A few from the mailbag and one from the malebag.

I had a worse line than that title. I just felt like saving it for the end. Anyhoo, a weekend cleanup of the Inbox leads to a few noteworthy mails.

Several of you have written to me to comment, and in some cases outright chastize me, for exposing them to Free Republic. Some people just have too tender emotions or something. From Emily Romund:

I realize that Freepers represent the most reactionary of the reactionaries and that even the right wing tends to distance themselves from these sideshow morons. (sorry, all you Sideshow Morons) In retrospect, I guess you of all people didn't need an illustration of the Freeper mindset. But I think I am slightly more pessimistic than you when I say that random arrestations due to the holding of unpopular views is not too far off in the future. (See recent raids of leftist activist centers, interrogations of citizens based on politic-talk at the local gym, and various other spook-related events) The thing that might save us is the increased power given to the formerly passive boob-tubed citizen by the internet and other info-outlets, as well as the increased politicization of the formerly apathetic far left. But, this might be the undoing as well, as the increase in the exchange of ideas also gives more fodder to the spooks, who every day have more and more spying capabilities for their War On Dissent. Who knows what will happen? I sure as hell don't. I can't wait to get back to the States, though. For the first time in my life I feel like my country needs me.

Dave Stumpf has some issues with my post about Bush's contingencies on the Palestinian elections I talked about the other day:

I really don't get your June 27th post. You are implying that the idea of consequences is a bad thing somehow. But it's just common sense. If a democratic people elect a leader who pledges to go to war with some country, the consequence of that action is a war. And the other country will fight back.

Similarly, if a country elects a leader who another gov't (say, the US) does not support, it's not unreasonable for the other gov't to withhold financial support.

Now, in the broad scheme, I agree with Dave, but this is an over-broadening of the issue. My point is that it is hypocritical of the United States to say that the important step for the Palestinians is to have free and open elections, then say that those free and open elections are not free and open, as specific people are not allowed to be involved with them.

And yes, it is unreasonable for the United States for say both of these things at the same time. This is not similar to other U.S. foreign leader relations, despite all those having problems as well. In Yugoslavia, the already defeated and indicted former leader was turned over after threats of U.S. embargo. In Cuba, the U.S. claims opposition to the leader is a result of said leader's refusal to allow open elections. Neither of these is the upcoming case in Palestine; rather it is the U.S. openly saying that if the Palestinian people openly and fairly elect the leader of their choice, despite his infeasiblity to negotiate with the U.S., then the U.S. will refuse to allow further democracy to the region. How does threatening to hinder democracy promote it?

Keep in mind as well that this is coming from the U.S.- a nation that in no way has agreed to equal democracy in the global scale in its own right- exemplified by such cases as demanding that the U.S. is solely exempt from the International Criminal Court or its earlier attempt to withhold funds from the IMF in protest of its temporary removal from the UN security council.

Of course, there is the entire issue of the U.S. fear that Arafat's election would lead to a continuation of the deadlock in the peace process, which frankly leads to another debate we have both already discussed and that I don't want to discuss again at three in the morning after one too many rounds of Asshole in my best friend's basement.

Finally, I have to paraphrase a bit of this e-mail, as the writer (identified only as "Dimm") originally sent it to the fouders of the lesbian sperm provider website I wrote about earlier in the week and cc-ed it to me:

...I support completely what [they're] trying to do with this site but.... [the] web site name and logo are offensive. Not more so than certain pornography sites, but still there is nothing about those web sites that tries to be legitimate.

Not that sperm defines a man [an arguable point I'll grant] but that liquid undoubtedly comes from a man - [the] donors that [they] want to pre-register. The man is included.

I would not like to think - and know it to be false - that lesbians can be considered "man-haters." It is also fair to say that at least half of the babies born
through [this] service will be boys and they will, most likely turn into MEN. The tone of the logo and URL is not fair to them. [The] site of course is not about politics, but the logo and name make it so in the minds of many - including me.

In other words, the writer is upset that a website promoting sperm provision to lesbian couples is called "ManNotIncluded.com," in sense that by providing women with something that can, biologcally, come only from a man, as well as the ultimate utilization of the sperm possibly yielding a male birth (thus making a man included in the process,) the entire service defeats the title of the company. As for the issues of man-hating, I don't know where that concept comes from, but as a straight man, I don't see how anyone, straight or not, male or not, can be offended.

The way I see it, this writer is getting very upset over semen-tics.

I warned you.
 

 
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

Bush to undergo surgery requiring sedation; will temporarily transfer Presidential powers to Dick Cheney.

See, it's important to get past the easy material to find out the real problem in the story. I'll give you all your damn colon jokes later, okay? Sheesh. I'm wetting my pants here.
 

