Yeah, so I don't update my site all that much anymore. Getting back into school after four years, plus being in a new, exciting city will do that a body.
So apologies are in order. Who am I apologizing to? Probably no one, since I can't imagine anyone's checked the site lately, but it makes me feel better.
I'm sitting here on the eve of my first midterm, attempting to lead a lummox from my class through the finer points of The Enlightenment Era. How did I get roped into this? Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned I would be in the library. Curses!
So, a quick brief as to what I've been doing with myself since I moved out here almost two months ago...
--Class, class, and more class. Actually, I'm only taking two classes and an independent study, so it's not a terrible load. The Enlightenment Era, which is a snoozer, and Historiography ("the history of the study of history") which isn't nearly as boring as it sounds. My independent study is called "The Rise of the Nation State 1648-1815. Whoo-hoo!
--Assisting various professors. TA-ing a Humanities class (and man, the professor is HOT!). I have about 60 kids to take care of, and they're all morons. Well, not all, but some couldn't string together a coherent sentence if you gave them a dictionary and a ball of brightly-colored yarn. I'm also assisting in that Historiography class (will I get to grade my own paper? I hope so!) due to an unforeseen tragedy in the History department. I get paid for it, which is nice.
--Bombing around LA/Hollywood with friends. Good times. The less said about that, the better.
--I also, just recently, got a couple-hour-a-week job tutoring a fourth grader (!). I know what you're thinking -- "Blue, a tutor? A mentor? A guide of this nation's greatest resource?" Yeah, whatever. It pays $25/hr, so I can slap a creepy smile on my face for that long.
Well, the lummox returneth, so I'll holler back.

Well, it's happened.
As I sit here and write this, I'm looking out over the inky, black expanse that is the Pacific Ocean. I'm writing this in Pepperdine University's coffeee lounge/computer lab, waiting for tomorrow when my academic career begins after a four-year haitus.
Daunting, I think. But I'm still looking forward to it. I have a pretty open schedule -- classes on Monday, Wednesday and Thrusday with teaching repsonsibilities on Tuesday and Thursday. I think I can manage, but is school still the same as when I left it? I guess I'll find out soon.
The drive out here was an interesting 2400-mile trek. I was alone after a friend bagged out (for understandable reasons, I guess), so I had a lot of time to think about stuff. I had time, but that doesn't mean I did much of it or came to any fascinating conclusions.
I found a great substitute for thinking -- books on CD. Listen to the BBC radio-play of the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, as well as David McCullogh's biography of John Adams. Those two gems pretty much ate up the whole trip. I'm thankful.
Got to LA last Tuesday and had a warm reunion with friend and grad-school colleague Mike J, who's taken it upon himself to drum into my knotty head the entire layout of greater LA. Another daunting prospect, but I'm learning.
Saw a free Guided By Voices show at a street fair in Hipsterville (Echo Park, Silver Lake) last night. Met Mike's friends, who have all welcomed me with open arms. Saw Dennis Haskins of TV's Saved By The Bell (yes, again!) at a karaoke bar in Burbank. Apparently he sang "Play That Funky Music, White Boy."
It's been exciting. More later.

My man Dave (SPDK) is tearing up the charts over at Spiderbites these days, so I thought I would again point any of you fools who are still checking in here over to him.
He's on fire since his move to Pittsburg. My guess? Doesn't know anyone. Kind of like when I started this blog. I was living in Chicago, had just broken up with my lady friend, and had absolutely nothing else to do.
Not like I'm Mr. Popular now, but hell, I'm in my hometown. For another four days.
Hence, no blogging recently (has it really been almost amonth?). For that, I'm sorry, but you gotta understand, I'm trying to move cross-country here to attend g-school, and the Fates have not exactly been smiling down on me.
$600 in car repairs just to ensure that I'll make it to Malibu? Ouch. I could have bought a Malibu for that much. No income when I get there? Ouch again. I'll live on loans until I find a job, but one doesn't want to carry on with that too long. No, I need a job when I get there, but I just don't know what kind of time committment grad school will require. So it's not like I can start lining stuff up now.
Wow -- this may be my most boring blog yet. Sorry. This is why I haven't done it in a while.
Oh, on another note, I'm looking for links to the 28 Days Later... script, if anyone knows where to find it online.

As an Ohioan, I feel the need to weigh in on the (potential?) candidacy of Jerry Springer for the U.S. Senate in 2004.
Geez, where to start? I remember as a young sprat learning that this guy on TV who pitted stripper against transsexual and let them have at each other was once the mayor of Cincinnati. My response went something like "The hell? What's wrong with that place?"
Then it occurred to me that he was mayor before the Jerry Springer Show. OK, so that problem settled itself.
But then this whole Senate-run thing came up (a while ago, admittedly -- I remember hearing something about it at least six months ago), and this forces me to defend my home state. Kind of like Robert E. Lee -- he didn't like the choice put before him, but he chose sweet Virginny.
I remember Jonah Goldberg's now-infamous quote regarding the Springer Senate run. He said on CNN, "To me this proves that voter turnout is not this glorious thing…because if Jerry Springer shows up, he'll bring all these new people to the polls, they will be slack-jawed yokels, hicks, weirdoes, pervs, and whatnot."
To me, like to Jonah, it seems obvious he's not talking about your typical Ohio voter, but rather the typical Jerry Springer guest -- as if a Springer Senate bid would draw those types to the polls in droves to vote for the Ringmaster. And maybe it would, but on this one I'm with Jonah -- I think we as a republic would be better off if they just didn't vote at all. But hey, we can't stop them from voting, and if they think Senator Jerry would be a triumphant moment in the American electoral process, then there's nothing we can do.
The above link points to Jonah's G-File posted today about the whole "controversy" surrounding what Jonah said. It's been misinterpreted in about ten different ways, even though he's not been as explicit as I have in saying that the average Springer show participant has no place at the wonderful smorgasboard we call representative American democracy.
All joking aside, I don't think Ohioans are going to be taken in by this, which seems to me to be the political equivalent of sitcom "stunt casting" -- you know, when Sean Penn shows up on Friends or whatnot. Ohioans are fairly conservative as a whole -- except for the big-city dwellers, maybe -- and I don't think we'll want to be seen as the state that has a sleazy TV talk show host for a representative in Washington.
But I'm scared, Sarge -- I'm scared that in this day and age, when celebrity culture seems to dominate every aspect of the media, public life and debate, and you name it, that Springer might win on name recognition alone, or on the "Wouldn't that be a trip" factor. Or that solid ol' George Voinovich might look sort of like a stick-in-the-mud compared with this slick sharpie Springer.
Hell, there are any number of ways Springer might eke something out. But like I said, I doubt it...and, as I sit here not 60 miles from Hicksville, Ohio -- the place where Jerry's kicking the whole thing off, leaning up against a post to show his solidarity with us yokels from fly-over country -- I can't help but think the worst. At least the residents of Hicksville get that it wasn't Goldberg who's poking fun, and that it's Springer who's trying to get them to look bad. Read some of the "testimonials" at Springer's official campaign site and see who you think gets the big picture.
Come on, Ohioans! Don't do this to yourselves.

Anyone ever seen one of those cats with thumbs? Man, they're weird. We got one recently, and I keep bolting awake at night, hearing someone (or something) trying to open my door. Upon inspection, it's just the cat, but believe you me...I've got my eye on him.
Maybe I'm just a little jumpy after seeing 28 Days Later... twice.
What a great flick. Now, I love me some Danny Boyle -- well, that's not entirely true, I guess. I love SOME Danny Boyle. Shallow Grave? Sweet. Trainspotting? An ATF (all-time favorite), to be sure.
But A Life Less Ordinary? The Beach? Biscuit.
What really chaps me is The Beach, and how good that could have been. What a great book by one Mr. Alex Garland.
Now, my friend Dave will tell you all sorts of things about me and The Beach -- how I read it every time I come over, how I sit there and coo at it like it's "the one true book" (tm Dave)...all that's well and good (and possibly true), but my God, that movie sucks. A total injustice to good source material everywhere.
I can just imagine evil movie execs hunched over the book with red pens (red right hands?), slashing out entire parts. "OK, first all, he's English. Well, now he's American. And it says here that the beautiful girl never hooks up with him. Well, scratch that too. She does."
Not to mention the end. Whereas the book descends into a hellish, bloody end that showcases the darker sides of human nature, the movie ends with fake video games and people emailing pictures to each other, like it was the best Spring Break Ever! Total shat.
So naturally, I was apprehensive when I saw that Danny Boyle and Alex Garland had again joined forces to make a movie, not to mention the fact that it looked to be a tired crack at a worn-out genre (the zombie flick).
But man, was I wrong. And I'm glad I was.
The movie is simply fantastic. Sure, they're not really zombies (they're infected with RAGE! GASP!), and the ending seems a bit tacked on ("We're saved!"), but other than that, I seriously dug this movie.
The first time I saw it, I was literally fidgeting, twisting, and nervously gripping my seat. It was that intense and suspenseful for me. And violence onscreen doesn't bug me at all. My favorite movie is A Clockwork Orange, followed closely by GoodFellas, for God's sake.
No, it was the suspense that was killing me. And the only thing that can bring that much suspense to a movie is a killer script and top-notch direction. The opening scenes build masterfully, and never let you off the hook.
Boyle also has the wherewithal to throw a sop or two to the George Romero zombie flicks (the grocery scene, the tunnel scene, and so forth) to placate the real zombie flick fans. But the movie is by no means a retread. It's just...well, great.
How many times do I have to say it? Chekc out Rotten Tomatoes if you don't believe me.

