Sometimes a post just falls into my lap, because a particular article touches on so many different points that all gel together with stuff I've already been thinking about.

Have you ever seen the movie Shattered Glass? If not, then I suggest it, especially if you have even a fleeting interest in the media. It tells the story of a young intrepid reporter by the name of Stephen Glass who worked for the New Republic. The movie is based on a true story that occurred about 5 years before the more recent NYTimes and Jayson Blair scandal. Stephen wrote a gossip column about stuff in Washington and other relevant topics. Just one problem: most of his stories were made up--utter fiction.

So why the hell am I talking about this movie? Well, Stephen's lies were uncovered when he wrote a story called "Hacker Heaven." The details of the story are mostly irrelevant, but suffice it to say that an editor at Forbes Digital Tool, an internet magazine start-up at the time, got yelled at for not getting the story, that Stephen got in "Hacker Heaven." This Forbes editor then researched things and uncovered the lie which took Stephen down and tarnished TNR's image.

Who was this Forbes editor? Adam L. Penenberg. And what is Adam doing now? Writing columns for Wired Magazine and teaching as a university professor. In fact, he has an excellent column up now, that introduces himself, talks of the Stephen Glass affair, and makes an excellent point that the mainstream media (such as network news and newspapers) faces a crisis in the name of lack of public trust. This crisis is particularly acute, seeing how internet media is gaining ground. Anyways, read the column... its cool and well-written.

First we had to put up with all the Hillary for President speculation for months without end, and now the veep speculation is beginning in earnest. Matt Drudge, never one to shy away from gossip, has a story quoting an anonymous Washington "insider" (about as trustworthy as a teenage girl in heat) saying that Hillary is a shoe-in to be Kerry's pick for the VP slot.

One of the claims of the "insider" is that Hillary would be a great pick, because she would solidify the Democratic base. But Kerry should already be able to do that. The job of a VP, in this situation, I think would be to help capture the middle of the road voters. And Hillary will not do that. She was a polarizing figure before and she still is. The "insider" also says that Kerry/Hillary would raise Healthcare to the top shelf and that would give them an edge over the GOP. Give me a break! Its the economy and the war on terrorism as top issues. Period.

President George W. Bush is in the process of scoring a major strategic policy victory in the Middle East. And how's he doing it? Well, we've all heard about the pending success in Iraq, and the pressure on Iran and Syria, and even of the stumblings in the Israel-Palestine conflict (which have been a hindrance to the situation).

So how is Bush scoring a victory apart from these areas? Turkey. France. The European Union. A brilliantly woven diplomatic victory.

Here's the rub. President Bush, while visiting Europe and Turkey for the last few days, has publicly pushed for EU acceptance of Turkey. Point one: at first, this seems like a mundane move by Bush, but consider the strategic implications. Turkey, as a secular-democracy with a predominantly Muslim population, could act as a bridge between the Middle East Muslim world and the west, that is if they enter the European Union. In a speech today in Turkey, Bush outlined these sentiments exactly.

Point two: Turkey is a valuable ally for the United States in the Middle East. Militarily they offer a potential launch point for U.S. operations if needed, and their military force would be helpful in a support role. Economically, Turkey could forge a healthy relationship with Iraq and the synergism between the two Muslim democracies could buttress peace in the Middle East. Bush's courting of Turkey to be an ally of NATO and Turkey's acceptance of this role firms up our ally status.

Point three: originally French wimp-in-chief Jacques Chirac opposed Turkish accession to the EU, but now he has fallen in line along with other EU "hot shots."

Score: Bush 3, instability in the Middle East 0

Well, the advanced screening of Spider-Man 2 was awesome! I enjoyed it immensely, and I think it really had value because of the depth of the script and character development which echoed the strengths of the first movie. But, alas, I'm going to be lazy and post parts of this review by Moira Macdonald which falls in life with my own sentiments:

And it's my great pleasure to tell you that Sam Raimi's marvelous "Spider-Man 2" is as good as summer movies get. Get in line and pass the popcorn; this is undoubtedly the most fun you'll have at the multiplexes this season, or maybe even this year...

"Spider-Man 2" bubbles over with small pleasures: the high-voltage bellowing of J.K. Simmons as Daily Bugle editor J. Jonah Jameson; the all-too-casual introduction of characters sure to play more of a role next time around (a landlord's spindly daughter, a sympathetic professor); Molina's gleeful villainy, under his acreage of eyebrows; the sweet, wistful chemistry between Maguire and Dunst, who play their scenes with an honesty and directness that's rare in any film.

