Here's a neat thing I got from this Blog by someone called b-may who looks like he may be a lib with his wish that Gary Hart would be president. Nonetheless, this is clever:

The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.

The New York Times is read by people who think they run the country.

The Washington Post is read by people who think they should run the country.

USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand the Washington Post. They do, however, like their smog statistics shown in pie charts.

The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country, if they could spare the time, and if they didn't have to leave L.A. to do it.

The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and they did a far superior job of it, thank you very much.

The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country, and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.

The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country either, as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.

The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country, or that anyone is running it; but whoever it is, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority
feministic atheist dwarfs, who also happen to be illegal aliens from ANY country or galaxy as long as they are democrats.

The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.

OK, the 2003 draft was interesting from a Patriots standpoint....Ok, let's take a look at 2004 on CBS.SportsLine.com!!!

Good analysis of the phenomena known as the White Stripes by Mark Jenkins at Slate.com.

Regardless of their degree of responsibility in the Station night club fire, I have to give credit to Great White for announcinga tour to benefit the victims of the tragic fire. I think there is enough blame to go around. Even if it is just a PR move, the results will be tangible. Perhaps the owners should think about this and stop worrying so much about self-incrimination.

Oh my goodness, the Yankees lost two in a row!

By the way, today more is coming out about the perfidy of the French. Opinion Journal's Best of the Web Today (for yesterday) has a good detailed look. The most cogent point:

"The Telegraph also found "a six-page letter dated February 1998 from Saddam Hussein to Jacques Chirac, welcoming the French president's support in the campaign against sanctions and assuring him that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction."

This should put to rest the complaint that the Bush administration's "botched diplomacy" is to blame for the U.N. Security Council's failure to approve an 18th resolution authorizing the liberation of Iraq. If veto-wielding France was actively colluding with Saddam's regime to oppress the Iraqi people and to prepare for a prospective attack, then winning Paris's approval for a resolution explicitly authorizing regime change was never a possibility. Those who urged the Bush administration to subordinate American foreign policy to the French veto have a lot to answer for."

This story about An Equal Opportunity Athlete is intriguing. It delves into the interesting dilemma's that result from Title IX enforcement. Essentially, Title IX as a concept is entirely proper. Schools should provide equal opportunities for men and women in sports. But the devil is in the details, and the problem is that, whether we want to admit it or not, boys tend to like to play sports more than girls. As such, to try to give them equal opportunity effectively ends up limiting the opportunities for boys. Mostly due to money reasons, schools don't add women't sports to make up the difference. Instead, while they may indeed add some, they make up the difference more often by removing men's sports to get to the prescribed ratio of athletes according to Title IX's goals. While not exactly in the spirit of the "law", it does achieve the goal. Many argue, and I would to, that, especially in college, the whole playing field is skewed by the relatively massive number of boys playing football. No women's sport has such a high participation requirement. This has led to the loss of many men's sports, especially wrestling and swimming, to make up the difference. The article mentioned above deals with another problem, the participation of boys on girls teams because there is no boys team of that kind. Title IX makes it highly unlikely that that there will ever be a boys lacrosse team at that young man's school. Title IX also speaks specifically to the equitable chances for WOMEN in sports, not men AND women. This is one solution, if the young men are strong enough to go for it. When I was in High School, we had two guys who played on the girls field hockey team. They met with wide ranging attitudes from other teams, but they played and contributed. More power to them. This seems to be yet another example of how, in an effort to be fair, unfairness has occurred as a byproduct. Like I said, the concept of Title IX is nice, the implementation isn't.

Once again, Senator Chafee attributes the worst of motives to President Bush, this time in the details of the President's tax cut plan. In this latest story from ProJo, Chafee seems to be taking a "principled", though flawed in my opinion, stance of no new tax cuts if it means bigger deficits. But then the real truth comes out, and we see Senator Chafee at his paranoid, fraidy cat best.

"If you get big deficits, then the pressure will be on" to cut social programs that pay for health care, pensions, education and housing for the poor, Chafee said. "I think that's the tactics" that conservative Republicans have chosen.

So the Republicans don't want you to have more money, what they really want is an excuse to throw grammy on the street and to lengthen the lines of the soup kitchens. Once again, Senator Chafee seems to be making a belligerent, politically suicidal stance for no real good reason, other than his own paranoid fears of the motives of the "vast right wing conspiracy."