 
Well, that's just neat

From the science department: apparently Wilhelm Reich was right all those years ago. No, not about the universe being powered entirely by the invisible energy generated by sexual orgasm (unfortunately) but about the whole concept of "Orgone Accumulators-" the energy potential of layering organic and inorganic material into panels. No, I'm too tired to look up a link for you. Read a book, for gosh sakes.

Anyway, there's sort of a discovery related to this: layering wood and magnetic metal makes cell phones go splat.

You heard me. Okay, granted, "make cell phones go splat" isn't the accurate scientific terminology, but still. If something like this goes on the market, you can actually physically disable people's ability to use a cell phone inside a restaurant, or a movie theater. Imagine if they still wood-paneled cars: think of the reduction in accidents because none of these schmucks can use their cell phones anymore while driving into a small cluster of children as a bus stop. It's a beautiful world after all.
 

 
A quick update from the Land of the Free

Okay, just so I can get all these straight.

You're perfectly free to refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance, just remember that if you do half the teachers in the country might discipline you anyway and the entire nation's Congress will denounce your attitude. You're perfectly free to choose whatever school you want to, just remember that there's a 99 percent chance it will force its religion on you.

And now, the latest for the people of Palestine: you're free to choose whatever leader you want, just remember that if you choose someone we don't like, we'll cut off all your funding:

Without mentioning Mr. Arafat by name, Mr. Bush told reporters today, "I've got confidence in the Palestinians, when they understand fully what we're saying, that they'll make the right decisions." But then he warned, "I can assure you, we won't be putting money into a society which is not transparent - and corrupt - and I suspect other countries won't either."

Within hours, a senior administration official briefing reporters by telephone from the meeting site, in Kananaskis, took the warning a step further, saying that while the Palestinian people were free to re-elect Mr. Arafat, they should know that it would cost them significant aid.

"We respect democratic processes," the official said, "but there are consequences."

So tune in next time for our latest report from the Land of the Free, where you should always remember: democracy has consequences.
 

 
Ahh, the honeymoon's over

With everyone having a good night's sleep (or, to many ultra-conservatives, a good night's cry,) the whole "striking down of the Pledge of Allegiance" thing can be looked at a little more rationally.

First, as was expected, the man who brought the lawsuit in the first place is receiving so many death threats that he, and I'm not making this up, had to put in a second phone line to handle all of them. Strange.

But what's more interesting about it is that most of the people I've heard from and have now been seeing on the free-from-guilt-in-anything-you-say message boards have toned down their talk and are willing to concede the inappropriateness (if not outright condemn) the actions of anyone who thinks it would be okay to assault, physically or verbally, the man who started this.

Even more in condemnation is the proposal by Joe Lieberman, as reader Monetta Slaybaugh pointed out when I asked in regards to his potential reaction, among other Senators, to actually draft an amendment to the constitution- apparently in the minds of most of our elected officials as the simple solution to changing multiple laws when they make you mildly unhappy. Or when there's an election in a few months and you really, really think you have a snowball's chance in hell of becomming president someday. Suggestions from the right have, again in all seriousness, included a proposal to make a two-for-one "Pledge-of-Allegiance-slash-Anti-Flag-Burning" amendment, as if permanently altering the fundamental rights of our citizens is tantamount to some form of sale at a used car lot.

People like Gingrich and Buchanan have made their rounds at places like Talkback and Hannity & Colmes (who took the cake last night in the syrupy garbage department by digging up a Red Skelton album praising the Pledge and playing it live on the air with slow flowing flag backdrops. I am not kidding) and succeeded in their blatant attempts to, as always, convince the American public that this has more ramifications that it actually does. The leading contenders include the following mistruths:

The court rendered it illegal to say the Pledge. No it didn't. It said that with the words "Under God" it would be illegal to say in a public school, a government-overseen entity that, therefore as part of the State, must be separated from the church.

What's next? Removing 'In God We Trust' from our money?" Well, actually, that both makes sense and actually is the next step the man who won yesterday's lawsuit claims to do. What's puzzling about this is how by asking this question with a forceful tone of voice, it makes it sound somehow as if it's a problem. It's not like it's not money.

So what if they do change the money? Is all my money illegal now? Wow, you really are braindead, aren't you? When, at any other point in history, has the government changed the way money looks and then made the old version illegal or invalid? All they do is stop re-circulating it, just like when they brought out the new "Monopoly-Money" style $20's and $10's.

Oh, and while we're on the subject: that joke? You know, the one that involves "So if your money's illegal now, send it all to me! LoL RoFlLmAo 3l33t har har" or something like that? Yeah, we've all heard it. A hundred times. You're not funny. Or clever. Or original. Or unique. Please go away.