Take out the love story and you'd still have a nifty action flick; delete the special effects and a beautifully acted romance would remain. Put it all together and ... hey, it's going to be a "Spider-Man" summer. Bring on the next one; I can't wait.

"I've heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord
But you don't really care for music, do you?
It goes like this
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah

"Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah

"Your faith was strong but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
She tied you to a kitchen chair
She broke your throne, she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah

"Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah

"Maybe I have been here before
I know this room, I've walked this floor
I used to live alone before I knew you
I've seen your flag on the marble arch
Love is not a victory march
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah

"Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah

"There was a time you'd let me know
What's real and going on below
But now you never show it to me, do you?
And remember when I moved in you
The holy dark was moving too
And every breath we drew was Hallelujah

"Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah

"Maybe there's a God above
And all I ever learned from love
Was how to shoot at someone who outdrew you
And it's not a cry you can hear at night
It's not somebody who's seen the light
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah

"Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah"


-Rufus Wainwright, "Hallelujah"

It opens on June 30, but this is an advanced screening. I'll do a short review here, trust me nothing in-depth on this one.

In the past, I and other bloggers and pundits have predicted a GOP gain of 5 or more seats in the Senate this year, listing several reasons behind this shift. Now, Time has an article arguing just the opposite:

Seven months ago, the Democrats' quest for the Senate appeared hopeless, and Republicans, who cling to a slim 51-to-48 majority (with one independent), were confidently predicting they would widen that lead. Especially in the Republican-friendly South, Democrats were staring at a wipeout, with five of their Senators -- Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, John Breaux of Louisiana, John Edwards of North Carolina, Zell Miller of Georgia and Bob Graham of Florida -- all deciding to retire.

But Democrats have since recruited credible-enough candidates that the party now has a shot at holding on to three or four of the Southern seats -- in South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida and Louisiana. And in the West, Democrats are hoping to nab the open seats left by the retirement of Republican Senators Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado and Don Nickles of Oklahoma, and to take on the vulnerable Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. So suddenly the math has changed: Democrats can see their way to a net gain of two seats, which would give them a slim advantage in the Senate.

I'm not convinced. Even though the Dems get a guaranteed pick-up in Illinois, this was no surprise, and Daschle is still looking weak, the Dems still are defending a greater number of seats, and the GOP still has more attractive races in my opinion. Time makes the point that Bush's weakness might drag the GOP down in Senate races, but any student of political science recently will tell you that coat-tails are pretty short these days.

China's getting their economic act together, and the rest of the world is recognizing it, with their FDI (foreign direct investment) now surpassing the U.S.'s.

But when do they get their political act together? And that is the question of the century-- this century! And next summer, the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis is offering a China program. I'm so there. You know... They need help figuring this stuff out.

"U.S. Hands Power to Iraqis Two Days Early"

"This is a historical day ... a day that all Iraqis have been looking forward to," said Iraqi President Ghazi Al-Yawer. "This is a day we are going to take our country back into the international forum."

The Cool
TV on your phone... in Norway

The Un-cool
alibi cell networks help you lie

The abortion debate often focuses on the morality of the issue or on the current political debate.

Rarely do we consider the demographic and long-term political consequences of abortion. Here is a demographic stat for you, and I won't bore you with numbers: in the 30 yrs since Roe v. Wade, our nation has aborted more African-American unborn-babies than the current African-American population of the U.S. And that is a fact.

Other studies have looked at the impact on crime rates and voting rates that abortion might have. The WSJ's Opinion Journal has an excellent article today saying that legalized abortion has negatively impacted the Democratic party by starving it of votes. Its analysis is fairly convincing and damning. Basically, people tend to vote more often than not in the same manner as their close family members. And Democratic-leaning families abort unborn-babies at higher rates than Republican-leaning ones. Check the article out, for its numbers are telling.

Galatians5 1:13-18

13You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. 14The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."15If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. 16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

Blogging will be light today, as I am going to see Rufus Weinright, Guster, and Ben Folds in concert. But hey, there's still plenty of stuff to read from a wonderful open-blog-friday.

The House of Representatives is preparing a "test vote" on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage across the board. This vote would not be binding, but would show where the votes fall and make a statement. For certain, opponents of gay marriage are going to use this vote to lobby wavering Congressman hard.