More deconstruction of social gatherings and customs later...Gotta go celebrate the Bicent...

Went to a wedding this past weekend in Cincinnati (Queen City on The Ohio River -- nice little segue, no?) and I noticed a phenomenon I had never really thought about before -- what's the deal with the Electric Slide? Where do (or did) people learn that little rump-shaker? I never learned it. Best friend Nick (with whom I mocked all participants) doesn't know it. His girlfriend didn't even know it, and girls know every dance (of course, she IS a foreigner). But hella people did know it, and participated eagerly. Old folks, young folks, and so forth. There's no age gap there. It's not like just the old people knew it...many folks around my age did as well, and even some younger than me. So I must've missed that day in gym. Too bad I couldn't have missed the square-dancin' days too.
I mean, I get the Chicken Dance -- as Pheobe once said on Friends, "People acting like animals! I love it!" But the Electric Slide...
Even if it was once a popular song (which I'll admit it was -- I mean, "It's Electric! Woogie woogie woogie!" That's just priceless.), is the human need for a mass dance so powerful that we need to hold onto this crusty, played-out piece? I guess it is. Other cultures seem to have their traditional groups dances -- ever been to a Greek, Russian, Polish, or otherwise wedding? They're nuts for the gathering, the throwing up of hands, the cheering, and that sort of thing. It seems a shame that the American equivalent is the damned Electric Slide.
PS: I know I questioned where people learned it, but also linked to an intructional site. Maybe I should print it out, laminate it, and take it with me to my next wedding. But I won't.

Celebrate good times, ya-hoo!
We here in the "Heart of It All" are filled with pride, as the great state of Ohio celebrated its bicentennial this past Saturday. 1803 to 2003 -- it's been a wild ride. Well, I can't speak for the whole 200 years, but the past 26 have sure been wicked.
I'll be getting a little closer to the historicity of the whole occassion today as I cover historic Waterville's little celebration. Not sure what it will entail, but I DO know there's some sort of bell involved. Can't go wrong having a party that features a bell.
I want to take this time to enumerate some of Ohio's contributions to the world at large:
1) Flight. Duh. From the Wright Brothers to Neil Armstrong, we've got the market cornered.
2) Hella presidents. I've heard eight.
3) The first university west of the Appalachians.
4) Bicentennial barns. Is there anything that says "Ohio! Way to go!" better than a barn?
5) Birthplace of Thomas Edison. We'd be living in the dark and unable to enjoy movies if not for this guy.
6) How about the Battle of Fallen Timbers? I'm surprised you haven't heard of it. In Stephen Ambrose's Undaunted Courage (story of the Lewis and Clark Expedition), he credits said battle as opening up the west to settlement. We know a lot about it up here int his particular corner of Ohio, since it occured not more than five miles from where I now sit. In fact, your humble narrator went to Fallen Timbers Middle School AND Anthony Wayne High School. By the way, "Mad" Anthony Wayne was the General who defeated Chief Little Turtle at said battle.
7) Jonah Goldberg digs Ohio. Said so today. I've been to the Toledo Lounge in Washington DC. Surprisingly little reaction when I mentioned I was from Toledo.
8) Who can forget the Toledo Mud Hens, arguably the most famous AAA baseball team in existence? Made famous by Jamie Farr (Klinger the cross dresser) on M*A*S*H (who, by the way, is a real goober). Ah, Muddy the Mud Hen -- how many times have you beaten me with your giant plastic bat? Also made famous by Jamie Farr is Tony Packo's, the best Hungarian restaurant in the world (outside of Hungary, that is).
9) The Ohio River. Enough said about that. Anyone who doesn't know the importance of the Ohio River in the settlement of this country should write me. I'll come over and dunk your head repeatedly into the toilet.
10) And finally, me. While I wouldn't always rank myself in the top ten things Ohio has given the world, I did make this list.

I said I'd come back around and I meant it...
A not-so boring day today, as I slog through a mound of things-yet-to-cover. The mound seems "insur-mound-able," even though I know it's not. What gives? Normally a busy day wouldn't bother (or even stir) me, but there's a difference -- I feel this frantic tapping on my shoulder, saying "How are you going to pay for school? How will you live? Shouldn't you do laundry?" Oh...hi, Mom.
School. Just thinking about it sends me into little spells. I love school -- I love the academy, I love sitting in class, taking notes, asking questions, cutting down other students -- in short, I love the whole package. And it's been a long four years since I've been there.
And I'm good at school. Oh, maybe not in the traditional "grades" sense of the word, but I get a lot out of it and I know my stuff. Problem is, if something eludes my mental grasp (see: math, all types except geometry), I simultaneously lose interest and get frustrated, and then...poof! A C- or D+ appears on my transcripts. Hell, even the dreaded...well, you know what the worst grade is. Let's just say I've received one or two in my otherwise august academic career.
Not worried about the aforementioned "losing interest" bit in grad school, however; I love history and won't have to take anything but. But something else is weighing on me here -- the logisitics of graduate school.
Undergrad? Meh. Mom and Dad took care of that -- not too say they paid for all of it (they did foot a majority-sized chunk of the bill, though), but Mom is great with details and set it all up. All I had to do was go to class, work my ten hours a week at the Student Union (until I was let go junior year -- seems they were downsizing the number of thieves they kept on their payroll) or the school paper, and that was that. Rest of time devoted solely to self-centered pursuits. I worry about those loans now, but not at the time.
But this time, M and D, God love 'em, aren't helping (not that I would dream of asking), and so it's all on my shoulders. And I'm nervous. Got some financial help from the ol' history department (TA Blue! Whoo!), but living and the rest of tuition is up to me.
Basically, here's my plea: if anyone in the LA area knows of media jobs or the like, let me know. If anyone knows how to find out the addresses, names, and numbers of any newspaper's LA bureau, let me know. Ditto TV news channels, magazines, anything.
I'd sure appreciate any help that comes this way.

So it's been some days since my last post: some might say it's been too many days. I think, though, that when you hear my series of...well, excuses, you'll totally forgive me.
First of all, been super-busy of late.The Division One softball team I cover (The Anthony Wayne Generals) has marched through the Sectional, District, and Regional playoffs to reach the state semifinals (you can read my friend Steve Junga's article here -- my articles aren't on the Web) and I've been there each step of the way. It's kind of exciting, since no sports team from AW (my alma mater, by the way) has ever won a state championship.
Secondly (and this is the big news), I recently learned that I've been accepted into Pepeprdine University's MA program in history. So I've trying to work all that stuff out.
So as you might be able to see, I've got a few things on my plate right now, hence the drop-off in posting. But I'll come back around.

There's a lot of talk swirling around right now about the Jayson Blair "scandal" right now, and rightly so. But there's an angle that's bugging me -- one thing I've been seeing on some publishing/media message boards (oh, OK -- Fametracker. Happy?) is that some journalists and others think that only conservative commentators (i.e. Andrew Sullivan and Willam Safire) are bringing up the race angle. And I have to take issue with that.
See, wasn't it the New York Times itself that first brought it up, unbidden? They said in their recent mea culpa:

Mr. Blair's Times supervisors and Maryland professors emphasize that he earned an internship at The Times because of glowing recommendations and a remarkable work history, not because he is black. The Times offered him a slot in an internship program that was then being used in large part to help the paper diversify its newsroom.

As Sullivan says, what then was the reason he was hired? Glowing recommendations or an effort to diversify the newsroom?
Look, I'm sure we all get a bit squeamish talking about the race issue, but I'm going to plow ahead, and if you disagree with me, tell me so.
Jayson Bliar was in no way a crummy reporter because he was black, and his "sins" should in no way reflect poorly on black journalsits or black people in general. In my mind, there's no connection there whatsoever.
What the scandal might reflect poorly upon is the notion that diversity in a workplace is more important than getting the quality folks in there in the first place. But it was executive editor Howell Raines who said, "'This [aforementioned internship] campaign has made our staff better and, more importantly, more diverse." (From TimesWatch, talking about an NPR piece. Again, Andrew Sullivan pointed it out.)
Jayson Blair may have been hired because his race made him attractive to an organization that may in some cases value diversity above quality. Moreover, he may have been kept on for so long for precisely the same reason. Does that mean all black journalists, employees, workers, whatever are in the same boat, or are slipshod workers? No, of course not. Does it mean that Sullivan, Safire, myself (wow, mentioned in the same sentence!), and others are racists? No. Does it mean that the system that makes organizations like the New York Times look the other way in order to preserve its diversity is fundamentally flawed? Yes.
I applied for a job at the New York Times straight out of college, and I didn't get it. I didn't think I would, as I was grossly underqualified. But I wanted to move to NYC and figured, "What the hell." But Jayson Blair got hired by the Times (first through the internship route) without even graduating from college! Did the Times' editors wet themselves when they saw the chance to hire on a black reporter that they could turn into a superstar? Looks like they did.
I guess what I'm getting at here is that it's easy to demonize conservative commentators for supposedly bringing up the race thing. After all, there's a popular undercurrent among liberal thinkers that all conservatives are racists (won't even get into that right now). But, first of all, I'm not sure they brought it up first anyway; and secondly, maybe we shouldn't be scared to talk about it in this instance. After all, no one's saying that it's a problem affecting all reporters or journos who happen to be minorities. But there is at least some evidence that Blair may not have been able to inflict the damage he did if the Times' management weren't so hell-bent on diversifying their newsroom, and then afraid of looking bad when one of their golden boys turns out to be a fraud.
I think what people are realizing here is maybe that the "newspaper of record" isn't as much of a meritocracy as we all thought. Then again, maybe we all knew, deep down, that it wasn't. And that's just a damn shame.

