Excellent King Kaufman column on the "scandal" involving Heisman Trophy winner Reggie Bush. The problem with malum prohibitum regulations, whether we're talking about traffic, immigration, drugs, or the arcane standards the NCAA expects college athletes to compete under, is that if the regulations don't reflect at least some measure of what constitutes ethical or moral conduct, people will disobey them the first chance they get.

Thus, we have laws on the book outlawing marijuana, or restricting people from migrating from Mexico to the U.S., or setting a speed limit of 65 m.p.h., that few people don't think twice about breaking. If you want to smoke pot, you smoke pot. If you want to cross the border illegally, you cross the border illegally. The fact that it's against the law only means you take great efforts to avoid the constabulary, and not that you're going to lose any sleep due to an uneasy conscience over having done wrong.

What Bush (or should I say, his parents) is accused of doing is no different, morally speaking, than having coasted along at 75 m.p.h. on the freeway. It has nothing to do with the integrity of the game, it didn't effect whether he would give his best effort, either on the field or in the classroom. It's wrong only because it's against the rules, and since the rules do not reflect any moral or ethical code, it's hard to get too upset when someone violates them.

Cactus Rust: The second effort by Ken Layne & the Corvids will soon be out. Here's a sampling...as you can tell, no sophomore jinx here. And still, Bush lied.

Long lost Beckett Play Found !!!

I settled in this evening to watch what I thought would be a routine costume drama on HBO, only to witness, about an hour in, a graphic scene involving the drawing and quartering of some sixteenth century religious dissidents, replete with the sort of sadism and gore that would shock Tarantino. In the future, before watching scenes of people being gutted alive, and their internal organs being dropped on frying pans before their eyes, I'd like to be warned....

Some intriguing speculation about Mary McCarthy, the CIA analyst cashiered this week for leaking info about American gulags to the Washington Post.

The L.A. Times has suspended columnist (and blogger) Michael Hiltzik for posting anonymously on the internet. That's right, "posting anonymously", not for making death threats or making defamatory statements. Just for putting his opinions in the mouth of a nom de plume. A s if pseudonymous blogging was some sort of ethical violation. Morons.

Not a good day to be Julia Roberts. According to the critic for the New York Times:

Like a down-home Garbo, she is an Everywoman who looks like nobody else. And while I blush to admit it, she is one of the few celebrities who occasionally show up (to my great annoyance) in cameo roles in my dreams.

This probably accounts for my feeling so nervous when I arrived at the theater, as if a relative or a close friend were about to do something foolish in public. I don't think I was the only one who felt that way in the audience, which had the highest proportion of young women (from teenagers to those in their early 40's) of any show I've attended. There was a precurtain tension in the house that had little of the schadenfreude commonly evoked by big celebrities testing their stage legs. We all wanted our Julia to do well.

That she does not do well — at least not by any conventional standards of theatrical art — is unlikely to lose Ms. Roberts any fans, though it definitely won't win her any new ones among drama snobs. Your heart goes out to her when she makes her entrance in the first act and freezes with the unyielding stiffness of an industrial lamppost, as if to move too much might invite falling.

Sometimes she plants one hand on a hip, then varies the pose by doing the same on the other side. Her voice is strangled, abrupt and often hard to hear. She has the tenseness of a woman who might break into pieces at any second.

Unfortunately it's in the second act that Ms. Roberts plays the character who is always on the verge of a breakdown, and in this part she's comparatively relaxed, perhaps because she has a slipping Southern accent to hide behind. In the first act she's supposed to be the normal one.

One of the trends in popular theatre in recent years has been to cast a film star to lead a major production, in a desperate attempt to generate hype and bring the crowds back to Broadway or the West End, and sadly, all such attempts seem to end badly. Last month, it was Cate Blanchett attempting Ibsen, to great derision.

In a different context, Bill James has written about the Defensive Spectrum, which warns teams about shifting players in mid-career from less challenging positions (the outfield, first base) to the most challenging, defensively technical positions (shortstop, third base). You can turn a shortstop into a rightfielder, but don't even think about making a first baseman play third, as the Giants so memorably did with Dave Kingman in the early-70's. Of course, right fielders and shortstops share many of the same technical skills; to play both positions skillfully requires speed, a good throwing arm, an ability to anticipate where a ball is going to be hit, etc. But whereas a team can survive even with a slow-footed, mediocre outfielder, as long as he can hit, a team with a shortstop who has trouble fielding his position is going to be in for a long season.

Much the same thing is probably true in the performing arts. Roberts and Blanchett are trying to transition from a medium where their physical beauty is part of their talent, where performances are shot out of sequence and with multiple takes, and where mistakes can be edited out later, to one where they are performing before a live audience, without a safety net, and where their voices have to carry to the cheap seats, without a microphone. It's still acting, so many of the same tricks carry over from one realm to the next, but the consequences of mediocrity are much greater on stage.

Poe Knew: What Edgar Allan Poe might have thought about the current immigration debate, courtesy of local pundit Ron Smith.

The benighted sport of professional basketball wraps up its six-month long regular season in the next two days, to be followed by a ten-week post-season. The old saw about how basketball games never start until the final five minutes is equally true now: a playoff series never begins until Game 5, and the playoffs don't really get interesting until the semis. The NBA has seen fit to eliminate only half the league from the playoffs, most of whom were playing for the draft lottery since Christmas, thereby creating a situation where the game gets overshadowed by its college counterpart (which appeals to serious fans of the sport due to the fact that its participants use something called "strategy") for months at a time, and the only thing of interest to fans since February is playoff seeding.

And tonight, in Memphis, a clusterfuck of monumental proportions is about to result. The NBA, in its infinite wisdom, has drawn up a playoff system where the divisional winners (San Antonio, Phoenix and Denver in the West, Detroit, Miami and New Jersey in the East) are assured of the top three seeds in each bracket. There is also a longstanding rule that gives the team with the best-record home court advantage in any series. The one drawback is where, due to an imbalanced league, one of the divisions is so weak that a divisional titlist has a worse record than almost every other team in the playoffs. In that situation, it's theoretically possible for such a "champion", which would automatically receive the third seed, to face a sixth-seed with a better record (and hence, have the home-court advantage), while the fifth-seed, a team with a superior record, would be forced to go on the road against the 4-spot.

And behold, that's exactly what's going to happen in the West. The Clippers, one of the teams that's usually preparing for summer vacation right now, is set to play the Grizzlies, with the winner probably assured of the fifth seed in the Western Conference playoffs. That will mean a face-off with the Dallas Mavericks, the team which barely missed out on the top record in the conference, with the winner likely playing the team with the best record, the world champion San Antonio Spurs, in the conference semis. The loser of tonight's game will play the third-seeded Denver Nuggets, but since both Memphis and the Clips have better records than Denver, they will get to play 4-out-of-7 at home (and the winner will likely get Phoenix, a much easier opponent than the Spurs).

Both teams are going through the motions, claiming that they're all about winning and developing momentum for the playoffs, but the temptation is too obvious to ignore. It makes no sense to create a "loser wins" situation, but that's what's going to happen tonight.

Some differing perspectives on the Duke LAX rape case, here, here, here and here. I'm inclined to the position of "I don't have a clue who's telling the truth, since everyone who's commenting has a motivation to lie", but I was intrigued by the statement last week by the Durham D.A. after DNA results allegedly failed to tie any of the accused to purported crime, that between 70-80% of all rape convictions in his bailiwick occur in spite of the lack of DNA evidence. Is that true?

Certainly, in a community like Durham, that wouldn't be hard for an enterprising reporter to research...also, remembering the fact that DNA testing is still considered to be a luxury for many criminal defendants, isn't the 70-80% figure going to be impacted by:

a) cases where the defendant confesses before trial, thereby not requiring the introduction of physical evidence;

b) situations where the wrong guy gets convicted, b/c DNA wasn't available to exonerate the innocent; and/or

c) prosecutions that are dropped early on, b/c DNA evidence has exonerated the accused?

The prosecutor seems to have a good ear for how this case plays out locally (he is, after all, running for reelection), but a tin ear for how the media is playing it. He clearly believes the alleged victim's telling the truth, unlike the Kobe Fiasco. There are certainly Fourth Estate organs that would like a different angle; Sports Illustrated, in particular, has always shilled for the prosecution when an athlete is under criminal investigation. So if he believes the alleged victim enough to seek a grand jury indictment, why isn't he fighting harder before the public?