The atheists are forcing their beliefs on us now! It's just reverse discrimination! Okay, if the whole money thing didn't prove you're an idiot, you've taken the prize with this one. First of all, by definition atheism is incapable of forcing anything on anyone. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. so at what point was there every a ruling that said people are forced to not believe in God? Gosh, that would be NEVER! Was the entire country by atheists prior to 1954 or something? Stop making this sound like the godless commies are trying to destroy the American resolve (which was the actual excuse for putting the words into the Pledge in the first place) and go home and pray as much as you want. Lord knows you need some form of guidance with all the crap you've been hearing on TV in the last 24 hours over this.

So anyway, that's just about it. The latest fad story has erupted, this will with no doubt be used as a talking point for both sides throughout the next election cycle, and within the next six months some court will strike this down anyway.

Meanwhile, I look on the bright side. Thanks to the ultra-right fanatics going on TV to decry this as "unnecessary" because "children can refuse to say the Pledge anyway," more Americans that ever before have actually learned that this is true. Next school year, there's going to be twice as many students saying they don't want to say it. Count on it, and remember to thank a conservative.

Now let's see if anyone in the Senate who jumped over themselves to call the ruling any sort of demeaning and violent names are going to come out today and condemn the actions of the god freaks who harassed this guy and his eight-year old daughter. Why am I not holding my breath on this?
 

 
Join me, fellow liberals, as we bow to our almighty lord, the archangel Uriel, for his demonic possession of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and our latest victory to destroy the country from within!

Okay, I never thought I'd link to a website like this, but I can't hold back any more. Free Republic. Go there. Right now.

That's right. The most virulent, psychotic right-wing message board on the internet. Go. Observe. For it is a rare moment in your life where you can stare at the messages in regards to the long-overdue decision that mentioning God in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional and actually watch, in a digital format, people going completely fucking insane.

I swear, this is some of the funniest stuff I've ever read in my entire life. The symbolism of God and the American flag shot down in one ruling? Oh my, you can just imagine how stinky the shit is that they're throwing at the fans right now.

Speaking of said hurled shit. what a strange thing to say. But anyway, one of the right-wingers did point out something important- that Republicans have already taken the steps to capitalize on this for the 2002 Congressional elections. Wow. That only took, what, two hours? And come one, what makes better campaigning than "defending God and the American Flag?"

So remember folks, it official: the godless liberals have taken religion away from your schoolchildren, and the only way to save America from Satan is to vote Republican in November. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go watch Joe Lieberman's head explode into several tiny pieces as he tries to figure out what side to take.
 

 
Oops.

WorldCom Finds $3.8 Billion Error, Fires CFO. Seriously, that's the actual headline.

You know, folks, I'm no expert in the business world and all it's edu-ma-cated mumbo-jumbo, but I'd think that mistakenly reporting the gross national product of, oh let's say Ghana, is a little more than a freakin' error, wouldn't you?

Pre-emptive update: And yes, I'm aware that the story points out who WorldCom's auditing firm is. The reporters for Reuters did too, apparently.
 

 
If only I could stop

This evening a close friend told me I should think of other topics to talk about other than the Middle East, to which I replied that I would love nothing more than for there to be no new reasons to write something about it... at this point in time, it seems like no news is good news at the rate that any chance of peace between these two sides is crumbling.

In regards to Bush's speech, I can't say much more than you'd expect: Bush accomplished absolutely nothing, and as a result nothing will be accomplished in Israel outside of Sharon using miltary force to justify the "defensive" acquisiton of more land that just happens to coincide with his bastardazing view of Jewish dogma, followed by Yasser Arafat a.k.a. the only world leader more politically screwed than Ariel Sharon, being completely and utterly unable to control the actions of any group that will eternally hate the Jewish people as long as they exist, knowing that anything they do will be blamed on the guy they don't plan on ever listening to anyway. I left most of my arguments, as I said earlier, to my discussion with Jeff Cohen, whose comments on MSNBC I agreed with wholeheartedly (and for the first and only time in my life, most likely, I somehow ended up being able to tell him at dinner six hours later.)

So, I'm not sure how I'll stomach the next round of whatever stupid thing develops in the Middle East, but I'll leave you with these two links to soak in for the next few days:

This is from a blogger who apparently belongs to a link-ring of other Jewish bloggers (who will probably end up attacking me and all I stand for once the backlogging ensues): Israel has more to worry about than terrorism.

And, from Slate, more on how Bush said a whole lot o' nothing.

Later today or tomorrow: more musings about something.... anything else.
 

 
Oh, and another thing

CNN is now giving reports about the Arizona wildfires that have burned 300,000 acres of land and destroyed the homes and lives of thousands with the clever, compassionate title "Blazing Arizona." Does anyone else find that at least mildly tasteless?

 

 
Some battles you just stay out of...

Online sperm bank for lesbian couples draws outrage. Wow, who saw that coming.

As a straight male, this is one of the few subjects I feel I have no right to establish a based opinion on, other than two simple points: the issue of lesbians wanting to raise a family is pretty much none of my damn business, and this sperm bank has a great web site address. Sadly, what else must I say except "we report, you decide?"