Couple of quick things...
First, my friend Dave has a new blog -- just started it this past weekend, and you should check it out. He's a hell of a fiction writer, and I guess that's the bulk of what he's going to do on his site. Don't believe anything he says about me, though. It's simply not true.
Also, has anyone been following the Jayson Blair saga (link requires free registration)? It blows my mind that someone who that kind of opportunity -- getting to write for the New York Times, starting at age 23 -- would screw it up so terrible. Andrew Sullivan has been following it closely, so check it out.
More on it later. Busy busy right now.

Salon, which of course is "not a doctinaire or party-line publication," takes up the well-worn (on both sides of the political spectrum, of course) cause of defending Bill Clinton and vilifying Ken Starr by serializing Clinton hack Sidney Blumenthal's book "The Clinton Wars." Today's fair-and-balanced, honest and nuanced subject? Ken Starr's evildoings under the auspices of the office of Independent Council.

This is a gem (thanks to Andrew Sullivan for pointing to it first): the gang at McSweeney's unleashes Zinn and Chomsky's brand of deconstructionism on The Lord of The Rings.

Kind of a cool little thing here, courtesy of my friend Mike (yeah, the Pole), who I think got it from his father. So props to Pawel for hooking us up with this.
As Mike would say, it's a little skeletal, but it's still good.

An interesting plea in today's Salon, challenging loudmouth Bill O'Reilly to an email interview about a piece by fellow loudmouth Gary Kamiya. Now, I didn't read Kamiya's piece, because I dislike him a little more than I dislike Bill O'Reilly, but what I found fascinating is this brief passage:

Salon is not a doctrinaire or party-line publication. We have run antiwar pieces and pro-war pieces; we have lauded the antiwar movement and critiqued it, too. We seek the full, free exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of liberal discourse. And we believe that there is still room for, even hunger for, honesty and nuance in political debate.

Now that's an interesting way to look at Salon. Not party-line, giving equal time, and all that nonsense. Now I'm not saying that I don't sometimes enjoy reading Salon, but "not a doctinaire or party-line publication"? That's just laughable. Even more amazing, here's the paragraph immediately preceding the one quoted above:

Of course, the real agenda of conservative media's overbearing pundits -- despite their lip service to the marketplace of ideas -- is to drive everyone who disagrees with them out of the public arena. They're not interested in open debate; their goal is to intimidate and silence. If you dare oppose the war, if you dare even admit any ambivalence about it, then you should be gagged and expatriated. In the current climate of mind control, you can't even admit to having entertained thoughts that are not "appropriate," even if you end up rejecting them.

'Nuff said, I think.
Also, been catching a lot of reviews of Eric Alterman's book lately, and I wanted to take issue with one of his points (sorry, I can't remember where I read this particular thing, so no link). In his diatribe against the idea of a liberal media bias, he at one point lists a slew of conservative commentators as if to say, "Look at all the conservative journalists! What bias??"
He lists folks ( the so-called "punditocracy") such as Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, Sean Hannity, William F. Buckley, Brit Hume, the WSJ editorial board, and so on (and on, and on). OK, fair enough -- these guys and others ARE indeed conservative. Maybe even arch-conservative, I don't know. But the point is, with the possible exception of Brit Hume, all the the guys he lists are commentators. You're supposed to know their bias, because they give their opinions!
To me, the argument misses the point. The real insidious media bias comes from those who are just supposed to be reporting the news, not giving their opinions. People like Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite (back in the day, anyway) Tom Brokaw, John Burns, Serge Schememan...all the way down to little ol' me, writing for my weekly paper -- you're NOT supposed to know our bias, because we're just supposed to be reporting the facts. And here's a fact -- not everyone does a good job of hiding their biases when writing news peices. In fact, many reporters don't even try to hide it. Hence, the idea of a liberal media bias -- reporters, many of whom are liberal, slanting their supposedly objective news stories to the left.
I mean, holding commentators to the same standard as reporters? That's just ridiculous. It completely misses the point.

Two of my favorite things, together at last. No, not airplane glue and toast -- Christopher Hitchens and The Onion.
Also, if this article isn't about my friend Dave, then I don't even know what to think. The guy has the worst -- and best -- DVD collection around.

And I think it's too early to tell, but Mark Bowden's analysis of The (now happening) Battle of Baghdad seems, viewed in retrospect, a little gloomy. We'll see, though. I'm not one of the guys who is wringing his hands over the fact that this war has lasted (GASP!) 20 whole days thus far.
Seriously, I saw that DAY 20 banner on CNN yesterday, and I was amazed. In 20 days we've circled the capital and are systematically marching in and out as we please. In 1940, Paris hadn't yet been declared an open city on Day 20. And that's the prototype for a quick collapse.
American military might. It's impressive.

I know a lot of folks have been debating -- and debating, and debating -- the quality and purpose of so-called "embedded reporting." I'm of a few minds on the subject.
On the one hand, I agree wholeheartedly with Jonah Goldberg, who swears up and down that the embeds from the print media are far better than the television journalists. The print stories -- in the New York Times, Washington Post, and so forth -- are just so damned vivid. And say what you will about Big Print Media's propensity to editorialize in news pieces; it just ain't happening out there in the field. It's super-cool, I think.
Check this piece in the Times from Steven Lee Myers -- it's great. Also this piece in the Post, and if you have the time, read about Matt Labash's exploits with one Christopher Hitchens (my hero!) in The Weekly Standard.
On the other hand, there's nothing quite like seeing pictures of things happening halfway around the world in real time. Problem is, they seldom seem to be able to catch the really juicy stuff.

Mark Bowden's analysis of the upcoming Battle of Baghdad is, I think, fairly convincing, if a little pessimistic. Hopefully, the best-case scenario is the one that plays out.

The difference between "us and them." We rescue their civilians and avoid hurting them, arguably making our war effort more difficult. They have to coerce their soldiers at gunpoint to continue fighting. Like the Russians at Stalingrad.

A good friend currently attending law school brings us this dispatch from academia:

Last night our prof opened the floor for a 45 minute discussion on the war.
I just wanted to share with you a couple of the comments that were made by
the enlightened and educated future lawyers of America. I hate class discussions...

One girl said - Bush is like Hitler. I never understood how Hitler could gain
such a following without anyone bothering to question what he was doing, but
now by watching Bush make these decisions without anybody questioning him -- I can understand.

Another said - Well it doesn't seem fair that if we get to have weapons of mass
destruction why [Saddam] he can't...

The prof even made a comment about this being a war about oil.

Off to class - hopefully this professor sticks to teaching law...

My generation -- hell, my parents' generation, too -- is so predictable.

So I've been out of circulation for about a week, and for that I'm sorry. I was house/dog-sitting and the Internet connection available to me was less than prime. Plus I'm lazy...very lazy.
I'm also sorry that some of you may have felt let down by my relative silence. Of course, I'm also sorry that some of you might be relying on me for pertinent and insightful commentary. I feel sorry for you if that's the case.
Seriously, there's been just heaps of good commentary since the shooting began. At-home commentray is great, like Andrew Sullivan and National Review; The Weekly Standard has people over there (Steve Hayes and Matt Labash are doing a great job in Kuwait)...plus all manner of traditional media outlets. Everyone's doing a good job out there.
I think this whole "embedding" thing is great. What better way to get truly objective commentary than to have reporters see what the soldiers see? Not to mention the fact that I'm extremely jealous. I wish I were out there. Tried to get some of the guys from my fraternity to fund my trip out there...surprisingly, they didn't seem too keen on it. Skinflints.

Well, kids, I've repeatedly tried to post an email I received from my friend Mike the Pole, but Blogger is telling me it's a no go. Soemthing about unsupported characters, except I can't find which they're referring to.
Bummer. It's a great letter, written in response (sort of an after-the-fact response, actually) to someone in a class of his. We've all had the same experience -- you get all worked up in a debate, and the person you're arguing with refuses to continue the debate because they know you're right. I hate that.
Or, even worse, the person you're debating (who most likely asked you to explain yourself in the first place -- that's what lefties do, you know.) refuses to answer your questions at all, instead opting to stick to the talking points and run around the real issues. Jonah Goldberg, in fact, provides this brilliant radio clip that shows exactly that. (I don't know where it's from.) An unnamed "peace activist" shucks and dodges one simple question from an Iraqi exile -- he asks "How does leaving Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq promote peace and justice?"
It's pretty remarkable. It's lengthy, but listen to the lengths to which the activist goes to avoid answering the real question. Moreover, she purports to be able to tell the caller the real situation in Iraq -- she lectures him, even though he is from Iraq and still has family there.
Listen to the whole thing.

