End the Emergency Rule...

...in Egypt. Mubarak, our buddy has been ruling under an emergency decree since he took over in 1981. You'd think he would have got a handle on it by now.

In any event, it's time for Hosni to move on...and by that I'm not suggesting his son Gamal take over the reins either.

Funny how nobody seems to have any heartburn over Egypt's emergency rule. I doubt any troubleshooter will be going over there any time soon to suggest that Mubarak begin to share power with the opposition.

Radio Notes

Items of note while tooling around in the greater DC area

Give credit where its due to 98 Rock (a Baltimore active rock station) that put one its HD stations (playing alt-rock) on the air on its terrestrial signal. I'm still not inclined to get an HD radio but at least I know one thing I'm missing.

DC 101 was playing the history of Generation X music. (If you don't know it, don't worry about it, you're not missing anything.) However, the DJ when describing the late 1980's radio scene in Seattle talked about that era and how it gave birth to "grunge" -- plenty of rain, wearing flannel shirts, and then unnecessarily mentioned that Reaganomics sucked. I don't think so -- and I'm not talking about the weather or the fashion.

CBS News had a bottom of the hour report last night on the UN report about how it's now or never time to act on global warming. So how do they add to the report? Then get some Greenpeace mouthpiece to urge governments to come up with a plan. (I'll ignore the fact that they were too lazy or incompetent to get someone who would dissent with the UN report.) But here's what got my goose -- the Greenpeace rep (she had a British accent for what that's worth) stood atop the moral high ground and demanded that government do the heavy lifting. That's a sweet gig.

Fighting the Last Battle

At first blush, when I heard that John Kerry was going to refute the "Swift Boat" attacks that played a role in losing the 2004 election -- I thought it was a case of three years too late. (Something akin to a pair of prizefighters duking it out in a rematch when both are way past their prime. Who cares?)

Then it dawned on me -- Kerry's center of of gravity is being a senator from Massachusetts. Sure he's got plenty in the bank and wouldn't have to work a day for the rest of his life. But by the same token -- who cares about a has-been liberal from Massachusetts? Nobody. And if there is one thing that Kerrey cannot stand -- in my estimation -- is to be ignored.

Well he's up for re-election and I'm sure the Swift Boat attacks (and more tellingly the pathetic response they engendered by Team Kerry) is likely to come up again as his Republican challenger, Jeff Beatty has carefully established his military bona fides.

Kerry can't ignore the fact that he lost to a President with staggering low approval numbers, but he can shore up his image by taking on the Swifties. But he better be careful for what he wishes for -- because if he blows this opportunity he may lose yet another race.

Chucking Chuck

OK, I gave it a couple of shots but "Chuck" ain't getting it done. I shudder to think what shows didn't make the cut, so they could put this on the air.

The Mets Collapse

I suspect the silver lining is that if you move quickly enough -- you can get some champagne for next to nothing. More on the collapse in due course.

Democratic Rock

In the mid 1980s, a buddy told me that the term "rock" -- as in music -- was as pliable as the term "democratic." He cited the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea as an example. But for me, "rock" still has some meaning.

Unfortunately for the folks over at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame the term "rock" is as pliable as ever.

I never cared for those music award shows because they rewarded sales rather than music performance. Furthermore they were just stupid. Who in their right mind would consider Jethro Tull a heavy metal band and reward them as the best of a particular year? Only the clueless.

So when the Hall nominates Madonna, one gets the feeling that they are as clueless as ever. (Don't even get me started on Donna Summer, the queen of disco.) Madonna was big in her day (late 80s - early 90s) -- and she can probably draw a sizable crowd today -- but to consider her as a rock performer is like telling North Koreans that that they should be happy living in a democracy.

What I'd Like To See...

...instead of these bogus "debates", why don't we have both the Democratic and Republican candidates -- three from each party -- sit around a table and discuss the issues of the day? Something akin to the Charlie Rose show format. Because right now these debates seem to be more about the moderator than the putative candidates. Moreover, we don't need audience participation other than to watch and learn at home.

...football players handing the ball to the referee after scoring and then running nonchalantly to the sideline and defensive players helping the quarterback up after he's sacked. The silly antics we now see distract from the game.

...what's the fuss about HD radio? They advertise that I'll get more stations for free. If the content is more of the same -- talk radio or music stations with playlists as tight as a gnat's butt -- then I'll endure the pablum that I get for free with an ordinary radio.

...no longer paying for the cable I don't watch. I don't watch Lifetime, the Animal Planet, CSPAN-3, or Spike. (I'd add MSNBC to the list but there's something alluring about the weekend anchor, Alex Witt) so why am I paying to have those channels? It's 2007 for crying out loud, we can make this happen, can't we? (Remember the old saying, "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we (add your own thought here)..."

...a fall week free of college football. Shouldn't all these guys get a break to study for exams and for everyone else to do something else rather than sit around a TV during the most glorious season of the year? Geez, now ESPN is showing high school football.

...to find out what the Israelis bombed in Syria earlier this month

...Robin Williams and Eddie Murphy together in a comedy. These guys are hilarious yet they've been more concerned about the paycheck than the script (with the odd exception.) These guys aren't getting younger and sadly, and perhaps I'm the only one, but Ben Stiller doesn't tweak my funny bone.

... a modern day Len Deighton. He wrote terrific spy novels from the the 1960-80s, but nobody comes close today. In an era where the operative phrase is the global war on terror, you'd think we'd get some good literature as a by product

Counting One's Chicks Before...

Wisdom from Michael Wilbon, as of 18 September:

"The Redskins, after dealing the Philadelphia Eagles a serious setback Monday night, are two games better than the New Orleans Saints, who many people picked to go to the Super Bowl, a game better than the Chicago Bears who won the NFC last season, two games better than the laughably pathetic New York Giants."

