the downward spiral

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/politics/28bush.html

It's no wonder the vultures are circling around Bush. According to a new N.Y. Times/CBS News poll, the President's job approval rating is down to 34 percent, the lowest of his presidency. The poll also includes this:

• Only 72 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of conservatives approve of Bush. (Both numbers are down about 10 percent in the last month.)
• 70 percent (and 58 percent of Republicans) say Dubai Ports World should not be allowed to operate at United States ports.
• 65 percent disapprove of the administration's handling of Iraq, and only 30 percent approve.

Writing for the Times, Elisabeth Bumiller and Marjorie Connelly point out that Nixon and Carter both posted lower job approval ratings when they were at their most unpopular, and Bush 41 matched his son's current approval rating at one point. Surprisingly, Clinton's approval never dipped below 36 percent. (Though to be fair, that's not exactly a huge contrast to Dubya's current 34 percent.)

Yesterday I cited several examples of Republicans breaking ranks from the President recently, reacting to Bush's suddenly softening support. There's a couple of new examples today.
• Republican Terminator/Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of CA joined a group of Democratic Governors yesterday in agreeing to a new set of environmental regulations aimed at easing global warming. The Governors openly criticized Bush for ignoring the issue.
• Republican Sen. Susan M. Collins of Maine hammered the President on the port deal. "I am more convinced than ever that the process was truly flawed. I can only conclude that there was a rush to judgment."

Until Bush starts to pickup his approval ratings, he should continue to expect more of the same.

opening the door

Don't look now, but suddenly Bush looks vulnerable. With the war getting messier, the Katrina recovery still making headlines, the domestic spying program and Valerie Plame leaks both being investigated, the Abramoff scandal, the Cheney shooting and now the Dubai port sale, Bush is suddenly open to attack from the right as well as the left.

Consider the evidence. Here's David E. Sanger writing for the N.Y. Times on the port deal:

Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican and chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said he had supported Congressional approval of the deal to force Mr. Bush's hand. Now, Mr. King said, "I'm keeping that in reserve. I'm certainly not ruling it out."

Since when does someone like Peter King get to dictate terms to the President?! Or more to the point, since when does he think he can do so without facing political consequences? (King isn't the only Republican quoted in the article; many have come out against the port deal.)

Then there's this--a story that feels significant to me because for the first time it has a number of Republicans speaking out against the President on an issue that isn't a scandal.

As Robert Pear writes in today's N.Y. Times:

All 50 governors signed a letter to the president opposing any cuts in the size of the National Guard.

Pear quotes several Republican governors criticizing the depletion of the National Guard.

True, the Governors are serving their own interests by wanting more National Guard troops around for use in state. But even so, they're embarrassing Bush and giving more ammo to critics of the war, moreso because every Governor signed the letter. Would the Republican Governors have been as willing to contradict the President even a year ago?

It seems clear that there's an opening for the Democrats to do well in this year's midterm elections. But then, in recent years, expecting Democrats to capitalize on Republican failures has only been asking for disappointment. This year, the opposition party still has some work to do in crafting its own solutions for the issues dominating the news, starting with the Iraq situation. Until the Democrats can do that, they'll likely continue to struggle, no matter how frustrated voters become with the Bush administration.

So how can Democrats differentiate themself from the Republicans, and show they have their own plan?
• Go after Bush and the Republicans right at their perceived strength: defense and national security. Question their handling of Iran, the preparation and strategy behind invading Iraq, letting Osama get away, the port deal, etc. Offer a plan to increase security at home and be strong internationally, while doing a better job of reaching out to our historic allies around the world. On Iraq, don't talk about pulling out; talk about staying until the job is done. Present a strategy of focusing on diplomacy to try to negotiate a coalition government among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. (Granted, this isn't very different from the Bush strategy, but the U.S. is painted in a corner right now--and advocating pulling out won't be a winner for the Democrats this fall.)
• Portray the Republicans as corrupt and stale, and the Democrats as eager to bring a fresh new direction to the government. Hammer them on the Abramoff and DeLay scandals, and go after Cheney about Halliburton (there's a story in the news today about the military claiming that Halliburton overcharged the U.S. by about $250 million).
• Don't forget about the domestic issues the Republicans ignore. Advocate health care, education, etc.

If the Democrats can come up with a smart defensive strategy and a compelling domestic agenda, while painting the Republicans as corrupt and out of ideas, then they have a strong shot this fall.

Of course, that's easier said than done.

from bad to worse

Edward Wong writes for the N.Y. Times:

Since Wednesday, a groundswell of sectarian fury has roiled Iraq, leaving at least 138 people dead in the first two days and political negotiations over the new government in ruins.

The recent violence was sparked by the destruction of a revered Shiite shrine on Wednesday. True, things will likely settle down somewhat, as this cycle of violence fades. But for those optimists who hope the U.S. will be able to pull out in the near future, there's this:

American commanders have said they hope to withdraw a significant portion of the 130,000 American troops here by the end of this year, and that enough Iraqi soldiers and police officers could be trained to take over responsibility for security in many areas. Yet Iraqi forces did little to contain the violence. In at least one case in Baghdad, Iraqi witnesses said that policemen joined in attacking a mosque.

Bottom line, Iraq is a mess and it's not going to get better any time soon. There's a very good chance that we'll never see the result we want--a thriving, secular democratic government--no matter how long we stay in the region. It's very possible that even when the fighting in Iraq settles down, the result will be a government that won't be much better than Hussein's government.

Isn't that something we should have been aware of before we invaded? What happened to all of the talk about being in and out of Iraq in a month or two? Bush is a former CEO--hasn't he ever heard of due diligence?

In Iraq, it's unfortunately starting to look like finding democracy will prove to be as difficult as finding Weapons of Mass Destruction. Maybe we were looking in the wrong place all along.

troubled franchise

Until now, I've resisted commenting on the Knicks misguided trade for Steve Francis yesterday. And really, I think I'll skip it, there's not much to say that hasn't been said. But I will point out this sharp column by Barbara Barker in today's N.Y. Newsday:

http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/ny-spbarb234638136feb23,0,5144092.column?coll=ny-sports-headlines

I've never seen Isiah Thomas' house. But judging from the trades he has made since becoming the Knicks president, I can only imagine that it has four brick driveways, three swimming pools, two grand staircases, but no furnace, no closets and no kitchen sink.

Then later:

It's kind of scary to imagine Marbury and Francis in the same backcourt, two shoot-first point guards who together comprise the most expensive starting backcourt in the history of the game with a combined salary of $30 million this year. Who is going to be the complementary player? Who will be the go-to guy? And what is Brown going to do? These two guys are about as far away from Richard Hamilton and Chauncey Billups as Isiah Thomas is from Joe Dumars as a GM.

I've never seen Dumars' house in Detroit, but I bet it has a furnace.

Oh well, at least baseball starts soon. The Yankees may have a ridiculous budget, but so do the Knicks, and at least the Yankees win every once in a while.

activism in action

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/23/national/23dakota.html

Following up on yesterday's post, the vote in South Dakota to ban most abortions passed, and now only needs to be signed by Republican Governor Mike Rounds to go into effect and potentially set up a court challenge to Roe vs. Wade. Monica Davey writes in the N.Y.Times:

After more than an hour of fierce and emotional debate, the senators rejected pleas to add exceptions for incest or rape or for the health of the pregnant woman and instead voted, 23 to 12, to outlaw all abortions, except those to save the woman's life.

Interesting that when the new Supreme Court Justices were up for nomination, Republicans kept charging that Democrats were too focused on abortion, and using that as practically the sole issue on which the potential Justices were judged. In response, Alito and Roberts said, essentially, they have no opinion on abortion. (Why would they?) Of course, now that they've been confirmed, the first thing that happens is that Republicans are going after Roe vs. Wade. This is the political equivalent of one of your friends swearing up and down that he's a great driver when he wants to borrow your car, then wrecking it moments after you give him the keys.