My friend Mike the Pole writes this:

I write to you today for two simple reasons. Our world is changing, and is becoming increasinlgy unstable, unsettling. And I, as an individual at least topically aware of current political climates and motives, am compelled to speak.


The issue here is just war. It has to do with the UN and the United States, the world community and collective security, democracy and despotism, and good and evil. Times are troubled because issues at hand are so convoluted, so complicated, so counter-factual. I desire moral clarity, though I am no moralist. World opinion says we are 'alone'. But being alone doesn't mean you're not right.

Of course, 'just war' is a Christian theoretical construct, first introduced by Augustine. We all know the basics of this theory, of this disposition towards war. Today we call it simply Christian pacifism. Even though it is honorable, it is effectively suicide. Particularly applicable amongst Christian nations, 'just war' theory simply fails in reality. Justification is based on individual perception, and perceptions amongst individuals tend to vary - drastically. But it is today a guideline, serving merely to justify military action against modern opinion, which, needless to say, is secular, progressive, and relativistic.

So let us leave theory for the scholars and philosophers amongst us. We will be a war generation within hours. The time for theoretics is over, made basically irrelevent by the events of 11 September.

The issue is our pre-emptive attack against Iraq. I will approach it in two ways. First, I will consider the 'just war' theory as our moral purpose, as our legitimate authority. Then, (for all you secular post-moderns out there), I will face the reality of this military action comparatively and relatively, being as non-moral as I can. We must all realize that it is in vogue to be skeptical, if not altogether hostile, towards religion. Though it is a disappointing fact, social will relies more on pragmatic assertions than on issues of morality. Sadly, moral imperatives are least convincing these days.

Without question Iraq has been a rogue regime, a wrongdoer, developing weapons of mass destruction in violation of UN resolutions, attacking one neighbor and seeking to annex another. There is considerable evidence of Saddam's individual support for terrorist activity. The question in front of us, though, is whether the US must await a direct attack by Iraq before acting (obviously, in self-defense).

In days of more conventional warfare, this might have been reasonable if not completely appropriate. Weapons of mass destruction and nuclear development programs made it no longer necessary. September 11 made it difficult, if not suicidal. And our invasion of Iraq hours from now will have made it anachronistic, dead to our world. Just as many wonder why diplomatic actors did not stand up to Adolf Hitler earlier and prevent mass atrocities, we should not leave historians to ask why no one pre-empted an evil man and an evil regime like Saddam's from using its illegal arsenal. We must learn lessons from history. This is not to say that our current situation is analogous to Abyssina, 1935, Munich, 1938, or Suez, 1956. It isn't. History is not dates and facts. It is the study of human action, interaction, and conflict. We can see trends, then and now, and gauge our actions against the successes or failures of the past. If nothing else, realize that atrocities will always happen. And realize that records are made to be broken. Six million, I am afraid, will one day seem insignificant.

And then there is the UN. A breeding ground for anti-Americanism, tyranny, petty rivalry, anti-Semitism, and relativism. Yet, public perceptions which are usually misinformed or just plain ignorant actually seek the unanimous approval of this political body as a justification for war. Those who feel the US must await UN approval forget what Margaret Thatcher or even Daniel Patrick Moynihan have said repeatedly years ago: The United Nations is a political body, not a moral one. It is an idealistic construct, which fails immeasurably under the weight of reality. It has, for all intents and purposes, discredited itself since its inception, or when it resolved (as in passed a resolution) that Zionism was a form of racism. Libya heads the Human Rights Commission, recently replacing Syria. The US has had more human rights violation than China. So are we to understand that three thousand dead and the World Trade center gone is less a justification for war than the raised hand of the UN ambassador from the Gambia, or Zimbabwe, or the Sudan, or Iran? Or France? The UN pushes for diplomacy at all costs because it cannot enforce anything without the US, or more precisely, US military might. And the UN hates that, and hates us because of that. To be effective, it must respect the US. Because it hates the US, it has become completely ineffective.

But the UN agreed with us as to the nature of the Iraqi regime. They passed a resolution. So if Saddam is a menace, a wrongdoer, an evil dictator, it is the moral duty and authority of the UN to act against him. If for nothing else but respect for the oppressed Iraqi people. But they won't because they are not moral. Some member states have been pacified domestically (Belgium or Sweden), some have been scarred historically by war (Germany), some have heaps of investments and economic interests with Saddam's despotic regime (France), and some can't decide whether George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein is the greater menace (Syria, Iran). I apologize, but if you really have to think about who is a better man, or a better leader, please stop reading this. You are not worth the semi-involuntary electric impulses guiding my fingers along this keyboard.

Surely it would be preferable to have UN support, for political reasons alone, but it is not necessary strategically or tactically. And it is certainly not necessary morally. You see, we are alone in this matter. We have a coalition of sorts, but this is America's war. We have waited twelve years for diplomacy to work, for Iraq to disarm, for the UN to act upon its charter, for world opinion to realize that Saddam is a threat, a liar, an Iago who pits allies against allies and never fails to keep his thugs two steps ahead of even the most observant or well-equipped UN Weapons Inspector. Saddam can manipulate the UN precisely because he knows that allegiance to its charter is based only on good faith with no real means of enforcement. I imagine he laughs at our willingness to debate, discuss, and deliberate. He laughs because he knows he can use our blind idealism to divide the Western world and secure another five years for himself. If still capable of rational introspection, I imagine Saddam laughs at France because he knows what we say about him is true. And he can't believe that France doesn't realize it. No. France does realize it, and that makes him laugh even more.

We have national security objectives. We are targets for terrorists. We are hated or resented by our allies. American travelers are at more risk today than they were ten or twenty years ago. World opinion sees America's ability to decapitate a regime at will as a threat to world peace. But they are wrong. Simply. They see American might as a threat because they no longer have a moral compass, no longer are capable of tackling issues of moral clarity. It is all relative and quantifiable to them. We have the most weapons, we must be the most evil. Politics and morality are disparate concepts, but at certain times under certain conditions, they are truly one and the same. When diplomacy fails, war is its omega.

We can no longer be simply reactive, or passive. The conditions of the world today, and America's place in it, demand us to be pro-active, literally for the sake of our survival.

Today, we adapt ancient moral principles to modern realities. This war is just. We will fight it humanely and energetically. We will liberate the Iraqi people. The post-Saddam body politic will echo what dissidents have been telling us for years, that this needed to be done. World opinion will wait to see the outcome before it condemns or congratulates. Typical behavior for 'useful idiots' (read Lenin). The global protesters will probably escalate their efforts by moving towards civil agitation. And increasingly, we will depart on our own course alone, with fewer and fewer allies as the years go by. There will be failure and success, and perhaps our generation will be the first to witness the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Perhaps even worse. Realize that history placed the US in this position of hegemony. Our responsibilities to others are immense, their gratitude toward us is negligible.

But we are right. And that is why we are, and shall probably remain, alone.

Sobering thoughts for such an ill-prepared generation as ours. Nonetheless, we will press on, in one way or another. This does demand vigilance, patience, temperance. But mostly it demands will, which unfortunately, can only wane over time. Perhaps even a change in political party leadership, or a new Administration, will impede America's course. You see, we are indeed a country divided, diverse in its opinions. There are those who see the US as a sovereign nation which was attacked on 9/11, whose only real global motive is others' political stability and economic prosperity. And there are those who see the US as a member of the world community, equal to any other country, with no exceptional attributes, which brought terrorism upon itself via globalization and moral paternalism. Little do they realize that there are still many places on this Earth where they would be killed for such ideas.

So I fear a lack of resolve. And I fear the ever-expanding schism between Americans and the World, and even Americans and Americans. Our beliefs are minority ones, so it seems. Maybe I am wrong. I hope I am.

These days do mark drastic and immensely significant global changes, geo-political realignments. These days require tough choices between shades of good and evil. These days require what I unfortunately think our generation lacks: a memory. Things move so fast these days that we forget the significance of certain events far too soon. In our effort to understand what happened and why, we end up forgetting what did happen and when.

But let us realize again these last things. The US is the greatest political experiment in the history of human development. The quality of life here is better than in any place, anywhere, any time. We should be proud that we are alone against a world gone upside-down. And we should rest assured that no matter what happens, to me or to you, we did the best we could in the name of civilization. Yes, this is a generalization practically dripping with visceral rhetoric. But generalizations can also be true. That is why they exist.

And for you post-moderns out there, post-Saddam Iraq will certainly be a better place for the average Iraqi than it is today. Yes, people will die, resentments will mature, factions will cleave for power. But the quality of life will finally improve, men and women will vote, and perhaps people will eat lobster somewhere else than in the Presidential Palace. For better or for worse, Iraq will be a nation of Iraqis, and not of one man.

