IT AIN'T OVER 'TIL IT'S OVER: So after the previous post, I sat and read through Dean's positions as he describes them on his website. Thing is, I agree with him quite a bit.

We differ on affirmative action -- I love the sentiment but hate the practice, whereas he applauds the whole of it; on the death penalty -- he favors it in extreme cases whereas I just think it's wrong across the board; and on the war in Iraq -- he opposed it, whereas I supported it.

Can we meet in the middle on any of these issues?

Well, it's hard for me to hate affirmative action. I just think it's illogical, replacing a covert racist system with an overt one. Still, what's not to like about diversity and advancement? I can forgive him this.

The death penalty? I like his measured stance better than Bush and co.'s zealous pursuit of executions.

The war? After reading THE THREATENING STORM, I supported the President. And as war grew closer and eventually became reality, my sense of patriotism and compassion for our troops grew markedly. I'm very unhappy with Dean's anti-war position -- but how mad can you get at a guy for opposing a war? I wish I could have found an intellectual platform to do the same. I could not.

On his site, Dean hits on themes that are and always have been important to me:

- Equal rights
- Sensible gun laws
- Fiscal responsibility
- Universal health care (I'm not sure where I come down on this, actually)
- Environmental protection

Odds are his positions on these issues will map more closely to my beliefs than will those of 43.

I'm not saying I'm jumping on the DeanWagon. But I am saying I'll be watching the debates and reading the websites. I'll remain engaged from now until election time, and I hope you will, too.

DEAN WILL, DEAN WILL...ROCK YOU!

This picture is hilarious. God I wish this guy said more stuff I agree with. I've liked him from back in the day. Why? He's dorky-cool, smart, and over the top. He's as close to McCain as the Dems are gonna get. But can I overlook his bad performance with Russert and his anti-war stance? Dunno, but I doubt it.

I will be watching you, Howard Dean (making the DeNiro hand motions from MEET THE PARENTS). Perhaps you will find a way back into my "circle of trust." (Funny -- Dean speaks of a "circle of protection" on his very good website.)

WITHER PARADISE: This account of the JFK Jr. marriage has to be one of the most depressing things I've ever read.

THE BLOG AS LOSS LEADER: For somebody who proclaims himself a free-market capitalist, I must be something of a dumbass. So far today I've scribbled more than a thousand for-free words on this blog. Written in the course of a for-pay project, that many words can run a client around $2,000.

If only I could invoice each and every one of you!

(Sadly, given my desire to be heard, you should each invoice me for your reading time.)

LIKE WE DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW THAT: For those of us who aren't afraid of gay people, there's a message in this story about how demographics factor into one's attitude toward gay relationships:

Beware of poor old Southern folks who go to church a lot.

Or perhaps this is a better formulation:

Old religious rednecks are probably intolerant.

(Note: In this instance, I'm using 'redneck' to connote poor AND Southern. One might also argue it connotes intolerance, which leads us to "Watch out for old religious rednecks!")

LATE NIGHT LAMENTATIONS: We've all heard the tale of how Betamax, a technically superior product, was beaten by the lowly yet populist VHS. But writing in the Guardian, Jack Schofield suggests this is an urban myth. Considering Beta as a "whole product," he says, reveals that it was actually inferior to VHS and, as a result, was a deserving loser. It's an interesting read.

I was thinking of the Beta/VHS debate earlier this morning when I read this article about how Letterman's team continues to fail in its efforts to unseat Leno in late-night popularity. That Leno, who I find likeable yet highly unfunny, continues to beat the Worldwide Pants off Letterman is one of the great mysteries of my universe. My wife and I continually taste-test the two programs, flipping from one to the next at the commercials, and we usually find ourselves just dumbstruck by how wooden the Leno show comes off. On the other hand, nary a night passes when we're not taken by pleasant surprise by something on the Letterman show.

Dave actually seems a better and more indulgent interviewer today than at any previous point in his career. Sure, he's known to stoop to easy gags -- double-takes when the hot female guest walks out, stammering in response to innuendo, etc. -- but he's also likely to take a genuine swing or two, to ask the tough question and then sit in awkard silence on the pull-back to commercial (unlike Leno, who is forever arm-punching his playmates in innocuous repartee). Of course we also sense that Letterman finds his job -- and the rest of life -- somewhat silly and maybe even sad. He is, after all, the same guy rumored to have scrawled "I hate my job" over and over on a legal pad on his desk. (Disclaimer: I tried to Google the source of this tidbit, and I can't seem to find it. Anybody have a cite?)

On the rare instance that I've actually met someone who prefers Jay to Dave, they usually cite Letterman's "personality" as the reason this dislike his show. "He's so sarcastic, I don't like him," is an adequate summary of the anti-Letterman line. Is it a stretch to infer that these folks are noticing and responding positively to Jay's "there's nowhere in the world I'd rather be, no job in the world I'd rather have" attitude, contrasted with Letterman's "the joke is that this is all a bunch of crap -- luckily you're in on the joke?"

Am I missing something that makes Jay's "whole product" more compelling than Dave's, or is Jay's dominance one of the great entertainment injustices of all time (right up there with the unfair pillorying of ISHTAR)?

FATAL OVERDRAFT ON YOUR CREDIBILITY ACCOUNT: Jerry Springer must be delusional.

The headline: "Springer Sees His Fame Helping Democrats."