As I blogged on Saturday, here is a more in-depth look at what the good Sen. Chafee had to say about North Korea, as reported in Saturday's Projo. The story's text, including Chafee's comments, are in Italics, mine aren't.

U.S.-North Korea talks on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program have "broken down" because a confrontational Bush administration team is holding out "a heavy military threat" against the Asian nation, Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee said yesterday.

The Senator is correct. This proved to be extremely ineffective in dealing with Iraq.

"The administration just doesn't put a premium on diplomacy," said Chafee. The Rhode Island Republican, who returned Tuesday from a trip to Asia, said that military victory in Iraq helped bring North Korea to the negotiating table with the United States. But Chafee reiterated his view that war in the Persian Gulf region should have been averted and that the talks on North Korea's weapons program could have begun long ago.

Once again, it is Chafee's view that it is failed diplomacy on the part of the U.S. when the other side refuses to talk. He then

Chafee played down the importance of North Korea's reported statement to U.S. diplomats during the Beijing talks that it has nuclear weapons. "We've suspected that," Chafee said.

Bahh, no big deal.


Chafee said yesterday's conclusion of three days of U.S.-North Korean talks in Beijing confirmed his pessimistic view of the situation. He largely blamed the Bush administration for the apparent impasse. "They don't want to give," Chafee said of the U.S. negotiating team, led by Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly. "They want this to be blunt and uncompromising."

Doesn't it seem that all Senator Chafee wants to do is "give"? In every situation, he seems to take the position that the Bush Administration should compromise.

Chafee said his pessimism had been fed by the assignment of this diplomatic role to Kelly -- whose "very confrontational" stance toward North Korea proved "unproductive" last fall as the nuclear-weapons controversy unfolded.

The U.S. should quickly start back to work on fresh talks with North Korea and "they should send a new team," said Chafee, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Are you volunteering, Sen. Chafee?

Chafee said he is also "a little bit pessimistic" about how hard China will work against Pyongyang's nuclear-weapons program.

"It's very important to have this dialogue," Chafee said of the U.S.-North Korea weapons talks, which began under Chinese sponsorship Wednesday in Beijing, the day after Chafee, Senate GOP leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and several other senators completed a 10-day tour to Tokyo, Seoul and Taipei.

"But everybody seems to realize that this isn't going to be easy and it's going to take a long time," Chafee said of the effort to curb North Korea's nuclear ambitions. He suggested that one obstacle is the complexity of the motivations of the nations involved. Beijing, for example, seems to demand a weakening of U.S. ties to Taiwan as its price for tougher steps against its longtime ally in Pyongyang.

He leaves unsaid the implication that the U.S. should acquiesce to China's demands.

Chafee said the tour -- including talks with key political and military leaders of the three nations, plus a visit with Rhode Island soldiers stationed in South Korea -- also gave him insight into the fight against the deadly new respiratory disease that has come out of Asia, and the possible sale of New England-built submarines and warships to Taiwan.

blah blah

Chafee said he believes that timing of the nuclear-arms discussions in Beijing is "not coincidental" and shows that North Korea and China were both struck by the demonstration of U.S. military dominance in Iraq. China appears to have pressured North Korea strongly to agree to the negotiations -- something that did not happen before the Iraq war, he said.

At the same time, Chafee -- who opposed the war -- said the talks also showed an American willingness to compromise. Whereas North Korea had once insisted on nation-to-nation talks with the U.S., the Bush administration demanded multilateral talks involving Russia, Japan and South Korea. The compromise of the current Chinese-brokered talks showed new flexibility on all sides.

Whu..huh..but..didn't he just say we didn't compromise?

Chafee added, however, that he does not believe a victorious U.S. assault on Baghdad was necessary to get China and North Korea into nuclear-arms talks. More emphasis on U.S. diplomacy might have either averted the North Korea problem or got the talks going earlier to solve it, Chafee said.

No way...the little dude in N. Korea was waiting to see if we would follow through with our threats. Once we showed we would, he came to the table. Otherwise, there would be no reason for him to do such a thing.

Chafee said he developed one persistent worry during his trip: Chinese officials from President Hu Jintao on down seem to reserve their "passion" for the issue of Taiwan, while appearing less fervent about the goal of keeping nuclear weapons off the Korean peninsula.