Whenever Christopher Hitchens writes something like this, it can only be good news for Bill Clinton. Up until 9/11, Hitchens was basically a priggish, leftist scold, obscure for the most part, except for his obsessive writings about the Big Dog. People who didn't know any better gave him more street cred on this topic than he deserved, because he was purportedly attacking Clinton from the left. Now, everytime Hitchens writes something completely nutty, like trying to blame Saddam for the Niger Forgeries, Clinton's historical legacy improves.

Same thing goes with Henry Kissinger and Mother Theresa.

And one week later, I'm back...well, I didn't go anywhere, really: it was a slow news week and a busy job week for myself, and having to put together a real estate fraud complaint seemed a bit more pressing than trying to figure out whether the "Duke Lacrosse Scandal" was really Tawana II. Since "Guest Bloggers" are typically a fraud on the public (as well as the advertisers), the site went dark for a week.

Anyways, circumstances led me to watching Fahrenheit 9/11 not once, but twice last night. One of things that makes any work of art special is how its impact changes over time. When F9/11 was first released, it was essentially a humorous piece of anti-Bush agitprop, designed mainly to effect the 2004 election. In that respect, it failed miserably; Bush supporters were put off by the tone, and its frequent reminders that their leader was a stupid, conniving, dishonest asshole humiliated them to such a degree that it was inevitable they would rally behind their man come November.

Today, the film is three times more powerful. The election has come and gone, and the smug bits in the first hour of the film concerning Bush and the bin Ladens, etc., are even less effective, but the last hour...shit, the only thing that's changed in Iraq is how much crappier its gotten since the film was released: Abu Ghraib, the insurgency becoming a full-fledged civil war, the number of Americans dying doubled, plus everything else falling apart for the President on the domestic front, compounded by the fact that the Democrats are a worthless opposition party, and how nothing will change even if they win control of one branch of Congress in the next election. The military is still vulturing teen-age recruits from the least-wealthy segment of our society, no-bid contracts are still going to the most-connected, Iraqi children are still having their limbs blown off, the children of Congressmen are still far from the conflict, and mothers are still burying their sons, two years later.

The film was disparaged and denounced in Red America, because they couldn't stand to see their "Christian" leader shown to be a fool, and now America suffers, its greatness as a nation on the wane. I could barely sleep last night.

Four years ago...this blog was founded.

Two Ships Passing in the Night:

But as I look back at December 2001, and prepare to hang up the blogging fun of Reason’s Hit & Run for the stodgier print pages of the L.A. Times, I can’t shake the feeling of nostalgia for a promising cross-partisan moment that just fizzled away. Americans are always much more interesting than their political parties or ideological labels, and for a few months there it was possible for readers and writers alike to feel the unfamiliar slap of collisions with worlds they’d previously sealed off from themselves. You couldn’t predict what anyone would say, especially yourself.

--Matt Welch

Well, as it turns out, Frist didn't have the backing from his own caucus for the immigration compromise yesterday...Lord, what a putz....

UPDATE (4/8): It now appears to have been Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's fault for the scuttlement, not Frist's. From a partisan perspective, it may not be a bad idea to have an untrustworthy, unprincipled Machiavellian as your leader, but if you actually care about government being an instrument for good, we can do better than Reid.

So my apologies for calling Dr. Frist a putz, at least in this instance. Republican readers may not be so generous: being unable to pass anything, or passing only palliative measures, won't satisfy the nativists in their ranks, and will demoralize their base for November. If this sounds familiar, it's because it was the GOP strategy against Bill Clinton, circa 1994. Then, the issue was universal health care, which Clinton had to press forward because he had already outraged the base with NAFTA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Not getting a bill passed sounded a death knell to Democratic control of Congress, since it alerted the party base that the Democrats couldn't get anything done, even with comfortable majorities, while signalling to swing voters that Clinton, Foley, Rostenkowski, et al., were incompetent.

So not being able to pass any grand initiative should be a good thing for Democrats, no? Well, I think it's safe to say that there were Republican voters in 1994 who are dead today, because Congress didn't pass a healthcare bill. There were a lot of people who filed bankruptcy in the intervening years, unable to maintain a staggering health care burden, who probably wished Congress hadn't dicked around on the issue back when it was in the public forefront. If there's an opportunity to pass a good bill, then do it, no matter who gets the partisan credit in the end.

This might be as good a time as any to chide the bloggers who persist in calling the outing of a CIA agent by the White House, "Treason Gate". Or for that matter, any of its related affiliates. Besides being hackneyed and cliched, and redolent of McCarthyism to boot, its usage contradicts the essential point of using the "-gate" suffix everytime there's a scandal afoot: tying a banal, otherwise inoffensive word or name to the dark conspiracy that's gotten you all riled up in the first place (ie., "Watergate"), thereby giving the scandal a colorful name. Back in 1974, no one needed to call the events that led to the resignation of a President, "Break-in Gate" or "Nixongate".

If you believe that the sheer act of publicly disclosing the name of a spook is "treason", then say so. You're alleging a crime, it's easy to understand, and you don't look like a routine partisan thug in the process. More importantly, it shows your outrage is to be taken seriously. If you must, call the matter, "PlameGate", or even "LibbyGate", if you so lack originality that you have to return to the old chestnut. But "Treason Gate" is so Ann Coulter....

Is Peace At Hand? Concerning the immigration debate, possibly. Frist has capitulated, the Democrats are on board, and it looks like the Senate will pass a version enabling all but a few of the immigrants now in the country a path to citizenship. The House bill favored by the bedsheet crowd is dead, and with DeLay out of the picture, and Bush and Rove tacitly supporting the Senate bill, there's no enforcer to keep House Republicans in line. There's no political momentum, either; the wingnuts have no where else to go, and someone like Rove can always rile them up over some other issue that doesn't piss off a swing segment of the electorate.

Consider this hypothetical: Congressman X, from Orange County, is notorious for his pierced eyelids and his shaved head, bald everywhere except for the spiked red mohawk atop. He's also had several previous run-ins with the authorities, who often confuse him for one of the riff-raff at various Capitol Hill check-points. Don't you think that someone in the upper hierarchy of the Capitol Police would point out to his minions that Mr. X is, in fact, a Congressman, and should be given all the privileges and benefits of same, regardless of whether he's wearing his lacquered I.D. when he walks through checkpoints?

Well, if he was a white Republican from Orange County, of course that message would go out. There are only 535 faces to remember, and if the principal component of your job is to spot a face, that shouldn't be too hard. This isn't to excuse the bizarre antics of the Congresswoman from Georgia, but it seems to me that it wouldn't have been very hard for someone in authority to put the word out that one of the members of Congress has a rather, shall I say, distinctive hairstyle, she's black, and she's cross-eyed, but that she's not a terrorist, and in fact she's a sitting member of the House and can be presumed to be not carrying a bomb with her when she's traversing the Capitol Steps.

And a bit of advice to Representative McKinney: if you want respect, try showing some to the nation you serve, starting with your constituents. They deserve better than someone whose personal appearance is shoddy and bagladyish, and whose sense of entitlement would outrage Jennifer Lopez or Barry Bonds. You're a U.S. Congresswoman, and serve in the People's House, so act the part, damnit.

Mickey Kaus, on the Senate debate on immigration, and in particular the issue of amnesty:

The actual sight of millions of illegals having to leave the country might have a deterrent, they-mean-business effect that could counterbalance the inevitable incentive effect (on potential future illegals) of the deal's partial semi-amnesty.

(snip)

To get a disincentive we-mean-business effect, potential immigrants would need to see large numbers of recent immigrants actually leaving the country.

Lord, is there anything that would trigger the Law of Unintended Consequences faster than the sight of millions of our friends and neighbors being booted out of the country, many of them unwillingly...has Kaus ever seen the mass deportation of refugees, of what the "actual sight of millions of illegals having to leave the country" would look like? Neighbors ratting out neighbors, jackbooted INS thugs arresting people (sorry, "illegals") in the middle of the night, entire sections of our cities evacuated, current citizens being compelled to carry national I.D. cards to stave off being deported on a whim; if there is anything less consistent with showing "we mean business" than the voters two or three years from now, deciding that Bosnia or Kosovo, circa 1994, isn't what we really wanted, and demanding that the law be changed yet again to undo such a policy?