 

 
Oh what a night, late June in '02

I'll be brief because I'm tired, and I don't want to talk too much and potentially upset other involved, but I just came home from a very fun evening involving both seeing the cartoonists at the panel I was talking about earlier, and then actually hanging out with them at a restaurant afterwards.

To start, I have a whole lot more autographs now, including those of Ted Rall, Tom Tomorrow, Peter Kuper, Jen Sorensen, Stephanie McMillan, Joel Pett, and Matt Wuerker, all of which will be scanned and displayed in my archives sometime in the new future (i.e. whenever I get off my lazy ass an unpack the scannerm form when I moved back home for the summer in. Christ. in the first week of May, for fuck's sake.)

Second, to anyone who doesn't know who all those names are, pick up a copy of Attitude: The New Subversive Political Cartoonists, edited by Rall, and collecting the work of all the people mentioned above. (Except Pett, who was only there for the conference, but more than made up for it by giving us a basic lesson in caricaturing the entire Bush family, which I will also explain via the archives in the near future.)

Third, I will state that I am more optimistic about becoming a professional cartoonists because of another apparent perk: cartoonists, believe it or not, end up with really good girls. Ted and Matt's wives were two of the most interesting and insightful people I talked to during the night, and were very gracious given the unmitigated strife that being married to a "Subversive Political Cartoonist" must entail. Especially Ted's wife, given the whole "O'Reilly demands Rall's gonads on a platter" incident a few months ago. I hope to someday have a significant other to worry about all the death threats I'm getting. I mean it. I think it'll make for good bonding.

Finally, my very strange moment of the night. Sometime today or tomorrow I'll have to address the Middle East again, given the latest statement by Bush. I listened to the speech on MSNBC and the point-counterpoint analysis afterwards right before I left to catch my bus into the city for this shindig. Weighing in some interesting points was MSNBC analyst and Co-Founder of Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, Jeff Cohen.

Wait, this is funny. See, the reason I can, hours after the fact, remember the specific name of the correspondent on MSNBC weighing his analysis on the speech Bush made was because after the conference I attended, sitting at the restaurant among many a professional cartoonist, I realized suddenly that I was, in fact, talking to him.

And frankly, the fact that something like having a political discussion with someone who only three hours earlier you were watching on TV having a political discussion happens so rarely to anyone in life merits mentioning it here. So there you have it. I'm still very confused. Nice guy, though.

Later: back to stuff about things not involving stuff I was actually involved in.
 

 
Update on the going to the event thingie... I just found out that the address of the event is, literally, directly across the street from the Empire State Building, so if you are attempting to drive and find parking near the event you are completely insane. God, why do the cool city events always happen when I'm not living in it?

 

 
Hey New Yorkers! Want a free sticker?

A special note to any fans in the New York City area, primarily fellow NYU students who actually know who the hell I am. I'll be somewhere in the city tomorrow evening to hand out a free XQUZYPHYR & Overboard sticker to anyone who wants one.

Here's the catch, but it's a good one: I'm attending a lecture hosted at CUNY entitled "Mightier than the Sword: Kick-Ass Cartoonists and the Art of Political Subversion." Yeah, that does sound like something I'd love to listen to, doesn't it? Well it must sound even better to Tom Tomorrow and Ted Rall, who will be two of the panelists at the lecture. Click the link for all the information.

I'll update if I find out, but I'll point out for now that I called in a few days ago to reserve my spot. I don't know if seating is still available. As it is I'm going there tomorrow to see if I can actually attend the pre-lecture gathering without having to pay the extra ninety bucks that I am pretty sure I don't have. Such is life of starving cartoonist.

Anyhoo, if there's anyone out there who already knows they're definitely going to the conference, drop me a line via the usual channels and I'll make sure to save a sticker for you. I enjoy spreading the love.

Special note to stalkers and anyone interested in hunting me down and killing me, possibly harvesting my skin for sustenance or warmth: please ignore this entire post.
 

 
My future is saved

Seriously. John is doing his happy dance.

I've mentioned in previous posts about my desire to not only be an animator, but to continue the art of animation in the traditional, two-dimensional, Chuck Jones / Nine Old Men / Bruce Timm style instead of sacrificing costs to the visually stunning but emotionally lifeless 3-D format that is dominating the animation box office.

Rogert Ebert wrote one of the best editorials of his career this week about the newest Disney film Lilo & Stitch, which I am excited to see and will head off to the theater to do just that the moment I can find a girl to take so I don't look like a perverted psychopath sitting there alone in the theater among the five-year olds and their parents. Anyone interested may look to the 1999-2000 strips for various suggestions on what I look for in a woman. I'm only partially kidding.

