Inside Hollywood

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Hollywood and its celebrities captivate our hearts and minds. It is mesmerizing, and yet, a terrible nuisance. Mainstream media goes to ever increasingly lengths to serve the American public and keep them up to date on every rumor. However, it seems that they have finally been supplanted. An anonymously written weblog called Rance is creating a whirlwind on the internet as reported by Reuters below. The author, Rance, claims to be a Hollywood insider determined to expose all the goings on in Hollywood for once and for all. Having perused most of the posts, I can report that it is one hell of a ride. His writing style is tight, fast-paced, and entertaining. Most entertaining, however, are the comments submitted by readers at the end of every new post.

I do offer one word of warning: the site is extensive, long, all-consuming, and addictive. Be prepared to fail all obligations at work once you visit the site. And oh yeah, as with all blogs, start at the very end to read the first post and work your way backwards to the most recent one. -EBO)


Hollywood Mystery Man 'Rance' Has Internet Abuzz
By DAN WHITCOMB
Reuters
Thursday, May 27, 2004

He skewers Hollywood and the cult of celebrity on an anonymous Web log that has spawned a cult following. He claims to be an A-list actor, writing under a pseudonym, but admits he may not be believed.

Who, exactly, is "Rance?"

Could he really be, as some believe, Owen Wilson, Ben Affleck, Jim Carrey or even George Clooney?

The answer may perhaps be found somewhere in the entries on his Weblog -- or "blog" -- which applies a trenchant wit and jaundiced insider's eye in chronicling the life of a Hollywood celebrity. Then again, it could all be a hoax.

Though Rance granted an interview with Reuters, he responded to questions only via email, using pseudonymous dead-end accounts for both himself and the reporter and never offering a glimpse into his real identity.

Asked if he was, in fact, a well-known actor, he responded: "Or a well-known actress perhaps. Just not Donald Trump."

In the blog's first-ever post last December, Rance introduced himself this way: "Suffice it to say I know what its like to see your picture on the magazine rack every now and again when you pay for groceries."

Rance's blog has since spawned a furious guessing game on the Internet and beyond, becoming a regular topic at Hollywood parties.

Xeni Jardin, a writer on the "Boing-Boing" blog , recently told her readers that Rance was rumored to be "Starsky and Hutch" star Owen Wilson, a claim that the actor's publicist has denied.

The anonymous editor of Hollywood gossip site Defamer suggests it could be Ben Affleck -- a conjecture built around the supposed link between a cryptic quiz on Rance's blog and an Affleck tattoo.

Others have surmised that Rance is Jim Carrey, George Clooney, Benicio Del Toro or Luke Wilson, Owen's brother. And one of Rance's readers recently sent him a comment that read simply: "You are, in fact, Matthew Perry. Game on?"

Meanwhile, a Defamer reader tried to unmask Rance by researching the term "Captain Hoof," which appears in the Web address. She came to the conclusion that he was a San Francisco man who worked at an ad agency and once ran a Web site with a similar name -- possibly dedicated to an imaginary horse.

The man, who no longer works for the agency, could not be contacted for this story.

For his part, Rance offers the electronic equivalent of a shrug to the endless chatter about his identity, saying that it was never his intention to play hide-and-seek with the world.

"The guessing game distracts from any message I might have," he told Reuters. "Then again, I'm not yet sure I have a message and in any case the amusement makes it all worth it. More than once I've seen items that upon first glance suggested the game might be up and I felt my stomach plummet."

Rance said he set up the Web site on a whim with help from a computer-savvy friend, seeing it as a "really good way to bitch about my job" without suffering any career repercussions. He chose the name "Rance" as a pun on "rants."

The diverse themes of the Web log revolve around pitch meetings and parties, the machinations of Hollywood at work and play and its fascination with sex and celebrity.

Rance loves shrimp and logic puzzles. He's tolerant of paparazzi but tough on gossips. He's bored by Shakespeare and the summer blockbuster "Troy" but admires Joan Rivers.

And through it all he's amused by life in Los Angeles -- the way a birthday party in the suburbs can turn into an unexpected meeting with a dominatrix and a late-night nude dip in the Chateau Marmont pool can be interrupted by an SUV crash on Sunset Boulevard.