And think about how such images would stain the image of the United States overseas. As if Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and our other torture camps aren't bad enough, we would now have on our collective souls the sight of people being uprooted from their homes, involuntarily, to return to a life of destitution, unemployment and political repression in their native countries. Of course, this assumes that we even have the will to show "we mean business"; more likely, who ever is in charge of Homeland Security will be satisfied not with the mass eviction of illegal immigrants, but a few token arrests, enough to show the Tancredos and Malkins of the world that the House version of the proposed law is being enforced, but not enough to actually send any deterrent to future immigrants. In short, it would be like the current legal regime, where immigration is treated with the same rigor as laws illegalizing pot.

In the long run, the more draconian the law Congress passes, the less likely it would have any long-term impact on immigration, other than to alert potential immigrants as to who their real friends in the halls of government are. Needless to say, it would be a half-century before the GOP gets anything more than 5-10% of the Latino and Asian-American vote. Florida would become as blue as California, and Texas would become competitive again. We can't pretend that crossing a national boundary for the purpose of finding work and supporting your family is inherently wrong, and passing a law making it a felony on par with carjacking and selling crack to schoolchildren isn't going to make anyone respect the rule of law.

That Lynn Swann was an overrated player, undeserving of Hall-of-Fame stature, is something that has become such conventional wisdom for so long that I hadn't paid it much mind until I read this piece, by Chris Bowers at MyDD, attacking his election to the Hall in 2001. Having now looked at the numbers used to discredit Swann, who is running for the governorship of Pennsylvania, I was surprised to find that, in fact, his credentials for the Hall were as strong as they were.

Bowers makes three basic arguments: that Swann's career numbers are unspectacular, that he was not a dominant receiver even in his prime, and that he doesn't compare well with John Stallworth, a teammate of his with Pittsburgh who was also elected to the Hall. None of his arguments holds water.

First, not being from Pennsylvania, I can't attest to how much of his current campaign is based on his Hall-of-Fame membership, but as far as whether someone should be in, in spite of low career numbers, well, that ship sailed a long time ago. Gale Sayers is perhaps the best example of someone with low career totals being a HOF member, but Joe Namath is also a member of the Hall, notwithstanding the fact that his career totals as a quarterback were, shall we say, not spectacular. Among the QB's ranked ahead of Joe Willy for most yards passing are Norm Snead, Mark Brunell, Joe Ferguson and Rich Gannon, none of whom are even plausible Hall-of-Famers. Wisely, the voters ignored that, as well as the fact that most of the prime of his career was spent playing in a minor league, and gave more weight instead to who won Super Bowl III.

Like Namath, Swann compiled unimpressive career numbers because he played a short career (only nine seasons), and played hurt during most of it (he was particularly susceptible to concussions). Moreover, the Steelers had the best running game in the sport for most of the decade, and more frequently than not, had the lead entering the fourth quarter, so they were near the bottom most of the time in pass attempts. In fact, during his career, the Steelers ran the ball on almost 60% of their offensive plays. And there was far less passing in the game than there would be in the 1980's and 1990's, when most of the all-time statistical leaders played. Any opportunity for Swann to pad his stats in order to be among the league-leaders was almost nil.

As for him being a mediocre receiver in his prime, who conned his contemporaries into idolizing him because of a few, endlessly-replayed catches, he was selected to the Pro Bowl three times, and was the best reciever on one of the all-time greatest teams in the sport's history. In any event, claiming that Swann was elected because of the voters were "endlessly subjected to watching replays of two or three of his most spectacular catches", is silly; the catches being referred to were in the freaking Super Bowl (two of them, to be exact, against the hated Dallas Cowboys). Of course those plays are going to carry a little more weight than what John Jefferson might have done against the Chiefs in a mid-season game in 1978. When it counted, Swann came up big.

The fact of the matter is, the Steelers were not a Super Bowl team before Swann arrived, even with Bradshaw, Harris and the Steel Curtain, and immediately fell out of contention for a decade after he retired. But while he played, they won the biggest prize in American sports four times in six years.

Lastly, comparing Swann with Stallworth, who is also a HOF receiver, is a bit foolish, since both were exact contemporaries from 1974 to 1982, and Swann's numbers were superior in each category save yardage-per-catch. If Swann played on the same team with another HOF player, at the same position, for nine seasons, and had better numbers, isn't that clear evidence that he was a Hall-of-Fame caliber player? Or at least, not the worst player at his position in the Hall?

Bowers' real point, though, is to attack Lynn Swann, gubernatorial candidate from Pennsylvania. The Democratic incumbent, Ed Rendell, endorsed the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito, and is basically a Gentile version of Joe Lieberman (or the Gray Davis of the East, if you prefer). In short, he is not the sort of Democrat that any liberal should go to bat for, the marginal HOF credentials of his opponent notwithstanding.

Protocols of the Elders of Aztlan: As soon as the first Mexican flag was spotted at last week's demonstrations, the conspiracy theorists on the Far Right were bound to make the sort of arguments detailed here (and btw, since when is it inappropriate for a citizen of another country to wave his nation's flag? Are Americans living abroad not supposed to wave the Stars and Stripes?). Among the pundits weighing in is the author of a screed (edited, as it turns out, by the blogger fired last week for plagiarizing the opinion columns of others) justifying the internment of the Nissei during WWII, and a professor who wrote a book not too long ago attacking the stain of Latino culture on "Mexifornia".

Others have chimed in, claiming that deep within the heart of every Latino is an avenging monster, lusting for the day when he can reclaim his ancestral homeland west of the Rockies for "Greater Mexico". And usually, their evidence is of the anecdotal variety, a sign at a demonstration here, or the past collegiate membership of a politican there. It seems if you're Latino, and you aren't willing to pay fealty to the foreign policy of the Polk Administration, you're a fifth columnist waiting to rape and pillage Los Angeles, San Antonio, and Santa Fe (funny, how each of the names of each of those cities seem to be derived from some strange foreign tongue...).

There are plenty of reasonable arguments to be made about tightening border security, ending "birthright citizenship" for the children of people in the country illegally, clamping down on "coyotes" and others who facilitate the peonage economy that exists in our nation's agricultural plantations, etc. But pretending that Latino immigrants are a potential fifth column is beyond the pale. Cherrypicking a few off-the-wall remarks by high schoolers, or having a case of the vapors every time you're reminded that much of the Western United States was absorbed from another country after an unjustified war, isn't just wrong; it's bordering on racist.

From an otherwise routine profile of Barry Bonds:

Where father Bobby had known Jim Crow up close—in the Carolina League, Bonds Sr. was often laconically addressed as "nigger"—son Barry was raised surrounded by the blandishments of white privilege. Through no particular fault of his own, Bonds grew up saddled with the attitudes of black victimhood and surrounded by far fewer of the mechanisms of white power that had at first degraded and then killed his father.

In fact, Bobby Bonds died in 2003 after a battle with lung and brain cancer, none of which seem obviously attributable to the "mechanisms of white power".

Another GOP Congresman has a fishy real estate purchase. Yeah, it's that Jim Ryun, who was only the greatest middle-distance runner in American history, silver medalist (to Kip Keino) in the '68 Olympics. I ran the mile and two-mile in high school in the late-70's, and Ryun was the flip side of the coin with Steve Prefontaine, his contemporary. Ryun was the clean-cut, almost-stereotypical athletic star from Kansas (in 1965, he ran the mile in 3:55.3, a high school record that would stand until 2001), while Pre was the cocky rebel, but they were both my heroes growing up. Both had nightmarish performances in the '72 Olympics (Ryun was tripped in a prelim and failed to qualify for the finals, while Pre led for much of the 5000 before fading badly in the final 200 meters, getting nosed out at the wire to finish out of the money). Prefontaine got hammered one night a few years later and flipped his convertible, dying young, while Ryun seems to have taken the same sense of entitlement possessed by so many other athletes into his political career, where he's now one of the most right-wing members of Congress. Pity....

Most of the attention that is placed on the immigration issue concerns Latinos, but another interesting trend (and one that may be particularly lethal for Republicans nationally) is the increasing political influence of Asian-American voters. While the stereotype many people have of the "illegal immigrant" is the prospective farm worker from Mexico, sneaking past the Border Patrol in the Arizona desert, in California it is increasingly the family from Ho Chi Minh City or Seoul, visiting America on a temporary visa to stay with loved ones, then "overstaying", all the while building a family-run business in Huntington Beach or Alhambra.

And they are starting to vote, too, in large numbers, and quite heavily for the Democratic Party. In 1994, the year Prop. 187 passed, Asian-American voters only made up four percent of the electorate, and essentially divided their support between Democrats and Republicans. In 2004, they made up 9%, and voted for John Kerry and Barbara Boxer as overwhelmingly as Latinos did.