"The craziest thing, of course, would be to look ahead, but it's difficult not to when the division's new doormat, the Giants, are coming to Washington on Sunday."

After two games, the DC denizens were preparing for the Super Bowl. Alas two games does not a season make. Given the Redskin's second half collapse against the doormat Giants, this may become a laughably pathetic season for the team from Landover.

Belicheat's Ripples

I will be upfront with my animosity for Notre Dame football. Maybe it is the fact that they have been able to secure a national TV contract for the past several years with a substandard product. Maybe it is the annual invite to a Bowl Game – one of the better ones – with a mediocre team. (Maybe it is learning that despite the nickname, they were not Irish after all.)

Anyway, I am a happy camper that the team is 0-3 and is likely to be 0-4 when the sun sets on South Bend tonight.

However, here is where it gets interesting. Their coach, Charlie Weis, was formerly the offensive coordinator of the New England Patriots. In their press release when he was signed on to be the coach, he was described as “highly regarded.” Well if you steal the signals of the other team’s defense, it wouldn’t take much to be highly regarded – would it? Bill Belicheck may have been the cheating mastermind – but Weis was certainly a beneficiary of their ill-gotten luck.

Well he’s in the third year of a six year deal. Obviously, the players he recruited haven’t worked out and ND certainly is not a premier team.

Furthermore, it’s a pretty sad comment, when the radio coverage of ND football on Westwood One begins with highlights from last year’s team. (Ouch.)

Others have speculated that this cheating scandal is just the tip of an iceberg. If so, there’s a chunk of it floating in Indiana.

The Other 1 % Doctrine

Steven Levitt beat me to the punch on Diet Coke's odd advertising campaign which identifies the product as 99% water and 100% taste. (His take is that given the price of bottled water, the 1% of flavoring, isn't that much of a mark up. My apologies if I got it wrong.)

Anyway, I saw the ad at a bus stop in a large metropolitan city. (Curiously, at their website, other ads, but not the one in question, are on display.) The ad had me scratching my head -- something akin to the meaningless "Mustang Two, Boredom Zero" ads of the 1970s for the restyled Mustangs. This is when I think that Madison Avenue has lost its touch.

Back in the 1980s, Coke re-formulated the product and created the ill-fated New Coke. That was a reaction to poor sales and the product apparently tested well with focus groups. New Coke was an unmitigated disaster and was pulled off the shelves shortly after rolling out. In hindsight, they realized that they had a distribution problem, not a taste problem. In short, there's a history of poor strategic thinking down in Atlanta.

Although bottled water is a big business, water - when it's not packaged -- can still be acquired for free.

I don't care much for soda. But if I was going to pay for soda (or 1% flavoring) why not purchase something cheaper? (They all taste the same for the most part, don't they?) So why advertise the fact that the consumer is paying for 1% of the product.

This may not rival New Coke for stupidity. But it's close. Like 1%.

Saturday Shorts

The Patriot Facts.
Some --on sports talk radio mostly -- have suggested that the Patriot's unauthorized use of a camera to steal the defensive signals of the Jets last week is no big deal. Perhaps. (I think it was a big deal because is indicates that you're willing to cheat -- and that speaks to one's integrity.) However, the fine imposed by the NFL wasn't enough to punish the sheer arrogance of Coach Bill Belichick in thinking he was above the law. Next: Expect Belichick to continue issuing non-apologies as some disgruntled fan with a J.D. degree would likely sue the NFL for fraud. The NFL has deep pockets.

NY Times Poor Business.
According to this report, the NY Times offered MoveOn a discount on their ill-advised "General Betray Us" advertisement. (Of course only NYT readers saw the ad; it's exposure was exponentially increased when other media made the ad an issue.) However, is there a link between poor business decisions such as this and the junk status of its bonds. Next: Expect the public editor to roll up and play dead on this.

29 SEP UPDATE: I blew the call on this one.

Job Fair.
I was at a job fair in northern Virginia this week. This was a pretty huge event. Guess who had the longest lines to garner a couple of minutes with a job representative. How about the CIA and the DIA? Interesting.

TZM - DOA?
I saw about five minutes of the new TZM program and that was more than enough. If you go to a restaurant to eat and then leave to go home -- where is the responsibility to sign autographs for the fans as you make your way to the car? Who's the bigger jerk -- the autograph seeker or the celebrity? Thirty minutes of that -- for five times a day? I don't think so.

Republican Candidates.
I like most of them. I don't love any of them. None are ringing my bell or prompting me to put a check in the mail. However, they do make for interesting cabinet selections. Rudy Giuliani as the Attorney General; John McCain for Defense; Mike Huckabee for Housing and Urban Development; Mitt Romney as Treasury Secretary; Duncan Hunter for Homeland Security; Ron Paul for Health and Human Services (he is an MD after all); and Fred Thompson for vice president as long as he will be more an Agnew than a Cheney.

Payne Full Viewing

I saw something truly horrific on TV yesterday and I'm not talking about Britney Spears' embarrassing "comeback" bid -- although the still photographs suggest that it wasn't too easy on the eye. (BTW, Brit, when you're the subject of ridicule -- it's over.)

No, I watching the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. In a change of pace, he interviewed four backbench Congressional representatives rather than the usual suspects. One of them was Donald Payne, a Democrat from New Jersey, who appears to be incapable of an original or intelligent thought regarding the situation in Iraq. To wit:

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Payne, you want a different kind, a larger, a quicker withdrawal than what General Petraeus is suggesting?

REP. DONALD PAYNE: Definitely. The American people want it, too. That's why they elected a majority of Democrats in the House and the Senate in the past election.