But I digress. I am very happy that Ebert was wrong. Scooby-Doo did not dominate the box office. Not only were American parents smart enough to take their kids to the Disney movie instead of the aforementioned piece of shit, but they very well may have knocked the Steven Speilberg-directed, Tom Cruise-starring summer blockbuster into #2. All because of a 2-D cartoon.

So yes, with both my career and my faith in American temporarily intact, I urge others to go see the movie. Then go rent The Iron Giant, simply because it's one of the finest animated movies made in the last ten years.
 

 
The world's policeman, prosecuting attorney, and holder of diplomatic immunity

Again, one of those stories where you can't tell if it shoud be called "irony" or "being complete and total assholes:" U.S. threatens to pull out of UN peacekeeping. You read that right.

Washington will stop supporting United Nations peacekeeping operations unless Americans taking part are given immunity from prosecution by the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal.

Most countries back the new International Criminal Court (ICC), scheduled to begin its work July 1, but the United States has refused to endorse it - arguing its citizens may face politically motivated prosecution.

American diplomats have presented the UN Security Council with a draft resolution demanding guaranteed immunity at the ICC.

Okay. So the U.S., the nation that just decided anyone in the world, including, apparently, its own citizens, can be labelled as "enemy combatants" and held indefinitely as well as sentenced to imprisonment without a trial, is still declaring that the U.S. should be exempt from its citizens recieving the same treatment because of a possible "political bias" against the U.S.

Which, of course, we have no idea how that bias could have been caused by.

And furthermore, exaclty what in the U.S. War on TerrorismT isn't "politically motivated prosecution?" How is labelling people as enemies of the state not political? How is putting them before government-operated tribunals not political? How is threatening to stop helping other countries because you're worried 220-something years of generally being the biggest dick in human history (with the exception of maybe Britain and the occasional German Reich) not fucking political? What other term is there for it?

 

 
Let's talk about the Middle East, pt. 10

What people don't understand is that it doesn't matter what anyone wants in this situation, it's what they think everyone else wants. And right now, both sides have now convinced the other that their true goal is complete destruction of their rival state (or state-to-be.)

There is a dismal irony, given today's military actions into the West Bank, that the massive fear that the Arabs want to "push Israel into the sea" is the leading motivation for Israel to push the Arabs as far away from it as possible. And do not get me wrong on either ends here: it is obvious that a majority of Palestinians desire the ludicrous concept of Israel somehow disappearing from the face of the earth. It is equally obvious, and has done nothing but become more obvious, that Sharon shares an equal desire for the future Palestinian state.

As proposals for statehood have shown, the Israeli dream of a Palestinian state has always been one of de facto subjugation. Even the infamous "Barak offered 90% of the West Bank" rhetoric is a watering-down of the true proposal given to Arafat: 90% of the West Bank in which the remaining 10% consists of Jewish-only roads and security checkpoints to connect settlements, all the while preventing West Bank towns from being connected themselves.

There is this constant idea that the whole of the West Bank is the extreme end of the Palestinian demands list. This is not true. The extreme demand for most Palestinians, as we have discussed before, is the complete destruction of Israel. Full control of pre-1967 land is the middle ground where Israel and Palestine need to meet. I know that's a horrific glorification of Arab demands, but it's the truth.

The perverse logic is already being put into motion: settlements in the West Bank are in danger because of the Palestinian presence that makes them vulnerable to terrorist attacks. In response to said attacks, the Israelis will now invade and hold the land connecting these settlements to Israel proper. Down the road, it will be established, QED, that Israel holding this land makes the settlements there safer, therefore it is the strategic interests of Israel to not return this land, ever. And while we're at it, lets expands the settlements here while we're at it.

Maybe this won't happen, but I highly doubt there is a single Palestinian who hasn't thought about this setup in their head and realized how amazingly convenient it is for the Israelis.

And now I will reflect on another irony: this was part of the post I was going to put up just the other night before Blogger shorted out on me for some reason. And now, with the new and very significant news that Arafat apparently will accept the Clinton proposal, I have to pause for a moment and realize that all that stuff up there doesn't really make that much sense.

The Arafat announcement is very interesting because there are two very believable rationales for it:

1. Yasser Arafat is scared to death. Two years down the road, Arafat has suddenly realized something most of us realized a while ago- that there is no way Palestine will ever be liberated through sheer military force. No other Arab nations are willing to militarily support Palestine in defense against the Israel invasions, and Palestinians are dropping at a 3-to-1 rate against the Israelis.

Arafat's mention of "outside forces exploiting" Palestinians has got to be a reference to Iraq. In other words, Arafat is suggesting not only peace, but a condemnation of a country the U.S. is itching to get as many Arabs' approval towards attacking. Granted, Iraq and the PLO were supposed to be somewhat allied, but hey, Arafat isn't exactly the most reliable man in the world now, is he?