The California electorate was 81% white in 1994; in 2004, it was down to 65%. All told, the increased participation of Latino and Asian-American voters, coming at the expense of white voting, has shifted the outcome of statewide elections by between 3 and 4 percent, enough to make what was a dependable Red State for most of its history into a solid Blue State in a single decade. Again, the critical event was the passage of Prop. 187; both Latino and Asian-American voting in California doubled in just one election, with the Democratic Party gaining almost all of the new vote, and those numbers have stayed there ever since.

Interesting Rasmussen poll on the immigration issue, with a down-the-middle split between the Deport-Them-Alls and the Give-'Em-Amnestys. As always, where public opinion is evenly divided, what ends up being pivotal is which side feels the most passion. Liberals may have the majority view on Roe and gun control, but they killed every election on those issues because the people who care the most are in the minority.

On immigration, far from it being an issue of intense interest for the Republican base, most of the people who actually care about the issue live in a specific region (the Southwest), and they have already formed their party allegiances in large part based on this issue. Nativisim has the effect of enlarging the voting rolls, by encouraging the historically high percentage of Latino and Asian non-voters to exercise their franchise, a mistake California Republicans have regretted only once, and constantly.

Jerome Brown Lives:

America was founded by explorers and conquerors, not "immigrants." If those guys had been immigrants they'd have had to learn indian...

--Michael Ledeen [link via Rox Populi]

Karl Rove is a Patriot: Something to think about this Saturday.... [link via Deadspin]

Mickey Kaus and William Bradley both see the weekend's demonstrations as leading to a possible backlash in the '06 elections. As to why that might not be a bad thing electorally for the Democrats, see here.

Prop. 187 is the ultimate example of why nativism, while it may bring about short-term political benefits (see Herbert Hoover, 1928, and Pete Wilson, 1994), invariably leads to devastating long-term harms (see national Democratic Party, 1932-68, and California Democratic Party, 1995-present). Anti-immigration sentiments, whether against legal or illegal immigrants, have been commonplace throughout the history of our country, but rarely resonate beyone one election. And if there is one thing that American history has taught us, it is that those who are the targets of wedge issues tend to have longer memories than those who briefly got all riled up in the first place.

Using illegal immigration as a wedge issue would accomplish several things, none of which would harm progressive politics. It would lock in Democratic gains among Latino and Asian voters for a generation, as effectively as the GOP's campaign against Al Smith made Roman Catholics a dependable Democratic bloc after 1928. It would change the status quo in the states of Texas and Florida, two states the Republicans absolutely must win to be competitive nationally (not to mention states like Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado), while putting no Democratic states at long-term risk. It would allow the GOP yet another opportunity to impose some ill-conceived policy (hey, everybody, let's build a Berlin Wall from San Diego to El Paso !!), further reinforcing the notion of the Republicans as the party of dimwitted ideas. And all of that would, in turn, lead to public policy more favorable to immigrants, no matter who controls the government, just like the passage of Prop. 187 ultimately strengthened the position of Latinos in American society.

If that's the long-term prognosis, who cares what the Tom Tancredo's of the world scare up this election. Both the anti-Catholic campaign against Al Smith in 1928 and the pro-Prop 187 campaign in 1994 gave the Republicans temporary victories, in years where they would have likely won anyway. But the aftermath proved devastating. So if House Republicans want to use this as their wedge issue for November, I say, Bring It On !!!

There's something about a demonstration of about a half-million people that concentrates the mind...here I am, depressed about life in general, about the nasty trend of the blogosphere towards hate and incivility, about how the local college hoops team will likely win the national title playing the most negative and dispiriting style of funsucking strategy imaginable, and I wake up to the reminder that political change does, in fact, ultimately emerge from the streets, and not from someone's laptop.

The thing people seem to forget about the whole immigration debate is that the laws that are being broken are civil, not criminal. The proposed laws focused on punishing so-called "illegal aliens" are an attempt to substitute a malum prohibitum code (that is to say, conduct that is against the law because it is against the law) with a malum per se version (ie., conduct that is illegal because it is wrong). For most of us, malum per se conduct is self-policing: it is not so much an issue of adhering to laws against rape, theft, and murder as it is following the morals one is taught from an early age not to engage in that activity in the first place. Malum prohibitum conduct is not like that; if we can get away with speeding or parking our cars at an expired parking meter, we will do so, even though we acknowledge the good public policy reasons for why such laws are on the books in the first place.

Several millenia of homo sapiens migrating from one area to another to find a better life will not be changed by whatever legal technicalities Congress enacts, and we simply don't have the resources to do what's necessary to arm our borders with Mexico. As long as America has jobs and wealth, and Central America does not, people will cross northward, our immigration laws not withstanding. The only reform worth debating is one that deals with reality, the millions of undocumented people already here, and the vital contributions they make to our society.

I wouldn't mind being Jewish. I wouldn't mind. Really.

--Kobe Bryant The article goes on to note that while there are 24 Jewish players in the NFL, and 18 in Major League baseball, there are none in the NBA, which, when considering the make-up of the sport before WWII, is ironic. [link via Deadspin]

Kevin Drum has a good post on the trivial nature of blogger obsessions...or not trivial, as the case might be. Plagiarism might not have been part of the original indictment against Mr. Domenech, but this speaks to an utter lack of due diligence by the Post. They gonzaga'd this one. [updated on 3/24].

Star Princess: Back in '02, I had the pleasure of sailing on the cruise ship in the news today. Large cruise ships, as I wrote then, do not provide the same enjoyable experience as their more homey brethren.

The Princess line has about five comparable ships to the Star, with three dining halls, two smaller restaurants, a 24-hour buffet, a casino, about a half-dozen boutiques, a disco situated at the top of the ship, and bars everywhere, and can accomodate about three thousand people per cruise. There's an orientation before the ship "sets sail" where you're supposed to learn what to do and where to go in the event of an emergency, but it generally receives the same sort of attention from passengers as the obligatory recital from airline attendants of what you're supposed to do in the event of a drop in cabin pressure. Today's story will inevitably focus on the death of one of the passengers, of a heart attack, but someone dying on a cruise ship is actually not uncommon, largely due to the advanced age of many cruisers.

About half the members of the Democratic caucus in the Senate voted for cloture concerning the nomination of Samuel Alito, including six (by my count) Senators from Blue States. Three of those Senators are facing tough primary battles, including Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, who actually has to run against a Democratic Congressman.

So why is Lieberman the only one who gets attacked? Just asking....

Is George Bush the worst President ever, or merely a run-of-the-mill bad President? I'm in the former camp...it's hard to put anything in the "plus column" with Shrub. His popularity is at historic lows, and that's without any of the normal factors, such as high unemployment, runaway inflation and/or a prolonged string of criminal indictments, that normally cause that particular phenomenum.

His competition for that title centers on the men who held the office before the Civil War, most notably James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce, but also including pretty much everyone who held the office, besides Lincoln, between Andrew Jackson and Chester Arthur. Pierce and Buchanan(who, incidentally, may have been the best-qualified man ever to hold the position) were Northern Democrats who pretty much fronted for the slavocracy, and did nothing to stop the South's drift towards intransigence on the slavery issue. Buchanan, in particular, endorsed the Dred Scott decision, tried to admit Kansas into the Union as a slave state, and attempted to run Stephen Douglas out of the party for his apostacy on that issue. Although, truth be told, the final outcome of the Civil War led to some very good results, it was a damn close thing that the country wasn't forever destroyed by his incompetence.

However, Pierce and Buchanan were leading a country that was, at the time, a militarily insignificant backwater. The position they held was not as powerful as it would become, and their ineptitude only affected a few million people. The whole notion of a national economy, that a decision made in Washington could impact farm prices in Minnesota, was still a generation away. Congress was still the dominant branch of government (the opposition party, the Whigs, even believed that a President could not veto an act of Congress unless he found it to be unconstitutional), so much of the blame for what resulted in the 1860's has to lie there. The notion that we could maintain a large peacetime army was one that most of the country, abolitionist and slaveholder alike, would have blanched at in the 1850's, and a national law enforcement entity, something that could have been used to arrest and prosecute seccessionist traitors, was not on the table.