The reality: No Dem wants to see the words Democrat and Jerry Springer used in the same sentence unless that sentence is "Jerry Springer is an Idiot, not a Democrat."

BECAUSE I'M A FAN: A couple of you have jabbed me recently, "How come you only write about the Cubs when they're winning?" Hmmmph. For the most part, you're right. I do remember writing a brief "Dump Estes" post earlier this season, but then he started pitching better and I started liking him more. (Funny how that works.)

I was lucky enough to see yesterday's game from a corporate whorebox (hee hee). Again, the Cubs showed good (enough) offense. The big and obvious difference was the bullpen, as Remlinger and Borowski combined to finish what Kerry Wood started. As my father wrote a few days ago, it was starting to look like the Cubs' new motto should be, "Let's play eight."

But it's tough to fault a bullpen that's been an elemental part of our success this year. I prefer they get these anomalous bad performances out of their collective systems before we get into the big stretch drive that awaits. Go Cubbies!

And BTW, I won ten bucks via SMS cellphone messages during the game. After the Sox got out to a one-run lead, a chippy friend messaged me predicting "SWEEP." I foolishly (valiantly?) bade him to put his money where his text-messaging was. And the rest is history, not to mention money in the bank.

(Note: Headline revised.)

STICKS AND STONES: I received a particularly vitriolic e-mail from a Camel reader (and old friend) over the weekend. Here's the meanest and, to my thinking, most wrong-headed part:

"It is clear you have become a business whore, and all your protestations about voting for Democrats and subscribing to salon.com ring utterly hollow."

There's more, but I suppose I should deal with the rest of it in private e-mail. But I did want to post the above snippet simply because it brings up something I think is important and merits further discussion.

Facts are, I have voted for Dems for entire adult life, and I do subscribe to salon.com and support other seemingly liberal causes and outlets. By all appearances, I should be a sympathetic audience for the current crop of Dems. That I feel bereft of any party at all -- because remember, I loathe Bush's spendthrift ways and his selective tax cuts -- is the issue here. That there are many people like me who no longer cotton to strict Right/Left lines, who can see the fundamental illogic of affirmative action while still choosing to live lives colored by diversity, that's the issue here. That you can love peace but reject pacifism as an untenable political philosophy, that's the issue. That you can be a free-market capitalist without being a whore, that you can stop eating factory-farmed animals without being a tree-hugging, Big L Liberal, that you can be engaged by the political process and the ideas contained therein without having to adhere to pre-ordained dichotomies of Dem and Republican, etc.

MORE ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: My favorite Lefty Michael Kinsley writes an insightful column on Slate on the affirmative action decision. (Thanks to Eric for the pointer.) And guest-blogging for Glenn Sullivan, Eugene Volokh also does a stellar job with the same issue.

ONLINE PRIMARY VOTERS TO DEM LEADERS: NAY ON HAIRSPRAY! Granted, it's a sliver of meaninglessness compared to the actual primaries, but MoveOn.org's recent Internet primary gives at least some small indication what the Dem leadership are up against this election.

Internet-friendly Howard Dean wins in a walk (43.87%), which won't suprise anyone. (Although it might give pause to party insiders who are apparently praying around the clock for a major Dean misstep.)

But here are some of the things that did surprise me and might also confound other Dems:

- Joe Lieberman, who has perhaps the highest name recognition, actually polled worse than Carol Mosely-Braun (3.19 percent for Edwards to 2.21% for CMB)
- Southern hair-boy John Edwards also showed abysmal support, with just 3.19%
- Super-mojo-insider Richard "78RPM" Gephardt managed a measly 2.44%
- Eastern hair-boy John Kerry was stronger than many at just under 16% -- but was actually bested by shrill bankruptcy man Kucinich, who garnered a shocking and investigation-inspiring (almost) 24% of the vote

Again, these are early and suspect returns. But they most certainly tell some small tale of where the populist Dems' collective cabezas are at. I'll summarize what I take to be their position:

"Don't give us some hair-styled middle-of-the-roader, nuh-uh. We want a fighter. We want a relative outsider. But we're not crazy enough to support Al Sharpton."

A MAN WHO HAS EVERYTHING:

A boy and his dad in the park. I don't know who's happier.

CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MISMANAGEMENT: The RIAA is reportedly moving ahead with plans to sue individuals who share music tracks on peer-to-peer networks. In other words, they're going to continue their policy of alienating their customers. Who swaps music files? Music fans. The unmitigated idiocy of the RIAA knows no bounds.

WHAT THE HECK IS A CREED? A few of you have asked why I haven't weighed in on the Supreme Court's ruling on the University of Michigan affirmative action case. Here I weigh:

I'm not going to debate the particulars of the Michigan case, whether that university's exact policy is or is not constitutional. For one, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, thank God. For two, I'm bored by the issue of constitutionality, not to mention the details of just about anything. What I'm more interested in is the issue of affirmative action itself.

In my view, the admissions policies of public universities, not to mention the hiring practices of our businesses, should not be engineered to create equality. That's an impossible task. Instead, the policies should enforce equal opportunity for all applicants, regardless of race, creed (whatever that is), sexual orientation, and so forth. (Wait, is 'creed' one's religion? Must go to dictionary.com.) Ideally, for high school underachievers like me, those policies also would not discriminate based on one's lackluster grade point average or lack of serious pre-college coursework. But that's water under the bridge. (Damn you Duke! How dare you decline my early-decision application and toss me back into the unwashed pool of general admissions! Unwashed pool! Hee hee.)