Chafee inferred from the words and the demeanor of Chinese officials that their essential bargaining gambit on any question -- from trade, to SARS, to the threat from North Korea -- is to attack the longtime U.S. ties to Taiwan. On this trip, Chafee said, Chinese officials devoted great energy to an issue that seemed to him more symbolic than substantive, a U.S. effort to grant Taiwan limited ties to the World Health Organization. Chafee said he is inclined to go along with Chinese requests that the Senate postpone consideration of a measure to grant Taiwan the ties. But he said Frist is inclined to proceed with a Senate vote.

Ah, yes. There it is. Let's compromise and back off of our support for a bastion of democracy which we've supported since World War II. Placate the bully, first.

Chafee said U.S. arms sales to Taiwan are also a touchy issue with Beijing, although not as inflamed as it might be, because Taiwan's new administration is preoccupied with economic problems and appears unprepared to act on tentative plans to buy ships from the U.S. -- possibly including diesel submarines built at Electric Boat.

As opposed to Chinese arm sales to N. Korea, Iraq, and others?


THE VISIT TO BEIJING, Chafee said, helped him to put SARS in clearer perspective. The outbreak "deserves all the attention it's getting," he said, and efforts to control it have plainly been hampered by the Chinese government's "deliberate decision not to be forthcoming" about the extent of the spread of SARS. Nor did Chinese officials directly acknowledge this fact in their meetings with the U.S. senators, he said.

The heavy blow of SARS upon the tourism business in China was also evident. "Our hotel was almost completely empty," said Chafee. "When we went into a restaurant, we were the only people there."

But on the brighter side, Chafee said, there were signs that the Chinese government understands and has learned from its mistakes of secrecy. For example, Chafee noted the firing of a key official. "The new health minister had only been on the job two days when he met us," Chafee said.

Furthermore, Chafee said, there is none of the sense of panic in Beijing that some reports here seem to suggest. "Business is still going on, people are still going to work," he said.

Ok, whatever.

Chafee also said he returned home with a more vivid sense of what a "corrupt and brutal regime" runs North Korea. Kim Jong Il, he said, is "a cruel and despotic tyrant" who presides over an impoverished nation surrounded by relatively modern and prosperous nations. "We should turn our focus on North Korea, as we apparently are doing now," Chafee said."

No kidding, Senator. Doesn't this all sound a little familiar? Do you think that maybe, Li'l Kim saw how Saddam got away with acting belligerent and playing the UN game for 12 years and thought maybe he'd give it a try? That is until he saw that this President was not one to attach himself or the nation to an endless process of "diplomacy"? Diplomacy is all fine and dandy if it accomplishes something, and rational people can come to agreements using traditional methods of diplomacy. Unfortunately, the wild cards out there, like Saddam and L'il Kim, understand one kind of diplomacy only... brute force. They had to be shown that real consequences would occur if they don't wise up. Saddam directly, and L'il Kim in a second-hand manner. Senator Chafee still relishes the diplomatic process over actual results. He acknowledges a "corrupt and brutal regime" run by a crazy man but insists that this same regime and man can be dealt with in a tradional way. Not so. The bottom line is that Senator Chafee gets antsy when tough talk is used. He is "uncomfortable" by strong words and actions that achieve the goals of his nation. He continues to exhibit a certain kind of passive agressiveness when it comes to the Bush Administration's diplomatic policy. He condemns them for not engaging in diplomacy enough, but then quibbles with the diplomats and methods used. The fundamental problem appears to be that the Bush team assumes that the U.S. stance is right and it's up to the other side, be it Iraq, China or N. Korea, to compromise first and then we'll talk. Senator Chafee always wants the U.S. to blink first. Maybe it's because that's how the Senator can relate to diplomacy in general. He always blinks first.

I watched The Ring last night. Not a bad creepy flick. A good creepy visual angle. It's effectiveness at scaring the bejesus out of you relies on how much you're going to buy into it. Similar to Blair Witch in that, I guess. Gets pretty good reviews at Rottentomatoes, as I linked to above. Maybe I ought to start throwing more movie reviews in here...I also watched Road to Perdition, the Tom Hanks/Paul Newman Irish gangster movie. Pretty good father/son "road" movie. The kid is pretty good. Hanks is good in a rather untraditional role for him. Jude Law is also real good at being a creepy dude, too.