You see, the problem was that General Petraeus did not get us into this war. Had he been in charge, perhaps there would have been a different outcome. We were to find weapons of mass destruction. Then it was said, "Well, it's regime change." Now it's that we have to fight al-Qaida, and there were none of them there in Iraq before. They're in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in the United States.

So we see a continual change of why we had the preemptive strike in the first place. And I still even hear, as much as I respect my friend, Representative Wilson, when we get the stretch about 9/11 being perpetrated on us by Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That is wrong, and we continue to try to say that that's what happened.

To these ears, it seemed like a replay of 2004 Presidential election talking points. Putting aside the fact that he failed to answer the question, it appears that Mr. Payne was coached on some of the well-worn (and somewhat dubious) Democratic talking points if for no other reason than to change the focus from General Petraseus' presentation. I'm sure Mr. Payne does wonders for his constituents, but they didn't elect a foreign policy heavyweight.

To his credit, Mr. Lehrer, gently nudged Mr. Payne to respond to his question for a quicker pullout than that proposed by the administration due to the geo-strategic rationale of that's what the American people want.

Mr. Payne's fellow Democrat, Lynn Woolsey from California, didn't seem to be any more enlightened when she noted:

REP. LYNN WOOLSEY: Well, my reaction to both of them is that they're talking about, "Stay the course." And we've heard these stories over and over. And Congressman Payne said the different reasons why we're there, the different missions.

You cannot win an occupation. This is what we're doing: We're occupying a foreign country. We need to give that country back to the Iraqis, give them back their sovereignty, give them back their oil rights, help them in a non-militaristic way later.

But in the meantime, we don't just pull our troops out. We plan and work with them and make sure they come home safely and in an orderly fashion, because that's what the people of this country want.

Listening to her, one gets the idea that "occupation" is a bad word like "neo-conservative" and should be used in describing America's role in Iraq. Trust me, if this was truly an occupation, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Of note, though is their repetition of what the American people want -- conveniently failing to mention what would happen if troops were to precipitously depart from Iraq.

On second thought, it seems that Britney Spears wasn't the only who made a fool of herself yesterday.

K-Mart Follies

So there I'm at a K-Mart. It doesn't matter where as they're all the same. It's lunch time. There's a long line and the cashier does a price check in the back of the cavernous store. (The cashier was a young woman; the customer requiring the price check was a young man -- I think they were checking something other than prices.) The customer next in line goes berserk -- well sort of. He finds the manager to complain but it appears that the manager is recovering from some sort of back surgery as he was missing a spine. After a few minutes, the cashier returns and keeps muttering, "I'm going home; I don't need this." (When folks mutter that -- they're hurting for cash and need the job like they need air and water.) The upset customer is still complaining as he walks out the store. I make my purchase and realize that unless they're giving stuff away, it will be a long, long time before K-Mart gets any of my business.

News flash: Rock stars more likely to die prematurely

The above headline was found in a recent Reuters report. And pity the poor British taxpayer who had to pay for that study -- obviously one conducted by those who never had a rock record in their collection -- otherwise they wouldn't have bothered studying the .

So what now? Guidance counselors to require that prospective rock stars sign a waiver before hitting the garage for their first session?

Here's where it gets silly. They based their sample on 1064 recording artists -- from 1956 to 2005. Nowhere in the article is it mentioned as to who made that list -- and who didn't. It would be nice to know. Take that as a sample for a particular population and you can prove just about anything -- or in this case, that 100 rockers of this group died prematurely. That comes up to the newsworthy stat that rockers are 2 to 3 times more likely to die than the population at large.

Of course, Tim Castle, the reporter has to gussy up the report by identifying some folks who died in their 50s such as Johnny Ramone. (Of course, Ramone died of prostrate cancer, so it's hard to make the connection with that disease and the rocking life style -- so it's conveniently omitted.)

Castle, shows his liberal leanings by quoting a the study's author who suggested that "impoverished" American ex-pop stars may not have any health insurance. (Hence the premature deaths.) It would have been appreciated, if they would bother to name just one.

Perhaps, in the future, these folks could do something meaningful -- like come up with a cure to cancer.

Pot Shots

For someone who has spent the equivalent of a mortgage (with his own funds) on 1600 Pennsylvania, it's somewhat ironic (coupled with a whiff of desperation) for John Edwards to say that the Lincoln Bedroom won't be for sale.

I thought Mike Huckabee would get a bigger bounce from his very impressive second place showing in the Iowa beauty pageant. If not that, at least a hatchet job or two from the MSM.

Now if Michael Vick had taken that roll of bills and gave it to charity rather than to bankroll the dogfighting enterprise...he'd be on a whole slew of United Way ads.

While on the topic of Michael (Con) Vick, if he does ever play professional football, I can't see it being below the 49th parallel. (For those geographically challenged -- that's the U.S.-Canadian border.) Further, being forced to watch the CFL may be a Geneva Convention violation.

If you weren't sure that Stephon Marbury is a jerk, here's your proof.

Can someone forward me the memo that says that Dane Cook is funny. I can't seem to find my copy.

Perhaps it's my eyesight, but Gabrielle Anwar, looks better than most women a decade younger. If you don't believe me, check her out on Burn Notice.

Karl Rove -- A few thoughts

The New York Times seldom, if ever, highlights an article in a rival publication, but you could sense the glee when they headlined Karl Rove's resignation in an interview with the Wall Street Journal this morning.

So Mr. Rove moves on what does this portend? Well, not much actually.

• Karl Rove was not an evil genius. However, he was smart enough politically to engineer the defeat of an incumbent Vice-President who thought he should be elected for no other reason than an overdeveloped sense of primogeniture. Then four years later, with one of the weakest incumbents in office, he was able to beat the Democratic candidate who had a sense of invincibility about him.
  