Again to each of you, thanks for the time. This is therapeutic for me, probably selfish, and most assuredly wrong on a number of points. We will all see.

A few days ago, I heard someone throw around the idea that we are a 'ghost generation'. I don't know exactly what that means but maybe its the idea that we've inherited so much, and done so little. We can be perceived, but do we really exist? Are we as unreliable or fickle as our contrived senses? Perhaps.

Here is our chance to prove that we exist... for a reason.

When worlds collide -- vintage Homestar Runner meets Japanimation.
I was rolling.

I do love me the Beastie Boys -- Paul's Boutique is one of my favorite albums of all time -- but they should shut the hell up. Why, you may ask? It's a free country, you'll say. They have a right to speak their minds, right?
Sure they do. But it must have been difficult to learn all the incredibly complex nuances of American and world policy while on tour, dousing girls with honey in the back rooms of venues.
I know, I know...they've changed from the hell-raisin' rich boys they once were. They arranged the Tibetan Freedom Festival, etc, etc. In fact, I've seen them speak out against so-called American prejudices against Arabs before.
I just hope these nice Jewish boys know a few things: first, that the Arab world wants them dead. Second, that a US war against Iraq is not unjustified, nor is it "bullying" (a term I've seen more than once recently). Third, it takes a pretty detailed understanding of the US's role in the and its foreign policy aims and objectives to understand the true scope of the situation, and I ain't seeing it here in the lyrics.
I'm going to speak directly to Mike D, Adrock, and MCA right now. Fellas, please -- shut up. You're out of your collective depth here. Go back to the days of "Pass The Mic," "Shake Your Rump," "Hey Ladies," and "Egg Man." The new, serious Beastie Boys give me the willies.

Had we all forgotten about this one? It came, of course, during last summer's "rash of kidnappings" and multiple Amber Alerts, but at least this one has a happy ending.
I was actually thinking to myself just the other day, "Wonder what happened to that Smart kid?" And look at that -- she's found, alive and well.
I don't want to take all the credit, but...

Christopher Hitchens gives a firm "how's your father Fisking" to the religious anti-war crowd. Jimmy Carter's ears are burning.

Man, will I ever leave poor Maureen Dowd alone? Probably not, as long as she keeps writing columns like this one.
I find this section particularly odius, not to mention curious:
"William Greider writes in The Nation, "As a bogus rallying cry, `Remember 9/11' ranks with `Remember the Maine' of 1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964. . . ." A culture more besotted with inane "reality" TV than scary reality is easily misled. Mr. Greider pointed out that in a Times/CBS News survey, 42 percent believe Saddam was personally responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and in an ABC News poll, 55 percent believe he gives direct support to Al Qaeda."
Here's Greider's article.
I can't believe this. I may be close to speechless. I find that 42 per cent figure extremely hard to believe. More than that, 42 per cent of what? The American people? French poodles? Sailors?
When you someone cite figures that don't seem to point anywhere, it's a good bet that there's a reason for the omission.
Even more astounding is the contempt dripping from both Dowd's and Greider's articles. Contempt for the American people, who according to them are so stupid that they actually think Saddam Hussein commssioned the 9/11 attacks! You people are all idiots, according to these two. Being taken for a ride by the Washington Post, the paper that has consistently struggled to keep a lid on scandals in the Federal Government, if only to keep warmongering Presidents in power.
Oh, you didn't know that the Post has been in the government's pocket for a long time, and they all vote Republican?
Geez. If you're feeling adventurous, try typing "William Greider" into Google. Check out the kind of stuff he's written. Not exactly a paragon of objective journalism, methinks.

Good words on a good weekend from yours truly. Actually, to be honest, it wasn't all that great, but it seemed as though it was. Went out. Watched some college basketball on Saturday, saw a kick-ass art exhibit, and saw Old School.
Wow. Looking at those three things side-by-side is strange. Sort of runs the high-brow/low-brow gamut.
"Yeah, I watched some f**king HOOPS!"
"Indeed, I pondered the mystery and majesty of nature as I strolled through the museum, taking in Van Gogh's pastoral landscapes. Ah, Arles. Auvers. C'est magnifique!"
"Movie funny. Man fall down, catch on fire."
I'm a bundle of contradictions.

Lots of work to do today, so I'm not sure how much I'll be able to post today. But hey, you're used to my scattershot method of posting, right? On again, off again, and so forth...

How proud are we here in Ohio's Ninth District that this woman is our Representative to Congress? The headline, though, is a little misleading. It should read "Nutjob She-Politician Couldn't Possibly Be More Wrong."
On the upside, the local paper (not the one I work for, by the by) DID get a link on Drudge. Toledo hits the political big time!

This article never addresses this simple issue: if actors have a right to express their views, don't others have a right to express theirs, whether by boycotts, petitioning, or otherwise?

The Onion, as ever, gets it. Be sure to scroll down and read the whole thing for full impact.

I'm spent after that last post. More later, maybe.

The New York Times republishes Stalin's obituary to mark the 50th anniversary of his death -- he died March 5, 1953. The Times also carries this story, pointing to new evidence that Stalin was poisoned.
I'm a little disappointed in the American press today. I can't really find any articles that take up the difficult task of examining Stalin's lasting legacy, not to mention any articles that point to his heinous crimes or his gangsterism. And don't get me started on the absence of articles comparing the machinations and methods of his regime to the still-existing Stalinist states in the world today. The Independent publishes this gem today (thanks to Andrew Sullivan for pointing to the link), the Financial Times published a great special section on Stalin over the weekend (can't find it on the Web), and several other European papers have articles on Stalin's legacy. So whither the U.S. press' commentary?
Like I said, I'm disappointed. Doesn't the 50th anniversary of the death of the 20th Century's most prolific killer warrant a little coverage? Guess not. It's disturbing because there are so many adherents to Stalin's ideas today still influencing policy today. Even more disturbing is the fact that some people still don't think the man did the things we know he did. Yes, folks, there are still Stalin apologists out there.
Stalin was a monster. That's it. End of discussion. He killed some 30 million of his own people (purges, show trials, forced starvations, and the like), he threatened the world at large, and he (and those who came after him) held half a continent hostage for nearly 50 years. And yet, Americans seem to want to forget all this. Well, maybe we don't want to forget, but we do.
You can't exaggerate Stalin's crimes. Nor can you exaggerate the lengths to which some people went to deny the atrocities of the Stalin regime. This is an important juncture, people -- the specter of Communism doesn't haunt the world as it once did, but it's still out there, lurking around. Moreover, Stalinism in particular -- if not the all the socialist aspects of his regime, then the devotion to violence and brutality -- still has its loyal adherents. Castro, Hussein, Kim Jong Il -- they're all crazy about "Uncle Joe," and would do anything to weild the kind of power he did. But if we forget about Stalin's crimes, methods, and madness, we may not notice that his disciples are still eagerly rubbing their hands, waiting for their chance to become Stalin. We need to be aware that Stalin, not Hitler, was the real prototype for a dictator. Hitler, though awful and brutal, lasted only for 12 years. The world found out about him, made up its collective mind, and dispatched him. Stalin, on the other hand, wielded power of some sort for 36 years, and total power for 25! And there are still people who won't believe the truth about the man or his regime. They didn't believe it when it was happening, and they don't believe it now, even as the archives are opened and the body count is plain to see. That's dangerous, and what's even more dangerous is that some of us still can't identify the Stalins in our midst today.

Ah, jeez...Maureen Dowd is at it again. I guess I shouldn't be surprised -- if I had a platform like The New York Times, and my job never made me back up any of my wild assertions, I might go a little nuts too. Drunk with power and all that.
I just don't get where everybody's favorite tart-tongued trollop is going with this column. Her money shot -- and indeed the teaser for the column -- doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rest of the column. She writes "As the brazen Bush imperialists try to install a new democracy in Iraq, they are finding the old democracy of our reluctant allies inconvenient." Now, maybe I didn't read the article fully (I do that occassionally), but I didn't see much talk about our allies up to this point. Remember, the above quote is the last sentence of the column. I mean, Dowd spends the bulk of the article comparing Donald Rumsfeld et al to Genghis Kahn, talking about how the Defense Department commissioned some study to glean lessons from ancient empires; then she compares the so-called "Bushies" to empire builders. Nowhere does she mention anything about "reluctant allies" -- she tosses that in as an afterthought. Or maybe she wrote that part first, like some sort of hack mystery writer.
Whatever Dowd was trying to get across, the column makes about as much sense as snowshoes in Bali.