Okay, so to recap: equality impossible, equal opportunity possible.

No matter what affirmative action proponents say, we all know the policy can and does grant admission slots to lesser-qualified candidates, solely based on race. It's not an appropriate long-term policy for a country whose constitution clearly prescribes color-blindness. At best, it's a kind of reparation, a short-term remedy for a system left unbalanced by years of, let's face it, unconstitutional exclusionary practices. It's tit for tat, basically.

Which leads me to one of my main issues with affirmative action:

When does it end? What goals are we trying to reach?

Affirmative action without end is simply replacing one racist policy with another and is, in my view, unconstitutional. Justice O'Connor seems to agree that it's not anything but a short-term fix when she writes: "The court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary."

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen asserts that O'Connor, in referring to some far off date when the ends of affirmative action have been met (some amorphous percentage of minorities having been educated and advanced) actually reminds us how silly and wrong-headed the policy is in the first place. What exact percentage of minorities are we aiming for? How will we know when we get there?

Ah. I just looked up 'creed'. According to dictionary.com, it's "a formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith." Well, then, when it comes to higher education my creed is basic equality of opportunity -- the belief that no man or woman can be judged differently than another simply based on skin color, sexual orientation, or crappy high school transcript. This is the north star we're all aiming at, and I confess I have faith we'll eventually get there.

The short-term persistence of affirmative action should not concern anyone. At the very worst, we're taking a small but significant step to repair past ills. But if we are to continue this policy over the short term, as it appears we are, we should set about very quickly to determine how we'll know when we don't need it anymore. As Cohen asserts, this will be a difficult if not impossible task.

PERFORMANCE ISSUES: This blog is hosted on Blogspot, the house hosting service for bloggers using the proprietary Blogger software. (Blogger bloggers don't have to host their sites on Blogspot, but it's the easiest option unless you're a tech-weenie with tons of time on your hands.) Anyway, from time to time I hear from readers who have trouble loading the site, who are frustrated by the slow load times, or who encounter broken links or other such annoyances. First, let me say I'm sorry. Second, I'd like to shove the blame over on Blogspot, which is a seriously spotty, crap-like hosting service. And I'd turn into a tech-weenie and move my blog somewheres else if I wasn't certain help is just over the horizon. As you may or may not know, Google bought Blogger about a half-year ago, and I'm confident the good folks at the world's best search engine will move swiftly to improve the Blogspot hosting service.

Another issue: those "comment" links at the end of my posts. Those are provided by a third party called enetation. Basically I just insert enetation code into my template page, and they pop up and maintain the comment links (and the comments themselves). Unfortunately, this feature has a tendency to go up and down more often than a presidential intern. Fortunately the price is right, as in FREE.

Just thought I should keep you all abreast of why the technical performance of this blog isn't always perfect. Thanks for your patience.

E-MAIL BONDING: One of my good pals has been on quite a fitness kick for the past couple years, running marathons and working out with a personal trainer. Yesterday he sent me an e-mail about a business-related something-or-other, then added, "I had my body fat percentage done yesterday, and it came in at 7.5%."

Pretty impressive, right? Sure. But then he gets a little worried, writing: "Don't forward my body fat info along to (business contact) lest he think, you know, we're like gay and stuff."

I laugh, and I taunt him: "You're in very good shape, but I can still do more dips than you."

His response is what makes this whole episode worth recounting here:

"If we're ever attacked by Iraqis with WMD, and the only way to escape is through dips by repetition, you will be one of the very few survivors."

JUST A FLESH WOUND? Unconfirmed reports have "Comical Ali" Sahaf, the infamous Iraqi information minister, in coalition custody tonight. Here's a still from his most recent press conference:

BREAK UP THE CUBS, VOLUME 3: Geez. So my wife has her company box at Wrigley tonight. I'm home on kid-duty (the boy is long since asleep), watching the Cubs hit six home runs (so far), including two by Sammy and single-dingers from Patterson, Gonzalez, Grudzielanek, and Kerry friggin' Wood! Meanwhile I'm wondering if my wife is even aware there's a ball game going on down below her. (Actually, she's a good baseball fan, so I'm sure she's hanging over the deck seats, spilling beer on someone behind home plate.)

SLAMMY! You're not gonna believe this...but right after Sammy homered in the first inning, I nearly rushed to the Camel to post, "I bet he does it again in this game." We all know Sammy hits 'em in bunches.

Anyhow, had I posted that prophesy I would have looked like a (lucky) genius, 'cause our boy Sosa just crushed one out of the park and nearly to Wisconsin (they're guessing 520 feet, one of the longest in Wrigley history). Instead, I just seem like a whiner or a fabricator. "I was gonna post that. I was!"

DID BUSH BULLSHIT US? I've had many discussions of late regarding whether or not the Bush Administration deliberately misled the American people in order to gain support for war on Iraq. Andrew Sullivan is smarter than me, not to mention a far better writer, so I'll defer to him on this issue. While I don't like to do this too often, I'll just say Andrew speaks for me.