Bush, on the other hand, is not merely the President; he's the World's Most Powerful Man. His decisions affect billions of people, in the most remote areas of the planet. Today, the Presidency is the supreme branch, and where, as here, the same party controls both branches, it is the Congress that is the rubber stamp. He inherited a strong economy, low unemployment, a budget surplus, and a nation that was at peace with other nations. And unlike his two immediate predecessors, he was given an opportunity that gave him almost universal backing from his own people less that eight months into his Presidency, as well as support from nations, both friendly and hostile.

It is safe to say that six years into this Administration, Bush has thrown all of that away. It's not just the fact that so much of what he touches has turned to shit in front of our eyes, it's that much of what he's done badly isn't even on the radar screen yet, so no one's paying attention, at least until the day another Katrina hits, and we have to stare dumbly at our TV sets and mutter, who are these morons? Will it be the economy tanking in 2007, because of high credit card debt, or the collapse of the Housing Bubble? Or will it be the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan? Maybe the foreign countries that have been financing our deficits will decide there are better investments elsewhere? With this President, most likely it will be all that, and much more besides....

What with the NCAA Tournament underway, I'm not going to be spending much time here the next few days, but my two cents on the Feingold Resolution is that it is appropriate, certainly more so than the whiny calls for impeachment, where a President has knowingly violated the law, as is the case here. Far from acting rashly, the junior Senator from Wisconsin's announcement over the weekend was long overdue. It is not simply a matter of acting like an "opposition party" for Democrats, it's defending the rule of law, a prerogative that should be of equal concern to Republican Senators who are perhaps tired of being rubber stamps for an Administration that has compiled some of the worst public approval ratings since the Carter Presidency.

And frankly, I don't give a rat's ass if this hurts the Democratic Party this November. Contrary to the opium fantasies at other websites, the Party is not going to win back control of the Senate this year. There, I've said it. The House, maybe, particularly if the President's numbers don't improve, but the Senate, nope. It's not going to happen. We're not going to net six seats, and we're not going to impeach the President's sorry ass.

That's why I'm bored with the argument that we need to rally behind the Party, as if the Democratic Party was some holy vessel, inviolate and pure, in which we can invest our hopes. It isn't; it's a loose confederation of hacks and interest groups, and means different things in different areas of the country. If the Democrats controlled the Senate, I wouldn't have a second's hesitation to assert that Roberts and Alito would still be on the Supreme Court, and we still would be fighting a losing war in Iraq. And the President would still be running roughshod over the Constititution.

So don't ask me to lift a finger to support Bob Casey. Or pretend that having Mary Landrieu chair some committee is going to matter a whit, as opposed to Pat Roberts. Liberals need to look at the problems of the day and come up with solutions, not obsess with the irrelevant intricacies of partisan politics during an era in which we are in the minority. Hopefully, the Feingold Resolution will allow us to see that the road back to power is a long one, so we can act accordingly.

Dennis the Peasant: Verrrrry conservative, funny as hell, and perhaps the baddest ass in Blogolia. First encountered the guy back when I was still allowed to comment on the pre-PJM Roger Simon blog, and was invariably torn a new one before I went fetal. Not for the faint of heart.... [link via MaxSpeak]

I feel just like Jesus' son....

Those who are both college hoops fans and love reading something that will make you run gagging and screaming from your monitor by check out this.

The Onion has the last word on the most-overhyped sports story of the week, here.

Any outrage I was supposed to have felt for the "revelation" that a baseball superstar has been on the juice for the past six years was quelched when the writers (and S.I.) apparently thought it newsworthy to publish the hearsay testimony of one of Bonds' former skanks that he only married the current Mrs. because she was black. It was a story of dubious relevance, at best, to the issue of whether Bonds had taken steroids and lied about it to a grand jury, even if Bonds had called a press conference and announced it to the public. The fact that it was an otherwise unsupported allegation made by an embittered and biased witness, the publication of which having the clear effect of hurting people (Bonds' wife and children) who are not public figures, is a truly scummy act by the book's writers and Sports Illustrated.

Profumo Dies: Until I read of his passing, I had no idea he was still alive.

I don't often write about high school sports, but tonight's Southern Cal hoops semifinal between No. 1-ranked Compton Centennial and No. 2-ranked Harvard-Westlake* is worth noting. In recent years, the two schools have developed one of the nation's most intense rivalries in high school basketball, more so because of how diametrically opposite they are. One is a predominantly African-American public school in one of the poorest neighborhoods in the region, the other, a prep school known nationally as a feeder for the Ivy League. While H-W is known as much for its role in educating the progeny of power lawyers, movie execs and bankers, Centennial is part of a school system that was taken over by the state awhile back for poor test scores and misappropriation of funds. It's Duke-North Carolina taken to the nth degree.

And yet, for some reason, the two schools have now played in four of the past five CIF title games, with H-W winning three of them, as well as several epic battles in the state tournament. Although H-W has won most often, the Apaches have the recent edge, knocking H-W out of the state tournament two years ago on the road, and winning the CIF title last Saturday. As always, it was a thriller: H-W coming from way back to take a two point lead with four seconds to play, only to have senior guard Tyre Thompson go from end-to-end on an Edneyesque run and hit a desperation trey at the buzzer to win the championship. This time, it's the Wolverines turn to travel to Centennial, with the winner advancing to the state semifinals next week.

UPDATE [3/10]: H-W won, 60-58 [O.T.]. Tar Heel-bound senior Alex Stepheson led the way with 26 points and 22 rebounds, to go with 10 blocked shots. The Wolverines play Artesia tomorrow for the So-Cal title.

*In the interest of full disclosure, my alma mater

A good exegesis as to why Crash won and Brokeback lost, here. The two biggest reasons, I think, come down to the fact that the winner had a much better pre-Oscar campaign (a DVD in every pot, as it were), and that it took place in Los Angeles, and was thus easier for the working members of the Academy to relate. For all the sanctimonious twaddle and hype during the ceremony about what a precious and unduplicable experience seeing a movie "before a crowd of strangers" on "the big screen" is supposed to be, in reality, the race came down to the fact that the winner had been released on DVD months earlier, and its studio took full advantage to make sure that every possible person with a vote would have a copy long before screeners for the other candidates went out.

The other reason, dealing with the locale of the movie, is perhaps counterintuitive, when one realizes that in the first 76 years of Oscar, not a single film set in the City of Angels had ever won the top honor, and only a handful of films had so much as a scene set here. Now that we've had back-to-back winners, it's useful to see what it is the two last two films (Crash and Million Dollar Baby) had in common: they are both films that inhabit the real city, not some glamorous or mythical stand-in for same. Classic films that came close in the past were either period pieces (Chinatown, L.A. Confidential) or were films about Hollywood (most notably, Sunset Blvd. and Singing in the Rain); obviously, such films, while admirable on an aesthetic level, have nothing to do with the ups and downs of normal, everyday life here. Most of the Academy membership are not, by any stretch of the imagination, stars; they may have made a good living off of films, but they still have to inhabit the same universe everyone else does. People who are "stars" can afford the luxury of owning homes on each coast, while dissing the city as fake and superficial; the rest of us just have to make do, and perform the same mundane tasks as everyone else, like go to the supermarket, drive their kids to school, etc.

For the most part, Academy members do those things in Los Angeles, so any film that broaches the topic of what Los Angeles is, as a community, has an appeal. Since most of what "L.A." symbolizes to the rest of the planet is based on what non-Angelenos think, there becomes a dichotomy between the real city and "Hollywood", and it becomes a very rare thing indeed to see that "real city" on the big screen. Not having seen Crash, I can't say for certain whether that film succeeded in doing so, but I can see why it might have appealed to a member of the Academy who isn't making $50 million a picture (the fact that it was shot in the city, at a time of runaway production, no doubt also played a factor). For good or ill, provincialism is universal.

A correction from last week: I have seen an Oscar-nominated film. Two, to be exact: Revenge of the Sith is up for Best Make-up, and Batman Begins is nominated for Best Cinematography.

I can safely say that I would not be watching tonight's Oscar ceremony were it not for a familial tradition. For years, my parents attended an Oscar-night party hosted by a family friend, and my late father, who like his son is not a movie fan, had the job of tabulating the results of the Oscar pool. When he passed away, I inherited the task, to my increasing discomfort, as I have come to see fewer and fewer films as the years pass. The two hours or so between major awards now leads to some big-time squirming, so I pass the time napping or catching up on my reading.

