EXCUSED ABSENCE? A responsible blogger would have told his readers he's vacationing on Sanibel Island (off the coast of Ft. Myers) for a week and, surrounded by his extended family, unlikely to spend much time online let alone blogging. Thus far it's been a very relaxing melange of naps, Red Wings playoffs games, Cubs games, crappy paperbacks, and water-related hijinks. I'm tan above the waist, burned below it. Sounds dirty, but it's really not that exciting. Forgot to lather my legs and feet, so I'm half bronzed-man, half lobster-man.

WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS? So Dr. Evil is offering a truce to Europe, eh? How big of him. I can already hear Chirac's "thank you, Dr. Evil" from here.

SEXY SAVANT: I'm with Howard Mortman. When it comes to 9/11, Britney Spears gets it better than Norman Mailer.

CJ@2: My son C.J. turned two years old yesterday. As I wrote in his birthday card, no child has ever been more loved or more lovable. Sounds hokey, and I'm reminded of a Bill Hicks bit that mocked parents who thought their kids were somehow special. But the thing is, kids are special, every last one of them. Go ahead, have a kid and look in his or her eyes, and then try and say otherwise.

And when we realize we were all children once, well, then, there must be some residual specialness in all of us, right? Somewhere?

NOW I'LL APOLOGIZE: As usual my pal Bart makes a lot of sense (below) and reminds me that "Raze Fallujah" is diametrically opposed to why I originally thought this war was a good idea. The combination of an oppressed people and a horrible despot harboring WMD seemed to me to create a defensible case for military action. But as Bart argues below, there's the problem of no WMD and a less-than-"grateful" band of "liberated" Iraqis who are overwhelming their supposed liberators. Once again I'll give Bart the floor:

"Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)" George W. Bush 2003 State of the Union

Scott- I have to admit, I'm horribly disappointed. Damnit, this is what a hell of a lot of us were arguing 15 months ago - there was never a question that the US army would roll over what was left of the Iraqi army. The questions instead were related to what was to me a hell of a lot more important: will this war actually make the United States (and its allies) safer? Is there a plan to actually accomplish the goals we set forth prior to invasion , absent the roses in the street welcoming party that was promised? Given the complexity and flexibility of the terrorist groups we are fighting, is the lack of international cooperation that is sure to follow this invasion worth the potential security of removing a despot? In retrospect it seems quite clear that the answer to all three question was no. The pro-invasion chorus was consistently "things will work out fine - are you willing to suffer another 9/11?" Well, damnit, now the chickens are home to roost and the pro-war voices have moved pretty quickly from "we need to take him out to protect our country" to "did you see the mass graves? Are you pro-Saddam?" to "the motherfuckers don't appreciate what we're giving 'em -fuck em all let's raze the city and get the hell out." I hope you don't mind me pointing out the incredible hypocrisy of this argument. If we fought this war to make our country safer I can't think of a more effective way of recruiting poeple to blow themselves up in our bases, buildings and homes than dropping a Dresden on an Islam holy city where, right or wrong, the whole uprising started after our shutting down of a freely published newspaper. All the humanitarian justifications I heard seem to have droppen by the wayside as well (Over 600 dead Iraqi's in the last week - I know Saddam was bad but I doubt that families were losing 600 a week in only one city).

I'm not trying to defend the inhuman and despicable acts that have happened over the past week. All I'm doing is pointing out that is a war that we chose to enter - there was no imminent threat to our national security, there was no connection to Al-Quaeda (although it sure as hell is there now, along with every other chicken shit terrorist organization signing up every orphaned son who last their father to a US bomb). We built this shithole because a fucked-up administration felt that God had touched them to lead the world to their vision of heaven and like a lot of people who are convinced that they have the one and only true answer they found themselves swimming in a world of shit. Power carries reponsibility and razing towns and pulling out of a country we helped arm and then destroy promises nothing but more and more death for both countries. I screamed against this damn war, not because it was wrong but because we went about it all wrong. The costs are only going to grow higher, I'm afraid, but the costs of leaving will be even greater. GWB started a fire certain that he could contain it and his error in judgment could very well cost us all far more than we ever thought.