RESPONDING TO A READER: A Camel reader posted a long and thoughtful response to my Dean ramblings. Unfortunately, he posted it under my entry about the capture of the unfortunately-named sex offender Andrew Luster. Nonetheless I want to give the posting its proper attention, so I'm reposting it here with my responses.

Alright, I have to step up to the plate here. I have to admit that the crop of Democratic hopefuls don't inspire awe (or even much hope for that matter) but that doesn't excuse me from voting for the much lesser of two evils. I tend to agree with many of your points but I don't think that you are examining them as deeply as perhaps you should. I hate to point-by-point you, but I will:

Dems are more inclusive: probably true, although the cynic in me says that they aren't any more inclusive just a little bit more desparate for votes. Still the track record is hard to argue and Democrats have consistently been ahead of the curve on social issues.

Not examining points as deeply as I should? Guilty as charged. As for the inclusiveness question, it came up again just the other night. I was talking to a very bright physician (who happens to be my neighbor), and I brought up that Bush receives some of his most valued foreign policy advice from a black woman. "She's not very black," he said, echoing a comment I've heard from many other Dems about Rice and also about Powell. "She looks black to me," I replied. "Well, her policies don't seem very black." Aha. This has been a big eye-opener for me, when Dems try to tell me that Rice, Powell, and even Clarence Thomas are "not black." It reminds me that many Dems are less about racial inclusiveness than they are about liberal ideology. Sure, a conservative will only pick a man or woman whose views are close to his or hers. But the fact that Bush has done that regardless of skin type and religious affiliation tells me the Republican party has truly arrived on the issue of racial equality and inclusiveness.

Dems seemed smarter: I think this may be more of a liability at times - the reason the Left doesn't have a Limbaugh, Hanritty or Savage is because liberals have a tendency to examine both sides of the issue and recognixze the oppositions valid points; the Right is much more likely to dismiss the Left as a bunch of homo-hugging eco-freaks. Witness Bush's amazing ability to change the message regardless of facts to the contrary. Frightening but damn effective.

The Left has Donahue, Garofalo, Michael Moore, NPR, Salon.com, the NYTimes, Peter Jennings, etc. (And btw, I enjoy many Left pundits, personalities, and properties. I'm an NPR supporter, a Salon.com subscriber, and a regular NYT reader.) The Left does not lack for telegenic personalities. But what the Left does lack now is a popular message. And btw, your lack of specificity above doesn't allow me to have much of a discussion with you. To say that liberal sare more likely to examine both sides of the issue is cynical and indefensible.

GOP = $$ v. Dems Social issues: Here's the first point that I take serious issue with: both parties are about money and probably always will be. To me the difference comes down to how the parties approach wealth. This is a very complez argument and I don't want to suggest that I can cover it by any means but my general read of it is this: the GOP is all about retaining wealth - if you've worked hard enough to earn it you deserve to keep as much of it as you can. This seems like an inherently fair policy - after all you earned this money, right? It is difficult to argue against, especially when it is presented in this manner. The Dems, on the other hand, strive to be about creating wealth - that is to say they want to level the playing field so that everyone has an opportunity to create their own wealth. The major difference and the one that is most often overlooked is the fact that the GOP position actually penalizes those who work for a living while inordinately rewarding those who have through privelege of birth been awarded a particular staion in life. An example" Joe Sixpack works his way up from a hardscrabble life to a job where he is now earning $500,000 - he will pay taxes at the highest rate (currently thirty five percent). Meanwhile Billy Silverspoon has inherited $10,000,000 in stock. His current income is 400,000 in dividends and he sells 100k worth of appreciated stock each year. Same income, but his highest tax rate is 15% (long term cap gains). This seems to value birth over effort - I have a problem with that.

Over time, I've come to think the Dems are about redistributing wealth, which is a noble goal, but one that runs counter to our system of free-market capitalism. Your tax scenario is troubling. Personally, I favor some form of a flat tax, where everyone contributes a simple percent of their income (whether it's derived from investment or industry) and loopholes are closed for good.

Most importantly and something that you haven't addressed is the wholesale dismantling of civil liberties that is occuring on a daily basis. John Ashcroft may be one of the most dangerous men to ever hold such a crucially important office. The Patriot(!) Act is a miscarriage of justice of an epic scale and its abuses are well documented. Instead of recognizing that the country weas in a panic and perhaps over-reacted, he instead appears before Congress and states that the act doesn't go far enough and further intrusion is required. I understand the need for national security and recognize that we live in a dangerous time but wholesale destruction of the Bill of Rights doesn't make anyone safer. Does anyone realize that there is an American citizen who has now been in jail without access to a lawyer or even any charges being filed against him for over a year? Granted Padilla is pretty clearly a bad guy but so is OJ - the Constitution is the the greatest document ever written and the wanton disregard that this administration has for it is enough for me to do all I can to ensure it's defeat in 2004.

The erosion of civil liberties is a hot-button issue for many of my friends. Ashcroft does seem reckless and power-hungry, but I can't pretend to know much about the subject. If Ashcroft and company are seriously hijacking due process, I trust there are civil libertarians all over their ass. That Padilla is rotting in jail, though, is not an issue I'm overly concerned about. If you're ever rotting in jail, though, give me a call, and I'll march outside the jailhouse until they release you.

I haven't mentioned the Church/State argument or it's foreign policy missteps yet, or even touched upon the Roe v. Wade debate...