If this Patrick Goldstein article in this morning's L.A. Times is any indication, I'm not the only person greeting this year's ceremony with a yawn. Situating the Oscars in the context of other big events that have experienced significant drop-offs in TV ratings, Goldstein argues that there is less interest now in events that "capture the communal pop culture spirit". I would argue that we've entered an era in which movies are just not that important anymore, either as entertainment vehicles or as works of art, and just as film replaced vaudeville in the '20's, and TV obliterated radio drama in the early-50's, we now live in an age in which the time and expense necessary to leave home and see a movie on a large screen isn't worth it to a lot of people anymore.

Something similar is happening to the music industry right now: why buy an album when you can tailor-pick your musical selection over the internet, at much less cost, and without much of the annoying filler. Last month's simultaneous release of a Steven Soderburgh film (an Oscar-winning director, no less) on DVD and cable television indicates that someone gets it; the old methods of delivering the product from studio to consumers isn't necessary anymore, and people are more likely going to choose the method that is cheapest, most convenient, and gives them more control over when and how they see it. People will still choose the cinema to see comedies and slasher pics, since the communal experience in seeing a film with a group of strangers is most enhanced, as well as films that emphasize the visual spectacle (such as any Star Wars or Harry Potter film), but everything else is going straight to video. And that includes the five Best Film nominees, none of which would probably have seemed out-of-place (or, for that matter, particularly distinguished) had they aired on HBO first.

Speaking of "straight-to-video", my one rooting interest tonight will be in one of the early categories, Best Supporting Actress. Anyone who has ever channel-surfed in the middle of the night has probably seen the classic "sequel" to the Ryan Phillippe-Reese Witherspoon vehicle, Cruel Intentions (actually, a prequel). Originally shot as a TV-pilot called "Manchester Prep", with the same director as the original, the show was dropped from the Fox TV schedule in 1999 a month before it was to air, after Murdoch's minions saw the finished product and realized that it was trashy even by their own low standards. Quickly reedited, Cruel Intentions II subsequently became a late-night staple on cable; the Shower Scene alone is worth the two hour investment, though it adds absolutely zero to the plot. Inheriting the role played by Sarah Michelle Geller, Amy Adams is a true trash goddess in CI II, savoring each line with an Alexis Carrington-in-prep-school fury.

So for overcoming such auspicious beginnings, I salute you, Ms. Adams. Take home the Oscar, and make us all proud !!

Katrina: Bush lied.

UPDATE [3/2]: In what may be one of the more lamer attempts at defending Bush, Mickey Kaus writes:

A good deal of the gleeful Froomkinian outrage in the press and Democratic party over that pre-Katrina video seems to be based on what is at best is a semantic misunderstanding. After Katrina, Bush said "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." In the video, Patterico points out, Bush is warned by hurricane expert Max Mayfield that there's a chance the "levees will be topped." Topping is different than breaching, no? When a levee's "topped," or "overtopped," some water sloshes over it and into the city. Then the storm passes and that's it. When a levee's "breached," there's a hole in the levee and Lake Pontchartrain pours in the gap and keeps pouring in until the city is completely flooded. What Bush said after the storm seems quite consistent with what Mayfield told him before the storm--i.e., he thought the levees might be topped by the storm surge but not that they'd be breached, with the catastrophe that resulted.

Yeah, that's the ticket...all Bush was warned of was that "some water" might drip over the levees and down into the Big Easy as a result of Katrina, not that there would be mass flooding as a result...such a trivial thing, too; I wonder why Mr. Mayfield even broached the subject. And technically, Clinton didn't have "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky either.

Jeez, that doesn't even survive the giggle test. In fact, "topping" and "breaching" are the same thing, in this context. Both constitute a failure in the levee system to prevent water from flooding the city of New Orleans, and with Katrina predicted to be a Cat-5 hurricane when the President was briefed, the predicted result was going to be the same: a calamitous and overwhelming ocean of water entering the city, ruining everything in its path. It didn't matter if the water was coming over the levee or through it. Bush knew that this was possible, was warned about it before it took place, then denied he had been told anything of the sort several days later. This isn't even lame spin; it's insulting.

A fine wrap-up on Marshall v. Marshall, by Dahlia Lithwick:

It seems cruel to report that Anna Nicole then stood and exited the courtroom, leaving the building by a side door and again granting no interviews. I would love to tell you that she did something, anything, to distinguish herself from the thousands of appellants who have brought their cases into these marble walls. But the court has worked its magical spell of blandness, even upon Anna, and she is just another litigant with a probate dispute today. She has stepped into the only place in America where her breasts have no power.

Well, Clarence Thomas aside....

As if we needed more evidence that the Housing Bubble has burst, comes word that last month, home sales reached a ten-year low in Massachusetts, the state that saw the most sustained increase in home values over the past twenty-five years. I thought we caught a real break last year when the Bubble sustained itself through the expiration of the old bankruptcy law; the unsupportable increase in home prices over the last decade has been one of the things that helped limit the number of credit defaults, since people who sustained a medical emergency or job loss could always borrow money off the equity in their home as a last resort. Now that home values have peaked, and monthly credit card payments are soon to double, it may get very ugly again in the bankruptcy courts....

In re Vickie Lynn Marshall: Not much of substance to add about this case (for that, go here and here), except that the trial in her matter took place in the same bankruptcy court that I used to hang out at, in Downtown L.A. (most of my work is now done at the Woodland Hills branch). On occasion, I would drop by the packed courtroom (1575, on the 15th Floor, is where Judge Samuel Bufford holds court) and sneak a peek of the fat model listening to the proceedings during her trial. That she was initially awarded such a huge amount of money, in spite of the earlier decision by the Texas probate court, was no surprise, considering the strong pro-debtor leanings of Judge Bufford, whose obsession with the correct pagination and tabbing of motions and briefs has made appearances before him such a deeply pleasurable experience for all local counsel. And now Anna Nicole, like Dred Scott, Curt Flood and whoever "Wade" was before her, will live on in American history, to be studied and scrutunized by law students into the next millenia.

Political Relativism: Blogger Jane Hamsher writes:

While it's open to debate how much influence NARAL's decision not to support anti-choice Langevin in the Rhode Island race had on his decision to drop out, it was perceived as significant. Their endorsement may not mean a lot in Alabama, but it means a lot in solidly pro-choice New England states. Further, their decision to continue to support Lincoln Chafee and Joe Lieberman even after their disastrous vote on Samuel Alito is a signal to other Senators that is okay to vote like this in the future and keep your official pro-choice credentials in the process. NARAL and Planned Parenthood are rubber stamping these votes. How exactly do they plan on coming out and fighting the next Supreme Court Alito-lite nomination if they don't start yanking chains now?

Whenever major media outlets need an official quote from the pro-choice movement, they call NARAL and Planned Parenthood. If they are not speaking up against this bullshit, nobody is.

The problem is that in doing nothing they are actively hurting their own ability to do the good work that Planned Parenthood consistently does. If the South Dakota Rapist Rights bill goes through, it won't matter how many brave souls are willing to staff an abortion clinic, they won't be able to do so. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is no more important task right now before the pro-choice movement than changing the balance of power in the US Senate and breaking up the Gang of 14....

I can think of nothing that will have less importance to the "pro choice movement" in the U.S. than electing a Democratic majority this November. However unlikely, at the moment, the prospect of taking seven GOP-held seats may seem, the prospect of taking over the Senate will be of almost no signifcance in preserving abortion rights, or protecting the privacy rights of women. That fight is now in the hands of the judiciary.

And if party stalwarts such as Daniel Akaka, Herb Kohl, and Maria Cantwell were not motivated to use the filibuster when the party was in the minority, and it was one of the only weapons in their arsenal to fight back against the far right, why should anyone believe they'll put up much of a fight when they gain the majority? And if the blogosphere doesn't care enough to send them a message, instead focusing all its wrath on the hapless Mr. Lieberman, why should other Democrats stick their necks out on principle either?

Based on recent history, the party's track record is not promising. One doesn't even have to look to the last four years, and examples such as the 2005 Bankruptcy bill or the confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, to realize what a worthless vehicle the party is in effecting worthwhile change, since there are numerous examples of what it did when it actually had a majority. In the five and a half years since 1990 when the Senate was controlled by the Democratic Party, it:

1) confirmed Clarence Thomas;
2) prevented President Clinton from ending anti-gay discrimination in the military;
3) failed to pass bills mandating access to health care (Hillary's plan, or any plan), public financing of elections, K-Street reforms, term limits, or efforts to curb gerrymandering;
4) passed the Patriot Act;
5) supported the resolution to go to war with Iraq, and generally supported the President's policies (before they opposed them);
6) created the Homeland Security Department; and, last but not least,
7) confirmed Michael "Heckuvajobbrownie" Brown to run FEMA.

