened vision of justice? Just sayin'.
By the way, The New Republic is a great magazine. I haven't been reading it for too terribly long -- only about a year or so, but I'm hooked. It's weird, because I'm not a liberal -- more of a libertarian than anything else. I voted for Bush. I mean, I went to Hillsdale. I knew of the magazine as this rag that spawned the ideals of the New Deal -- the scourge of modern conservative thought. But it wasn't like that at all! I would have to say it's among the most non-partisan political weeklies/semiweeklies out there. It doesn't toe any party line, as evidenced by its total support of Israel and its support of the War on Terror and Bush's direction in general. Huzzah to you guys!

Maybe a bit about myself is in order. I mean, why would you want to read my semi-choherent observations if you don't know something about me?
Why don't I start?
My name is Blue, and I'm a freelance writer. I WAS a writer with a full-time gig, but I lost that in September of 2001 because Reuters bought BridgeNews, the company I worked for. It was too bad -- I really dug that job. Taught me a lot about the intriguing world of finance, which I knew very little about.
I studied history at Hillsdale College (MI), and graduated with a BA in history with minors in English and political science. See what I mean about knowing a little about a lot of different stuff?
I've also been interested in music for long time (read: I'm really opinionated about it). My top three favorite bands are, in chronological order: the Beatles, the Smiths/Morrissey, and Sunny Day Real Estate. I like a lot of other stuff, but I don't think I could round that list into five or more...there are too many contenders.
Movies are great, too. Who doesn't like movies? Communists, that's who. Since I'm not a Communist, I like movies. Some of my recent (past five years or so) favorites are Fight Club, The Big Lebowski, American Psycho, Pi, Run Lola Run, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, The Last Days of Disco, and The Thin Red Line. That's certainly not an exhaustive list, but if you haven't seen any of the flicks on that list, you should. And you're a bonehead. What are you waiting for? Go!

Funny thing is, most of the arrests shown on COPS begin as run-of-the-mill traffic stops. So, if common criminals were a bit smarter, they could glean a lesson or two from watching COPS. Here are a few, as I see them:
1) Keep your headlights, taillights, brakelights, and license plate lights in working order. Almost all of the vignettes begin with some burr-headed cop saying, "Stopping this guy cuz he had a taillight out, and he up and took off on me." Which leads into point two...
2) Don't run from the cops. It almost always makes things worse. Chances are good if you just pull over and aren't all lippy, they might not even find the crack pipe in your pocket.
3) Lay off crack.
Damn. COPS is over. Looks like I'll have to find something else to write about.
Hmmm....who wants gingersnaps?

Gah! Semi-bald woman! Had hair pulled out! Big chunk!
That HAS to hurt...

From high-brow to low-brow, and it's ever so seamless...
COPS may be the funniest show on TV. Every time you see the officer in the car, talking about his town and why he likes being a cop, you know that right around the corner is some toothless guy who can make you chuckle. It's like a Wild Kingdom version of Jerry Springer -- "see the debased underclass in their natural habitat!" And it's democratic, too -- it shows a cross section of "perps," encompassing all races, but seemingly only one layer of the socioeconomic strata.
One of my favorites was when a cop broke up a row on the street between a man and a woman. The woman said he attacked her, while the man said they were married and arguing. A classic "he said, she said" ensued: the man said the woman's lip was bleeding because "[she] hit my shoulder with her face," while the woman said he punched her. Meanwhile, the man is still insisting they're married, and the woman is claiming she doesn't know him. He kept yelling, "Tell the truth, Nancy! Tell the truth!"
I think I repeated that phrase ten times a day for about a week.