But hey, maybe I'm being pessimistic. Maybe Alito and Roberts really have never thought about abortion, and now that they'll have a chance to think about it, they'll decide that they're pro-choice. Or maybe they'll stick to the philosopy they espoused during their confirmation hearings of not being "activist judges"--i.e., not using the court to make major policy changes. Here's our chance to test them on both of their major confirmation promises.

"songs for parents who enjoy drugs"

Last night I saw a great concert, someone I really need to plug here. Ed Hamell, aka Hamell on Trial (that's the name he uses to record and perform) is playing six shows this week and next week at The Knitting Factory here in New York.

Hamell is fascinating, especially live. He's a 50-ish, bald (think Michael Jordan) punk rocker who takes the stage with only an acoustic guitar, and plays it like a chainsaw. He's also hilarious. His shows include his often intensely political (and usually funny) songs, long-winded but funny introductions to the songs and, you know, jokes and spoken word tangents. It's like a cross between a concert and a one-man show. To give you an idea of his sensibility, he named his latest album--it comes out this week, and is the reason for the run of shows at The Knit--"Songs For Parents Who Enjoy Drugs." And that isn't just talk: much of the new material relates to Hamell's experiences as the father of a four-year-old son. (I'd quote lyrics here, but they're not online and I don't want to get them wrong.)

You can read more about him and hear song clips at http://www.hamellontrial.com. Personally I think his recorded output doesn't do justice to the experience of seeing him live. Highly reccommended if you ever get a chance.

South Dakota, political trendsetter

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/national/22dakota.html?hp&ex=1140670800&en=5d2fac6cc68a6727&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Monica Davey writes for the N.Y. Times about South Dakota Republicans' efforts to pass "a bill that would outlaw nearly all abortions." If all goes according to their plan, the bill would be challenged in court, and go all the way to the Supreme Court, where the new Bush Justices could overturn Roe vs. Wade.

The strategy would be aided by the potential retirement of 85-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens sometime before the case makes it to the Supreme Court.

So we all have that to look forward to.

ignoring Iraq

How does this not get more attention? I mean, it's not even the lead story in the article I'm citing, and the article itself was buried.

Yesterday was apparently "the bloodiest day in Iraq in almost two months." In an article headlined "U.S. Warns Iraq it Won't Support Sectarian Goals," Sabrina Tavernise and Robert F. Worth write in the N.Y. Times:

Bombing attacks on Monday, including one inside a crowded commuter bus in Baghdad and another in a restaurant in northern Iraq, left at least 26 dead and more than 60 wounded. One American soldier was also killed.

It's awful enough that we're still over there, but now we're all so tired of hearing about it that we've almost completely tuned it out. No one wants to talk about it anymore in day-to-day terms, not even the press. Meanwhile the bodies continue to pile up, and the tension between the Sunnis and Shiites that will need to coexist in a new Iraqi government shows little signs of abating.

I don't have an answer here--I'm not so liberal that I think we should just pull out now and let Iraq sort itself out. Say what you will about the decision to go to war (obviously I disagreed; unfortunately noone in the White House asked for my opinion), but now that we're there, we should at least make sure there's a government in place before we leave. Too bad it feels like that's still far off.

I heard a crazy story over the weekend. My cousin Darren's friend Sean enlisted in the National Guard as a reserve after he finished college (he studied telecommunications engineering, a desirable skill in the military). He fulfilled his reserve obligation, putting in his one-weekend-a-month of service for the required amount of time. In the meantime, he got married. A couple of years after his reserve assignment ended, with the Iraq War underway, his wife became pregnant. Shortly after that, he was called to active duty. They cited a shortage of telecommunications specialists as the reason for calling him up even though he wasn't even an active reserve, and due to the top-secret nature of what he would be doing, he wasn't allowed to have any contact with his wife during his entire tour of duty. He didn't get to see or hear about his newborn baby until after he returned from active duty; luckily he wasn't hurt. (As I said, some of this is hard to believe, but my cousin Darren swears by this and he's generally reliable.)

In a less anecdotal account, my-coworker Brett spent time on the U-MASS student paper with Jill Carroll, who went to Iraq as an investigative journalist and is now a hostage. Maybe because she's about my age, or in my field, or a friend-of-a-friend, but this strikes a chord for me.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/19/ap/world/mainD8F80AA05.shtml

It's easy to forget the costs of war, for the Iraqis, for American soldiers, for the families waiting at home for their loved ones, even for the media. Even though we might be sick of hearing about the day-to-day heartbreaks, it's important to keep that front and center as a constant reminder that we are at war. Hopefully that will put more pressure on finding a resolution.

real statements made by Circuit City salespeople this weekend

Following up on my last post, here's a list of actual statements made by three Circuit City computer salesman at two stores. Most of these were made by a thirtyish dude with a goatee named Mike at the Union Square store, which I will be avoiding in the future. (All but one of these quotes were made by sales staff at that store.)

--"Laptop batteries don't last more than a year and a half. And within a year, you'll be lucky to have a charge of more than an hour." After I pointed out that my previous laptop, bought about two-and-a-half years ago, still got pretty good battery life: "That's ancient history. The new processors eat much more power, it's like night and day." According to a friend who repairs computers for a living, the new processors may be even better than the older processors in terms of battery life.
--"When you do replace your battery for any of these laptops, the only way to get it is through the manufacturer and it costs $300, $350." In the SAME STORE they had laptop batteries on sale for about $120, which seems to be the going rate.
--"You want this computer instead. If you care at all about battery life, the AMD chip is much better than the Celeron chip." My source says the two chips are both designed for laptops and should be comparable in terms of battery life.
--"You don't want this computer. It's only 32 bit. The new Windows operating system is coming out this summer and it only runs on 64 bit computers. You know what that means? That means that if you buy this computer now, it's going to be completely obsolete in about four months." By all accounts, the new Windows will be able to run on 32-bit computers as well as 64. And who says your computer is "obsolete" if you're not running the latest Windows?! I've always ran outdated versions of Windows on my computers without much of a problem.
--"If you don't buy our anti-virus software package [preinstalled at about $120!] you're taking a gigantic risk as soon as this computer gets online. It's hard for me in good conscience to let you walk out of the store without this package." You can buy anti-virus software (at other retailers) for about $20 after rebate and install it yourself. Though you don't even need to do that... (see next point).
--"NONE of the new computers come with any kind of anti-virus software anymore." As labeled clearly on the floor model computer itself, the computer I bought (and many of the others on sale) had Norton Internet Security software pre-loaded. This is one of the most popular anti-virus software programs.
--"This computer only has 60 GB of hard drive space. Anything less than 80 is really lacking." This was said to a middle-aged woman, who would need all of that extra space for what, her gigantic collection of MP3s?
--"Stay away from Sony. Sony is bad, bad, bad." I actually don't know for sure whether or not Sony is bad, bad, bad, but considering the source, I doubt the salesperson who said this meant "bad for the customer" as much as "bad for Circuit City" in some way.

That's just what I picked up on--I'm not exactly a computer whiz, so I'm sure I missed more.

The moral of the story? Computer salesman are the used car salesman of the new millennium. Just because they're geeky doesn't mean they're harmless.

NOTE: In the interest of fairness, I should mention that at the end of the day I did walk away with the computer I wanted, at an excellent price. But it wasn't easy.

cool as ice

Ah, President's Day. There was a time in my life when I was in school and would have this whole week off. Now I'm here at work, in one of the few offices in my building that's open... sigh. This after a weekend in which I spent an agonizing amount of time attempting to buy a new computer in a major electronics store--man, I hate those places. I walked away with the computer I wanted but it took hours of waiting around and resisting high-pressure up-selling tactics. I walked out of one store after talking to a salesman for about half an hour (this coming after I waited another half hour to find someone to talk to) because I suspected he was flat-out lying to me about several things, and it turned out that I was right. So that was fun. Online shopping is the way to go, kids.