Ah, J.Lo...totally still "from the block."
I'll admit it. I actually used to like Jennifer Lopez the Actress (you know, before she became "J.Lo the Multi-talented Wonder.") She was wonderful in Out of Sight and decent in U-Turn. But you know why she was OK in those movies? It was before she became J.Lo, and therefore she was actually playing the part the script called for, not some stupid star-vessel.
And I still think the engagement to Ben Affleck is a mere cover for Ben's budding "confirmed bachelorhood," if you catch my meaning. Sort of a Nicole Kidman/Tom Cruise-type agreement.
P.S.: Heads On Fire is now owned by Tom Cruise Entertainment. The above comments do not reflect the views of Tom Cruise Entertainment. Blue Derkin has been forever silenced.
OK, luckily I managed to wrest control of this site away from Tom Cruise Entertainment. Whew.
Speaking of Tom Cruise, you know who sucks as an actress? I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, but Penelope Cruz is freakin' terrible! Just awful. I saw Blow again the other night. I've been defending that movie since it came out as "not that bad," but I think I may have to abandon that position as untenable, just like I had to with Orca. Penelope Cruz stinks and the story goes off the deep end in portraying George Jung as "the good drug dealer." You know, I think I may have liked that movie simply for the drug-related story line. What? Stop looking at me like that!
All I'm saying is that while it strives to be Goodfellas 2: The Revenge, I think we can all agree that it ain't no Goodfellas. I mean, if Scorsese can't make Casino into Goodfellas 2, how the hell can Ted Demme expect to make it?

I wrote a really good post about this article in The Weekly Standard, but Blogger boned me and didn't allow a posting.
Anyway, I regret that David Skinner's article on Chris Martin of Coldplay is true. Calls him "StarDumb." But Skinner also notes that it's an isolated incident, unlike, say Susan Sarandon, Barbra Streisand, or whoever else thinks they are qualified to talk about it.
It's odd, because my friend Eastern European Mike and I were talking about Coldplay the other day. He mentioned how it's too bad that bands like Coldplay and Radiohead are so damn liberal, because we both really like the Brit-rock vibe. Oh well...I'm sure the guys from Radiohead and Coldplay vote Labour, but then again, Tony Blair is in the Labour Party. There's hope, I guess.
Another thing: Kathryn Jean Lopez points to some more Helen Thomas idiocy in The Corner.
I'm no age-ist or anything, but I think Helen Thomas' press card needs a revokin'. I heard she thinks Adlai Stevenson is most viable Democratic candidate in the upcoming election.

There are a number of blogs (and of course, the obligatory weeping family on TV as soldier gets shipped off by big bad Bush) out there saying things like this:
"Some of me best friends are in the military and I can't bear the thought of losing them if we go to war."
"My son is a Marine and I don't want him dying for oil."
"U.S. troops shouldn't be forced to fight this unjust war."
And so on...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the U.S. military an all-volunteer force? Perhaps the aforementioned soldiers slipped through the cracks and got conscripted, but failing that, I'm thinking they joined up on their own. And why wouldn't they? The military is where all sorts of people have traditionally sought to better themselves and improve their stations in life.
My point is this: I don't want any more American soldiers to die than necessary, but let's face it -- when soldiers joined the military, they knew that something might thrust our nation into war, and they would be the ones called on to fight.
And don't go thinking that I don't know anyone in the military, because I do. A dear friend from college is a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army (shipping off to Germany next week to take command of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle); an acquaintance works in the chemical warfare division of the Ohio Air National Guard; and so on. I'm proud of them, but I don't think they want our tears. They want support; that is, they want to know they're carrying out the political aims of our nation.
So let's have no more of the weepy goodbyes -- at least the ones where the anti-war parent or spouse or whatever accuses the government of putting their soldier in harm's way. Joining the military, becoming a policeman or firefighter, and joining the circus are about the only sure-fire ways to get put in harm's way.

As pertains to my post below, I'd be interested in hearing anyone's war stories re: the difficulties of being a young conservative, Republican, libertarian. etc. Maybe I'll cull together the best responses and post them on the site.

An interesting and surprisingly thoughtful article in Salon, of all places, about Michael Savage, the bigoted and hysterical talk-show host-cum-author.
See, here's what I don't like -- we conservatives (libertarians et al included -- I know I'll get some flak on that statement, but I'm more libertarian than conservative, and I support the Republicans. Let's face it, Lib. candidates ain't gonna win a notional election anytime soon, and I wouldn't have had my vote help out Al Gore in 2000) have the Congress and the Presidency. We don't need any more validation. And yet here's Savage, spewing in his book about all the cultural phenomena that are bringing the conservatives down. Huh?
We won, dude. In case you didn't know. Sure, it's not a permanent victory, and we've had to toss some bones to the Dems, but that's politics, innit?
Savage leaves a bad taste in my mouth for several reasons. Number one, he for all intents and purposes lends credence to the conservative notion of victimhood. Nothing is OUR fault; it's the media, or the feminists, or this or that lobby that's bringing us and the country down. Well, Savage, much of the bad press that conservatism gets is because of people like you, who don't even try to be civil, thoughtful, or even factually correct. I agree with Andrew Sullivan here -- Savage is a cancer on conservatism. And I don't need anyone besides myself making me look bad.
See, Savage is one of the reasons why young conservatives have almost a knee-jerk apology mechanism. We get guff, sure, but a lot of the guff we get is from our peers who don't understand that all conservatives aren't like Savage. If there weren't people like him out there purporting to speak for us, we might not have to begin every politically-oriented conversation with "Yeah, I'm pretty much a...ahem, Republican, BUT..." By the way, I DON'T count Rush Limbaugh as part of this group. He's smart, thoughtful, etc...sure, he's bombastic, but not in the same way as Savage.
I knew I didn't like Savage when I saw him on Greta Van Sustern's show defending Scott Peterson (husband of the missing Laci). Savage said (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here), "It's the feminist lobby that have convicted this guy before he's even a suspect."
Guh? Sorry, it's Peterson's unwillingness to answer questions, bullshit (and frankly eye-rubbingly unbelieveable) alibi, and a mountain of other facts that are causing the public to pre-judge him. I'm no friend of the feminist lobby, but I stil think the guy did something bad, not to mention killed his pregnant wife. And here Savage is, taking the controversial stand just for the sake of controversy and using it to defend against the mother of all crimes (killing your pregnant wife, by the way).
Anyway, that's why I can't stomach Savage. He blows. And he makes us look bad, and I say we drum him out to the fringes like we did with Buchanan.

I came across this list a few years ago, and I laughed heartily then. I stumbled across it again a few minutes ago, so here it is for everyone's enjoyment (scroll down to see the list).

Again, I feel it necessary to explain a little something to those who come to this page following the Google (what up, new master!) link to the picture of the Honda Civic.
First, I'm not an expert on Honda Civics. I merely own one.
Second, I put the picture on the site merely to show what my new-ish car (a Honda Civic, by the way) looks like.
Third, I don't know where you can get one just like it. I got lucky and saw it sitting out with a "For Sale" sign on it along the side of the road. The woman who owned it had just bought a brand new Mini Cooper. I did, however, get a great deal on the Honda Civic.
I am, however, thinking about putting some bling-bling into my car to make it a litte faster and more furious.
That being said, I'd like it if you car folks kept coming around to the site. I appreciate the traffic, but know that I really don't have many answers when it comes to Honda Civics.
I feel like Homer Simpson when asked a difficult question. "Honda Civics? Mine is silver."

I also wanted to relate a fun little adventure undertaken by me and some friends a couple of weekends past. We went up to The People's Republic of Ann Arbor (tm Dad) to catch a show -- well, actually, friend Nick and a couple of others had tickets for the show, while friend Jason and I just went to hang out in A-squared. You know, to break the bonds of Toledo, if only for one night.
Anyway, the show in question -- indie darlings and NYC stalwarts Luna, by the way -- was sold out, so after dinner Jason, Nick, and I went down to the Blind Pig. Nick went in and Jason and I went downstairs to the...well, the downstairs bar, I guess. We were hanging out, had a couple of beers, and decided to troll the town. Jason stopped off at the restroom and apparently ran into Nick. Seems the Blind Pig and DownstairsBar shared a pisser, so Jason sneaked upstairs. Nick and I proceeded to follow, whereupon we were stopped by a security guard asking to see out show wristbands. Nick flashed his and I, not having one, just pulled down my sleeve and exposed my wrist as if I did. The guy looked at me (I never broke eye contact with him and kept walking) and turned away. Score! Free show! It was decent, too -- they played Donovan's "Season of The Witch" and there was no second-guessing the expenditure, since it was free.
It was one of my best fakeouts ever. I'm not usually inclined to go sneaking into shows, and when I've seen it done it's come at a terrible price. Some dudes sneaked into a Radiohead show at Blossom and had nothing but half a set of Radiohead, cut-up elbows, and torn clothing to show for it.

I howled with laughter at this Onion article. Anyone who's read any David Foster Wallace should too.
Oh, he's good, but man, is he long-winded or what? I think he's good in short form -- magazine articles and whatnot -- but I just could not, for the life of me, finish Infinite Jest. I wanted to, but just couldn't slog through it. First, the book is physically huge -- at 1,079 pages it was a real bitch to haul around on the El. Second, what's with the damn footnotes? Sure, they were funny and whatnot, but way to break up the continuity of the book, DFW. Flipping back and forth with my finger holding place is not my idea of a good read.
I'll finish Infinite Jest when I break my leg skiing and am laid up for months in traction. Until then, I'll be content to read A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again (his article on the 7-day Carribbean cruis is priceless) or his other magazine stuff.
By the way, if you ever get a chance to read his article "The Weasel, The Shrub, and The Twelve Monkeys," I suggest you do so. It was originally published in Rolling Stone, but you can find it in various collections. The article describes his experience on the McCain 2000 Straight Talk Express. It's great -- even moving at times.