I'll tell you where I stand: I'm for separation of Church/State, and I think this Administration can have its Jesus and its prayer without trampling that line of separation. I wish they were more private about their religion, but I'm not threatened by it, either. Thing is, I'm all for more spiritual awareness in this country, and I'd rather have us err on the side of being too much taken with those things that are larger than us, than too little interested. Awkwardly stated, but that's the best I can do in a tossed-off, non-compensated response. Roe v. Wade? I loathe abortion, but I don't favor legislating it. I hope it's left alone, but it's not a hot-button issue for me at all.

DR. DUMMY: It seems Howard Dean's foot-in-mouth syndrome knows no bounds. Perhaps he thinks being perceived as a boob worked for Bush, so why not for him?

MULLET ALERT:

If the evildoers are starting to look like this guy, we're totally screwed. All of a sudden every NASCAR event is a potential hotbed of terrorist activity.

GOOGLE OF THE DAY: A lucky Googler typed in "Jose Canseco nude" and ended up here. Okay, so search technology is not perfect yet.

MORE ON DEAN'S DISAPPOINTING DUPLICITOUSNESS: What was most disappointing to me yesterday about Dean's MEET THE PRESS performance was his waffling. As one who has accused his fellow Dems of spinelessness, he seemed shockingly devoid of lumbar support himself. Here's how I remember him on the issues, after yesterday's show:

ON IRAQ: It's actually great Saddam is gone. But it may not be that good for the Iraqi people, or for us. Who knows? But it's tremendous.

ON THE DEATH PENALTY: I'm against it. Well, I used to be. Now I don't like it most of the time, but sometimes I am for it. Sure, innocent guys could be put to death, but letting those guys...err, letting bad guys kill 12-year-old girls would be worse. So I started being sort of for it in 1994, now I'm even more for it, even though I'm not really that for it.

ON BUDGET DEFICITS: They're bad, but you don't have to cut anything to fix 'em, you just need to stop raising things. Oh, and maybe raise the retirement age a year. That's it, that's what I'm for, raising the retirement age, maybe.

ON GAY MARRIAGE: I support the Canadian law, unless lawyers say I can't. What do I believe in? Oh. Ummm, I believe we should grant people equal rights, but not necessarily have the government make laws to that effect, unless the Canadians do it first and then our lawyers say we should follow suit.

ON THE MILITARY: It will take a long time for an alliance of lesser powers to come together to challenge the United States. That is, unless George Bush keeps doing what he's doing, and then it could happen faster. Under a Dean presidency, I'd make the military really strong, the strongest, but not so strong that we threaten other countries into forming an alliance against us. But I would definitely do it different than the current Administration, for sure, except insofar as I would make us strong, like they are doing, but just not quite as strong.

ON TEMPERAMENT: I did not apologize to those other Dems. I might have said, "I'm sorry," but I never said, "I apologize."

Look, I latched onto Dean early because I thought he might be a Dem version of McCain. After yesterday, I think he's looking like Slick Willy II, minus the charisma and the skill.

RUSSERT RIPPED DEAN'S HEART OUT & OTHER THOUGHTS: Most people reading this blog of late might guess I'm a Republican. But close readers will remember: In every presidential election I've voted in, I've cast my vote for the Dem. Nonetheless, I'm part of what I can only suspect is a growing bloc of Disenfranchised Democrats, folks who will be crossing the aisle in '04.

Why have I been I a Dem for so long? Here are my largely unsophisticated reasons:

- The Dems struck me as a party of inclusion, a party that made room for minorities of all colors, orientations, and economic strata
- The Dem candidates just plain seemed smarter to me
- The Republicans always seemed centered around money, whereas the Dems seemed centered around social issues; when I was younger, I believed social equity was government's business
- The Republicans were always on about defense, about bombs and missiles; since I perceived no real threat in the world, I just thought they wanted to pad the pockets of their defense industry benefactors

What's changed?

- I've seen a Republican president who has appointed minorities to the highest offices and who relies on their counsel to make his biggest decisions
- I no longer care who's smarter, only who's more principled and more effective
- I realized that putting your money where your mouth is is the key; Clinton talked about money for AIDS, whereas Bush has delivered (that said, I've also discovered that both sides are all about money, that the Republicans are just as reckless with the dollar as the Dems, and that equity of opportunity is the only thing government can ever hope to deliver)
- I've learned there are real threats to our country, and I've discovered a deep admiration for our military and for the politicians who've fought to keep them strong

This is a brief accounting of my pending conversion, to be sure, but I think you get the point.

Still, there were little moments where I felt I might be reverting to my old form. I watched Hillary on Letterman and found her oddly appealing. I'd see Howard Dean in spots and feel a bit goosebumpy. The Dean thing, though, came to a screeching halt this morning. Tim Russert basically pulled off his wings, his arms, and his legs, and left him squirming around on his back in the sun. Dean may as well have cried "uncle" or at least waved a hanky, so complete was the evisceration.

Right now, the main reason I suspect I'll be voting Republican in the next election is oddly similar to the reason I voted Dem in all those other elections: I look at the guy the "other" party is putting up there, and I say, "C'mon...get serious!"

And I mean...c'mon! All you Dems that crawl past this blog, feel free to clue me in: Who's your boy gonna be this time around? Aren't you a little scared? Sad? This '04 go-round looks like Lennox Lewis Bush against Patsy the Midget Clown to me. I'm sitting here waiting to see anyone from the Dem side who looks electable and has a platform that even remotely speaks to me. How long will I be sitting here?