"It is tough in L.," Rance says of the city. "The good news is there are Fatburgers."

Though he has received two "serious" proposals from people in publishing to turn his blog into a book, Rance said he has not yet pursued that idea, content for now to communicate to the outside world through the Internet.

"With no disrespect intended, media in general seldom if ever permits a person, be he actor or President, to present himself the way he would like -- and certainly not to the degree a blog does," Rance said.

"Still, there's a megabyte or two's worth of irony in my situation," he said.

Gore Gone Wild

In response to former Vice President Al Gore's rant yesterday condemning President Bush and requesting the resignation of many of his top cabinet ministers, Jim Dyke, the Director of the Republican National Committee, issued the following statement:

"Al Gore served as Vice President of this country for eight years. During that time, Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States five times and terrorists killed US citizens on at least four different occasions including the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the attacks on Khobar Towers, our embassies in East Africa, and the USS Cole."

"Al Gore’s attacks on the President today demonstrate that he either does not understand the threat of global terror, or he has amnesia."

That's the beauty of politics, the last word always stings. It just seems that the best strategy to unseat Bush is to foster the anti-Bush vote. Recent histrionics by Howard Dean and Al Gore to the contrary have done nothing to bolster the Kerry Campaign and have potentially left the voting public with the notion that Democrats are one crazy bunch. Maureen Dowd, commenting in her column in The New York Times, offers the following:

John Kerry's advisers were surprised and annoyed to hear that Mr. Gore hollered so much, he made Howard Dean look like George Pataki. They don't want voters to be reminded of the wackadoo wing of the Democratic Party. They would like Mr. Gore, who brought bad karma to Mr. Dean with his primary endorsement, to zip it and go away.

Frankly, I would like all politicians to just zip it and go away. The United States has rapidly degenerated into a circus act highlighted by elected officials jockeying against one another for media exposure in a never-ending cycle of reelection campaigns. What ever happened to the noble institution of civil servants actually working to run the country?

The Real Oil Fear

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Recent increases in the price of gasoline have affected virtually everyone in the United States. The problem is the result of both increasing global demand which has buoyed the price of a barrel of oil and a shortage of oil refineries to process gasoline. The latter is predominantly because environmentalists have long opposed construction of new facilities; indeed, a new refinery has not been constructed in roughly 20 years.

As gas prices have risen, it is easy to blame United States executive branch and the largest producer of oil worldwide, Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, oil prices have less to do with foreign policy that the public may think and much more to do with surging global demand. Even Saudi Arabia vehemently opposes rapidly rising prices, contrary to recent assertions in the press. Excerpts below from an article appearing in The Wall Street Journal should help to clarify any misunderstanding about increasing prices at the pump and alleviate some misplaced anger directed at government officials for supposedly failing to hold these costs down.

Besides, if the United States really wanted to help fight rising gasoline prices, officials could begin by addressing our ever increasing dependence on foreign nations for our energy needs. One recently voiced solution is a return to nuclear power generation and a massive expansion of it as an alternative energy source. Surprisingly, the suggestion comes not from right-leaning capitalists, but from a scientist celebrated by the environmentalist Green party. Nonetheless, it will take far higher energy prices that outweigh the public's misguided fears about nuclear power before that subject can be successfully broached. -EBO)


Saudi Arabia Fears $40-a-Barrel Oil, Too
by DAVID WESSEL
The Wall Street Journal
Thursday, May 27, 2004

There is a simple, intuitive logic to the notion that the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries -- particularly the oil-richest of them all, Saudi Arabia -- want to push oil prices ever higher. They have lots of oil. We buy lots of oil. The higher the price, the more money they take from us.

Simple, intuitive -- and wrong.

Saudi Arabia is like a crack dealer. Price the product too high, and customers won't be able to afford the product and might even kick the habit.

"We've got almost 30% of the world's oil," says Adel al-Jubeir, foreign-policy adviser to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. "For us, the objective is to assure that oil remains an economically competitive source of energy. Oil prices that are too high reduce demand growth for oil and encourage the development of alternative energy sources."