2. Yasser Arafat is more defiant than ever. This is, in my opinion, the more likely rationale of the Arafat statement. There's only two reasons Arafat would propose this: George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon. For either one of these men to accept such a deal would be political suicide. Sharon was the man who came to power over the fact that this deal was allegedly too nice an offer for the Palestinians in the first place- his defeat in the next election would be sealed if he decided to accept something that he vehemently opposed of 2 years (and 600 dead Jews) earlier as the main crux of his election campaign.

For Bush, the reason lies right there in the headline: "accepting the Clinton plan." Arafat, on rare occasions such as this, can perform political maneuvers of Machiavellian levels. He's smart enough to know what the political fallout would be in the Bush white house if Mideast Peace was solved based on a plan that Bush had absolutely no involvement in. Watch the news, especially the Arab news, about this. I guarantee you this is not going to be referred to as the "Camp David Plan," or the "1999/2000 Plan." There is a reason that Arafat wants Clinton's name on this: so that Bush can never, ever accept it. And while all of this happens, both leaders become the bad guys again as the peace-willing Palestinians are run over by American and Jewish tanks.

There is a logic and an understanding to both of these rationales. And right now I'm leaning towards the second one, but not enough to stand firmly on it. There are a lot of questions and concepts still left loose.

For example, the question of how Arafat can suddenly say he had no problem with no right of return and the checkpoint roads throughout the West Bank. Perhaps it is his realization that with Israel now invading the West Bank, the Israelis will have military control over the regions around the settlements either way. Perhaps he knows hands-down he's going to turn on the Israelis in the future and try to get rid of the roads later on anyway. I don't know.

What I do know is that the leading reason I'm not sure on the second rationale is this: now that he's offered it, he's stuck with it. With Arafat openly willing to accept the 200 deal, he has pretty much killed any future suggestion of right of return for the foreseeable future. How can Arafat come to the bargaining table within the next year and open with a demand for something greater than he told the world media he would be happy with? You can't tell the world you'll take a job for $40,000 a year and then tell your boss at the interview you want $60,000. It's not going to happen. Arafat has publicly admitted his deal line, which in a bargaining situation as great as this- they're trying to make a country, for chrissakes- that seems to be a very bad move.

That all said, much of what I said in my original until-now-unpublished post still stands: most Arabs are still going to see the current actions as an Israel invasion, and the equivalent of an all-out declaration of war. Arafat has made a stunning play by endorsing a deal that right-wingers have spent two years bragging about how good it was. How many times have you had to deal with the "Arafat was offered 90%" whine. what's the rhetoric going to be now?

 

 
Now this is what good journalism is really about

Baltimore Sun reporter recieves journalism award for exposing Geraldo as full of shit (not the paper's wording, sadly.)

The Center for Media and Public Affairs has chosen Sun staff writer David Folkenflik as the winner of the first Paul Mongerson Prize for Investigative Reporting on the Media.

Folkenflik, The Sun's television writer, will be cited in Washington today for his stories discrediting a report by Fox News correspondent Geraldo Rivera on a "friendly fire" incident in Afghanistan.

"Everybody criticizes the media, but almost no one makes the effort to critically examine the flaws in particular news stories," said Robert Lichter, director of the center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization that studies news and entertainment media. "This prize was given not for media criticism, but for old-fashioned investigative reporting."
 

 
Oh, this just gets better and better.

We're are so totally screwed here. The U.S. government is suing to prevent declared "enemy combatants" from having any judiciary rights.

The Justice Department is appealing a ruling by a federal judge in Norfolk, Va., allowing Yaser Esam Hamdi - a U.S.-born Saudi suspected of being a Taliban member - to meet with a public defender.

"There is not right under the laws and customs of war for an enemy combatant to meet with counsel concerning his detention," the Justice Department wrote in a 46-page document filed yesterday.

"This is really an astounding assertion of authority," David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor, told The Washington Post. "It's not just that you have no right to a lawyer, it's that you have no right to even have a hearing," he said. "If that is true, then there is really no limit to the President's power to label U.S. citizens as bad people and then have them held in military custody indefinitely."
 

 
Hey, I get letters!

From reader Kim Korht-Clark about Israel's new policy (which means yes, she made the effort to write about it before I did):

By instituting this policy Sharon is beating his chest like a Silver-back. Urgently screaming for what he cannot attain. Desperately trying in his failing years to claim dominance over other individuals by force. In doing this he strikes me as a child crying for a toy that has been taken away. In my humble opinion this, like the wall, is only going to cause more suicide bombings and further escalate tension in the Middle East.