BIG SCREEN OR SMALL SCREEN? According to this story, bounty hunter Duane "Dog" Chapman apprehended Max Factor heir and convicted serial sex offender Andrew Luster in Mexico by using a "fire-extinguisher size" can of pepper spray. Somewhere on the Left Coast development executives are already in motion.

Take a look at this guy. If Nick Nolte isn't salivating over this part, I'd be shocked. (Gary Busey also has an outside shot. Could be a perfect comeback vehicle.)

HILLARY NAILS IT: A few thoughts after watching Hillary on Letterman last night:

She has really polished her act over the years. She now seems genuine, warm, and honest. (As opposed to measured, cold, and evasive.) All except for the moment when, asked whether she wanted to be President, she replied: "You have to be a little...(pause, dark expression as she realizes she shouldn't say "crazy")...intense to be President." I'm paraphrasing, but those who saw it will remember the moment. All of a sudden her aura of spontaneity collapsed around her. Still, she was so generally solid and open and in the moment most of the time, I have to believe she's grown a ton personally over the past decade. You could just feel it, watching her.

I really believe she's not running in '04. She left no wiggle room.

She hit on the one theme the Dems can win with, and it aint' the war in Iraq, loss of civil liberties, fear of terrorism, or even taxes. It's, once again, the economy. People have less money now than when Clinton was the prez. My parents have less money. I have less money. My friends have less money. Etc. And none of us like it. And if a Dem could really make us believe that Bush is at least part of the problem -- all the while saying the right things about terrorism, drugs for seniors, abortion rights, and education -- he or she could make some headway against the Bush juggernaut. Barring some major violent catastrophe, I predict the '04 rhetoric will begin to coalesce around this very theme.

MORE SELF-INVOLVED WHINING ABOUT WRITING: Writing is hard, right? Sure. And it's not just literary fiction and confessional poetry and the like that are so darn tough. Even the corporate stuff I do can be a struggle. Why? It's the nakedness of it. There's something about writing, even dumb writing, that borders on shame, that dances with fear.

When my wife puts together an insurance quote, I just don't believe she gets the same insecure chill I get when I hand over a draft of something I've written.

"It sucks, it sucks!"

I think this every time. Sure, there's the occasional random echo of "it's really good," but I recognize that for what it is: wishing.

I always expect them to hate it.

Two recent projects reminded me of my lingering sense of self-doubt.

A few weeks ago I handed in a chapter I'd written for an upcoming book. Good God, I've failed, I thought. I've missed the boat entirely. I'm up to my chin in water, gonna drown, I suck, glug glug glug. And so I write a mildly apologetic cover letter and send it off. Then I sulk.

And then yesterday -- I wrote a quickie business overview document for a friend. (A little ten-page dealio to hand off to a potential investor.) Ugh. "This is a deeply flawed document," I write to him, or something like that. And then misery. A Budweiser and some pulp fiction before bed.

And this torment is not over my languishing novel. It's over business stuff!

But here's the flipside of that self-pitying coin: I tend not to suck. (Apparently I don't believe this enough, though.)

The business book chapter? The guy loved it.

The business overview document? I'll quote the e-mail I received this morning:

"This is OUTSTANDING."

At what point will I get out of my own way and just be comfortable as a writer?

Maybe I should try "never" on for size.

WILL SHILL FOR (PIZZA) DOUGH: A Portland pizza company is paying homeless folks to hold signs saying "Pizza Schmizza paid me to hold this sign instead of asking for money." Is this marketing genius? Exploitation? Or both?

If there were justice in this world, some media outlet would pay me to spend the better part of a day writing a humorous, insightful signed column addressing these very questions. Of course, I guess I'd have to actually apply for just such a job...which I haven't really done...so scratch what I said about justice. But you get the idea.

ASIDE: Some days I'm convinced I've graduated from amateur-crastinator to pro status. Hee.

Writing is hard work. Nonetheless, it's what I do. And sometimes it's so tough that procrastination is the only sane course of action.

Still, I'd say procrastination is substituting one form of pain for another. Guilt instead of anguish.

So when blogging is procrastination, blogging is pain.

Boo hoo.

CAMELOSOPHY: As many of you know, this blog started out as an e-mail newsletter, mostly about books and music. Then two forces converged to give birth to BLIND CAMEL the blog.

First, I started to crave a broader platform, a place where I could hold forth about, well, everything. I wanted to explore politics, wine, parenting, dogs, the Chicago Cubs and the Detroit Red Wings, my ill feelings toward Madonna, and so forth. And I wanted to be able to just sort of file those feelings somewhere, suitable for perusal or not. Thing is, this blogging, this often meta-level musing about my life and the world around me, well, it's not so much about writing completed essays, about being authoritative or completist, as it is about just being engaged in living and thinking, in thinking about living, etc. I blog like I think.

Second: Blogging software was invented.

I initially launched BLIND CAMEL as an e-mail newsletter because it was easy and egalitarian. I could send a text e-mail to just about anyone, and they could simply choose whether or not they wanted to read it, or even receive it at all. They didn't need to download any helper applications, or even have a high-speed Internet account. The technology hurdles were low on both sides of the fence, and yet the technology was sophisticated enough to enable me to become a self-publisher who could scale at will. Creating and archiving a website was another solution, but I knew it would be much more difficult than writing the e-mail newsletter.