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=25442

Read this if you want a scare--a middle school student compares the bacteria content in toilet water to the ice in soda foutains at several fast food restaurants. The study made the news, so you can imagine how it turned out.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/allstar2006/news/story?id=2335818&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab2pos3

How sad is this: It's very possible that the highlight of the Knicks season will turn out to be tiny Nate Robinson (wait a second, I take that back--we're the same height, I can't call him tiny) winning the Slam Dunk Contest by dunking over the head of 1986 dunk champ, 5-7 Spud Webb.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/20/sports/ncaabasketball/20akron.html

Fun article about the 19-6 Akron men's basketball team imagines how much better they'd be if they featured a player who considered attending before heading straight to the NBA after high school: All-Star Game MVP LeBron James. Three of James's HS teammates and his former coach are now at Akron, where James would be a junior if he hadn't gone straight to the pros.

Pitchers and catchers have by now reported everywhere, and I'm starting to get (fantasy) baseball fever... I'm sure I'll write more about my teams in the coming weeks. I would add, jokingly, that this is due to popular demand, but that would be too ridiculous to even joke about.

More later, as I continue to ponder why I'm here...

standin' up for Slammin' Sammy

The eve of "Slammin'" Sammy Sosa's apparent retirement raises a fascinating question: Is he a Hall fo Famer? Here are the results of an ESPN.com poll today:

7) Does Sosa deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?

50.2% No
49.8% Yes

For me, that contradicts not only with Sosa's staggering career numbers, but also another question in the same poll:

12) Did Sosa and Mark McGwire's pursuit of Roger Maris' record in 1998 increase your interest in baseball?

36.5% Yes, and it hasn't faded yet
34.0% No
29.5% Yes, but only temporarily

Let's face it, he's getting into the Hall. He's fifth on the all-time home run list. He's had a historic impact on the game. He has huge blemishes on his record (steroids, corked bat, etc.), but unless they ban him from the Hall, a la Rose, his numbers will get him there.

Here are my thoughts on some other players who will have a shot at the Hall in the next few years, and whether they should make the cut:

YES
Mark McGuire: Same story as Sosa--ridiculous numbers, steroid issues. But he's more well liked than Sammy and transcended the game for a brief time.
Barry Bonds: Here's a question for fans who don't think Sosa should go--do you vote for Bonds, or disqualify his achievements too? I don't see how you can ignore seven MVPs, and the likely single-season and career record holder in HR.
Rickey Henderson: Biggest question is when he'll ever officially retire and start the clock on his eligibility.
Randy Johnson: Five Cy Young Awards, nine seasons with 290+ K, and my guess is he finishes with about 300 W.
Roger Clemens: Most surprising stat may be that he led the league in ERA seven times.
Roberto Alomar: .300 BA, 10 Gold Gloves at second base. Key part of two World Series champs and seven playoff teams.
Mike Piazza: Mostly because he's a catcher--less than 400 HR wouldn't be enough if he was an OF or 1B.
Ken Griffey: Easy to forget how great he was. Despites injuries, well over 500 HR and 10 Gold Gloves in CF.
Greg Maddux: Over 300 W, 3.00 career ERA in a hitters era, and four Cy Young Awards.
Tom Glavine: Will get to 300 W, two Cy Young Awards, along with Maddux led Braves to playoffs 11 straight seasons.
Pedro Martinez: Low win total (still not over 200), but easy to forget that he's just 33. Best argument is that his career ERA is about two runs below the league average.
Mariano Rivera: In 72 (!) postseason games, 8-1 with 34 saves and 0.81 ERA.

NO
Mike Mussina: 18 or more wins five times, but has never won 20--that's a good symbol of his career. Lifetime ERA of 3.64 doesn't impress.
Curt Schilling: Less than 200 W, less than 3000K. 2001 and 2004 seasons help, but not enough.
Kevin Brown: Only 211 wins, no Cy Youngs, overrated postseason pitcher (6-2 record, but 4.30 ERA).
Rafael Palmeiro: Tough call, but he'll be the one who proves that 500+ HR in the steroid era isn't enough. Never finished higher than fifth in the MVP voting.
Jeff Kent: Another close call--one MVP, eight seasons with 100+ RBI as a second baseman. But may not be enough in the juiced '90s.
John Smoltz: Despite diversion as a closer, only 177 W makes it tough to give him the nod.
Jim Thome: Only 34, but seems to be on the decline. Not enough home runs for the era to be considered an all-time great.
Frank Thomas: Two MVPs and a monstrous run in the '90s make a case, but injuries are a big factor here. If he bounces back and has a few more solid seasons and gets to 500 HR (he's at 448 right now) he'll have a decent shot.
Jeff Bagwell: Similar numbers than Thomas, but one less MVP.
Craig Biggio: Less than 3,000 hits, and more a compiler than a player who dominated for a long time.
Juan Gonzalez: Laugh if you want that he's on this list, but won two MVPs. Career 162 game average of .295-42-135. Like Thomas, injuries hurt him.
Trevor Hoffman: Almost 40 more saves than Rivera, but also has almost 20 more losses, and less postseason success.
David Cone: Less than 200 W, 3.46 ERA not enough despite playing in postseason in eight seasons, going 12-3.

More baseball stuff...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/powerranking?season=2006&week=1&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab4pos1

ESPN's first Power Ranking inexplicably has the A's ranked second and the Indians fourth.

Elsewhere on ESPN, Peter Gammons makes this bold statement:

I offer this: If Chien-Ming Wang is healthy, he can be one of the 10 best pitchers in the American League, not to mention being the best on the Yankees' staff and the key to a 100-105 win season and a longer October run.

Say what?! I'm as much of a Wang fan as anyone, but that's a big leap of faith in a pitcher who was solid but not dominant--he had a 47/32 K/BB ratio in 117 innings.

That's it for now... feel free to post messages here debating my Hall thoughts, or bringing up any players I may have overlooked.

Lima time!

Check out the hysterical opening to the Ben Shpigel's article about the Mets signing of Jose Lima in today's N.Y. Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/sports/baseball/17mets.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla., Feb. 16 — Pedro Martínez was cackling into his cellphone when another one rang a few feet behind him. It belonged to Jay Horwitz, the Mets' vice president for media relations, and the voice on the other end was Jose Lima's, the national anthem-crooning, towel-waving merengue singer who moonlights as a right-handed pitcher.

"It's Lima Time," Horwitz said.

Martínez abruptly ended his call and swiveled his head as Horwitz finished his conversation.

"That was Jose Lima?" Martínez said. "Why was he calling you?"

"Because we signed him, Pedro," Horwitz said.

Martínez's eyes widened.

"We signed him for real? Oh, not Jose Lima."

Martínez buried his face in his hands and started laughing uncontrollably.

Lima, who was 5-16 with a 6.99 ERA last year--and that's not the first time he finished a full season with an ERA over 6--boasts that he owns 2000 suits and has never worn any of them more than once.

According to baseball-reference.com, he's made $24 million to this point in his career. There is no justice.

More baseball stuff on the way...

trouble brewing?

So Cheney apologized, pointing out that "Ultimately, I'm the guy who pulled the trigger." Well, duh. Should it have taken four days--and undoubtedly, lots of pressure from the President--to get that kind of admission?

The only real revelation was that Cheney said he had a beer at lunch, a couple of hours before they went hunting. Not only is this obviously a hunting no-no, but it contradicts his host's earlier statements and raises the question of whether he may have delayed reporting the incident for fear of having to take a breathalyzer.

The N.Y. Times's David E. Sanger and Anne E. Kornblut write:

Until Mr. Cheney acknowledged having had a beer at lunch, members of the hunting party had been adamant that no alcohol was involved. Katharine Armstrong, whose family owns the ranch, had said in interviews that Dr Pepper was served at lunch and that no one was drinking.

It's hard to believe Cheney drank enough for this to be a factor, but considering the way this was all handled, it's tough to give him the benefit of the doubt on anything.