That's quite a track record for a political party that's ostensibly supposed to be defending the great liberal tradition in this country. So pardon me if I don't get too exorcised about whether NARAL endorses Joe Lieberman or Lincoln Chafee, or use my small corner of the internets to whore for Democrats this election. Making the Democratic Party something worth fighting for can't be done by scapegoating a single Senator, not when almost half the party sucks from the same sleazy teat.

Le Menu Cunningham: I suppose when there's no one guarding the henhouse, it shouldn't be surprising that one Republican Congressman would not only sell his office, but would actually set out, in writing, a "menu" for what services he could provide in exchange for what level of bribe. This sort of corruption is never bipartisan, since the minority party can't offer government contracts, or any of the big ticket items that exist in this scandal. Yet it's a "Republican" scandal only because they currently hold the reigns of power; there is nothing in the modern ideology of liberalism that would make its believers any more pristine than conservatives. Moreover, this is a problem that can't be fixed by any of the normal palliatives, such as the public financing of elections, since the money doesn't go to campaign spending. Greed is greed.

Overshadowed by the election of the first woman to baseball's Hall of Fame is the welcome news that Minnie Minoso may also be pegged for the Hall. Among the players chosen today for their contributions in the Negro Leagues, Minoso had the prior misfortune (as far as his HOF candidacy was concerned) of having straddled the gap, putting up splendid numbers before and after the integration of the Major Leagues, but not having the career numbers in either to be an obvious selection. Today, that can be remedied.

UPDATE [2/28]: Not remedied, after all. Minoso, along with Buck O'Neil, were among those passed over by the Hall.

Texas Q.B. Not Borderline Retarded: Deadspin sets a rumor straight...dog bites man !!

Matt Welch, et al., opine on the five nominated films for next week's Oscars. I haven't seen any of them, including the flic Welch rips, Crash; moreover, I haven't seen any of the films featuring the twenty nominated actors or ten nominated scripts. Besides being a dying medium akin to radio drama in the early-1950's, lying supine at the feet of high-def TV, it's also a rip-off to pay twenty bucks for the overrated "communal experience" that even movie connoisseurs don't seem to care about anymore. I'll go see a comedy, or anything that would look good in IMAX, but for everything else, I can wait for it on cable.

If I really want to see it, I'll get the DVD, which now only comes out a few months after the original release. Inevitably, technology will make it easier to download movies, either on to my computer or DVR, without having to wait even that small amount of time. Actually going to a movie theatre will soon be akin to visiting a museum, an activity based more on social class than a need to be artistically enthralled and captivated.

Proponents of school vouchers should take a look at these private institutions, where the only subject on the curriculum is...basketball. As reported in today's New York Times:

The Times found several schools with curious student populations.

¶Genesis One Christian Academy in Mendenhall, Miss.: Two years ago, this kindergarten-to-Grade 8 school added a high school and a Grade 13, for basketball players who did not graduate to raise their grade-point averages. At least 33 of about 40 students at the unaccredited high school play basketball, and its stars have signed letters of intent to attend Oklahoma State, Arkansas and Alabama.

¶Boys to Men Academy in Chicago: The student body consists of 16 basketball players, who can earn credit for the equivalent of eight high school core courses in a year by studying online through an accredited correspondence school.

¶Rise Academy in Philadelphia: Opened last fall, it outsources lessons to others, including Lutheran Christian and two online high schools.

¶God's Academy in Irving, Tex.: A summer basketball coach started with three students in August. Now 40 students in Grades 6 to 12, all basketball players, meet with two full-time teachers four days a week at a recreation center. The curriculum is provided and graded by an education center 25 miles away. Its star player, Jeremy Mayfield, signed with Oklahoma.

Some of these institutions recently joined other private schools to form the National Elite Athletic Association. With more than two dozen teams from Los Angeles to Toronto, this conference is seeking a shoe contract and a television deal. Its teams sometimes travel thousands of miles to play in tournaments that often attract more college coaches than fans. Those coaches will pay $100 for booklets of information about the players.

What's a Wilf? A comprehensive list of who athletes donate to in political campaigns, here. As you might expect, people in the World o' Sports tend to contribute disproportionately to the right end of the political spectrum, but there are some exceptions, more so one than one would find in examining the leanings of entertainment figures. Those exceptions can be found in three categories: African-Americans (duh), basketball coaches (bravo to the Zen Master, Pat Riley, Dean Smith and Gregg Popovich, et al.), and team owners/executives (incl. the aforementioned Minnesota Vikings owner, Zygy Wilf).

Some surprises: Muhammed Ali leans Republican; Arnold Palmer, who used to be a golf buddy of Ike's, has been a generous backer of Jack Murtha; and tennis stars tend to be as Democratic a voting bloc as NBA players. No surprise: golf pros are more Republican than the Christian right. [link via Roger Ailes]

Earlier this week I mentioned my endorsement of another blogger for something called the Koufax Awards, which is sort of a lefty popularity contest. It seems one can't write about the contest without mentioning the financial woes of the blog that's hosting the awards, and asking that a "contribution" be sent their way, which I won't do here (on the other hand, if you like their blog, then by all means give 'til it hurts; it's a pretty good site). Banging a tin cup is a particularly tacky thing when it's being done for your own website (one blogger in particular seems to have a fundraising drive every six weeks), but sometimes necessary if you're too lazy to get a real job.

However, doing it for a blog that's providing a potential award or benefit to you isn't just tacky; it's ethically sleazy, calling into question the entire credibility of the award. It's at the same level as the "service" Mitchell Wade or Jack Abramoff provided members of Congress: Duke Cunningham has been a mensch in the field of defense contracts, he works his ass off rewarding his friends, so why shouldn't he get a taste of the Good Life, especially since our business will benefit too. Of course, there's no law against bribing bloggers, or against encouraging payments to support a website that's giving you an award. But the appearance is just as shady.

Suspended for rudeness? This is the type of thing I would expect to see Vladimir Putin or Hugo Chavez try to get away with, not something done by a legitimate "democracy". And what kind of self-respecting journalist chooses to be a complainant in this type of action?

Apparently, Crony Capitalism is a bipartisan affair. Any doubts that a Democratic majority in the Senate would be just as spineless and compliant as the status quo should be alleviated by its rolling over and confirming this clown to sit on the Federal Reserve Board. Just a reminder: it was a Democrat-controlled Senate that unanimously confirmed Michael "Heckuvajob" Brown to head FEMA...and lets not forget the Bankruptcy bill from last year. An effective opposition party has to stand for something other than the fact that it considers the President to be pure evil.

Collapse? Mickey Kaus has been, shall we say, obsessed with the box office appeal of Brokeback Mountain since the film was first released in mid-December, and he seems cheered by its apparent decline over the past few weeks. One problem: it's "decline" is not only less than that of the other four Oscar nominees (see here, here, here, and here*), it's also doing double the business of the two blockbuster pics that were released concurrently, King Kong and The Chronicles of Narnia, even though both films are screening on (roughly) the same number of theatres. Moreover, its box office to date is higher than last year's Best Film winner, Million Dollar Baby, which didn't contain a gay sex scene to offend the flyovers. Even more surprisingly, its per screen average for this time in February is higher than the average for Return of the King two years ago. What with the Olympics, the Super Bowl, and Hollywood's penchant for releasing its dregs at the start of the year, I don't see any evidence of a "collapse".

*Crash is no longer screening at theatres.

My Koufax Award pick, Digby, on the "Vichy Democrat" issue:

The Democratic party did everything it could to alleviate the culture war and the partisanship in the 90's by electing southern moderates to the White House and helping the Republicans pass a lot of legislation born of major compromise of Democratic principles. Nothing was good enough. The culture war raged, not on the basis of policy --- there was much in Bill Clinton's policies for a Republican to love. It was based purely on the tribal instincts of the culture warriors who insisted that liberals not only be marginalized (fair enough in politics) but that they be annihilated. They gave no quarter unless public opinion absolutely forced them to.

The grassroots believe that after all that, after moving to the right, after offering to compromise, after allowing our "red state Democrats" to run with the other side who then treated them with nothing but bad faith, now is the time for politicans to make a choice. Submit to them or stand with the resistence.

More to the point, since 1994 "moderates" and "New Democrats" don't have a good track record winning downticket races in Red States. I'll be damned if I'm going to compromise what I believe in to support Lieberman or Cantwell or Akaka or Casey or anyone of those other weasels when they seek high office in a Blue State. We have too many other good candidates to choose from without having to pick an appeasor.