While both sides are guilty of terrorism, the Palestinians really have no army and no money. All they have are themselves. While this is not justification I do think it represents how desperate the situation really is, or how desperate they believe it is. However desperate the situation may be violence is not the answer and as long as there are suicide bombings Sharon will feel his actions are justified. There was a photo essay on cursor.org last week that had a picture of a Palestinian mother who made a suicide bomber costume for her son. He's 12 I think the article said and he can't wait to blow himself up when he's 14 or 15. This is truly sad. If the United States were to pump as much money into humanitarian aid as we do in military aid to Israel and selling weapons to other countries we could change the world. The Israel/Palestinian conflict has proven how powerful belief is. One belief can change the world, either for better or worse. Sadly, right now that belief seems to be to see how much money can be gotten at any expense. There are many examples of this in our foreign policy, too many for me to list here. Look at East Timor, Latin America, read Chomsky. We live in a country where we truly do have the power to change the world if we only would take the initiative and sum up the courage to do so.

From reader Kevin Wohlmut about Bush and our bass-ackwards military policy:

An American citizen is arrested for allegedly planning a "dirty bomb" attack. This would be a very small conventional explosive that scattered a small amount of radioactive material. Presumably this bomb would be set and placed somewhere, by the terrorists, by hand, from inside this country.

So... Resident Bush proposes to fight this new scourge by... Construction of the Star Wars missile defense system will begin, at great cost, on Saturday the 15th, come hell or high water, despite no more convincing test successes than the ones that were faked last summer.

To top it all off... if you were a terrorist, and you wanted to obtain radioactive material for a dirty bomb, where's the first place you would inquire? Probably Russia, right? Huge stockpiles, poor security, desperate for money - practically a K-Mart for terrorists, one would think. So Bush signs a treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear armaments. But wait - the treaty doesn't require either side to actually destroy any nuclear warheads, merely mothball them.

The idea of an arms treaty that "mothballs" warheads instead of destroying them could well be the subject of an entirely separate diatribe. After all, even the most hawkish right-wing military think-tanks in Washington have realeased statements that say, if the U.S. finds itself in a situation where we have to start breaking warheads out of mothballs after firing off all of the 2,200 nuclear missiles which the treaty lets us keep... then there is something seriously, fundamentally wrong about our military strategy leading up to that point.

So thanks to Bush, there will be a lot more nuclear material lying around in Russia, with funding for its security cut, at the same time that terrorists are looking for it... and we're wasting tens of billions on a Star Wars system that won't defend us from such terrorism; it would only defend us against ballistic missile programs which everyone in the intelligence community realizes don't exist in any hostile country on Earth and won't for several decades if ever... and it would only defend us against those future threats if it actually worked, which it doesn't.

Well the one bright spot is that the movie "Real Genius", also about a space-based weapons system, has finally been released on DVD.

Indeed. So in short, Sharon is a dick, Bush is a schmuck, go buy funny 80's movie.
 

 
The sum of all idiots

First of all, Ariel Sharon is a goddamn lunatic. But I'll do a whole post about that later.

I've got to get this off my chest, because after finally seeing The Sum of All Fears with my friend Rodney on Monday night, a weird thought has been rattling through my brain. Yes, I mean aside from the usual weird thoughts rattling through my brain. But I digress.

The thought was enhanced by two articles I came across last night: one about the lunacy of Bush's open proposal to have Saddam Hussein assassinated, given the U.S.'s not-to-perfect record of covert leader elimination tactics. The second was a critique of our Defense Budget, one which gave a few numbers next to each other in a way I never saw before: the U.S. spends, or wants to spend under Rumsfeld's wishes, $400 billion in defense. The "Axis of Evil" nations of Iraq, North Korea, and Iran have an annual defense budget of $12 billion. Combined.

That means, essentially, at a cost to our education, medical, and humanitarian resources budgets, the United States apparently needs to spend roughly 33 times that of the enemy to equip itself with technology and weaponry that is utterly useless against terrorist attacks.

So these two concepts melded together to solidify the aforementioned rattling thought, which finally released into my full attention after seeing the movie: we must have, without question, the stupidest military in the history of human civilization.

Now, right off the bat, I will forcefully explain that this is in no way an attack on the brave and honorable members of the armed forces. I have said and will continue to say that despite my total disagreement with numerous policies and directives of their superiors, soldiers, like policemen, firemen, teachers, public works employees, and on and on all the way to McDonald's employees are people who all deserve various levels of respect and admiration for the intense amount of shit they have to deal with. I have never blamed a soldier for living in a world which inspired him to want to become a soldier, nor have I ever said there haven't been times when soldiers have been necessary for some reason. Eisenhower deploying the National Guard comes to mind.

That said, in the grand scheme, why is our army intelligence so un-goddamned-intelligent, both in real life and in fiction?

A brief synopsis of The Sum of All Fears makes it sound very similar to a lot of other films: a covert overseas group of anti-Democratic elitists secretly acquire a nuclear warhead, which they plan to detonate in the United States as part of a plan to make Russia and the U.S. go to war against each other. This is a concept we have seen in many James Bond stories, many Tom Clancy stories, and many, many bad college writing class papers. September 11 proved something about these plots: this can actually happen. A small group of anti-American elitists, though rich but still not nearly as rich as the United States, acquire the basic tools to make a massive strike against a U.S. target.