In the Fox News interview, Cheney was unapologetic about the way he handled releasing the information, arguing that the major media outlets were driving this as a story because they're bitter that they were scooped by the tiny Corpus-Christi paper. Obviously this doesn't address the fact that details of the incident are still strangely sketchy, and seem to change almost every day. For example, it was originally reported that the victim had a heart attack, but yesterday sources were reporting that he actually had a BB in his heart, which was not initially reported in the effort to downplay his injuries. And if Cheney's right and this is an example of a media bias and nothing more, why are so many prominent Republicans criticizing the way he's handled the situation?

Speaking of prominent Republicans in hot water, it looks like there may soon be another lobbyist scandal brewing.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-15-specter-earmarks_x.htm

USA Today's Matt Kelley reports that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector earmarked about $50 million in spending for six companies that are represented by a lobbyist who happens to be married to one of Spector's top aides. Worse yet, Spector's aide works with him in the Senate Appropriations Committee and defense subcomittee, where the earmarks originated. In other words, the aide, Vicki Siegel Herson, was directly involved with the decision to earmark funds to companies that pay her husband lobbyist fees.

In sunnier news, my Knicks finally won a game, though they may negate those good feelings by pulling off a trade that would have to be described as retarded--acquiring Steve Francis, who is, correct me if I'm wrong, essentially the exact same player as Stephon Marbury. Is that what we need? Especially on a roster that also includes shoot-first guards Jamal Crawford and Nate Robinson? Coming off the Jalen Rose trade, is the thinking at MSG that if they keep adding overpriced junk, sooner or later they'll have to win a game? Doesn't Isiah have any oversight here--you know, someone to step in and ask what he's thinking?

Sorry to vent, I know no one cares, but it's tough to root for a team that's completely mismanaged.

On a more personal note, I have an interview today, so wish me luck...

misfire fallout

Slate.com has really good analysis of Cheney's latest misfire.

http://www.slate.com/id/2136128/?nav=mpp

John Dickerson writes:

Vice President Cheney shot a man in the head on Saturday, and 21 hours later you had to be looking at the Web page of the Corpus Christi Caller-Times to find out about it. (The victim has now suffered a heart attack as a result of being shot.)

He also writes that this could be espescially damaging for Cheney, because it fits into the perception of him that his detractors have been pushing for years.

...to wait so long only points out what we always have known about the vice president: He doesn't give a damn about the public or press' right to know.

And later:

...at some point Cheney's starchy behavior is also insulting... When you nearly commit manslaughter as a public official shouldn't the honor of your office compel you to stand up and explain yourself in some fashion, at least say something in a press release and not just whisper it to a Texas rancher?

http://www.slate.com/id/2136088/?nav=fix

Bruce Reed, former domestic policy advisor for Bill Clinton, also writing for Slate, is perhaps even more sharp.

"This happens, and my God, I've never seen a case of hard feelings," ranch owner and host Katherine Armstrong told reporters. "I bet this would deepen their friendship." No wonder Brokeback Mountain is bombing in the heartland. Real men don't surprise each other by falling in love. A true friend accidentally shoots you in the face.

He also ties the Cheney event to another misfire:

If Dick Cheney is the Bode Miller of American politics, it most likely will be for other reasons: one disappointing performance after another, a penchant for making things go downhill, and enough errant self-confidence to guarantee gold should hauteur ever become an Olympic event.

http://www.slate.com/id/2136206/nav/tap1/

Yet another excellent Slate piece, by Paul Burka, looks at the event from a hunting safety angle. According to the victim's hunting buddies:

It's the shooter's duty to know what he is shooting at and where his companions are. A shooting accident is always the fault of the shooter. Always.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/politics/15veep.html?hp&ex=1140066000&en=93350c91d2508caf&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Over in the N.Y. Times, David E. Sangerfocuses on how the Cheney shooting sparked tension between the President's and Cheney's staffs as Bush's camp was frustrated that it took Cheney 18 hours to make this public. The article also has an interesting story about Cheney learned early yesterday morning that the victim's injuries were turning more serious, but Bush Press Secretary Scott McLellan was never informed and actually joked about the incident at his morning briefing.

My take on all of this? Maybe sometimes it takes a huge, over-the-top incident like this to demonstrate to casual observers what Democrats have been saying for years. In one incident, we see how Cheney refuses to accept blame and distorts the facts to suit his view, disrespects the media and public, and tries to make his own rules even when it comes to dealing with the President (who may be the one person most people would assume Cheney would listen to). Because this is all in the context of a less complicated and overtly political issue than, say, whether we ever had justification to invade Iraq, this could be the last straw for those who might otherwise defend the VP; what he did was simple and clear-cut enough to generally understood as indefensible.

I mean, damn, he shot a 78-year old man in the face, kept it a secret for 18 hours, and then blamed the victim. It's hard to get around political bias in this country, but a series of events like that just might do it.

love bites

I've made it this far into the day without mentioning that it's Valentine's Day, a day designed to make life miserable for... just about everyone. Seriously, if this was a true Democracy and we voted on all kinds of crap, who wouldn’t vote to cancel Valentine’s Day? At best, it's a forced reason to be a little more romantic than usual. (Isn't "forced romance" an oxymoron anyway?) For many, it's a pain in the ass, another obligation to remember, more pressure to find the right gift. Ask all the commuters in Grand Central who I just saw waiting in block-long lines to buy cards or chocolate in a pathetic attempt at a last-minute gift if they're happy about Valentine's Day.

Then there are the worst case scenarios--you're either single and it's yet another way for society to poke you in the face with a pointy stick and remind you that you're unworthy of being loved (which, as all your friends tell you, is ridiculous; but it would help if they didn't say that right before kissing their partner as a desperate way of pointing out to themselves that they may have irredeemable flaws, but they're not as hopeless as you are). Or, and this is where I find myself this, you have someone in your life who's a different kind of SO--not so much a Significant Other as a Sort Of. And you have to figure out the whole damn what-do-we-do question and hope your partner has the same answer mapped out in his or her subconscious. In other words, do you wait on the damn chocolate line or not?

A true story. My Sort Of and I had tentative plans to hang out... not so much out of romance, but more to avoid being alone (that says a lot about Us, actually). We made a last minute decision to try to get into Avenue Q. Like some other Broadway shows, they raffle off a small number of tickets at a very low price a couple of hours before showtime. We've seen Rent this way a couple of times, and tried in vain to get tickets to Ave. Q this way four or five times now. The thing is, it's always a good time even if you don't get in, because the process is exciting and even if you lose you're still in Times Square which is a large sardine can jammed with tourists, but is certainly functional as a backup for failed plans, even if it's not functional in any other way. So Singalittle and I figured we'd try to get tickets, and if that failed, get tickets to a movie, maybe "Brokeback Mountain," and have dinner.

I left the office just after 5:30, with, in theory, half an hour to make it across town, one subway stop. I ran home to quickly change my shirt and pee, ran back out--still a decent amount of time. Get into the subway, it's jammed. Long lines everywhere. The city is digging out from snow, so more people than usual are using the subway. I survive the subway and make it to Times Square--wall to wall people. I look at my cell, 5:48, I'm doing great. I have 12 minutes to go four blocks and drop my name in the lottery hat.

Obviously if I'm writing about what happened, it didn't turn out to be easy. I did make it, barely, scrambling down the street in my no-traction work shoes on the crowded, slushy sidewalk. Huffing and puffing, listening to the names pulled from the hat, hoping my effort would pay off... of course, no luck. I call Singalittle to break the bad news, and we go through movie times on the phone, nothing is gonna work out. We agree to meet back at my place and have a low-key dinner.

I slug it out and make it back across town, get out of the subway (more slush) and barely make out a voice mail from her: "I'm looking online, I can get tickets to the show at full price, should I do it?" I call her back and she punches up the Ticketmaster and says we can get two in the orchestra for $218. A lack of enthusiasm courses through my chilled veins. I hedge, she sounds annoyed. "I'd like to see it, don't get me wrong. But I just shlepped across town..." "You better not say that's the reason. If it's the money, fine, but I'm not accepting lazyness." The truth is, I do want to see the show but I am tired and cold... and still getting over the cold I brought back from Florida. Can’t we see the show another time? I say something to that effect and she sounds annoyed, so I tell her that if she feels strongly about it, let’s go. She says, “Look, I’m busy here, call me back in five minutes and tell me what you wanna do.” I think to myself, fine, I’ll suck it up, we’ll go.