Paging Sarah Silverman: This is wrong, on so many levels....

It seems that the Winter Olympics isn't quite as bad as a GOP convention, here.

Obviously, it should not be that surprising that there are only a handful of black athletes participating in the Winter Olympics, and that the reason has almost nothing to do with racism, at least as that word is typically defined. The sports being spotlighted in Turin are, for the most part, activities that originated in Scandanavia, Finland, and the Alps; had Austria or Norway possessed colonial empires in Africa, rather than Britain or France, we would be seeing more than our fair share of Nigerian speedskaters* and Kenyan cross-country skiiers in these Olympics. Sports, like other cultural activities, generally reflect the socio-political environment, and since the period in world history that first featured the growth of global empires was also the period in which athletic competition was first being developed (the mid-Nineteenth Century), African nations play soccer, not ice hockey.

How dominant a role colonialism plays can be seen where you look at those few countries in which soccer is not the predominant national sport. Those nations can be put into two camps: countries that were part of the British empire, that picked up another pastime of that country, such as rugby (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa) or cricket (India, Pakistan and the islands of the Caribbean), or countries that were part of the American sphere of influence, which favored baseball. Almost without exception, every country in which baseball is the most popular sport was occupied, at one time or another, by the U.S. military: Cuba, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Japan, Puerto Rico, Taiwan, the Phillipines, etc. America was locked out of having an African empire, and South and Central America were part of European empires that predated the existence of the U.S., so our sports (which were themselved descendents of British sports) have had to play catch-up elsewhere, while soccer, rugby and cricket, so popular everywhere else, are, at best, marginal pastimes here. And just as the West used the Third World as little more than trading outposts where we could plunder their natural resources for the benefit of our economy, so too are the athletes of Africa and Central America used today as little more than raw material for soccer and baseball teams in the Home Countries.

In fact, as the world's only superpower, the sport Americans have had the most success exporting in recent years isn't baseball or our own version of football, it's basketball. Like soccer (and unlike baseball or football), basketball is inexpensive, can be practiced individually, and is easy to follow. For the most part, the rules of both sports can be written onto the back of an envelope. Even the physical skills required in both sports are the same: both feature almost constant running by the participants, and movement by players without the ball is of paramount strategic importance. With the exception of Lithuania, the top countries in basketball are also soccer powers, including the Gold and Silver medalists from Athens, Argentina and Italy (as well as, I should point out, the U.S.).

Hence, the games of the Winter Olympiad are largely a Eurasian phenemonum. The leading countries in most of the sports are those in which the activity (skiing, skating, etc.) is tied into the culture, where the athletes take up the sport at an early age, and where, unlike the U.S., there is no class barrier connected to the activity (such as skiing). Historically, those countries do not have a significant immigrant population from Africa, so the competitors are, for the most part, white. And, as I mentioned earlier, these sports originated in countries that did not have colonial empires, so there is no competition from African athletes.

And of course, there isn't a lot of snow in Africa, either.

*A bit of a stretch, but, assuming that a hypothetical Norwegian empire could have existed, it wouldn't be hard to imagine that they would have also had the technology and wherewithal to build ice rinks in sub-Saharan Africa.

Apparently pointing out either the 1) lack of black athletes in the Winter Olympics, or 2) the lilly-white nature of the Republican Party, is an example of lib'rul media bias. Whatever....

Open the Fuddgates: Just when I think that Cheneyquiddick might be the type of thing that boomerangs badly on Democrats, particularly those in the blogosphere who seem to be milking this for all its worth (something about how common hunting accidents are, and collective Red State empathy concerning same), along come tidbits like this. The "I had only one beer, officer" excuse is the type of thing that you might say to the CHP after getting pulled over at two in the morning, and it usually doesn't get you off the hook there, either. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass how long it took for the Veep to inform the media; it's the 18-hour stonewalling of the local constables that's the issue, and nothing Cheney can say now is going to remove the stink.

They also ran...No Olympics viewing can be complete without at least a daily visit to this blog, devoted to the last-place finishers in every event.

"...pay tribute to old Harry" A good Molly Ivins piece, on the other man in Elmerfuddgate, and the lessons we can draw about a man who can't shoot straight.

The Virtue of Principles: Digby, again, gets it right:

The president's approval rating is stuck at around 40% and I think it's pretty clear that it isn't the reporting in the mainstream media or by the "reasonable" Democrats at the New Republican that brought that about. If left up to them the Republicans would be coasting to another easy re-election.

I don't say this because I think that liberal blogs are taking over the world and have changed the face of politics as we know it. I say it because I know that without us there would have been virtually no critical voices during the long period between 2001 and the presidential primary campaign during 2003. We were it. The media were overt, enthusiastic Bush boosters for well over two years and created an environment in which Democratic dissent (never welcome) was non-existent to the average American viewer. In fact, it took Bush's approval rating falling to below 40% before they would admit that he was in trouble.

I believe that if it had not been for the constant underground drumbeat from the fever swamps over the past five years, when the incompetence, malfeasance and corruption finally hit critical mass last summer with the bad news from Iraq, oil prices and Katrina, Bush would not have sunk as precipitously as he did and stayed there. It literally took two catasprophes of epic proportions to break the media from its narrative of Bush's powerful leadership. And this after two extremely close elections ---- and the lack of any WMD in Iraq.

I would add that one of the most potent, albeit frustrating, aspects of the lefty blogosphere is it's tenacity in the area of media criticism. I say frustrating, because it is often a distraction we can ill afford when it comes to focusing our efforts on something that has true, long-term importance; obsessing about the wording of a Washington Post ombudsman's article seems pretty trivial when compared with something like, say, the Alito nomination (whose endorsement by the Senate was clinched the same week).

But the passion, the intensity that goes into leading such airheadish campaigns does have a very important purpose: it changes the terms of the debate, something that is of paramount importance when the electoral numbers are against you. Liberals have been losing elections for decades in America (the only time we win is when there is a national calamity or event that has discredited the party in power, such as the Great Depression or the Dred Scott decision), so crafting a winning message for national elections every 2-4 years can't be a serious priority for those of us on the sidelines. Mau-mauing the media, putting the fear of God into the hearts of opinion-crafters, making pundits believe that if they simply regurgitate Rove's spinpoints, they are going to receive a world of hurtin', now that's a strategy that anyone who is locked out of power can follow without having to compromise principles.

And as I've said before, we don't need to win every election, or even most elections, for our ideas to prevail. I wasn't put on this planet to serve the Democratic Party, and I'd desert it an instant if I ever thought it wasn't anything more than GOP-lite. Our blogosphere gives us that option, an ability to create a politics that doesn't rely on winning elections, where even those of us in the minority can quash the policy prescriptions of the majority party (read, Social Security "reform"). You don't need 50 Senators when the other side is terrified of you could do to them if you don't get what you want.

Digby concludes:

I see that the press does not know what to make of this. And I see that many Joementum Democrats don't get it either. They remain convinced that the country will wake up one day and see that our arguments are superior. They are wrong. This political era will be remembered for its brutal partisanship and sophisticated media manipulation in a 50/50 political environment. Democrats have been at a huge disadvantage because of the Republican message infrastructure and the strange servility of the mainstream press. So, we are pushing back with the one tough, aggressive partisan communication tool we have: the blogosphere.

Amen.

This is called "hunting"? Still, drawing an analogy between the Cheney shooting and Chappaquiddick may be inevitable, but it's not quite apt. EMK, after all, delayed reporting the car accident, and probable death of Ms. Kopechne, to the police, not just the news media, while the Veep apparently informed the Secret Service soon after the accident (there is a dispute, though, as to when the local Sheriff's Department was notified).

Either way, the whole thing does not redound to the benefit of the Vice President....

This is the sort of thing that can only help a lawyer's practice, presuming, of course, that there's no evidence actually connecting Ken Starr to the forged affidavits in question (they were apparently prepared for another lawyer, his co-counsel, by a private dick). Knowingly filing false evidence with a court is a no-no, and will get you disbarred lickety-split, as Bill Clinton can attest, but as long as there are several degrees of separation, ruthlessness is a boon for attorneys specializing in defense practice, as Starr is currently doing. Having a rep of being someone who will do absolutely anything to get a client off the hook is great for business, particularly in the context of a death penalty case, where your adversary is typically a prosecutorial system that may have bent a few rules to put your client in his current predicament.