Enter blogging. Now I can have a website thats very architecture is like a million little comp books, stitched together and indexed for easy reference. I can scribble here as if it's my small little space, while at the same time knowing that my "comp book" is lying open on a thousand tables, so to speak. This is low-budget, guerilla-filmmaking...for those who'd rather read.

I trace the evolution of the Camel to introduce a little story. Last week, as many of you know, I sent out a reminder e-mail to old BLIND CAMEL subscribers, telling them to drop by this blog and check out my latest musings. (An aside: It occurs to me that blogging is Mailer's ADVERTISEMENTS FOR MYSELF writ large and mechanized.) And so several of the old subscribers did drop by, judging by my traffic numbers, and did get a chance to see how my interests have evolved from precious pop music to pressing geopolitical issues.

At least one such visitor was flummoxed by the new editorial direction, not to mention a bit angry. While I won't betray what was a personal correspondence, I will say he was particularly uneasy with what he perceived as my move to the right, my acceptance of the ongoing war in Iraq, my recommendation of Andrew Sullivan, and so forth. We had a heated exchange which, in the end, I'm delighted to say seems to have produced some light from the friction.

What's with my rightward shift? Have I grown fat and happy? Have I experienced the good life, as I was accused by another friend in a parking lot not too long ago, and decided "pull up the ladder, I'm aboard" is my new political philosophy?

I don't think so. My rightward inclination continues even as our household income contracts for the first time in a decade. It continues even as our charitable giving increases, as our support for NPR and Salon.com remains in force, and as I've come to identify myself a pesco-vegetarian and a PETA sympathizer. For years, I was a textbook left-liberal, and I still wear the trappings of same even as I buy The National Review at the newstand and read AndrewSullivan.com.

I'm reminded of a college professor of mine, a fellow named Art, who practiced an unusual and powerful form of teaching. Each class, he'd write provocative statements on the chalkboard, and he'd force us as a class to choose a side to argue in favor of, and to move our seats to the appropriate side of the room. "No moral relativism," he'd lecture. "In the real world, you have to choose a side. Sitting in the middle gets people killed." If he felt you were to weak in your advocacy of a particular position, he'd force you to switch sides. Or, if you were simply against the other side and not for your side, he'd also protest. "Being against something is not enough in this world," he would say. "It's too easy to be against things. Always ask yourself: What are you for?"

Over time, I learned there are flaws to every argument, that there are merits to every side. But I also came to accept Art's contention that, in real life, you have to pick a side, and you have to choose that side based on what you stand for, not what you stand against.

This blog, then, represents my ongoing attempt to do just that. I concede: It's immediate, and it's flawed. It's kneejerk and half-baked. It's thinking as it happens. It's not a signed column in a newspaper; it's my comp book left open on a table in the middle of the sidewalk. To those of you taking the time to read it, feel free to add your own two cents in pen. And thanks for reading.

BREAK UP THE CUBS, REDUX: I was looking at the Cubs' boxscore tonight, and the pitching stats -- particularly the ERAs -- just made me grin. Look at this:


M. Prior (W, 8-2) 2.71
K. Farnsworth 2.61
M. Remlinger 3.45
A. Alfonseca 3.72
J. Borowski (S, 13) 2.20

Not even a 4 among 'em!

BACHELOR WEEKEND UPDATE: It's the weekend -- Saturday to be exact -- and so far father and son are getting along quite well. One more day of just us guys, and then the Most Valuable Mommy returns.

I think we'll rent the OLD SCHOOL DVD tonight. Beer for me, apple juice for him, of course.

ONE AND THREE ZEROS! Today marks a BLIND CAMEL milestone. Three visitors from now, we'll officially cross the 1,000 visitor mark. (For the math-challenged, we're at 997.) It's only been, what, three months since the CAMEL launched in any serious, consistent way? We have ways of checking, but why bother...

The management is thrilled with the rapid growth, not to mention energized. Thanks to each and every one of you that stops by now and again.

- Scott

DICK MORRIS (BEFORE HE DICKS YOU): After Elvis Presley, is there anyone in pop culture as odd as Clinton? Bill Clinton, that is, not George.

Sure, George is odd, what with the hair and the PCP habit. But you expect that from a musician.

But our Bill the statesman may be nuttier still. Check out this latest allegation from former Clinton poll-pusher Dick Morris.

PUCKED: I'm a hockey fan, no ifs ands or buts. But it turns out I'm a dying breed. Even the women's NCAA Softball Championship Game pulled better ratings than the Stanley Cup this year!

STAGE COACH DRIVERS BEWARE: There was some foreshadowing for Adam Ant's latest crazed act, an impromptu public striptease. This, from his aptly titled tune "Strip," seems a blueprint -- and a warning sign:

It's at times like these great heaven knows
That we wish we had not so many clothes
So let's loosen up with a playful tease
Like all lovers did through the centuries

We're just following ancient history
If I strip for you will you strip for me?

...

When it gets so hot the end of the day
You may find your clothes getting in the way...

Perhaps he was feeling nostalgic?

One suspects he feels that way quite often, sadly.