Despite terrorism fears, Middle East unrest and rising interest rates, prospects for the global economy have been looking good. Even Japan seems to be shaking off its torpor. China's thirst for oil gives oil producers a new promising market. A growing global economy means growing demand for oil, and that means OPEC can sell more oil without pushing prices down.

...[But] high oil prices pose three risks to producers.

Risk one is economic. High oil prices threaten global prosperity.

Risk two is political. Even if OPEC didn't engineer this price increase, the Saudis know American drivers who are paying $2 a gallon for gasoline will blame them -- and big oil.

Risk three is strategic. The Saudis know the only thing that will get Americans to give up gas-gulping sport-utility vehicles, to cultivate other sources of energy and to practice conservation is high oil prices. The U.S. economy uses a lot less energy to produce $1 of output than it did 30 years ago. But, as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan observed in a recent speech, most of that change occurred before 1985 "within a few years of the peak in the real [inflation-adjusted] price of oil."

...Saudi Arabia will be in the oil business for another 50 years or more. It wants to be sure American consumers will be willing to pay a good price for oil in 2054, and that requires settling for a lot less than $40 a barrel today.

Senator's Assistant's Sex Stories

In one of the more interesting discoveries, a young Staff Assistant to Mike DeWine, the Republican Senator from Ohio, was fired from her job for "unacceptable use of Senate computers". What, pray tell, was Jessica Cutler, 24, up to? It turns out that Ms. Cutler was posting diaries of her sexual escapades with political bigshots on Capitol Hill to a public blog called "Washingtonienne". An archive of her blog is available by clicking here.


Courtesy of The Washington Post
Jessica Cutler aka Washingtonienne

The story was reported by The Washington Post in the Gossip Section but figures to draw more nationwide scrutiny as politicians' anonymous identities are revealed by ever persistent journalists. More interesting, however, is an interview of Ms. Cutler by the blog Wonkette, excerpts of which appear below:

Wonkette: Nevermind. That was stupid. Now, first of all, is there anything you want people to know?
Washingtonienne: Uhm. . . I'm not naming names. I'm not ashamed of anything I wrote in the blog. And people are sad if they're interested in such a low level sex scandal. I wrote that blog not to ruin people's lives. It was just for the amusement of me and my friends. And none of this has been exacerbated by me... I've been chillin'.... I was thinking, I'll get another job in Washington, but it's going to be fun, not something stupid like working on the Hill. Now I'm realizing I may have to go back to New York. In New York, they love this kind of thing. They'll ask what happened at my last job, and I'll say I was fired for a sex scandal!

The sheer brashness and unapologetic nature expressed by Ms. Cutler is pure entertainment.

Wonkette: I wanted to ask you if you had any advice for other young women starting out in Washington.
Washingtonienne: [Laughs] I think any advice I have should be self-evident from my blog.
Wonkette: What about, "Don't keep a blog about your sex life?"
Washingtonienne: Ha! I think everyone should keep a blog about their sex life, because people should be responsible for the shit they pull.
Wonkette: You know, I really do feel like I'm the one who got the ball rolling on this. . . But I just thought you had a really great blog. I had no idea. . .
Washingtonienne: Oh, I don't blame you. I would do the same thing! I was a college journalist, I can see the story here, and, hey, it's funny. I mean, sometimes my stomach doubles over and I feel bad, like, "Oh my God, what am I going to do?" But then I realize, I can feel bad, or I can just get over it.

This is a woman who knew what she wanted and how to get it. Well, get ready New York: she is likely on her way here next!

It's All about Envy, Hidden Motives, and....Money

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Richard Grasso, the former chairman and CEO of the New York Stock Exchange has a right to be aggravated. He earned his income legitimately. Certain individuals and/or those with political aspirations may think that the amount of his income is egregious (Mr. GRasso’s pay package has been estimated between $140 and $189 million), but then who are they to determine what is a 'fair' amount. Market economies are the only ‘fair’ determinant of worth, and they cast their vote many years ago when the contracts were first inked.