Also, in a couple weeks or less, the Senate is preparing to make an actual (not test) vote on gay marriage. The Federal Marriage Amendment, if passed, would mark the first time that the Constitution has ever been used to remove rights from a class of people. It will be only the second time the Constitution was used to remove rights at all, the first being prohibition which was later repealed.

Therefore, in the upcoming week, I urge you to call and write your congressman and senators and ask them to vote against any proposed amendment. In general, personal letters mean more than form letters to legislators, and if you need help on what to say, shoot me an e-mail, and I'll be happy to provide some convincing bullet points.

When a judge is in endanger of losing his or her position on the bench, usually it has to deal with the judge being involved in some kind of criminal activity. However, the case of Judge Donald D. Thompson is quite different. He is not being accused of being involved in any kind of criminal activity. Instead, he is being accused by his clerk, his former court reporter and several witnesses at trials he presided at of using a penis pump, shaving his privates and masturbating while being on the bench during court proceedings. In fact, his long-time court reporter, Lisa Foster said that she saw his manhood on "15 to 20 occasions." I guess it does not take much to be state judge these days.

Thanks to The Smoking Gun for this hilarious story.

Pontificating from Bologna, Italy, Alan J. Kuperman writes that halting genocide is easier said than done. He argues that intervening in Rwanda would have been pointless because by the time troops arrived, most of the killing would have been stopped. Furthermore, by using military interventions, the west will show its support for violence and instead, should support internal peace movements of the people under attack.

Excuse me, I just threw up in my mouth.

First, since Professor Kuperman makes it clear he has been studying humanitarian intervention in the cases of genocide for 10 years, let me tell you I've only recently started studying this in depth. But I distinctly remember that the UN did have peace keeping troops in Rwanda and eventually pulled them out. What does this say to the Hutu aggressors when the UN is pulling its troops out and not sending more in? I'll tell you what it says, it says "we don't give a shit."

Secondly, the UN and especially the US under Bill Clinton refused to classify this as genocide or ethnic cleansing, instead calling it an ethnic conflict in order to avoid the Genocide Conventions. This lead to no action.

Thirdly, does Kuperman suggest that the western world take no action on genocides because by the time that military troops are deployed, it would probably be over? He argues that most of the killing in Rwanda happened within the first three weeks, but it is widely accepted that the genocide occurred over the span of 100 days. Rationalizing the decline in killings doesn't mean that it is okay to stand by. It just means that either there are a lot of displaced persons or a lot of people have died. Also, the UN Peacekeeping leaders in Rwanda had information that the Hutus were planning a genocide and notified the UN weeks before the start of the genocide asking for help.

Fourth(ly), genocide is not war. There is hardly a peace movement and I doubt the Hutus would have cared. Tutsis were running scared, I don't think peace would have assuaged the Hutus. People were killing their neighbors with garden tools, smashing babies' heads to the ground and going into Churches and just killing everyone. And Tutsis were not the only people who died. Moderate Hutus and people deemed to have helped Tutsis were mercilessly killed too. I'm sorry, but I don't see a peace movement stopping the genocide.

While Kuperman does suggest worthy remedies to prevent and deter genocide, it will take decades before any of these are effective enough. In the mean time, nothing can rationalize the western world intervening when the lives of hundreds and thousands of innocent people are at stake.

I reported last week that Britney Spears has gotten engaged to her boyfriend of around two months, Kevin Federline. What I forgot to tell you though, is that since Federline has fathered two children with ex-girlfriend, Shar Jackson, Britney Spears will become a step-mother!!! We all know Britney Spears has several issues and problems, but the one that's not often mentioned is that she likes to marry ugly men.

Bill "The Sports Guy" Simmons is probably the funniest man alive. And by funny I don't mean Ashton Kutcher's "look at me I'm stupid" funny, but seriously witty funny. His latest article, re: the NBA Draft will be an enjoyable 10 minutes.

Maybe next year, Lucas.

Cheney's recent outburst is reaons number 382 why he is a) mentally unstable and b) why we can't have another year of Bush/Cheney. His refusal to apologize is reason number 383. But really, what does this say about the state of politics in our nation?

Shit! and Double Shit!!

Apparently, humanity and hearts have a price. For one California Governor, the cost is $14 million.