I don't know how it was for everyone else, but Blogger was down today; hence, I was unable to post. And you can bet I had some good ones lined up, too. Oh, they're all forgotten by now. Sorry.

I've been getting a little grief lately, so I feel the need to modify some of the comments I've made in regard to the French and Eastern Europeans.
First, I've only known a few French people. One was this guy Phillipe who lived next door to me freshman year in college. He sucked. Off to a bad start.
Second, I met a groups of les francais when I lived in New York. One, Marion, was an au pair on the Upper West Side; the other, Jerome, worked for some French venture capital firm. Both were cool enough, and both had no disdain towards me, my fellow Americans, or to the US in general. They were a bit clueless as to music, movies, and whatnot, but hey -- that's acceptable. I went to a party with Jerome -- I was the only American there. My god, the women were attractive. It was strange being the exotic one.
Anyway, my point here is that if I based my feeling on the French on only those that I've met, I would have to say it would be favorable (minus Phillipe). But we don't base geopolitical matters on whether or not some person invited you to a party.
The French as a nation are maddening, but in a sense, they act the way I wish the US would sometimes act. They don't care about multilateralism and they make no bones about the fact that they're looking out for France first and foremost. They're just tiresome, that's all. What can they really do to us? Nothing. What should we care about their opinion? Nothing. When you think about it, we should deal with the rest of the world like we WANT to deal with France -- brush them aside and go about our business.
The international community, in the body of the United Nations, is a corrupt, anti-American apologia for dictators. I say screw 'em.
Now, as far as Eastern Europeans are concerned, I don't want anyone to think that I dislike them because they still think Michael Jackson is a huge star. I mock them for that, but I think Eastern Europeans (and I include Baltic folks therein) are really pretty great.
They used to live under the Soviet bootheel, so they know what oppression really is. They also know what appreciation is, and they know that the US was looking out for them. Now they want to be on the winning team. Can you blame them?
Eastern Europe knows that Western Europe thinks they're rubes; that they're backwater slobs who don't really count when taking stock of Europe. They also know that Western Europe has repeatedly sold Eastern Europe down the river. They know the US, when it's been able to, hasn't done that.
Plus, the contact I've had with Eastern Europeans has been overwhelmingly positive. There's no Phillipe in the bunch.
One of my favorite professors in college was Lithuanian (I say was because he's now dead). One of my best friends in the world is Polish. I'm down with the former Warsaw Pact.

I've been thinking a lot about words these past few days; specifically, the American reliance on the word "tragedy." See, I've heard that word applied to so many different and disparate situations, I'm not sure I know what it means anymore. Let's list a few: the Columbia disaster, 9/11, Columbine, earthquakes, tornados, and so on.
But which of the aforementioned events really qualify as tragedies? I guess it applies to the Columbia disaster, since it could be most accurately described as a "tragic accident." But 9/11? I call that "an attack" or an "act of aggression." Certainly not a tragedy, since at least in my mind a tragedy is something that is a) unitended and b) unawarranted and undeserved.
The Columbia 7 knew their mission was dangerous (traveling into space? Still dangerous after all these years, and don't you forget it.), and yet, backed by bravery, fortitude, and spirit they went anyway. Their deaths are tragic because a horrible accident caused them.
The terrible day of 9/11 should never be called a tragedy. The needless deaths of 3,000 civilians are certainly a tragic component to the whole thing, but as a whole, the event should not be referred to as a tragedy. An outrage? Sure. An attack? You bet. A tragedy? Never. We shouldn't get angry about tragedies, because there's not much we can do to stop them. We can stop future attacks.

This is hilarious. Thanks to Jonah Goldberg for for linking to it. Makes sense, though -- it's right up his alley. In fact, I'd be surprised if he didn't make it, or at least commission it.

I make no apologies for my position regarding Michael Jackson. His freaky-deeky behavior has even affected my enjoyment of his Jackson 5 tunes, as well as the Thriller album. The way I got it figured, I owe him some verbal abuse.

Well, I missed the Michael Jackson documentary shown last night due to work. I don't know if could have forced myself to watch it, as I despise Michael Jackson, but it sounds like it was pretty harrowing. Some reactions express sympathy, others, nothing but disgust. I imagine I'd fall in line with Rod Dreher on this one.
We enjoy making fun of my best friend's girlfriend -- we'll call her Chazzwozzer -- for many reasons, most of which stem from the fact that she's Australian (hey, it's all in good fun). Turns out, though, that we can legitmately mock her and her country because, as she tells us, Michael Jackson is HUUUGE over there. And here I just thought he was big in Eastern and Southeastern Europe.
You know what I mean. Every time one sees concert footage (complete with fans crying and passing out, with young girls going absolutely bonkers over this weirdo), it takes a minute but you finally realize that something doesn't look right. Everything looks like a Mentos commercial or DeGrassi Junior High. Then you find out the concert was held in Warsaw, Budapest, Sofia, or Skopje. Hey, I love those kids in Eastern and Southeastern Europe (What up, Mike! What up, Nikolay!), but they still think Michael Jackson is the shizz-nit.
Yeah, I don't think MJ could fill Detroit's State Theater these days. Sick freak.

My eye feels funny following an insidious suggestion dropped by Dr. Mom. I think I have pink eye.
Sure, it's psychosomatic. But nothing sucks like an eye infection.

I'm totally deep, right? Nah. Just tired.

Well, I'm convinced. There are a TON of great blogs out there!
Many of them are blogs by girls that detail the daily sprawl of their lives. What fascinating insights into the lives of women!
You'd think having three sisters I would know more about them. Nope. Less. I'm at a disadvantage, I think. What I know about girls (sorry -- women) is that you're not allowed -- nor should ever want -- to hit them in anger and that you have to pick them up when they need a ride or have broken down somewhere. Also, that if they start yelling, you should shut up and let it wash over you like a shorebreaking wave -- loud and awe-inspiring, but essentially harmless. Open doors. Let have bathroom first. Don't yell.
All these things I learned by having three sisters. I learned to defend them if something happened and I learned that it's unwise to play board games with them.
But I've discovered that I don't know a whole lot about the inner workings of the minds of women. I've only ever thought about the rules governing interactions with women instead of the motivations -- indeed, the emotions -- that guide them.
It's a new day. My assault on the world starts now.
By the way, those links are Breakup Babe and What Is Really Going On In My Head.
Like I said, fascinating reading for me, perhaps the least "with it".

Don't get me wrong: as a people, the French are great. They're cultured, attractive, and they smoke like fiends, which is a plus in my book. I don't want anyone to think I'm insulting the French. Hell, I'm somthing of a francophile myself. Took years of French in school, studied hella French history, and so forth. However, I do think that as a nation-state they're quickly losing their relevance in a bizarre attempt to regain past glories. Example? How about when DeGaulle refused NATO the use of French bases, and then pulled out of the military command altogether? Why did he do this? To re-assert French sovereignty, of course. OK, I'm a big history nerd.
For a better explanation of this phenomenon, check out this book. It's by Richard Bernstein, who used to write for The New York Times. Had to read it in HST 415S (France Since 1815) and enjoyed it immensely. Check it out.

Two outstanding articles by my friend Steve Hayes (ok, we've only met a couple of times, but he is marrying an old high school friend. Shut up!) in The Weekly Standard. In the first Hayes details Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda, and in the other he mocks the French. He's a funny guy. And the French are such an easy target.

Here's the text to that Powell UN speech. Just in case any of my faithful readers were foolish enough to rely on me for that.

OK, not then, but now.

It looks like a go! Comment away!

OK, here we go again...
Comments test number 2. ...And GO!!

Some thoughts about Colin Powell's address before the UN Security Council (for the most comprehensive coverage, short of a transcript, peep here):
1) Germany holds the presidency of the Security Council?? I thought the UN was essentially designed to protect the world from a resurgent Germany! How short are our memories...
2) Powell kicks motor booty. He's not the cowboy that France, Germany, et al think GWB is, so this flies in the face of the European theory. No, he's the calm, multilateralist one in the administration, but I think being used (as sort of an anti-Bush) by the Euros really honked him off, and their dithering put him into the fold with Rumsfeld and the others.
3) Amazing. Russia and China (both permanent members of the Council, so they have the veto) want more inspections and such. Didn't Powell just provide proof that they aren't working? The UN continues its lurch towards irrelevancy...
4) Think liberals are giving the administration a fair shake to prove how dangerous Iraq is, or do you think that they won't listen to anything because it's a Republican administration? If you still are fooling yourself into thinking the former, check The American Prospect's blog, TAPPED. Last I checked, they had nothing on Powell's speech. They're just ignoring it. They'd rather insult Jonah Goldberg than deal with pressing issues. The Corner, on the other hand, is kicking booty commenting on the whole thing. As is NRO. I mean, they have Mark Bowden commenting on it, for crying out loud! How cool is that?
More in a bit. Need to go have a smoke. Am sated.

Still working on the comments feature. Growing angrier...

OK, so if you'll direct your attentions slightly to your left (under my email address), you'll see a comments link. I'm interested to see how this works, since nothing happens when I click on it. In fact, I'm not sure it's doing what it's supposed to be doing, but I do like the heading. Five bucks to whoever gets back to me first with where I lifted that saying from. Hint: it's a book.