First, a brief draft wrap up. A few insta-grades are in. We have Len Pasquerelli at ESPN.com giving the Pats an "A". (Mel Kiper does too, according to what I heard on the radio. To get Kiper's official grade, you have to pay for it.) ESPN's poll has most fans grading the Pats at A or B. I also heard John Clayton said the Pats had the second best draft weekend of all, giving them another "A". On to CBS... Pete Prisco gives them a B+. Finally, GIl Brandt at NFL.com, who has forgotten more about football than I'll ever hope to learn, makes a point of saying the Pats did a good job. The common themes in all of these national takes seem to be that 1) The Pats came out of this with 2 #1's and 2 #2's and 3 #4's in next years draft and 2) Next years draft is believed to be much deeper than 2003's. Plus, for what the Pats do, they got the players that they need. This is contrasted on the local pundit front. It does seem that the local media is a bit more down on the draft. This has to do with the "who are these guys" problem with an over-hyped event where everyone reads every pre-draft pub and then gets surprised when well written up players get passed over for relative unknowns. The worst offender is Nick Cafardo, and Ron Borges to some extent, of the Boston Globe. I won't even link to Cafardo, because when it comes to the Pats, he is ALWAYS taking a pessimistic angle, except when he wrote a book about the Superbowl win, that is...and there was some money to be made. Anyway, I'll keep my eyes open for more analysis as we go. As far as what I think? I'm smart enought to know that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Sure, I like the sexy picks too, but Bill B. and company have a bit more cache than yours truly.

I don't usually blog on the weekends, but this latest from Sen. Chafee is ridiculous. I'll comment more later.

Mark MSNBC'sAshley Banfield down as one not to trust, folks. What a baby.

Stanley Kurtz on Rick Santorum & Andrew Sullivan on National Review Online. The debate rages on...

If you've noticed, I tend to agree with most things that Andrew Sullivan says, and always enjoy reading him. That being said, while I generally agree that Sen. Santorum may be espousing an over-reach of government into our private lives, I think Sullivan is getting a little hysterical over the whole thing. He's now taken to posting some emails from people who now say they won't vote Republican because of Santorum's remarks. To me, this kind of knee jerk reaction is ludicruous and intellectually pedestrian. There are a few things that I don't agree with the Republicans on, but in general, a single issue isn't going to make me desert the party. A single candidate, maybe. I think that Sullivan's problem is that the issue hits too close to home and is also something that has been thrown right into his commentarian wheelhouse. As a gay Republican, he is almost uniquely qualified to speak to the issue. His POV has to be considered as the POV of the average gay/lesbian, but it just seems he is getting pulled along by the media hysteria that he usually is so adept at identifying and routing out. Sen. Santorum does not have the signal ability to enact such a police state mentality, even if that's what he really meant. And with Senators like Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chafee around, you can be sure that the Republican Party as a whole won't condone such action either. Andrew, chill out.

Note: I agreed with Sen. Chafee on this one.

Here's a review about the aforementioned White Stripes/Loretta Lynn/Blanche show last weekend at the Hammerstein in NYC. Newsday.com - White Stripes' Burden: Savior or Poser? I'd call them more of the former.

The controversy du jour surrounds Sen. Rick Santorum's purported "attack" on homosexuals. Here is the unedited transcript of his comments on homosexuality in an AP interview. It's clear that the original report was lacking in proper context as well as in actually misquoting him, as pointed out by Andrew Sullivan in his blog today. I don't believe that this signals the coming sexual police state that Sullivan is worried about, but I agree with him in that I also think that the difference between generally accepted, consensual sexual acts and bigamous and/or lewd sex acts with animals and such are two totally different things. As such, I agree with the point that this seems to be a contradictory stance by Santorum.

Essentially, as a conservative, Santorum is for less intrusive government in all aspects of life. To draw a line at private sexual activity strikes me as hypocritical. Is there no more private act than what two people (or more?) wish to do consensually and in private? I understand Santorum's concern regarding illegal acts, but, again, those acts which are generally accepted, especially within heterosexual relationships, are no business of the government's. Finally, I don't think that "anything goes" is proper either, but if the people involved are both consenting adults, the government has no place inserting itself into their lives.

Wait, you mean...you mean...you mean that not all anit-war types have motives as pure as the wind driven snow? How could this be?

Simply put, Andrew Sullivan.

Finally, in preparation for the Boston Marathon on Monday, I point you to the ever-funny ESPN Sport's Guy and his Idiot's Guide to the Boston Marathon. It's a good chuckle.

Happy Easter to all, and please remember it's about a little more than bunnies, ok?