Your Sudan Articles of the Week:
Surprise! Kofi finally makes a move!!! But this ethnic cleansing needs action, not more words. And secondly, think about intervening? No, that should have been done months ago Kofi.
Threats help though
Kristof continuing the good fight...
...and answering questions
Angelina Jolie is also getting in on the action

There are Bush apologists, Dem apologists and also Padres apologists!

Speaking of the Padres...Record: 37-34, 3.0 games out of first, .5 games out of second. Tonight @ Seattle Mariners.

Currently Reading: "The Aeneid" by Virgil, Chapter VII "Juno Serveed by a Fury"

Next Read: "My Life" by Bill Clinton. I'll let you know how it goes in 900 some odd pages

Miles run: 18!

Police screw ups and a whole list of other missteps by the prosecution lead to enough reasonable doubt for a jury to acquit OJ Simpson ten years ago, and it may also lead to another acquittal in the case against Scott Peterson. Among the missteps is Detective Al Brocchini admitting to purposely omitting important information in his investigation report, and floating lies to the media and friends and relatives of Scott Peterson in order to cast more guilt upon him in the public eye. Apparently, this strategy has backfired. While about 60% of the nation believes Scott Peterson is guilty, an ex-juror sided with the defense, saying that the prosecution's case was weak.

It has come to my attention that David Stern, is the answer to problems that plague various industries out there. Many people call him a dictator of the NBA, but when other sports such as baseball and football are getting out of hand, and people have stopped paying attention to the NHL, David Stern has controlled the potential problems that could plague the NBA. Look at what the NFL and MLB would be like if they were run like the NBA. First, the draft has two rounds. Count them: two. Not drafts that last for days and that go on for 50 some odd rounds, two. So either you get drafted or you don't (which makes people think a lot harder when wanting to declare early). I understand that basketball has 12-man rosters while football and baseball have larger rosters, but seriously, 50 rounds? I don't think so. If the NFL had 5-7 rounds max, do you think they'd be sued by Maurice Clarett? Maybe, but chances are not likely. Secondly, if the NFL were like the NBA, everyone drafted in the lottery gets the same signing bonus, the rest of the first round gets the another level signing bonus, and everything is scaled like so. There's a bottom level salary for the number of years you've played, there's a salary cap. None of this Scott Boras is an agent for the devil bullshit and teams have to pass on good players so they don't have to deal with Boras. Several baseball teams passed on top level baseball prospects because they don't have the money to pay them the amount they want. Guess what? A draft is a chance for bad teams to get the best amateur players and that doesn't happen when the best players in the draft want too much money and it certainly doesn't happen when some spoiled brat like Eli Manning dictates where he wants to go. If David Stern were in charge of the NFL, do you think the Eli Manning embarrassment would have happened? Oh heck no! Eli Manning would have gone to the Chargers or Stern would have Manning start his pro career in another country. Furthermore, if David Stern were MLB commissioner, messes like this wouldn't be happening and the league wouldn't hide behind its anti-trust exemption to screw over taxpayers. I'm not making this up.

I'll leave it up to your imaginations and the comments section to think about what it would be like if David Stern were the President of the United States...

At least according to Conservative James Gannon of USA Today. I have to agree with Gannon. Unlike any Vice President I can remember in my short lifetime can I remember a Vice President so disliked, and such a lightening rod for criticism. The Republicans need to start grooming a successor for Bush in 08' because there is no way Cheney is going to run in '08.

find it odd that John Kerry (who served in Vietnam, btw) is acccusing George W. Bush of not being able to relate to working families. This, from the man whose family is worth hundreds of millions.

File this one under "typical hypocritical Democratic attack tactics".

Today, the Republican nominee for the Illinois Senate race, Jack Ryan resigned , as he was unable to weather the storm of a scandal that started four days ago when his divorce papers were finally unsealed and revealed that his then wife, actress Jeri Ryan, accused him of taking her to sex clubs on three separate occasions. Jack Ryan has only himself to blame for his downfall.

Throughout the primary campaign Ryan claimed that he did not want to release the divorce records because he wanted to protect his son and that the sealed portions of his divorce proceedings dealt with custody issues. He also assured Illinois Republican leaders that there was nothing potentially embarrassing in those records. However, that has not turned out to be the case.

Ryan would have been much better off releasing these records when the other candidates and the media began to demand the release of the records. While these divorce records are embarrassing to Ryan, he could have easily weathered the storm because the accusations were only his word against hers and the public in general has grown tired of sex scandals. But to lie to the public and party leaders is only asking for trouble.