• The primary focus of the remainder of the Bush Administration will be on the global war on terror. There won't be much discussion on domestic issues such as Social Security or immigration reform. The Democrats are too focused on payback and the Republicans are playing defense. This won't be a return of the Clintonian era of small -bore initiatives such as V-chips and school uniforms, but there really isn't much for a political strategist to do -- so you might as well move on.
  
• As noted previously, the Democrats are playing payback and Rove has become a liability for the Administration. As a private citizen, the Democrats could care less what advice he offered the president on a whole raft of issues. They just wanted him gone. Rove, however, had the opportunity to pick the time and place of his departure.
  
• Rove now has the opportunity to host a Sunday morning talk show. Stephanopoulos, Russert, Matthews were all partisan hacks who worked for Clinton, Cuomo, and O'Neil respectively before they all became objective news hosts -- who's to say that Rove can't do the same? (Bob Schieffer is getting on in years...)
  
• Anyway, an award to the first lazy journalist who notes, when Bush will commit his next error, "Well this wouldn't have happened if Rove were still around." He made errors with Rove, he'll make them without him.

Bonds -- Next Stop Cooperstown?

When Thurman Munson died tragically in an airplane accident in 1979, there was a move to get him inducted in the Hall of Fame immediately by waiving the five year rule.

Munson did have impressive stats -- Rookie of the Year in '70 and the MVP in '76. Surprisingly for a for a catcher was the fact that he finished in the top ten in batting for five years and was an All-Star for seven years. Munson, who by all accounts, had a few years left to play as he was only 32 when he died.

However, cooler heads prevailed and five years elapsed. And guess what --Munson, despite his credentials at the time of his death, simply didn't have the numbers to earn him a spot in Cooperstown. It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of the Pretty Good, after all.

So what? Well, a lot can happen in five years -- especially the five years from the time Barry Bonds retires to the time he's eligible for the Hall. News reports suggest that he's looking at a post season indictment for possible perjury in the whole BALCO mess. Moreover, the glow of actually breaking the mark will fade over time, especially as players, such as Alex Rodriguez, who have not been tainted with a steroids charge, make their assault on the record. Lastly, Bonds was never a friend of the media, and it's the media who decides who goes into the Hall and who stays outside.

It's not unprecedented. Pete Rose, who had more base hits than anyone who ever played the game -- and a whole slew of other records (but don't trust me -- his website will tell you) is still on the outside. Mr. Rose was a stone cold lock for the Hall but when his business of betting on baseball came to light -- it was lights out for Pete.

A lot can happen between now and 2012 (like a second Hillary Clinton term -- yikes!) but there certainly is no free pass for Barry Bonds when it comes to the Hall of Fame.

Mr. Bonds should enjoy the view for now, because it's all downhill from here on out.

Springsteen -- A Golden Oldie?

So I'm driving on the Turnpike playing radio roulette last Friday night-- and along comes Elvis Presley crooning "Burning Love." That's cool -- that will keep me occupied on an otherwise nondescript drive through New Jersey.

But then after that came a Bruce Springsteen tune. What kind of station plays Presley and then Springsteen? An oldies station. Go figure. And I remember when Bruce was on the cover of Time and Newsweek -- the same week back in 1975 as the next best thing.

Fast forward to Saturday and I'm flipping through my local TV listing and I see something called the "Springsteen Sessions" on a public TV channel at nine o'clock on a Saturday night in the summer -- who's going to be sticking around for that?

Then it dawned on me -- Springsteen is a nostalgia act.

I remember living out in California in the early 1990's and Springsteen released two albums separately -- a trick performed by Guns 'n' Roses for the Lose Your Illusion I and II recordings. GNR sold a boatload of albums. (But who knew it would be their last effort?)

Springsteen, alas, with Lucky Town and Human Touch, didn't fare nearly as well. I don't recall if he released any other new material for the rest of the decade. I bought his single disk Greatest Hits package in '95.

Sure, The Rising sold like proverbial hotcakes and the tour was a big time success. But how much of that could be associated with re-uniting the E Street Band, the need for some "healing" from 9/11, and the monumental hype machine that went into overdrive to hype this record?

But let me ask you this, when was the last time you heard a track from The Rising on the radio? 2003 perhaps? I know I haven't heard any of it since the tour ended.

This post isn't intended to be a hit on Springsteen. I like his music somewhat (his politics somewhat less) but it's all part of the career arc of any commercially successful artist.

If Springsteen ever needs money for the mortgage, he can dust off some old recordings for a remastered box set or just play a few concerts in the Garden State and he'll be set for a few few more years. He's got a legion of faithful fans between New York and Philadelphia.

And if I'm in the mood for a tune from the Boss, I'll make sure to stop by the oldies station.

Greenhouse Gas

Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times correspondent who lacks the adaptability to cover anything other than Supreme Court, wrote what can only be considered as a hatchet job on Justice Roberts. Under the guise of a "Supreme Court memo," she sounds the horn and rings the bell about the mortality of the Chief Justice, who seizures aside, is the picture of health at 52 years of age.

A more balanced report can be found elsewhere in the Times, where Denise Grady and Lawrence Altman talk to various experts who argue that he should (or should not) begin a drug therapy. As with any drug, there are side effects.

By any account it's a fair assessment of the situation.

Alas, Ms. Greenhouse has her memo and her agenda.

Greenhouse ramps the hyperbole at the end when she notes, " It is John Roberts for whom the country now holds its breath."

Now that's a dramatic ending. However, it loses some of its impact, when one considers the fact only a quarter of those polled can name two of the nine Supreme Court Justices. Maybe it's Ms. Greenhouse who's is holding her breath.

If that's the case, keep holding sister.

Where Have We See This Before?