I call her back a minute later, and she picks up with a tone in her voice that let’s me know I’m already in trouble, and I better make the right choice. I say, sure, let’s do this. She jumps back online, and… no more tickets. Not orchestra, not crappy, not anywhere. Wow, I think, wincing: this is going to be bad. Somehow we’ve been shut out of the same Broadway show twice in one night, and this time it’s completely, undeniably, inexcusably my fault.

On the other hand, if it wasn’t for Valentine’s Day, we wouldn’t have felt obligated to try to do something “special” in the first place. Well, at least I’m going to get that laid back dinner I was hoping for, though now it’ll be a little more tense. How many times can you apologize during a single meal and still have a good time?

NOTE: Written at 7:32 pm, posted later...

mucus is magic

Overheard in the office:
"Where the hell does mucus come from?! It's like magic, you blow your nose and it appears, and then you blow your nose again and there's more. God, it's so obnoxious."

taking punches

I'm back from the weekend trip to Miami, a little older and wiser, relieved to be back in my own bed after sharing a one-bedroom apartment with my parents, sister, grandmother and her live-in aide. One of my friends said it sounded a little like that Seinfeld episode when Jerry visits his parents. I said it was a cross between that and "The Blair Witch Project." Fun stuff. And I said that before we had to wait out the snowstorm and spend most of the day yesterday in the airport.

Then I get home, sick (of course--because you should always bring back a souvenir that reflects the vacation you had), and find out this morning that my biggest and favorite project at my job is GONE. That's right, my company lost the rights to the Mariners book. We had been stalling about starting up this year, because my company was renegotiating our deal with the team, though I was told it was a lock that it would be renewed. So I'm a little stunned this morning to find out that didn't happen. Oh well, you've got to take your punches and move on, right?

Speaking of taking a beating, Anne E. Kornblut and Ralph Blumenthal write for the New York Times about the weekend's most fascinating story, the accidental (?) shooting of a 78-year-old man by our Vice President, Dick Cheney. This begs the obvious questions: who let a 78-year-old man out of the house with a shotgun in his hand?! Aren't there age limits on these things?

On a more serious note, there are also lots of questions about why it took so long for the incident to be reported, and why, when it did, it was done through a tiny local paper. Is it just me, or does this whole story seem eerily similar to the way a nasty, corrupt poilitician would deal with an enemy in a B-movie thriller--and you watch it and think to yourself, that could never happen? Right down to the public's mostly unquestioning attitude about this? "I was a simple hunting accident, I have nothing more to say. If any of you reporters would like to discuss this further, we can arrange a private, one-on-one hunting trip this weekend."

The Times plays up the angle that the incident took place while was staying with Katherine Armstrong, a lobbyist.

Asked if she was concerned that Mr. Cheney's visit could create the appearance of impropriety during the lobbying investigation involving Jack Abramoff, which has brought to light the often close personal and professional ties between lobbyists and public officials, Ms. Armstrong said: "Oh my God, he's a friend. I don't believe I've ever lobbied the vice president, nor would I be comfortable doing so.

So if you're a lobbyist and you have the Vice President over for the weekend, isn't that inherently considered lobbying? If nothing else, she's profiting from these connections because they boost her status as a lobbyist. Her claim that she's never lobbied Cheney is hard to believe, but even if it's true, maybe it's only because she hasn't had a reason to lobby the VP yet, and she's waiting to play that card down the road.

Bottom line, this probably was an accident, though this story could get very interesting if it turns out that Cheney had any kind of motive. Also, doesn't Cheney have people around who should be giving him advice like, "Just a thought, but this might not be the best time for you to spend a weekend visiting your lobbyist pal."

In a beating of a different sort, the Knicks lost to the Mavericks last night, 100-72. It was their 10th loss in a row, and 16 in last 17 games, falling to 14-37 on the season. I'm starting to question my prediction that they would run win out during the second half of the season and wind up the two seed in the East.

More later...

mourning news

First off, note that I'm going to Miami to visit the grandparents from tomorrow morning until Monday night, so the site will be offline between this afternoon and Tuesday morning. Please bookmark and check back in a few days, and try not to miss me too much while I'm gone. There are plenty of other good things in your life, and I'll be back in just a few days. I promise.

Anyway...

In the New York Times, Eric Lichtblau reports that a Republican House Rep wants a wiretapping investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nsa.html?hp&ex=1139461200&en=cabc2935edc1c5a4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Representative Heather A. Wilson of New Mexico...

...who was a National Security Council aide in the administration of President Bush's father, is the first Republican on either the House's Intelligence Committee or the Senate's to call for a full Congressional investigation into the program.

It's hard to see this story really going anywhere, because people who vote Republican will probably see this as another example of Bush doing what it takes to protect America from the bad guys. On the other hand, who knows what the committee investigation will turn up--and even Bush might have a hard time evading what is clearly (at least, to everyone outside of the administration) a breach of the law.

Ah, but don't worry, Republicans. The Democrats are poised to screw up this opening, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08dems.html?hp&ex=1139461200&en=6f7047657decb0fc&ei=5094&partner=homepage

As Adam Nagourney and Sheryl Gay Stolberg write in the N.Y. Times:

...while there is a surfeit of issues for Democrats to use against Republicans — including corruption, the war in Iraq, energy prices and health care — party leaders are divided about what Democrats should be talking about and about how soon they should engage in the debate.

Doesn't that just say it all? Only the Democrats could make a problem out of having too many ways to criticize the other party. Maybe this was Bush's plan all along! "Heh heh, we've got 'em where we want 'em now, Dick. One or two more major blunders and we'll have this year's Congressional races locked up."

But don't fear, true believers. There were plenty of people publicly criticizing the President yesterday--just a few feet away from The Man himself! Curious that they chose to do so at a funeral, but still.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-coretta8feb08,0,7796896.story?coll=la-home-headlines

From the L.A. Times coverage of Coretta Scott King's funeral comes these quotes by Jimmy Carter:

"We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, those who were most devastated by Katrina, to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans."

Carter said: "It was difficult for them personally — with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretapping, other surveillance, and as you know, harassment from the FBI."

Hmm... finally, a Democrat who can stand up and get tough! Maybe we can get this Carter guy to run in '08.

More from the festivities:

The spectacle included humor, interpretive dance, gospel and classical music, shouting and testifying, and a list of dignitaries that made room for three former presidents, poet Maya Angelou and singer Michael Bolton.

Which of these doesn't belong? In all seriousness, how the hell does Michael Bolton get invited to perform? Did his agent lobby for this? Who else did they consider, Meatloaf?

There's your news for today... if you don't hear from me again today, check back in a few days. Have a great weekend.

Dante and Randall, ten years later

Clerks II is apparently going to drop later this year, and let me tell you, I can't wait. First a sequel to "Before Sunrise" that catches up with the characters ten years later, now this movie, which has the same idea. What next, "Still Swinging"? "Welcome Back to the Dollhouse"? "Pulper Fiction"? Ah, Miramax. Those were the days.

Anyway, prepare to have your senses shattered. Here's a two-minute teaser trailer.

http://clerks2.com/teaser/index.html

Here's an odd featurette about Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez giving Kevin feedback on the new movie.

http://clerks2.com/?p=48

Here's the homepage for the new movie.

http://www.clerks2.com/

And here's a link to a brief Entertainment Weekly interview with Kevin Smith. Scroll down to the message board--Kevin posts and chats with his fans, even getting defensive about "Jersey Girl"!

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2006/01/sundance_diary__3.html

Wow, it's 5:31... I'm not even supposed to be here! (OK, so I'm obvious sometimes.)