As for the Illinois Republicans, they have a few options. They could try to beg current Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald to not retire, but that does not seem likely. They could also try to get former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar to run, but that seems even more unlikely after he decided to not run in the primary. They most likely will tap either Jim Oberweis or State Representative John Rausenberger, who finished second and third in the primary. It seems highly unlikely that the Republicans have any chance at holding on to this crucial Senate seat.

Given that Kristine posted her reasons why Kerry shouldn't be excommunicated last week, I think it only fair that the other side of the issue be heard.

The issue of abortion is quite different from other Catholic issues in politics as there is a clear answer as to the proper stance to take. For instance, the Catholic Church takes a strong stand on social justice and on care of the poor. But there's no one way to go about doing this. Some might argue that the best way for the federal government to address this issue would be to provide services to the poor, such as welfare, health insurance, and so forth. Others might respond that this would hurt more people than it helps, either by encouraging people to remain in poverty or by making the economy less efficient. These people might claim that allowing markets to be relatively more free and competative will provide for more jobs and more (and cheaper) goods and services, which will ultimately be more helpful to the poor than any particular welfare program. The point is not that one side of this debate is right and the other side is wrong. The point is that both sides are committed to helping better the situation of the poor, and that they differ on the best way to do that. In terms of policy, one is not more recognizeably Catholic than the other.

Abortion is very different. The Church teaches very strongly against killing other human beings and respecting human life. If fetuses are human, then certainly no Catholic can condone killing them and can morally support abortion. Even if fetuses are only potential life, then a viewpoint that encourages sacrifice, care for one's fellow man, and taking up one's cross to follow Christ certainly conflicts with one that would allow a mother infinite discretion as to whether her child (or future child) should live or die.

But we live in a secular society committed to keeping the various churches apart from the state. How can any Catholic in good conscience oppose a right of abortion, even if they find the act itself morally reprehensible? Well, when one weights what one believes 1.5 million lives per year against an abstract right, it becomes somewhat difficult to countenance a right being worth that much. It especially seems that this right is costly when the 1.5 million lives are all defenseless and innocent of any wrongdoing, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, it was the mother's and father's choices that led to the creation of those lives in the first place. It becomes even more difficult to support this right over and against these lives when one realizes that the right appears nowhere in the Constitution and the logic of its origin is dubious at best. One does not need to be a Catholic to recognize the poor logic of Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade - I don't think Hugo Black, Byron White, William Rehnquist, and Potter Steward were Catholics.

Given all of this, it seems a little questionable when a politician claims that "I am a Catholic, but my obligations to the state mean that I have to subordinate my religion to this right" - when there is at least an argument to be made that no such right exist, either in rights theory or in the Constitution. But it might be tolerable if, out of compassion for the frightened women who are driven by horrible life circumstances to procuring an abortion, politicians wanted to take abortion out of the back alleys and move it into hospitals, where at least it would be safer. After all, if women have abortions anyway, why should they be forced to have them with coat-hangers?

Such a position might be morally tenable. However, though they might try to claim it, this is not the position taken by John Kerry or any other politician who supports abortion rights. If it were, they would try to limit abortions to those women who are in desperate situations. They would try to keep abortions legal, but at the same time try to shrink the number from the approximate annual 1.5 million. Perhaps only certain reasons would suffice as justification for an abortion: rape, incest, the life or health of the mother (where "health" is a word with actual content), or that a child will suffer from some congenital disease or horrid birth defect, or that the parents do not have the financial resources to support the child. Instead, these politicians support abortion at any time and for any reason. Some would try to have government medical insurance fund abortions. Some would try to have the government fund military abortions. Some (including John Kerry) try to export population control overseas to continents that do not want it, in a strange yet fitting combination of abortion and eugenics, to keep the brown people from reproducing too fast. With all of this that pro-abortion politicians try, they are certainly not trying to encourage mothers to pursue other options.

Now, back to the Church. According to the Church's teachings, abortion is the killing of an innocent, defenseless human being. John Kerry and other politicians support laws that would allow (what they claim to believe to be) humans to be killed. Not only do they do this, but they try to use taxpayer money to do so, and they support abortions in cases where there is no moral justification to do so unless one does not believe the fetus to constitute human life. By taking these positions and voting accordingly, especially over the course of long government careers, they are complicit in the abortions they helped make legal and accessible. And as evidenced by the fact that they continue to take these positions, and in fact defend themselves when questioned, they are not repenting and are taking a position at odds with the Church. By defending these positions as positions that one can support and still legitimately call oneself a Catholic, they may even be engaging in heresy. They should be excommunicated.