Howard Kurtz, in yesterday's Washington Post revealed the identify of the The New Republic's "Baghdad Diarist" as Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

From what I gather, he's a PV2 (or E-2) which is a bit odd for an infantryman. Back in the day when I was an infantryman (during the end of the Cold War) you came on board as an E-1 and graduated from basic and infantry training as an E-2. Within six months after that, if you had at least a couple of neurons popping, you would make E-3 (PFC). I would suspect during combat operations that rank would come faster. From what Kurtz recounts, Beauchamp's been blogging -- as an active duty service member -- since 2006. Which begs the question -- is he such a bad infantryman that his company commander is not promoting him until he hits the maximum time in service/grade requirements -- or did he have rank only to lose it in a demotion? Either event would explain that big chip on his shoulder.

But here's the part that floored me. His wife is a reporter-researcher for TNR. Think about it for a moment.

If you were to pay a visit to the Sand Hill training area at Fort Benning, where civilians are molded into infantrymen, you're going to see a lot of young men in their late teens and early twenties. A few will be married, some will have girlfriends, but most are unattached. Of those who are married, the wives are either unemployed or working in blue collar jobs back home and are looking to move to their husband's first assignment.

So how did Beauchamp score a reporter-researcher for a wife? Did they meet in college and if so, why didn't Beachamp go to Officer Candidate School? (The Army is hurting for lieutenants.) Moreover, why didn't the wife move to Germany when he was assigned there? (I'm assuming that the wife is working in NYC.) Something doesn't ring true but let's assume that true love reigns -- a reporter-researcher is going to face a lot of separation time with the spouse if he's an infantryman.

But here is where it gets interesting. According to the magazine's editor, Franklin Foer, Beauchamp's credibility was due in part to his wife. In Foer's words: ". . .part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer."

Let's forget for a moment that Beauchamp is probably biased and that his marriage is something of an outlier for military marriages -- where have we heard this before?

It wasn't too long ago when someone's wife asked her spouse to go overseas and report back on what he saw. In fact, didn't the wife suggest that her husband -- "...has good relations with ... and ... lots of ... contacts...could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." (Apologies for all the ellipses but I'm trying to make a point.)

I'm talking about Valerie Plame who had recommended that her husband Joe Wilson -- who may have went over to Niger as a former ambassador but returned as a Democratic party hack -- on an overseas mission to verify if Iraq was indeed pursuing weapons of mass destruction technology. Did that ever turn out to be a debacle -- for everyone involved.

Now fast forward a couple of years later and imagine a reporter-researcher telling her editor that her husband is in Iraq and he's seen all sorts of dreadful things. The editor, if he's like most of society, wouldn't know the life of a soldier any more than he would know how to operate a nuclear reactor, signs on. After all, the wife seems credible. Next thing you know -- in today's day -- there are lots of volunteer fact checkers out there and as the fate that befell Joe Wilson -- there are a lot folks out there proving you to be wrong.

You may have noticed that I never mentioned the wife's name -- she may be a covert operative after all and I'm not going to take any chances. The only question is -- who's side is she on?

Random Thoughts

It's been a few months since the crisis at Walter Reed Medical Center and you mean to tell me that the only ones who lost their jobs were the Secretary of the Army, the Army Surgeon General, and the Center's commander? Well, what about the other managers of the hospital -- weren't they also part of the problem?

Have our counter-proliferation efforts come to a standstill now that Valerie Plame is no longer working at the CIA? In all the hype that surrounded her "scandal" I don't recall anyone saying that her departure was a big loss.

Having served in Iraq, the stuff that the New Republic is putting out seems far-fetched. You can tell the difference between an Iraqi soldier and a contractor -- probably a terp -- in a nanosecond. For starters, Iraqi female soldiers are few and far between. Further, the digging story doesn't ring true --given the description, either an engineer unit or contractors would have to support the level of digging that the unit is required to pull off. Anyway, I don't think the New Republic has a problem with made up stuff -- I think it of as a dreadful fiction magazine.

Is it me or is CNN.com an Internet version of a supermarket counter tabloid?

Wither Pro Sports?

I’m a fan of professional sports – not an avid, must watch ESPN and subscribe to Sports Illustrated fan – but a fan nonetheless. It’s a great social lubricant – hey did you see the game last night? What about that play? You get the idea.

However, the older I gets the less enamored I become with it – it becomes seedier and less honorable. (And in a time of war, it seems silly to call star athletes, “heroes” anyway.) You realize it’s just another business.

Alas, the professional leagues aren’t helping themselves out any. In baseball, Barry Bonds, as I write this, is just a couple of swings away from eclipsing Henry Aaron’s record for the most home runs in a career. Yet, in Sunday's New York Daily News, it seems that perjury and tax evasion indictments will be handed to Mr. Bonds by the end of the season.

Michael Vick, as noted on these pages, is in a world of hurt. He’s just the current face of the problem that the NFL has been facing (and to it’s credit – combating) of late.

Now the NBA is having the credibility of its games come under question as a referee is under investigation for fixing games he officiated for his own personal gain.

Hockey and soccer, like professional women’s basketball, simply aren’t part of the bit time.

None of this is really new. Gaylord Perry used a spitball for most of his career; the 1986 Mets were anything but honorable schoolboys; Lawrence Taylor claims to have been on drugs and O.J. Simpson, lest anyone forget was a gridiron favorite. And in basketball, who can forget the Malice in the Palace?

What’s interesting though is how these events are coming to the fore like a 1-2 punch combination.

I’m sure somebody will come up with a stupid notion like having some federal sports authority monitor the games but that won’t help.

No, this part of the rot that’s affecting our society – in our culture, in our politics, and in our lives. Sports is no different.

Perhaps this is a low moment for pro sports but I fear that this is merely a tip of a very unforgiving iceberg.