RAZE FALLUJAH: I won't lie to you, nor will I apologize for this: I saw a crazed Iraqi on the cover of this morning's New York Times joyfully displaying the boots of an American serviceman. They were apparently snatched from the soldier after his convoy was bombed. And I immediately thought, Raze Fallujah. Full steam war, no polite occupation and roadblocks, but full-on bombs and disaster, shock and awe all over again. Look, I'm not proud of myself, but I bet those images are doing more to bolster Bush than to hurt him. I was reminded of the section in Tom Friedman's FROM BEIRUT TO JERUSALEM where talks about (if memory serves) "Hama Rules," that unwritten code of leadership in the Middle East that the only way to rein in fundamentalist zealots is to unleash broad and brutal measures, like what Syrian president Hafez al-Assad did when he literally leveled the city of Hama. Nice, via Google: A link to a Friedman column on same.

And meanwhile, how to reconcile my recent and zealous pro-military stance with my expanding Buddhist reading and practice? If I am containing multitudes then I think those multitudes themselves are at war...or maybe just balancing one another.

SELF-PLEASURING IS GOOD FOR YOU: As my good pal Rob writes, "It's comforting to know that if you stick with a hobby long enough good things happen."

RYAN VS. OBAMA = BUSH VS. NOT BUSH? So I've started piecing together the differences between Obama and Ryan, and there seem to be many. I'm hoping to do a helpful side-by-side comparison on the issues in this space at some point. Believe it or not, and I trust some of you will choose NOT, I'm still undecided.

In the meantime, I did find this Sun-Times editorial (penned by Thomas Roeser) reprinted on Ryan's website, and I think the distinction he makes -- that Ryan will stand by Bush and his war whereas Obama will not -- may be the deciding factor for me, not to mention the rest of IlliNoise. In fact it's quite possible that all the House and Senate races in '04 become referendums on Bush, moreso than unique local contests. I'm sure ace strategists are already considering this scenario. Duh.

CUBS WIN! The good guys take their first game. I'm so dang happy it's baseball season again.

HANDSOME SMART BLACK GUY VS. HANDSOME SMART WHITE GUY: So yes, I'm back. Sort of. And one of the things I want to focus on in the weeks to come is the Illinois Senate race. My dear friend and provocateur Bart issued an opening salvo below in my mysterious and lame comment box. I'm reposting it here, to kick us off:

...as of right now it's looking pretty clear that Barack Obama is going to be the Dem nominee going against Jack Ryan on the GOP side. I have to admit that the Dem campaign wasn't exactly riveting political drama but it really seemed to me from pretty early on that Obama had a hell of a resume to run on, if maybe a little bit short in actual government experience. When Blair Hull ran into his personal iceberg (and let's face it, the guy was pretty damn creepy to begin with and throwing his kids all over the back page of the Trib didn't help) it just seemed like Obama was ready to grab the torch. His take on the positions are pretty relevant: pro use of force, anti Iraq (primarily the unilateralism, not necessarily the cause), pro-Israel, commited to a multi-lateral approach in regards to the war on terror, and committed to free trade (albeit while kowtowing to the Dem base in terms of promoting "minimum rigths for workers around the world"). He's also solidly on the gay rights side of the fence in a state that despite it's downstate advocates is pretty clearly in the live and let live camp. Jack Ryan could be a formidable candidate but he has several pretty distinct disadvantages going into the race: his name is Ryan in a state that hasn't been friendly to it lately (thanks George!), he will be forced to take a fairly hard right stand on issues (gay rights, PATRIOT act, Iraq, abortion) that don't play so well, all the while fighting what really appears to be a fairly strong groundswell against the policies of GWB. It should be a good contest with distinct choices; in the end I think that's good for Illinois. I recognize this hs nothing to do with the post, I just wanted to see if I couldn't get a little discusson going...

Bart, I'm looking forward to exploring and discussing with you. Let's see what we can learn.

ME MIA: Where have I been? Traveling like a beast. I'm in L.A. right now, camped out in a wired Starbucks across the street from CAA. The place is full of Beverly Hills cops, a mix of uniforms and detectives. They're as clean-cut and polite in real life as they were in the Eddie Murphy movie.

Later today I'm giving a presentation to the General Hospital writing team. Fun!

I wrote a new poem on the plane yesterday, and I'm quite proud of it. I'll post it here once I've had a chance to give it a more thorough once-over. Sometimes inspiration at 37,000 feet can look a little less gilded on the ground.