This is not to say that everyone who differs from the Church on this issue should be excommunicated. The crucial point here is that they are complicit in the approximate 1.5 million abortions that take place each year, not that they merely disagree with the Church. Nor should this really be a public issue. It is not a story of note unless one is a Catholic or a scandal-monger. It certainly should not be used as a reason to vote for or against Kerry or any other Catholic politician, and the Church should not be in the business of telling politicians that they have to vote a certain way. To the extent that the Church is doing that (especially since this has become an issue in an election year), it is doing itself and the country a disservice. But the Church manifestly is (and should be) in the business of guiding its flock, and some concerns are higher than politics. If these people truly believe that they cannot participate in public life and vote in a way that their faith demands, they should not participate in public life. Their faith means little otherwise. And the Church absolutely should not tolerate people who claim to be Catholic yet loudly proclaim anti-Catholic views, refuse to repent, and try to pass sin off as a virtue. That is the issue here, not politics. The Church must remain true to its mission on Earth.

On Monday, recent Padres first round draft pick (and first overall!) was arrested for trying to get into a nightclub (he's 18) and then allegedly biting a bouncer who tried to escort him out! A lot of San Diegans think Bush smells a lot like one Ryan Leaf, but as Nick Canepa points out, Ryan Leaf's only issue was that he was lazy and would rather learn about the San Diego party scene than learn about football. In short, Ryan Leaf (the rat-bastard that he is) never got himself arrested!

The Padres should make a statement and drop him/void his contract. I love the Padres because they are a good organization. People seem happy to be a part of it, the players really contribute to the community and the fans are super loyal. If this is the tip of the iceberg, then the Padres will regret holding onto Bush a few years from now. Honestly, I don't think this kid is going to change. He's 18, signed a $3.15 million dollar contract (or is it his signing bonus alone?) and clearly has a big ego. It's one thing to try to get into a bar when you're not of age. Several people have done it. But if they turn you away, then leave! What makes a person think they have a right to jump over the railing to get in, and when asked to leave, start a fight? That is a sign of more than bad judgement. It's bad attitude. And who is Matt Bush? Sure he's the first draft pick and an acomplished baseball player...at the high school level. So many people go into the minors and just can't do it, they hit a wall, they retire. Matt Bush who is unproven at the MLB level, who probably hasn't picked up a wood bat in his life, who hasn't even played in his first game as a pro, is throwing his weight around? Please, give me a break! The Padres and MLB do not need people like Matt Bush.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. The FCC's planned new rules liberalizing media ownership in this country, have been stricken by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals out of Phili. I haven't read the ruling, nor will I. No time.

Ed. note: I originally stated that the Supreme Court had acted in this case. That was a mistake which has since been corrected. Thanks to Mike Romano for the heads up on it.

Open blogging today, btw....

I recently heard a journalist affirm a basic maxim of the craft: 'In a print news source, you draw a pretty hard line between your editorial and advertizing activities.'

Upon further thought, I came up with my own: advertizing should follow a publication's content, not the other way around. The point is that for an article to be as unbiased as possible, it cannot be written to appease an advertizer or to appeal to one. For sure, this maxim applies to television news programs as well.

This stuff just takes common sense, not a lengthy educational program, nor decades in the business. Try telling that to CBS News though. Dan Rather, the completely unbiased news anchor [cough], gave Clinton's book a perfect 4 stars in his review. I thought that was suspicious at the time, but I didn't say anything publicly, because it would have been pure speculation. Well, it appears that my suspicions were well grounded.

This headline says it all: "CBS News Confirms Amazon.com Partnership, Profiting from Clinton Book Sales." Do the math, I don't need to spell it out for you.

It turns out that the Hoosier State's topography is changing rapidly. What's causing this activity? Seismic rumblings? Changing climate patterns? No and no. The answer is trash--literally.