Vick's Caper Flub

You really have to feel for Michael Vick -- well, not really. The ones who are the big losers are his agent, the ones who paid him a fortune in endorsements, and his brother, Marcus, who may have to do something other than live off his brother's largess.

But make no mistake about - Vick is done. Unlike Kobe or O.J., he can't blame the victim -- what the dogs wanted to fight? Furthermore, while he's an exciting player, Vick is not a winner. And at the end of the day, there are those who will hold their nose in order to keep a winner on the team.

Tom Brady, Payton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger are not flashy but they each have a Super Bowl ring. Vick, in contrast, takes off as soon as he sees his first receiver covered -- without bothering to see if the second or third receiver is open. Sure the team has shown flashes of brilliance with Vick at the helm but they never got far in the playoffs.

It seems the NFL will let the justice system run its course and let Vick play but what team can afford to have a QB play with an indictment? Don't you think that it's going to have some impact on his psyche?

Anyway you look at it, this is a no-win situation for the Falcons -- look for them to cut their losses quickly.

Popping Smoke

Senator John McCain should take a sheet from the Governor Jim Gilmore play boook -- and drop out of the race.

If McCain continues on his present course, it will be an ill-suited coda to what has been a an otherwise remarkable career. (Will anybody remember Michael Jordan's lackluster seasons with the Washington Wizards? What about Willie Mays' time with the New York Mets? Don't even get me started on Joe Namath's tenure with the Rams.)

At present, McCain's campaign is a mess and there is nothing on the horizon that will suggest that things will improve any time soon.

McCain's failure is that he's running as if its 2000 all over again. However, much has changed since then -- (and we're not even going to discuss 9/11).

McCain's claim to popularity was that he was seen as the less ideological (and perhaps more competent) alternative to George Bush as the contest eight years ago was a two man race. (Go ahead and the name the other Republicans who were in the running.)

In the interim, McCain has been tone-deaf to his party with respect to illegal immigration and campaign funding. In today's Net-savvy environment, it's much easier to forgive than forget. And it seems that the pollsters are finding both in short supply when it comes to McCain's campaign.

Moreover, there is a thin dimes worth of difference between McCain and the other candidates on most issues, so McCain supporters can make common cause with them -- especially at crunch time during the general election.

There is another fact too -- McCain is no spring chicken at 70 years of age and the suffering he endured as a POW will probably become more pronounced as he ages. Regardless of one's affinity for his views, those issues cannot be easily sidestepped.

In short, there is very little in the way of an upside for McCain to continue. When Soldiers pull out of a no-win situation, they pop smoke grenades to obscure their retreat. It's time for McCain to do the same.

Pull Out

Remember back in 1995 when then- President William J. Clinton told the world that U.S. forces would spend just one year in Bosnia -- the folks there had 365 days to get their act together -- and then we're out of there. Well if you missed the news -- and you should have as it wasn't covered much by Big Media -- the U.S. finally pulled up stakes in Bosnia. For those mathematically challenged, that's a dozen years -- not one.

The point is not to slam the 42nd President --that's a cottage industry populated by right wing loonies. Further, that horse is dead, why continue to beat it? Besides Bill wasn't lying -- he was merely playing politics with the military.

The point is that the first 1 1/2 tiers (H. Clinton, B. Obama & J. Edwards) of the Democratic party are calling for a pullout of U.S. forces in Iraq like right now. However, they will settle for the last helicopter to fly from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on 19 January 2009. Just goes to show what happens when lawyers, without an iota of time in any of the services, run for President. (I guess that's why Wes Clark is keeping a low profile -- he'd be a handy VP to allay those concerned with the nominee's lack of national security experience.)

Why the rush? Couple of reasons -- President Bush, despite repeated addresses on the virtue of staying the course, has to compete with mounting casualties; Big Media's box-score keeping mentality (e.g., today's bombing was [location], X were killed, and Y were injured; film at 11); and that this conflict is now going on its fourth year.

As it stands right now, the Democratic presidential-wannabes are eager to pull out. If they assume the Oval Office, then politics gets tossed in favor of national security. They are not the one and the same. (A precedent of sorts was established by Clinton's Bosnian flip-flop. Admittedly the two situations are not perfectly analogous.) So here's the big reason -- no Democrat wants this on the "to-do" list on Inauguration Day. It's best for Bush to take the hit (i.e., "losing Iraq"). They certainly don't want to deal with the potential of a no-win situation early in their administration.

So what now? The surge from various accounts seems to be working. Further, Bush has shown no inkling that he's going to change course. (He doesn't seem to care much about his low poll numbers -- he's looking at history, not the election cycle.) More importantly, it doesn't seem that the Congress has the votes (or the will) to override him now -- as they don't want to be tarred with the "loser" sobriquet.

Expect more vitriolic attacks on the President's policy; furthermore don't expect him to make any changes anytime soon. When it comes to pulling out -- it took a dozen years to redeploy from a permissive environment -- it's going to take longer from a non-permissive environment.

You've Got Mail, Johnny C.

There is a lighthearted -- as lighthearted as things get for The New York Times -- with their bond status sinking like a hot rock about how The Garden State's governor, Jon Corzine, is no longer going to use email.

Anyway, that reminded me of a time back when I was in the service. A new commanding general came on board and the word was that he didn't do email. My first thought was -- whoa here's a guy just too busy and important to be pecking away on a keyboard. All email was to be directed to his aide-de-camp. After a while we figured out what the email ban was all about -- he was too gutless to put his name to anything that could be part of an audit trail. Imagine our utter shock when we learned the real truth of the matter -- the guy was a moron. He couldn't articulate a coherent thought on paper if you put a gun to his head.