Republicans vs. Bush

Good morning. Today's big story is the domestic spying hearings in DC yesterday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/politics/07nsa.html

The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau and James Risen quote Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez:

"Our enemy is listening, and I cannot help but wonder if they aren't shaking their heads in amazement at the thought that anyone would imperil such a sensitive program by leaking its existence in the first place, and smiling at the prospect that we might now disclose even more or perhaps even unilaterally disarm ourselves of a key tool in the war on terror."

This is the same enemy that killed thousands of people--on 9/11 alone--in the name of God. Should we really be influenced by the idea that they might be surprised by how liberal we are? I'd be a lot more concerned if the terrorists look at what our country is doing and say, "Hey, that's how I'd do it," before adding, "Honey, where do we keep the dyamite and masking tape?"

Somewhat surprisingly, Republicans have joined Democrats in criticizing the program. Republican Senator Arlen Spector of PA has been aggressive in challenging Gonzalez.

On the program's legality, Mr. Specter told the attorney general, "You think you're right, but there are a lot of people who think you're wrong."

Mr. Specter said the attorney general's interpretation of the FISA statute [concerning the legality fo the spying] "just defies logic and plain English."

Nice to see the Republicans criticizing Bush, for once. Too bad it feels like they (and I'm speaking of all the Senators here) are mostly upset that Bush disrepected their power by not allowing the Senate to vote to approve his actions... which they probably would have done, for fear of being labeled soft on terror.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/politics/07assess.html?hp&ex=1139374800&en=a1c8770e9ac7e7c6&ei=5094&partner=homepage

In other news, more tax cuts and budget cuts are on the way, but the Senators are fighting back!

Robin Toner writes for the Times:

Democrats assert that the country simply cannot afford extending all those tax cuts, especially since their benefits would go largely to upper income people.

Haven't we heard this before? As Chris pointed out in a message on this board last week, setting up the fight as tax cuts for me or help for the poor--a group that people rarely see themselves as a part of--has been a losing argument for the Democrats for several generations now. Contrast that with this:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee quickly dispatched talking points tailored to hot Senate races. "White House budget forces Santorum to choose between Pennsylvania and Bush," said one set of talking points focused on Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican facing a difficult re-election fight.

This seems like an good line of attack for the Dems. Perhaps the Bush vs. Us argument will be a winner, especially in a state like Pennsylvania (where the ultra-conservative Santorum is struggling to fight off a more modeate challenger in the moderate Philadelphia suburbs where Bush probably has low approval ratings).

But the bigger question is, how would this type of argument play in the red states? I'm not convinced that it wouldn't be effective, if the Democratic candidate can make a real case that Bush's cuts hurt everyone, across the board.

It seems like there some Republican Senators are already trying to shield themselves from this line of attack:

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, said she was "disappointed and even surprised" at the proposed restrictions in Medicare and Medicaid, which she said would "dramatically affect people's access to care" in Maine.

Wow, Republican Senators criticizing Bush on two different subjects in one day!

In sports news (sort of)...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/sports/baseball/07chass.ready.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Interesting article taking a look at Michael Lewis's baseball manifesto, "Moneyball," three years later. "Moneyball" is a fascinating book that studies how low-budget teams--okay, the Oakland A's-- compete with big money teams--okay, the Yankees--by evaluating players based on less obvious statistical categories like On-Base Percentage (as opposed to more typical categories like Batting Average and Home Runs). The theories Lewis presents, which mostly belong to Oakland General Manager Billy Beane, literally changed the game, revolutionizing the way teams are developed and managed. The Times article takes a look at how Beane's ideas have played out since the book was written, and the results aren't very convincing. Oh well, it's still a great read.

More later...

more movie madness

I realized that I haven’t ever written anything here about "Yin-Yang," the short film I’m working on. (Hopefully it’ll never be brutalized the way I went after “Crash” today…) YYis about two characters who see each other for the first time two weeks after they broke up, and try to figure out where to go from there. It’s complicated, it’s real… and best of all, it’s only about ten minutes.

It’s about time for a little update. We shot it here in New York City in October, and after some post-production set-backs, began seriously editing the film in early December. As of last week, we finally have a cut of the film where everything feels like it’s falling into place. It’s a great feeling to fight with it for a couple of months, tinkering endlessly to get the emotional flow to feel right until you start to think it’s never going to work… and then suddenly it comes together. And just in time too: we plan to make one more quick round of changes then apply to our first festival, the LAFF, later this week. So that’s what’s up with that.

In other news, I saw two movies over the weekend. Neither is great, neither is terrible. “Syriana” is sneaky bad; a movie that seems so smart but really doesn’t have much substance. If you set aside the fact that it’s hard to follow--from the subtle storytelling to the jumpy camera work--there actually isn’t much story here. It’s almost as if it’s intentionally hard to follow to distract the audience from putting too much thought into its content. About that content: considering that the movie doesn’t claim to be based on a true story, its criticisms of U.S. foreign policy lack punch. Sure, this could be how things happen, but without the proof, who cares? This is a message picture with a message that’s likely fictitious.

“The Matador,” on the other hand, is sneaky good. Don’t walk in expecting much of a story, but waiting to see where this film is headed is, oddly, one of the film’s joys, once you submit and enjoy the ride. This is a film about a hitman that, for once, isn’t really about a hit. It’s about friendship and about its characters--a hilarious Pierce Brosnan, mocking his suave stereotype, and a well-cast Greg Kinnear playing the goofy straight man. This movie succeeds where a lot of other movies have failed (“The Whole Nine Yards” is an obvious comparison) not because it’s so funny, but because it has a lot of heart: the characters are flawed but likable, and you care about them. When the end credits roll, they stick with you. For a medium-budget, high-concept film, that’s quite an achievement.

All right, it’s 5:30. Time to call it a day.

bashing Crash (again)

Because someone asked me over the weekend, here's why I thought "Crash" was such a bad movie:

1) It beat you over the head with its point. I was just stunned to read that the movie is only 100 minutes, because it feels much longer. The movies constantly makes its points in a way that's about as subtle as the filmmaking in a sequel to a bad Vin Diesel movie. Compare it to the far more elegant unfolding of themes demonstrated in some of this year's other message films--"Good Night and Good Luck," "Munich" and "Syriana" all being good examples.

2) Its point isn't very original. We meet characters who appear to be evil, but actually also have some good in them. (Good and evil in the context of the movie being largely defined by how they view other races.) And we also meet characters who appear to be good, but are actually flawed. This is only a revelation for people who are so narrow-minded and naive that they see the world as being completely black and white.

3) Despite the fact that the film has been (in my opinion at least) boosted as an Oscar nominee because it was swept up in this year's crop of politically aware films, "Crash" doesn't even have a positive message. Just because the film deals with the issue of racism doesn't mean that it contributes anything helpful to the conversation. Again, the film's point is that even people who seemingly aren't racists are at least a little bit racist, and people who are blatantly racist can also have redeeming qualities. While the point is fair, it's not overly positive or helpful to society; the film essentially argues that racists aren't so bad, and everyone is a racist anyway. Is that really a "Brokeback Mountain"-esque message of tolerance, as Academy voters seem to think?

4) It's contrived. The film is full of bizarre coincidences, without which the story would not tie together at all. I know that with any multi-character film like this, you're going to see some flimsy excuses to tie the characters together. But "Crash" is a worst case scenario. Without giving too much away, the storyline involving Matt Dillon's character stretches plausibility, to put it mildly.

5) This doesn't directly relate to "Crash," but there were so many better movies this year. "The Squid and the Whale," "Cinderella Man," "Match Point," and "King Kong" all would have been worthy choices. I didn't love "Walk the Line," but it would have been a reasonable pick. To put it in slightly more scientific terms, rottentomato.com compiles film reviews from all over the country, and gave "Crash" a lower composite rating than any of the other nominees, or any of the five alternate choices I just suggested. In fact, "Crash" ranked 56th among the movies rottentomatoes.com covered in 2005--it's composite ratings were worse than movies like "Red Eye," "Pride and Prejudice," "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "Serenity."