Thanks to Josh for the heads up on this article which talks about a planned expansion of a landfill in east central Indiana, near the town of Winchester and 20 minutes from my grandmother's house. The expansion of the landfill, which is owned by a Michigan company, will make it the highest point in Indiana. And Indiana is so damn mountainous, that this says a lot. ;-)

Scrappleface has a hilarious mock speech by President Bush on Bill Clinton. 'This was the speech President Bush was supposed to give a couple weeks ago, when Clinton got his portrait hung in the White House.' :-) Here's a funny excerpt, but read the whole thing:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I appreciate you all coming. President Clinton and co-President Rodham Clinton, welcome home. (Applause.) All who live here are temporary residents; a thought which brought constant comfort to our nation during the years of your presidency...

Over eight years, it was clear that Bill Clinton loved the job of the presidency. He filled this house with energy and joy, as well as discarded pizza boxes and interns.

Here's the meat of the WorldNetDaily article:

The movie industry publication Screen Daily reported, "In terms of marketing the film, [distributor] Front Row is getting a boost from organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there's anything they can do to support the film."

The story then quotes Front Row Managing Director Gianluca Chacra: "We can't go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria."

Terror-war supporting organization Move America Forward publicized the Chacra quote and reacted strongly against it.

"Michael Moore dismisses Americans who are upset with his film and the impact it has in undermining support for the war against terrorism," said Vice Chair Melanie Morgan. "At the same time, his distribution companies are concerned about offending the sensibilities of terrorists. That certainly gives rise to asking the question: Whose side are you on?"

...if it plans on joining the community of civilized nations around the world. That includes bullying religions around, like it recently has done with the Catholic Church. All Christians should stand up and condemn this action and similar actions.

For once I agree with him. Bill Clinton on the media: (taken from the recent BBC interview; this is the part where he "blew up." In reality the media exaggerated that big time. He raised his voice a bit and that was all.)

CLINTON: And, and let me just say this. One of the reasons he got away with it is because people like you only ask people like me the questions. You gave him a complete free ride. Any abuse they wanted to do, they indicted all these little people from Arkansas, what did you care about them, they're not famous, who cares that their life were trampled. Who cares that their children are humiliated. Who cares if Starr sends FBI agents to their school, and rip them out of their school to humiliate them, and try to force their parents to lie about me. Who cares if he sends a woman like Susan McDougal in to Hannibal Lector like cell and makes her wear a uniform worn only by murderers and child molesters. Nobody in your line of work cared a rip about that at the time. Why, because he was helping their story.

And that's the difference in me and the people that were after me. I actually cared about what happened to those people, and I wanted to be President to help those people. And that's what the fight was about. Now that doesn't justify any mistake I made, but look how much time you spent asking me these questions, and this time you've had ... that's cos what you care about, cos that's what you think helps you and helps this interview. I care about what happened to the people that I fought for.

Read the whole transcript here...

Andrew Sullivan is right. George W. Bush is not a conservative in his attitude towards government. If it wasn't for his superiority on foreign policy and economics, the man wouldn't have a cold day's in Texas chance of getting my vote. Anyways, here's Sullivan's words:

Here's a revealing quote from the president on his political philsosophy:

"[T]he role of government is to stand there and say, 'We're going to help you.' The job of the federal government is to fund the providers who are actually making a difference."

He's referring to a government-funded attempt to help people in troubled marriages. It would be hard to think of a realm more private than a marriage, but the president believes that the government has a role there. I'm sure his motives are genuine and sincere. But anyone still deluded in thinking that Bush conservatism means limited government should open their eyes. Bush believes in big government. He just believes it should be funded by debts the next generation will have to pay.

This from liberal Christopher Hitchens at Slate:

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

Brilliantly written. What world was Cannes in?

There's a new documentary out about Metallica and their recent band troubles. Its called, "Some Kind of Monster."

Unlike their scathing review of Bubba's silly and pointless memoirs, the New York Times gave this Metallica documentary a great review. Like, a band has real emotions dude. Having their bassist leave in the middle of their latest album recording, and dealing with their lead singer's magnetic attraction to the bottle and their drummer's 'on something' Danish disposition, can be a real bummer.

They addressed all of these problems in group therapy sessions and let cameras watch. Rock on!

Nope. Not really. This time its business liars in media institutions. What? Never!

Oh yes, its true. According to this Editor and Publisher article:

Troubled by last week's circulation scandals at Hollinger International's Chicago Sun-Times and the Tribune Co.'s Newsday and Hoy, Merrill Lynch's Lauren Rich Fine released a report today calling into question the reliability of circulation figures for the entire industry. "Our biggest fear," the report said, "is that these two announcements may not be isolated incidents."