Now Eliot Spitzer, the Attorney General of New York with all of his aspirations for grandeur and higher office, wants to take a piece of it for himself. He filed suit against Mr. Grasso on the grounds of excessive compensation and accusations that the Board of the NYSE was deceived. Mr. Grasso has a right to be frustrated and angry; yet ever the consummate gentleman, he stays true to form and only addresses the issues that pertain to him. Indeed, if you want to read a particularly blistering commentary about the issue, consider this excerpt from Graef Crystal's commentary on Bloomberg News. Most notable is his allusion to an epic battle of past:

Spitzer has made Grasso the villain of this New York morality tale. It pits an upstart kid from Queens with no college degree, who worked his way up to the head of one of the world's most prestigious institutions, against the scion of an extremely wealthy Manhattan family who graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School. Think of it as David vs. Goliath, but where David, besides wielding a slingshot, is wearing armaments of solid gold.

It's a fundamental American right to get as much compensation as you can, and there's no doubt that Grasso should be offered a chair at the Harvard Business School to share his expertise on how fledgling CEOs can themselves one day win the pay lottery.

I have not seen any incriminating proof, but then again neither has Mr. Grasso. Here are excerpts from his written response that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Judge for yourself. -EBO)


'My Vindication Will Come in a Courtroom'
By RICHARD GRASSO
The Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, May 25, 2004

Politics and law are a bad mix. New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's decision to intervene in a commercial dispute between the New York Stock Exchange and me over my compensation and retirement benefits smacks of politics.

Yesterday the attorney general announced that he is bringing a lawsuit charging that I took excessive compensation from the NYSE, an institution that I loved and served for over 35 years, from my days as a $81-a-week union stock clerk to my eight years as chairman and CEO. I did not set my compensation. Instead, the payments now under attack were decided by six different Compensation Committees and Boards of Directors of the Exchange, made up of more than three dozen of the most sophisticated, independent and knowledgeable executives in America. Every decision, every bonus, every contract, was decided by those directors in a series of unanimous votes.

Mr. Spitzer charges that the Board was somehow misled or uninformed -- even though it was the Board that approved each of my contracts that set forth exactly how I would be compensated and it was the Board that approved my compensation every year. But nowhere does Mr. Spitzer point to any information or document that I provided the Board that was wrong. I never negotiated with any of the committees or Boards over an annual bonus or award.

Mr. Spitzer's decision to sue me and not [former State Comptroller Carl] McCall, who signed the new contract three weeks later, or the powerful CEOs who voted for my compensation year after year, makes clear that Mr. Spitzer is running for governor, and running hard. And, he badly needs the support of Mr. McCall, and the others who made the decisions now under attack.

My record at the NYSE speaks for itself. The value of a membership seat nearly tripled during my tenure as chairman, soaring to more than $2 million from $700,000; the income to seat owners leasing their seats to others likewise jumped to $300,000 from $100,000. Under my leadership, the NYSE significantly increased its market share. It nearly doubled the number of listed companies, and the great majority of the near-500 non-U.S. companies now on the NYSE were listed during my tenure. I proudly oversaw the implementation of the Big Board's technology platform, widely regarded as one of the most sophisticated in the world.

Reasonable people can disagree about what an executive should be paid, but the directors who evaluated my performance were well aware of the market for executive compensation on Wall Street, because that is where many of them worked and earned their own substantial income. For all the charts and handouts at his press conference, Mr. Spitzer cited no evidence that I misled the Board or hurt the NYSE. It didn't happen.

For me, this dispute has never been about money. I made that clear last September, when I offered to forego over $48 million that was owed me under the contract the NYSE had just signed, in order to continue to serve the institution that I loved and end the controversy. Even after I was fired, I offered to drop my claims for what was owed me in exchange for a simple statement confirming that I had done nothing wrong. But this lawsuit makes clear that my vindication will now come in a courtroom. I have instructed my attorneys to file a counterclaim for the compensation that is still owed to me, as well as to seek appropriate damages for the leaks orchestrated by Mr. Reed. I publicly pledge that I will donate the entire net proceeds of the recovery on my counterclaims to various charities. I will derive considerable pleasure knowing that some public good ultimately resulted because of the immoral and dishonest behavior of those who forced my departure and besmirched my name.

Richard Grasso is the former chairman and CEO of the New York Stock Exchange.