I'm trying to set up a "comments" feature through these folks here, but can't seem to get it to go up. Of course, my HTML and web design skills are rudimentary at best, so the fault might lie on this end. I know, it seems so unlikely!

A reader writes me and says, "Nerds and politics make the internet go round."
I'm not sure if truer words were ever spoken.

OK, sorry to get so hyped up about political things. I know there are a ton of blogs out there that cover this stuff, but hey -- I like politics too, and I have an opinion. Hell, I went to one of the most politicized colleges in the country.
I guess what I'm saying is that you're going to sit there and like it!
Kidding. Please don't leave. I'll go back to ragging on Toledo soon.

I really had to rub my eyes a few times when I read this article in Salon by Michelle Goldberg. It's simply dripping with hate, venom and ridicule.
When was the last time anyone saw any coverage this harsh of an antiwar march? Sure, Salon is a liberal mag, but this really takes the cake. Not only does she imply that everyone in attendance at the CPAC conference was a narrow-minded hatemonger, but she insults their looks, the way they dress -- everything. Peep this, y'all:

"Held at Gateway Marriott in Crystal City, Va. from January 30 to February 1, CPAC drew a crowd of 4,000, 1,700 of them college students. Most of the action took place in a ballroom on the second floor, where speakers lambasted liberals from a stage draped in red, white and blue and backed by 18 American flags and two enormous video screens. It was like a right-wing version of a Workers World rally, with one crucial difference. Workers World is a fringe group with no political power. CPAC is explicitly endorsed by people running the country. Its attendees are Bush's shock troops, the ones who staged the white-collar riot during the Florida vote count and harassed Al Gore in the vice presidential mansion. Bush may not want to embrace them in public, but they are crucial to his political success and he has let them know, in hundreds of ways, that their mission is his."

Look, honey, if you disagree with the politics, just say so. Don't resort to the ol' liberal saw of ad hominem attacks too. Cheapens the argument, don't you think?
Oh, and when was the last time a conservative was invited to a liberal conference? Goldberg glosses over the fact that Nat Hentoff, of all people, spoke at the damn thing. Nat Hentoff! Of Village Voice fame! That's like having Reagan give the keynote address at a Berkeley graduation.
This is in fact the only positive graf of the whole thing:

"Yes, CPAC explored some crucial questions. [Gee, thanks Michelle! .ed]One panel asked, "Islam, Religion of Peace?" (Short answer: no.) There was a 40-minute talk on tort reform and 35 minutes on "Safeguarding Civil Liberties in a Time of War," which included a speech by veteran lefty civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, who was treated respectfully by an audience that largely fears big government and holds its privacy sacrosanct."

Of course, she follows it with this:

"Yet Hentoff aside, one theme overwhelmed all others: a quaking, obsessive hatred of the liberals who are still believed to rule the world. CPACers exemplify what historian Richard Hofstadter called "the paranoid style in American politics" in the 1964 essay of the same name. "Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated -- if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention," Hofstadter wrote. "Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes." And George W. Bush has harnessed their obsession and rage for his own political gain."

God. How hysterical can an article be?

Andrew Sullivan gushes about the the State of The Union address. I love reading Sullivan when he gets like this. So much for the ol' British "stiff upper lip."

Well, it's official. Everything on Salon, except for the AP Wire, seems to be "premium content" now. So much for checking that site on a daily basis.
I know, I know...you can get one of those "day passes." Why bother, though? Salon always kind of sucked; now it sucks AND is expensive.

So I get home last night after covering another game -- nearly deaf from being sat right next to the "pep band" -- and I see all this political commentary all over the television. What gives? Did something happen last night?
Oh well...I suppose I'll find out about whatever it was later.
Seriously though, I really dislike missing the State of The Union address. All the people, the gala spectacle, the red carpet, who's wearing what...oh, right. That's The Oscars.
I do enjoy seeing the Pres speak, but I gotta wonder how the SOTU (as the pudits call it) evolved into what it is today. Presidents used to send a letter to Congress. Now it's the Super Bowl of political events.
Besides, doesn't the Constitution just say that the President is required to "report on the State of the Union from time to time?" Last time I checked it didn't say, "The president must give an address for at least an hour that will picked clean by pundits and politicians until the very words make no more sense."
Ah, whatever. For opposing commentary, I suggest you hit up National Review and The New Republic. No specific links, but if you get to those pages and can't find anything, call me up. I'll come over and rap you on the bean for being a big dummy.

A fellow Toledo native was kind enough to mention yours truly on his blog, so I figured the least I could do was mention his. Apparently he's a turncoat -- leaving Toledo for the hipper Columbus instead of sticking it out where cool goes to die -- but that's OK, since he likes The Smiths. I left too, but Toledo's siren song drew me inexplicably back.
Anyway, thanks for the props, Nala, and I'll try to keep pointing out Toledo's fun but depressing foibles. It's really not that hard.

I see by my SiteMeter (which tracks visits to where you've arrived -- that is, HeadsOnFire) that many people are coming by because of a picture of a Honda Civic that I posted. All I can say about that is...HA! That car looks exactly like mine, and I posted it to show my dozen of fans (yeah, I know...singular) what yours truly drives these days. I don't feel bad at all about all you other folks wandering in, thinking we talk about Honda Civics all the time here.
Hey, stick around, why don't you? You might learn something. About what? How about more conspiracies! Or maybe mid-80's English mope-rock, like The Smiths or Echo & The Bunnymen.

A funny link (courtesy of Snopes) for all you conspiracy theorists out there.
In fact, if you enjoy conspiracy theories (as I do), then you should check out Surfing The Apocalypse, which is sort of a clearinghouse for conspiracy sites (lotsa links, etc.). It's good stuff...scroll down and look to the left for the links column. But don't say I didn't warn you when you find a theory that mkaes you mad.
Also, for those who don't know, Snopes is an invaulable resource, even if you use it for nothing else than debunking the crap that gets forwarded to you via email. Whether it's a money hoax, a petition to end the barbaric practice of putting kittens in jars, or a claim that AOL will pay you $4,000 to forward an email, Snopes will tell you the truth. I send the link to all those who send me junk email. And then I mock that person.
Oh, and one more thing...I need your account information so I can place my Nigerian millions in an American bank account.

I've got to admit it -- I'm excited.
That's a tough admission for someone like me. My best friend says my schtick is "classic cool" -- that is, nothing people do or say interests you unless it's about you. Wait -- that sounds like an insult! Make that my ex-best friend!
My best friend's Dr. Phil-esque determinations aside, I'm extremely excited today, as I'm going to see Johnny Marr in Detroit in a few hours. You may remember Johnny Marr as the guitarist from a little band known as The Smiths -- coincidentally, my favorite band ever!
It should be a righteous event. It's at The Magic Stick, a favorite dive on Woodward Avenue. It's such a dive that Rolling Stone (like anyone cares) featured it in a recent issue. Ooohhh, faux-dive trendsetters love it, and therefore you should too!
Seriously, it's a good place to see a show, not least because it's sponsored by Camel cigarettes and they usually hand out smokes. Also, it's tiny, so if you want to yell something particularly insulting, the artist can usually hear you.

Anyone who knows me can't help but know that I love Communism.
OK, back up.
I don't love Communism as a political system. I think it's the worst. But I DO love studying it, reading about it, and collecting things (i.e. propoganda) that are associated with it. In fact, I think I may write my Master's thesis on the Paris Commune of 1871.
So, anyway, anyone who...oh, already said that.
So I'm covering a village council meeting for the newspaper I write for, and I hear the term (vaguely, since I wasn't paying attention. What? I was taping it!) "five year plan." Naturally, my ears perk up, only to fall down again when I hear that the plan refers to recycling.
"Ohhh," my heart says, sinking. "They're not referring to the infamous Five Year Plans under one Mr. Josef Stalin."
But, as I listened further, I thought that it was indeed possible that the inspiration for the Five year Recycling Plan actually WAS culled from ol' Stalin.
Examples? Sure, right here!
--First, the plan sought to educate...nay, REeducate the children of the local elementary school. As in the Komsomol, or Young Pioneers, or what have you.
--Second, the plan sought to expand the current curbside recycling program using the schoolkids as tools of the system; i.e. narc-ing on those parents who aren't recycling. OK, maybe "narc-ing" is a strong term, but they said, and I quote, "Maybe the kids will go home and say 'We recycle at school. Shouldn't we recycle at home too?'"
Maybe I've got 1984 on the brain here, but wasn't one of the key aspects of the regime detailed therein the fact that kids would turn in their parents for being enemies of the people?
I'm being tongue-in-cheek of course, but my point should be clear. You may say, "But Blue, compliance with recycling programs isn't compulsory; therefore, who cares if kids rat out their non-recycling parents?" I say, "But what if it were (or will be)?" Then what?
I suppose, I guess, that the Stalinist overtones in the council chambers might have been of my imagining. It could have just been a boring meeting. It was, in fact, a boring meeting. But I can't help thinking that I might get tossed in the Gulag for disputing the commisariat.