Governor Corzine is no moron but that doesn't mean he doesn't do the moronic such as speeding and crashing sans seat belt on a NJ highway.

In typical closing the barn door after the horse is gone fashion, Corzine isn't emailing anymore because he's being asked for his previous emails to a former state union president who used to be his paramour. (I don't know the specifics of the case but it certainly looks funny.)

Anyway, the lighthearted nature comes from the fact that the Times transcriber, er, journalist notes that Corzine didn't email all that much anyway. (How hard would it have been to get somebody to say that on the record? Or, explain why nobody would say that for attribution.)

Anyway, it's a technique -- when you've done something you probably shouldn't have done -- it's better to come off as a goof ball rather than an evil genius. Let's see how long this act plays.

Surging?

So there I am at my local grocery paying way too much for frozen waffles when I notice a new magazine on the rack by the check out. It's called Men's Vogue. I'm thinking this is great as we all need another liberal men's fashion magazine. (And to think that GQ and Esquire didn't have that demographic already lined up -- liberals who want to dress well at ridiculous prices.)

Well it was the cover that got my attention. In a manly pose on the back of an old pickup truck was the one term Senator from North Carolina, John Edwards along with his faithful dog. (Or somebody's dog at least.) But it wasn't the picture that grabbed my attention -- it was the blurb that went along with it. It said something about his "surge in the polls."

OK, what surge? According to the folks over at RCP, Johnny E. is drawing about 12.3% of the Democratic vote with Hillary C. at 30% , B. Obama at 23% , and Al (I'm not running) Gore at 14.5%.

If that's surging, I hate to see how they would describe his candidacy if it was dead in the water. I don't know. I'm too upset about the cost of frozen waffles.

Ice Ice Baby

"Those ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids are killing us. Especially when it comes on delivery days."

Overheard in the men's restroom today at a DC hotel hosting an American Farm Bureau conference. It was one of those meetings designed to enhance their Congressional lobbying skills.

Alas it's a bit too late to lobby for comprehensive immigration reform now.

Reporters Relevancy Act of 2007

From National Review's Dead Tree edition (12 February):

"Shady characters in the Bush administration were thought to have outed Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee in relation for the self-aggrandizing (and largely false) anti-Iraq War op-ed her husband Joe had published in the New York Times.

Snip

"We also know that the leaker was not (Vice Presidential aide I. Lewis) Libby but Colin Powell's deputy, Richard Armitage, an Iraq War skeptic who let Valerie's name slip out inadvertently. In short, there was no crime, and nothing to investigate.

Snip

"(Special prosecutor Patrick) Fitzgerald is smart enough to know that memory is imperfect, and that any man who works 18 ours a day and speaks with dozens of journalists a week, as Libby did, will mix up a few details. He chose to ruin Libby's life anyway..."

Clear cut case. Right? Well, not exactly if you are either former movie critic Frank Rich of the New York Times and sometime novelist David Ignatius of the Washington Post. They see the Libby case as the uncovering of a monumental cover up where Bush lied in order to go to war with Iraq.

Rich decries the "red herrings" of the case. In fact, he gets one wrong. According to Rich, "The White House is also telling the truth when it repeatedly says that Mr. Cheney did not send Mr. Wilson on his C.I.A.-sponsored African trip to check out a supposed Iraq-Niger uranium transaction. (Another red herring, since Mr. Wilson didn’t make that accusation in the first place.)"

Well, actually Mr. Wilson did make that accusation in the first place when he wrote: In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office." Furthermore, he stated, "The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government."

While it's fair to say that Dick Cheney didn't personally ask Joe Wilson to check the story out, he obviously executed the mission with the thought that this trip was under the aegis of the VP's office.

But this is beside the point. Here's the takeaway -- the case against Libby is much ado about nothing. Fitzgerald knew from the onset that Armitage was the leaker; so I'm not sure what Fitzgerald's motivation is here -- other than trying to score some sort of victory while he's in the limelight. As for Rich and Ignatius -- they're trying to give a non-story some traction and justify the disproportionate media interest in the case as opposed to the public's lack of concern as to who said what to whom when. (And Rich, on a personal level, is peddling a book about the lead up to the war anyway -- think of his writing as free advertising.)

Loopey Prediction

We'll ignore Mike Lupica's snide comment about "war-loving" since it's a gratuitous cheap shot (his stock in trade) but I'll track the following prediction anyway:

"If the current Vice President of the United States, the war-loving Richard Cheney, makes it through this year without resigning or being asked to resign because of everything that's going to come out in the Scooter Libby trial, it's going to be a '69-Mets-type miracle."

Here's the curious thing -- plenty has come out to date on the Libby trial (which is being prosecuted on some very thin reeds) -- but what does Lupica -- a hack sports columnist -- know about what is going to come out?

Given the weaselly nature of the prediction, I suspect that Lupica will ask for Cheney's resignation on 31 December. As if anyone will listen.

Stay tuned.

Stumbling by the Lamppost

You know the story about the drunk looking for his car keys at night, don't you? He's stumbling under a lamppost looking about when a police officer walks up. The cop naturally asks the drunk what's he doing. After the drunk tells him, the policeman then asks why he hasn't found them yet. The drunk replies that the keys were dropped a couple of blocks away but the light was better under the lamppost

Such is the case with network news and here's the most recent example.

Martin Fletcher, the Tel Aviv Bureau Chief for NBC News, reports that Palestinian gunmen are threatening to kill journalists who film the ongoing war between Fatah and Hamas. And in the TV biz, no dramatic film coverage (e.g., gun battles, dead bodies, etc.) usually means no story. So the viewer gets shortchanged as if this civil war isn't happening.

But NBC News has airtime to fill on its Today and Dateline programs, so viewers like you and me get to watch this nonsense.