IN THE MOVIE, IT TOOK *THREE* MEN: Here in Chicago it's *one* man and a baby for the next four days. The wife packed it off to Boston and NYC this morning for meetings and fun. Meanwhile, me and C.J. and Vladi the Airedale are contemplating our walking destinations, checking out the DVD new releases, and planning to eat really weird stuff in odd combinations at unusual hours. Because we can.

WELL PLAYED: Hamas says they're planning to continue armed agression against Israel. Ah, says Israel, thanks for the heads up. So you're still at war with us, even as we sit down to make peace? Well, take two missiles and call us in the morning then.

LIFE IS GOOD: Thursday I dropped my wife and son off at Midway airport. Friday I sat in the front row as Al Gonzales sacrificed body and soul to win the Illinois super-lightweight championship and remain the Windy City's best boxing prospect. Today I dragged an old TV and a six-pack of Schlitz cans on my back deck to watch the Yanks and Cubs at Wrigley. Now I'm sitting here singing along to the Beach Boys at high volume. And tomorrow I'll pick my wife and son up again, the capper to one of the most perfect weekends of all time.

MUDDLE EAST: So Hamas is taking their ball and going home:

"We have stopped the dialogue with the Palestinian Authority," Hamas founder and spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin told Reuters. "This is our choice and we have no alternative. (Armed) resistance will continue."

Great. Thanks for the heads up. (By the way, when Yassin says 'resistance' he means 'aggression'.) Now we can use your own words to declare you an outlaw, terrorist organization.

What will Abbas do?

Commenting on the Hamas move, Palestinian cabinet minister Ziad Abu Amr signaled Abbas would do his utmost to steer clear of armed conflict with the group. The government, Abu Amr said, made a commitment "not to resort to force" in internal affairs.

Here we go again.

Either Abbas is in charge or he's not. If he is in charge, he'll likely have to undertake armed conflict with Hamas. If he's not in charge, he'll shirk this duty. All we have to do is watch. If he doesn't control Hamas he's less than a figurehead. And if he's not in charge, well, then no one is. And at least we'll know this once and for all and quit pretending.

What to do next? You can't negotiate when there's only one party at the table. So, in the absence of negotiation, there's only one option: You lead. No more pretending to mediate. It's time to dominate.

The phrase "it'll end in tears" comes to mind. But short of abandoning Israel, what else can we do? Status quo? I hope not.

BULLSHIT ALERT: Add Pedro Martinez to the list of ballplayers who perceive racial bias in the fallout from the Sosa corked-bat incident. According to Martinez, "If it was [Mark] McGwire, it would still be a big deal, but not like this." Days ago, solid citizen Jose Canseco made similar remarks.

Here's the thing: The biggest star in the game is caught red-handed using a corked bat. White, black, yellow, or green, that's gonna be a huge story. How this has anything at all to do with race is beyond me. But then again I'm white, which naturally disqualifies me from being able to perceive racial bias.

JOY IN CORKVILLE: Was Sammy an inadvertent cheater last night? Well, 76 bats were x-rayed by MLB today, and all of them came up clean. No cork! I'm cheered.

GOOGLE OF THE DAY: Today a happy surfer landed here after typing "Kucinich and Idiot" into Google. Hee!

AT LEAST JETER'S NO CHEATER: After my little Jeter outburst, I feel it's only right to address Sammy "Say It Ain't" Sosa. (I know, I'm like the ninety-third person to call him that.)

And yet I have so little to say about it. As a Cubs fan, and as someone who still likes to watch the game of baseball...I'm disappointed. The whole steroid taint still lingers. And now this.

I suppose I'll withhold some grand judgement until the results come back on the seized bats. But for now, I'm feeling sad. I know there are greater tragedies out there in the big, bad world. But something that was special to me now feels a bit different. It's as if I've just realized my favorite teddy bear is really a smelly, threadbare hunk of stuffed fabric.

YANKEES SCHMANKEES: So Derek Jeter is named captain of the Yankees. Big deal. They haven't had a captain since 1995 (Mattingly), and they've done just fine. What a bunch of hooey.

(I'm working on my anti-Yankee sentiment in advance of the big Cubs/Yanks series this weekend.)

CRUISIN' FOR A BRUISIN': Activist/political candidate Leslie Davis writes a book about Jesse Ventura titled ALWAYS CHEAT: THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESSE VENTURA. On the book's cover, Ventura is depicted as a cartoon devil, complete with horns and tail. Is it any wonder Ventura finally almost kicks his ass? I mean, what did Davis expect?

Turns out he thought they were pals:

"When he came out, he said, 'I'm not the governor any more, I'm a Navy SEAL, let's get it on and see what you're going to do about it,' " Davis said. "Usually, he shakes my hand and acts like my buddy, but this time he lost it."

I'm not a proponent of violence, but when you make a career out of following around a former Navy SEAL and taunting him, sooner or later you're gonna get your butt kicked. I mean, even if you don't like Jesse...can you blame him?

YOU MUST REMEMBER THIS: William Safire makes a simple yet powerful argument in favor of our invasion of Iraq and against the sentiment that Bush/Blair lied to us about WMD there. It's a quick read, but if you can't be bothered the nut is right here in his closing:

When weighing the murky evidence of an aggressive tyranny's weapons, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were obliged to take no chances. The burden of proof was on Saddam. By his contempt, he invited invasion; by its response, the coalition established the credibility of its resolve. There was no "intelligence hoax."