This always seems to happen, doesn't it? Even before the horror of 9/11 occured, why was it so believeable and morbidly entertaining to see how the ultra-funded U.S. military system getting bested by a couple of super-villains with a loose bomb or two? The most heavily-funded military in the world apparently has the worst record for military effectiveness! What I'm saying is that how, with such a huge budget, does the U.S. allow something to happen that Sci-Fi novelists have been talking about for decades now? And how does increasing the funding for more weapons that proved ineffective the first time reduce the risk? I guess the answer would be to sell a few nuclear subs and build a few more schools, just to make everyone a little bit happier before our grossly over-funded military allows another one to slip through the missile shield.

The answer, of course, may also just be that I fucking hate Ben Affleck and I'm not exactly sure why.

(P.S. Tom, I swear this movie-related rant has nothing to do with your Minority Report Analogy Quest. But I'm keeping my eyes open for you on that, too.)

 

 
Viacom is so brave for taking a loss on running this against the 78th Osbournes rerun this week

Yeah, all kidding aside, good show to Nickelodeon for finally having the cajones to put this out. Now everyone out there make sure you get your local Neilsen family to watch it, okay?

Nickelodeon to Air Gay Parent Special

Despite a staggering 100,000 e-mails and phone calls in protest, Nickelodeon will telecast a special for children about same-sex parents on Tuesday night.

The half-hour report, produced by Linda Ellerbee and featuring Rosie O'Donnell, includes comments from the Rev. Jerry Falwell - who later joined conservative activists in urging Nickelodeon not to air it.

Ellerbee, in the show's introduction, says, "The following program is about tolerance ... It is not about sex. It does not tell you what to think."

Ellerbee, who won a Peabody Award for a Nickelodeon special that delicately dissected the Monica Lewinsky scandal for children, said she conceived of this show upon reading that the word "fag" had become the most common schoolyard epithet.

(The program airs at 9:00 PM tonight on Nickelodeon, for those of you interested, and hopefully that's at least some of you.)
 

 
Psychotic Religious Injustice League, Assemble!

Conservative U.S. Christian organizations have joined forces with Islamic governments to halt the expansion of sexual and political protections and rights for gays, women and children at United Nations conferences.

The new alliance, which coalesced during the past year, has received a major boost from the Bush administration, which appointed antiabortion activists to key positions on U.S. delegations to U.N. conferences on global economic and social policy.

But it has been largely galvanized by conservative Christians who have set aside their doctrinal differences, cemented ties with the Vatican and cultivated fresh links with a powerful bloc of more than 50 moderate and hard-line Islamic governments, including Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Iran.

"We look at them as allies, not necessarily as friends," said Austin Ruse, founder and president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, a New York-based organization that promotes conservative values at U.N. social conferences. "We have realized that without countries like Sudan, abortion would have been recognized as a universal human right in a U.N. document."

The rest of the story is here, but I'm too busy vomiting. I've said stuff like this before, but I'm 100% serious this time: this is the most disturbing news story I have ever read in my life.

What you have here is a brilliant example of how fundamentalism exists on all sides. All the people you live with and listen to on a daily basis talking about how horrific and oppressive the extreme doctrines of Islam are? Well here's a nice group of Christians, hand-picked by the president, who not only agree with the religious leaders of the "Axis of Evil," but openly thank them for their brutal human oppression that otherwise would have led to (gasp!) a peaceful and more understanding world.
 

 
Let's talk about the Middle East pt. 9

A Two-hundred mile fence.

Great.

Say. Here's a brain-teaser. After instigating the bloodiest and most violent uprising in the history of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict by entering a Muslim holy site with a platoon of armed guards in an obvious display of Israel's ability to overpower and humiliate a people who, if known for only one thing in the world, are known for their amazing ability to immediately over-react to any possible instigation of their inferiority to the Jewish people, what would be the best way to calm those feelings down after, oh, say about two years of using military force to drive that feeling of military superiority into their skulls at the cost of several thousand lives, including those of hundreds of your own people- people who have died at the hands of the hair-trigger temperament of the impoverished, futureless refugees you refuse to negotiate with because they, for some strange reason, don't seem to like you very much?

What's that? Build a gigantic symbol of division and military superiority through the middle of disputed territory? Wow! That's almost the most wildly idiotic move in the entire reign of Ariel Sharon as Prime Minister of Israel! Good job!

Okay, I'm being overly snotty there, but I'm in a bad mood. And it has nothing to do with Scooby-Doo taking in $56 million dollars, thus continuing my theory that the United States is completely devoid of anything remotely resembling culture and/or intelligence. More likely it has to do with the stupid comment I had to hear from someone about this when I was