So there you go, that's why I didn't like it, and hate that it was nominated for Best Picture.

mediocre things

Good morning, I hope everyone had a great weekend. Well, the Big Game happened, and our national food and sports holiday is over again for another year. Congrats to the Steelers for the win, especially Jerome Bettis (who might need a new nickname--"The Bus" just doesn't seem to capture his enormity anymore. Busses are big, but can we try "The Blimp"?) and Ben Roethlisberger, all of 23 years old. Seriously, 23. Kind of makes you feel like a failure, doesn't it?

More importantly, slate.com's Seth Stevenson rates the ads.

http://www.slate.com/id/2135409/

My father was all fired up for an ad by his company, Nationwide, which doesn't advertise much, and in the past has never shelled out Super Bowl-type ad dollars. Here's what Steveson thought of the ad:

Fabio is on a gondola. Later, he's a much older dude with wrinkles. Somehow, this is meant to advertise Nationwide insurance. I don't understand, and, when it comes to Fabio, I don't want to understand.

Oh well, at least my dad seemed satisfied.

On a day when football rules the news, Michael Sokolove has an interesting article in the N.Y. Times about the crackdown on amphetamines in baseball, and how "greenies" are so prevalent that this will change the game.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/magazine/05controversy_24_25_.html

Sokolove writes:

Is this what we really want? As a fan, I don't think I do...I care if the players cheat, and I'd put steroids in that category. But otherwise, I'd just as soon that they have what they need to put on a good show.

File under "Of Limited Interest:" with Jalen Rose on board, Knicks lose again, the 11th loss in their last 12 games.

As Liz Robbins in the N.Y. Times:

Knicks Coach Larry Brown tried to put a positive spin on the game. "I don't get caught up in wins and losses," he said.

Well, Larry, you're paid $10 million a year, so you might want to start. And a question for Liz Robbins: you call that a positive spin? If that's positive, why does it make me want to pull my hair out?

Leaving the world of sports for the world of, um, reality, comes this fun story, also in the Times, about Iran's nuclear development.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/06/politics/06assess.html

David E. Sanger writes:

Behind the diplomatic maneuvering, many of the diplomats and nuclear experts involved in the West's effort believe that stopping the program cold is highly unlikely, and probably impossible.

Happy Monday, everybody. On the plus side, however, according to Sanger there are still "technological obstacles" that might take years to overcome, and economic sanctions may prove to be influential.

But don't get too optimistic. At least one prominent Republican is talking serious trash. From John McCain:

"There is only one thing worse than military action," he said, "and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Good stuff.

More later, including reviews of the movies I saw this weekend, and more Oscar thoughts.

great things

Have you noticed how rarely the actual words “Super Bowl” appear in ads anywhere, or even sometimes in media stories? That’s because the NFL has somehow protected the title to the extent that one of these years even the color commentator will be forced to call it the The Big Game.

Anyway, I ended up helping out with the game program magazine for the event, so I saw proofs of all the ads. One featured a list of major sporting events that have or will soon take place in Motown. (NBA Finals, NCAA Final Four, etc.) The ad originally mentioned the “Super Bowl” on this list, then was revise to “Big Game.” Apparently that was still too close for comfort, so they abstracted it even further to, believe it or not, “Great Things.” (Hey, wanna come over Sunday? I’ve having a Great Things party! It’ll be sup--I mean, awesome!)

The moral of the story, of course, is that lawyers and ad money ruin everything.

A couple of XL-related links:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060203

I was all geared up to predict a win for Seattle, because it seems like too many people are overlooking them. But then I read Sports Guy’s take--he puts together a strong case for the Steelers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=klosterman/blog/Monday

Then there’s this. Author Chuck Klosterman has been blogging in Detroit this week for ESPN, and the results have been hilarious. Read this:

Why would anyone buy a T-shirt (or a hat, or an ascot, or a waterproof matador cape) that merely promotes "Super Bowl XL"? An inordinate percentage of the available items in the Renaissance Center's gift kiosks do not feature the logos of the Seahawks or the Steelers; they generically advertise the abstract existence of a football game. This would be like going to see Marilyn Manson at Madison Square Garden and buying a $22 T-shirt that said, "THEATRICAL, DRUG-FUELED ROCK CONCERT." It reminds me of the nonspecific commercials TV networks like NBC run that promote the channel itself, almost as if they assume there are actually people who privately think, "I have no idea what's on television right now, but I better check NBC first. I get the impression they're especially confident about the quality of their current programming."

Chuck even takes on one of my favorite targets this week, the overhyped movie “Crash”:

...the big winner [of the SAG Awards] was "Crash," a movie designed for people in Los Angeles who just figured out that racism was "complex" (and must therefore be secretly central to every conversation any two Americans ever have). I wish one of the bears from "Grizzly Man" would eat Matt Dillon and Ludacris.

Amen. It takes a while to get through the 500,000 or so words he wrote this week, but it’s worth it.

Simmons won me over, I’m predicting a Steelers victory. But in my heart I’m rooting for the Seahawks, dammit.

can't anyone here play this game?

Today's big news is, of course, the election of John Boehner of Ohio as new House majority leader. Analysts chalk up his surprising election over Roy Blunt to the perception that Blunt, like DeLay, could be, shall we say, ethically challenged.

As Adam "Big Time Asshole"* Nagourney writes in the New York Times:

[Republican consultant Rich Galen believes] Mr. Boehner's success [may be due to] offering a contrast to Mr. Blunt, who is married to a tobacco lobbyist. "It makes a difference: I think Blunt's background— his marriage— really counted," Galen said. [Emphasis added.]

Well, yeah, that would seem to be a problem. So in Boehner, they found someone with a clean slate, right?

But Mr. Boehner was an active member of the lobbying-governing culture that has taken hold here, and Democrats were quick to try to pierce his claim of virtue with e-mailed newspaper articles detailing his ties to lobbyists.

I don't know what's more frustrating: all of this corruption, or knowing that it will inevitable go largely unpunished and continue. Even though DeLay has taken heat for his actions, there's nothing to really suggest that the culture will really change in Washington once this blows over.

Being a Democrat right now feels a lot like rooting for the Knicks. Even when it seems like things are going well, you know it's only a matter of time before they blow the lead. Even though it feels like the Dems hold a winning hand right now, with Katrina, Abramoff, Delay and Plame--not to mention that little war that's still going on--all hurting the perception of the party in power, it seems like a safe bet that by the time the midterm elections roll around in November, Bush's approval ratings will be back up and the public will have forgotten all the mini-scandals that are now rattling around D.C.

But maybe I'm being pessimistic. I have, after all, been watching a lot of the Knicks lately.

In other news... there's an interesting article (also in the Times) about the decaying Rolling Stones, who are playing the halftime show on Sunday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/sports/football/03halftime.html?_r=1&8hpib&oref=slogin

The article points out that on the day of the first Super Bowl, in 1967, the Stones played the Ed Sullivan show (while college marching bands played the halftime show). The Stones wanted to play "Let's Spend the Night Together," but Sullivan insisted that they change the lyrics to "Let's Spend Some Time Together."

Ah, how things change. Nowadays we'll be lucky if Kieth Richards doesn't suffer from a "wardrobe malfunction." (Shudder.)

* nickname courtesy Dick Cheney

Singalittle writes:

They really need to start giving you some work at the office...this is bordering on insanity.

Well, I am working, and here's the proof. This one is especially tricky, sort of, so take your best shot. If there's enough demand, I'll post the answer tomorrow.

lost in translation

Maybe it's because I didn't get the day off this year, but I forgot that today is, of course, Groundhog Day. Bad news--everyone's favorite Groundhog meteorologist predicts another six weeks of winter.

Instead of the usual biased American coverage, I thought to myself, what does the rest of the World think? The below is excerpted from the Bangkok Post:

US Groundhog Day: More winter coming

Thousands gathered in a Pennsylvania village Thursday to get a furry rodent's much-anticipated forecast on Groundhog Day: more winter or an early spring?

When Punxsutawney Phil came out of his mound in the early morning, he cast a shadow - the signal for another six weeks of winter, according to the popular 120-year-old tradition. Punxsutawney Phil, named after the town near Pittsburgh where the annual festivities are held, did his job in a ritual that historians date back to early German settlers in Pennsylvania.