Cannes Wild

(EDITOR'S NOTE: I will be the first to admit. In the past, I have liked Michael Moore's approach to documentary filmmaking. He had a bias, but he presented an unbiased approach that allowed the viewer to formulate their own opinion about the subject, be it outsourcing or gun control. However, based on their artistic merit, I would not characterize the films as spectacular. They are meant to prove a point, not to stretch the art of the cinema.

It seems as though my perspective is not wholeheartedly shared by the Cannes Film Festival jury, which recently awarded Mr. Moore's latest effort, Fahrenheit 9/11, with its highest honor for filmmaking, the Palme D'Or. Now, far be it for me to pass judgment on the film as I have not yet had an opportunity to see it. In fact, I am very eager to see the film based on his prior efforts.

Yet, it is worth noting that, almost without exception, most critics have deemed the film to be an appalling failure. They cite that it brings forth no new information, carries surprising little footage of the actual war, and seems hell-bent on abandoning Mr. Moore's well-deserved neutral approach of films past. In short, it has not met even the most liberal of critic's expectations.

Consequently, it was with some astonishment that the Cannes jury awarded its highest prize to the film. Quite candidly, it reeks of political bias, with nary a glance having been cast towards artistic talent. In the end, there is surely nothing wrong with their judgment, but it does seem to mar the jury's reputation somewhat. In excerpts from an article appearing in The Herald below, greater detail can be gleamed surrounding this ever increasing controversy. -EBO)


Tarantino Defends ‘Non-political’ Award
by HANNAH McGILL
The Herald
Monday, May 24, 2004

FAHRENHEIT 9/11 was designed to cause controversy among American politicians, but was never expected to cause a similar disruption in the love affair between the Cannes jury and the press.

For the first time, the Cannes jury went before the world's media to explain its decision to award Michael Moore's documentary film the Palme D'Or and found it difficult to restrain its ire at the persistence of speculation that the award was politically, rather than artistically, motivated.
Chaired by Quentin Tarantino, the jury, including Tilda Swinton, the Scottish actress, presented a united front, maintaining it had fulfilled its responsibility to reward the finest piece of film-making in the competition. Tarantino said: "I made a statement early on that I didn't want politics to be involved."

Moore's response, according to Tarantino, was "that means more to me than anything. If I wanted to make political statements, I would have run for office. I want to make movies". Moore has unashamedly used the Cannes premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11 as an opportunity to expand debate about its fiery political content, but the jury yesterday continued to emphasise its artistic virtues.

In a year when the main Cannes competition has been perceived as particularly strong, however, the press was sceptical about 9/11's status as film art, as opposed to highly effective agit-prop. Tempers frayed at the press conference when the jury was pressed further on the reasons for its choice. Tarantino accused one journalist of being solely interested in "pretty pictures".

Echoes of the 2000 Race

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Representatives from Telescope Inc., the firm that tabulates votes for American Idol, finally went public yesterday to counter assertions that the voting system for selecting amateur talent was rigged and inherently unfair. A news release detailing their position in defense of the phone and text-messaging poll's integrity was highlighted in the USA Today.

Whether or not one suspects that the American Idol pop star selection process is flawed, it is important to understand why it is not being redesigned. Ostensibly, it seems that a one person, one vote methodology would surely present viewers with a better representation of the public's preference. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that AT&T, which is a large sponsor of the television show, is responsible for the telecommunications services used to collect text messages for the polls. In other words, they collect a small fee for each 'vote' that traverses the wires. Each text message generates an incremental fee of 10 cents. How best to maximize AT&T's revenues? Let them keep calling and calling and calling, but keep the phones busy and hope they turn to text messaging from their cell phone.

And just how much are viewers calling? A great account of the process is available in an article on the Reality TV World web site that evaluates the underlying statistics in regards to who is and who is not calling in greater detail. Most notable in this entire escapade is the attention given to the American Idol voting process, a level of media coverage that has not been seen in the years since another frenzied electoral dispute: the 2000 presidential election between George Bush and Al Gore. Read excerpts from the article below and judge if the American Idol process seems fair for yourself. -EBO)


Distorted 'American Idol' voting due to an overtaxed American phone grid?
By WADE PAULSEN
Reality TV World
Tuesday, May 18, 2004

After the shocking ousters of favored contestants LaToya London and Jennifer Hudson, leaving three less-talented teenagers in pursuit of victory in Fox's American Idol 3, a review of Idol's voting system was probably to be expected.