The worst consequence could be declining ad revenue, if advertisers doubt the reliability of circulation figures. The report says that the most vulnerable spot will be preprint inserts as they are purchased entirely on circ reach. It added: "Circulation is likely to remain a controversial topic in the near term."

Last year Liberia had some troubles. Rebel fighting and an unstable government threatened the peace. Newspapers across America came calling, championing Liberia's cause. "We need to send troops over there!" they yelled. It was not a major conflict and probably had no potential to become one, so why the calls for U.S. intervention? Fairness. The editorialists, "We Americans went in there and helped establish that nation. Its a democracy in a troubled area, that was founded by freed slaves. We owe it to them to help them out. Otherwise America's word is worth zilch."

I did agree, and I felt we should have had some presence over there, but to this date I do not think Liberia deserved to be the media darling that it became.

Especially, realizing that the media is devoting so little concentration to the genocide in the Sudan. America has no special historical obligation to Sudan, so there is no cutesy story to be told about fairness and all. Genocide just isn't chic enough for the media elite on the right coast, is it? They'd rather moan about U.S. soldiers putting women's underwear on Iraqi prisoners' heads. That story needed to be told. But priorities fellas?

Luckily, bloggers like Instapundit and Kristine Lam do care about Sudan.

Out of sheer curiosity I viewed the trailer online of Michael Moore's new America-hating "documentary" Fahrenheit 9/11. It looks like more of the same: masterfully putting together real quotes and facts in such a manner, with some creative editing, to give misleading impressions about the overall truth. Some would call this lying.

After watching the trailer, I realized I was in a dilemma. I want to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 because I would like to rebut its claims and false impressions in a public way, but I do not want to give Moore more publicity and certainly not my money. Somebody suggested a solution: download the movie and watch it for free. Brilliantly obvious, if not altogether legal. C'est la vie!

Also, it turns out that Moore used the title 'Fahrenheit 9/11' without asking author Ray Bradbury (author of Fahrenheit 451) for permission. Bradbury is not pleased.

In other news, Michael Moore has threatened to sue anyone who criticizes his movie in certain ways. Apparently he is concerned that critics might defame his character with mistruths. Hmmmm mmmmm mmmm mmmmmmmmm mmmmm mmmmmm mmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmm mmmmm... Sounds familiar, doesn't it?



Thanks to Dan for that link.

Let's talk pollution... Let's talk pollution from burning fossil fuels.

You may have heard already that Shell Oil chairman Ron Oxburgh has made public statements recently regarding his fears for the environment. Apparently he is "really very worried for the planet" according to this Guardian article.

The trick, and there is nearly always a trick, is what he proposes as a solution: "Sequestration is difficult, but if we don't have sequestration then I see very little hope for the world."

Carbon sequestration is the process of capturing carbon dioxide emissions and then storing them underground. Critics charge that it is expensive and probably impractical. Here's the catch. Sequestration, if implemented, would stretch out the time we as a society could rely upon fossil fuels for our electricity and cars. So, Mr. Shell's alarmism might have been merely a ploy to use concern for the environment for long-term business gain. Heck, I would not be surprised if Shell is currently researching its own sequestration services... Eh, color me a cynic

On a more optimistic note, I would favor a market solution to the fossil fuel emissions problem. The idea I've heard is that the government would put certain limitations on companies emissions, but the companies could buy and sell shares in their pollution allotment. This way, companies that need to exceed their allotment could do so temporarily, and clean companies could sell their allotment to make money, thus encouraging more companies to clean up their emissions.

Who better to elucidate the nature of terrorism than a terrorist himself? Many terrorism apologists make such statements as "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" or "what's the difference between terrorism and killing in war?" and so forth. Deceased Al-Qaeda cell leader Abdulaziz al-Moqrin wrote an article before his death explaining the murder of American engineer Paul Johnson. His words, as quoted in this AP article:

In an article posted Sunday on a Web site used by Islamic radicals, Abdulaziz al-Moqrin called Johnson "an infidel, a warrior of the military."

Paul Johnson was not in the U.S. military. He was an engineer who did some work military contracting, but he was not a soldier. The key difference between terrorism and just war or between terrorism and "freedom fighting" is that terrorism does not distinguish between non-combatants and combatants. To a terrorist, no person is innocent who disagrees with their values.

...from the wonderful and majestic city of Toledo, OH. Posting will resume Sunday in earnest.

lds