According to legend, if the groundhog casts no shadow, and presumably is not frightened back into its hole, winter will fade quickly and spring will be early. A shadow often sends him scurrying for safety. Phil is awakened from his winter sleep at sunrise every February 2 by city officials in tuxedoes and top hats, who pound a special sceptre on the ground to rouse the groundhog out of his winter sleep.

Somehow that makes it all sound silly.

morning sunshine

Lots of happy news on this lovely Thursday morning. First this, from the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/politics/02nuke.html?hp&ex=1138942800&en=c8bdaff287d6aa9c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

William J. Broad writes that...

The Pentagon has formed a team of nuclear experts to analyze the fallout from a terrorist nuclear attack on American soil in an effort to identify the attackers, officials have said. [My emphasis added.]

Right, because when a nuke goes off in, say, NY or DC is, it will all be better once we know who to kill.

The government also hopes that terrorists will be less likely to use a nuclear device if they know that it can be traced...

Yup, nothing like fear of punishment to make someone reconsider killing millions and millions of people. And is it just me, or does it make you wonder if they know something we don't?

Ah, but things get sunnier from there. Slightly...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/politics/02spend.html?hp&ex=1138942800&en=5d352193fc78f926&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Republicans in the House (barely) pass a bill cutting $39.5 billion in health and education programs. This comes at the same time that, believe it or not, the senate is debating yet another tax cut.

From Sheryl Gay Stolberg's article:

Mr. Rother said AARP objected in particular to a provision in the bill that would temporarily strip Medicaid coverage from elderly nursing home residents if they had given away money in the previous five years. The provision would cover money given to charity, he said, or to a grandchild for tuition.

Very nice. Hit the streets, Grandma! Hey, maybe she can move into her grandchild's dorm room.

With the Senate taking up a tax-cutting measure at the same time, Democrats used debate on the measure to sound what will be a major election-year theme: that Republicans are cutting taxes for the rich at the expense of services for the poor.

That's a huge opening for the Democrats! They should totally jump all over that! Once word gets out that Republicans hurt the poor and help the rich, they'll, uh... oh wait, this is the exact same line of argument the Democrats haven't pursued at least since Reagan was elected. (And since then, for those of you keeping score at home, the Democrats have lost both the Senate and House, and five of seven presidential elections starting with Reagan's election in 1980.)

Democrats complained bitterly that the measure had been written without them, with the help of paid representatives from the drug and insurance industries.

Good to see that the fallout from the Abramoff scandal has shaken things up. And why isn't this contention--unless it's just a wild accusation--more of a story, post-Abramoff? The Times, at least, buried this very deep in their article.

OK, finally some reason for optimism.

http://www.slate.com/id/2134929/

Slate.com's Michael Kinsley argues that the Democrats are down, but not quite out--it all depends on your perspective. He points out that if you recognize that Gore actually had more votes than Bush in 2000, the Dems have actually only lost three of the last seven presidential contests. It's a somewhat thin argument, but if you're desperate for optimism, it's a satisfying read.

In other news...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/arts/music/02sann.html?8hpib

One of my favorite bands, Scottish folk-popsters Belle & Sebastian, released a new album yesterday. Times critic Kalefa Sanneh seems to like it more than I do.

http://pitchforkmedia.com/news/06-01/27.shtml#grandaddy

California indie rockers Grandaddy have called it quits, after their forthcoming album.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/basketball/more/02/01/prince.113/index.html

And finally, closing on a high note, New York high schooler Epiphanny Price--yes, that's actually how she spells it--scored 113 points in a 32-minute basketball game, and her team wins by 105 points. She shot 54-60. Top that, Kobe.

My troubles with computers continues. I was hoping to add this to my profile, but can't seem to figure out how to do that. (Help anyone?) Oh well, you'll have to enjoy this here. If there were a caption, it would read: "Zack settles in for another day at work."

top ten things I'm doing right now

(in no particular order)

7. Burning DVD backups of my company's editorial archives.

4. Listening to Elastica.

9. Starting to think about dinner, wondering if my tentative plans will actually happen.

2. Working on yet another damn blog entry.

3. Trying to squeeze "Buhner" into a word search for the kids section of an upcoming issue of a baseball magazine.

10. Considering clicking over to check my email.

5. Looking at the clock.

1. Procrastinating.

8. Thinking about a possible upcoming vacation.

6. Passing gas, looking innocent.

hotdogging the way to Detroit

http://cgi.ebay.com/Seattle-Seahawks-SUPER-DOG-NFC-Championship-hot-dog_W0QQitemZ5659617304QQcategoryZ1467QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

This is just too damn weird: someone put a hot dog from the NFC Championship Game up for bid on EBay, and it's up to $6,100. The now-frozen "Seahawks Dog" (no word on whether it's Kosher) has even inspired this even stranger copycat: someone trying to sell polaroids of a screen shot of a drawing of the hot dog.

http://cgi.ebay.com/POLAROIDS-Seattle-Seahawks-NFC-Championship-Hot-Dog_W0QQitemZ7386992835QQcategoryZ66465QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

(And people say there's lots of junk on EBay...)

early returns

So I've gone public (well, sort of)--I sent out a mass email announcing the existence of this site. The email went out about 45 minutes ago, and the early feedback has been awesome!!!

From Jersey Jay*:

Oh man. Now it's all over.

From Chris C.:

Wow, I was way off. I'll be honest. I read the subject and thought you were coming out of the closet.

And finally, from D.C. Dave:

you are dead to me.

Wow, thanks guys! It's great that to have your support. Keep reading and writing!

* I've decided that since I'm not going to use my own full name anywhere, I won't use yours either. Yup, aliases all around. You can thank me later.

hot links

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/01/sports/football/01numerals.html

It's only Wednesday of Super Bowl week (ugh) and the New York Times is already resorting to running an article about, um, how it's really cool that this year's game is Super Bowl XL, because, you know, XL also means extra large.

Super Bowl week, gotta love it. Is there a more miserable, over-hyped event than the Super Bowl?

Actually, I think there is. Last night gave us the State of the Union, which I didn't even bother to watch. The highlight, apparently, was when Bush declared that "America is addicted to oil"... then broke into an out-of-control supervillain laugh, as the Dems frowned, shook their fists, and grumbled to themselves.

Speaking of overhyped events, here's a couple of quotes from the New York Times article about the Oscars. First Spielberg talking about how "Munich" was the only big budget film nominated for Best Picture, and then Clooney reflecting on his three nominations (two for "Good Night and Good Luck," and one for "Syriana"):

[Spielberg] quipped in an interview that he could have financed all four of his co-nominees and still had enough left over for "The Squid and the Whale," which was nominated in the best original screenplay category.

Mr. Clooney added humorously that he was surprised that these were his first nominations. "I was a little disappointed I didn't win for best actor in a bat suit with nipples," he said referring to his much-mocked performance in "Batman & Robin" in 1997. "But I needed a specific category."

The Times also has an interesting article about Pete Doherty, former frontman for the excellent British band The Libertines, who now records under the name Babyshambles. If you've never heard of Doherty, he's the latest in the long line of promising rock talents who can't stay sober long enough to actually live up to that promise. Last Friday, he somehow managed to get arrested three times, in one day. He even managed to do something that doesn't seem possible: get arrested while sitting in a police station, where he had already been under arrest for a different offense. Nice!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/01/arts/music/01pete.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&8hpib=&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1138801549-pwa3jVnxytWQGJR1oMC5QA

All of which makes Doherty only slightly less of a disaster than my Knicks. What can you say? Up by nine in the first quarter, lose by 33 to Kobe's Lakers. Larry Brown got ejected in the third quarter then spent the next hour-and-a-half secluded in his office--my theory is that he was watching the State of the Union. Qyntel Woods, who somehow led the Knicks in scoring with 15 points, called the game a real "dogfight." OK, that's not true, but it would have been great if he did.