The major controversy in the ouster of LaToya revolved around the fact that Jasmine Trias, the 17-year-old Hawaiian who gave two dismal performances during the show's "Disco Night," wasn't even in the bottom two. Verizon reported that Hawaii, with its 1.2 million residents, cast more Idol votes, 1.3 million, than any other state within Verizon's coverage area except for California and New York -- two states that dwarf Hawaii's population. By contrast, New Jersey, with a population of 8.6 million (over seven times Hawaii's size), cast only 1.2 million votes.

...these numbers reveal a deep problem that runs to the roots of Idol -- the ability of a small number of "power voters" to distort the weekly results, making the show less appealing to the majority of viewers.

Verizon also reported that Hawaiians tried to cast 5 million votes, meaning that 3.8 million calls (presumably overwhelmingly for Jasmine) failed to get through -- or, looking at it from the other side, only 24% of the calls placed by potential Hawaiian voters resulted in votes being cast. The high volume of calls placed (over 4 per resident -- and we doubt that everybody in Hawaii is voting) and the high number of incomplete calls raises questions about WHY Idol has opted for such a voting system.

Broadcasting & Cable Magazine reports that phone industry sources say that the chaos resulting from the number of phone calls placed to Idol is simply inevitable in an overtaxed voice system. Who benefits? The cellular phone company that provides Idol's text messaging services: AT&T Wireless.

As we previously reported, the Idol 2 finale vote between Clay Aiken and Ruben Studdard produced 230 million calls -- of which only 21.5 million, or 9.3%, got through. However, in text messaging calls, for which AT&T Wireless charges 10 cents a pop, 2.5 million got through -- representing every call that was placed.

(It bears mentioning that the record for call traffic is 431 million calls, achieved during the World Trade Center terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.)

...because Fox has not taken any public action to discourage "power dialers," it has permitted the creation of a logjam in the voice phone system, seemingly in hopes of pushing voters to text phones.

Although the producers claimed that they reserved the right to remove all the votes cast by anyone who tried to cast significantly more than 500 voted (a claim that producer Ken Warwick recently repeated to MTV), the fact remains that "power dialers" can tie up the voice network and make sure that everyone else trying to call gets busy signals -- and even humans trying to place 500-600 votes in two hours are expressing a degree of fanatacism that makes the votes of most show viewers irrelevant to the outcome.

So why does Idol permit such a blatant distortion in the vote totals? Why not use the Internet, as CBS did with its recent Survivor $1 million prize? Warwick defends not using the Web by telling MTV that "people generally have to leave their television sets to vote on the Internet, [and since that means they're] not watching the rest of the contestants, therefore, it's not fair" -- ignoring the obvious facts that (1) at least for East Coast and Central viewers, who see the show live, the poll can be timed to not appear on the Web until after Idol ends, and (2) the "millions of voters" that he claims try to cast phone votes during the show's live airing aren't watching it either. We presume that this statement shouldn't be taken as a reflection of Warwick's intelligence, just as an indication of his lack of skill at prevarication.

A simple alternative would be to limit the number of votes cast per person -- but that would make AT&T's text messaging franchise fairly worthless. Indeed, we wonder if the consequence of an article like this one isn't just to encourage the people who really, really care about the outcome to turn to text messaging, increasing AT&T's windfall. However, the consequence of this problem for Fox may be that people who care but don't really, really care decide to turn the show off instead.

Letter to the Editor

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The following commentary was directed to the editors of the realist party in response to Friday, May 14, 2004's post entitled, "The Candy Store That Is New York City's Dating Scene". This cogent response, reprinted in its entirety below, presents an interesting review of relationships and free market dynamics. -EBO)


Hugo from New York, New York writes:

I think you took it far too personal when a reader submitted the recent article by Bridget Harrison, "NYC Men: Kids in a Candy Store". I'm afraid your introspection had you slightly back on your heels and a more objective commentary was impossible. As a New York City man without your extensive and potentially biasing dating history, please allow me to present an alternative view.