I'll give NBC credit for permitting Fletcher to report on the shortcomings of the Big Media . Yet in the end, when it comes to TV news, I'm just as dissatisfied as the drunk looking for his lost keys.

The Sequestered Senator Johnson

Right off the bat, we're hoping big-time that Senator Johnson has a full-recovery.

Yet, we're not certain if he'll be back on the Senate floor anytime soon. According to this recent report -- Senator Johnson continues to improve. The focus is on the direction (better to improve than deteriorate, of coure.) However, we're somewhat short on the facts as to his actual improvement. He's reading -- but what is that he's reading; "great strides" are being made -- but what do they consist of?

One has to be considerate of privacy concerns but Senator Johnson's illness is a unique case. If he ultimately opts to resign his seat because he cannot in good faith represent the people of South Dakota, he's likely to be replaced by a Republican. That would result in the GOP taking control of the Senate. Imagine what happens then.

Alas, interminable great strides will not suffice for the people of South Dakota forever. Expect a recovered Senator Johnson or a resignation by 1 April.

What's Bothering Chuck?

Let's start off by saying Senator Chuck Hagel is an American patriot. Let's get that out of the way pronto. Anybody with a pair of Purple Hearts is OK by me.

However.

There comes a time when the head scratching begins. Such is the case when I read his interview in the web-edition of Gentleman's Quarterly. (By the way, why is called quarterly when it's published monthly?)

Chuck (or Charles Timothy, take your pick) is a Republican from Nebraska. Among his senatorial duties are his seemingly weekly appearances on the Sundays talk shows. (Central casting bills him as the "moderate Republican.") That's all fine and good -- goes to show that Big Tent Republicanism is alive and well.

Yet, in the aforementioned interview, you'd think he was a San Francisco liberal in the way he bashes the Bush Administration for its conduct leading to and in the in execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In fact, it's much worse -- the three words that came to mind when I read the article were weaselly, petulant and wrong. There's no point in rebutting some of his ill-considered remarks. (This isn't to suggest that his criticisms aren't valid -- it's just that it seems to be more of a venting that a deliberate review of what went wrong -- and to review how Senator Hagel was complicit in the manner. Alas -- to save you from reading it -- he allies himself with the "Bush lied" crowd. ) After reading the interview, you have to ask yourself -- why?

Is it because the President is low in the polls and the best time to kick a man is when he's down; even if he's from your own party? (Shades of Kennedy vs. Carter in '80?)
Is he angling for a draft bid to win the Republican nomination in 08? (Good luck standing out in that crowd -- you'd better off finding a seat on the New York City subway during rush hour than getting the GOP nod.)
Does he read the tea leaves that the Democrats will win in '08 and he's looking for the SECDEF gig -- just like Cohen for Clinton in '96? (And while on that topic, Cohen was no great shakes.)

Perhaps it's all of the above or none of the above.

Alas, my limited blogging skills preclude me from showing the picture that graces the cover of his biography -- it's taken as Senator Hagel is looking out into some unknown horizon and the photographer is looking up to Chuck. (It's creepily messianic in its overtones.) But it does come across as saying Chuck knows best -- even if you if you don't have a clue.

And I'm certainly clueless as to what is bothering Chuck.

Little Dinero for Gilberto

In the sports section of today's Washington Times, Tim Lemke wants to know why Gilberto Arenas, the shooting guard for the Washington Wizards, isn't the recipient of lucrative endorsement deals given his elevated play this year.

It comes down to the math of yk/m =45.

Or the 45 times Mr. Arenas will, in a minute's worth of conversation, say "you know."

Everyone is guilty of it from time to time, but with Mr. Arenas it borders on a speech impediment. I heard him being interviewed on the radio and it was painful. You want this guy to pitch your product?

Just for the record, you know, Mr. Lemke doesn't, you know, mention this at all, you know.

Keep Them Guessing

Perhaps Muqtada al-Sadr has an open source collection cell. If so, he's getting mixed signals as noted below --

Here's a headline from the 19 January edition of The Miami Herald by the Associated Press:
"U.S. may have go ahead to take on Sadr's militia."

A day earlier, Robert H. Reid, of the Associated Press, in The Philadelphia Inquirer, authored this report with the title, "US commanders reluctant to take on Shiite militia."

According to the former report, five top aides have been either killed or captured in the past few months. Perhaps rather than going for a full Fallujah style offensive, US Forces are preferring a more indirect route of going for the leadership -- believing that the followers would scatter.

So let them keep guessing and worrying. A toothless and scared militia is in Iraq's best interest.

Who Knows?

It's easy to pile on Representative Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) for his ignorance on al-Qaeda. Congressional representatives aren't concerned about the details -- they're the big picture guys. And invariably, that big picture is focused on getting re-elected or running for higher office. That's why they have aides after all.

Another case in point, a year or two ago a Congressional delegation came out on a "fact-finding" mission to Baghdad. They were -- I got this second hand -- earnest in finding out what was going on from the perspective of the ground commanders. From what I learned, they were also profoundly ignorant as to the situation – both in terms of the good news and the bad news. That's not directed as a slam -- it's just that they have so much on their plate -- they can't afford to be a shadow secretaries of defense.

So what's your point Maguire?

It's that those who oppose the war (or, for now the surge) are doing so based on political considerations. (The same, of course, can be said those who favor the war and its escalation – but they’re the ones taking the beating in the polls – there’s very little upside right now for supporting the war.) I doubt that there is one member up on the Hill who can talk rationally – pro or con – about the war without reverting to talking points (e.g., cut and run, redeployment, etc.).

Trust me, I wish the war was going better and I certainly did not enjoy my time over there – but the next time you hear an elected representative talk about his or her view on the war, ask yourself this question – “What do they really know?” You’d be surprised as to how little they do know.