It doesn't surprise me that Bridget and her friends can quickly land a beau in Peoria after striking out in the highly competitive singles market of New York. After all, I'm sure these young ladies are attractive - whether it's looks, smarts, overall sex appeal, or all of the above. And we all know that in Middle America (as well as the author's hometown of London) females with these attributes call all the shots. Especially when they show up from the Big Apple slightly thinner, slightly smarter, and with a whole lot more attitude than their scant local competition.

But in an efficient market like New York, as these young ladies have painfully discovered, just "showing up" doesn't cut it, nor should it. With thousands and thousands of young singles, men and women, all with desirable attributes, there are two things New Yorkers must accept. First, there's competition. If you want a relationship you have to work for it. Brunching with your friends and perpetuating the myth that there's a dearth of potential mates (men, women, straight, gay, lesbian, bi, etc.) doesn't count, unless of course you're using the topic to hit on the person sharing your Belgian Waffle.

Second, and even more important, you need realistic expectations and high self-awareness. As might be expected in an efficient market like New York, the right buyers and the right sellers seem to naturally settle at the right price. For all you psyche majors out there, that means people find a compatible and deserving match. But if one feels as Bridget and her friends that "they deserve better" [than what they can attract in the New York marketplace], perhaps it's an over-inflated sense of self that leads to the disappointment.

Ms. Harrison unfairly projects upon men the label of "fussy and arrogant". In the end, she contends the problem with New York men is that they "live in New York". But let's face it, what she really means is that there are too many attractive women competitors for her liking.

I contend New York is a more balanced, and therefore more natural, place to find your mate. If the single women outnumber the single men by some thin statistical margin (in the 2000 Census women outnumbered men in Manhattan by 52.5% to 47.5%), it hardly matters. There are countless possibilities and opportunities for those that work at it and are realistic.

But if you're a women accustomed to getting everything you want simply because you have a respectable height-to-weight ratio, perhaps you're better suited to a locale where the odds are highly tipped in your favor. But don't relax too much once you've got your Milwaukee man wrapped around your little finger. The lack of competition will probably soften you a bit (literally) and perhaps you'll lose some of your New York edge. And you never know when a slightly thinner, smarter, and sharper New York quitter might roll into town.

The Push for Democracy in Iraq

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Often, coverage of emerging trends in Iraq is besmirched by news that is surer to draw the interest of readers. It is a case in point that coverage to the prison scandals has eclipsed virtually all newsworthy items save perhaps the Nick Berg beheading. Nonetheless, small movements continue in Iraq that demonstrate the peoples' resolve to create a free and orderly society. The following excerpt from an editorial in the New York Times highlights this very fact. -EBO)


Tyranny of the Minorities
By THOMAS FRIEDMAN
The New York Times
Sunday, May 16, 2004

...There is also obviously a struggle for Iraq. Last Tuesday, two big events happened in Iraq but only one of them made headlines. One was disclosure of the horrific beheading of Nicholas Berg. The other was the peaceful demonstration by 1,000 Shiites in Najaf, telling Moktada al-Sadr to get out of town. Sadr's men fired their weapons into the air and shouted at the demonstrators, but the demonstrators shouted right back. The future of Iraq, and the chances of America salvaging any decent outcome there, depend on which event - the Berg murder or the anti-Sadr march - turns out to be the emerging trend.

This anti-Sadr march was a truly rare event in the modern Arab world - a large public demonstration by Muslim moderates against armed Muslim extremists. It could only have happened in a post-Saddam Iraq, where, even in the turmoil, people have enough freedom to do such a thing. But it will only define post-Saddam Iraq if it becomes a real movement among the Shiite silent majority and not just a one-day parade. "We need the moderate Shiites to take charge of the streets and their own future," a U.S. commander in Iraq told me. "Otherwise, it will become a problem for them and for us."

The Candy Store That Is New York's Dating Scene

(EDITOR'S NOTE: It seems as though I have become the target of yet another letter detailing the trials and tribulations of being single in New York City. This time, reader Nina Moore from New York, New York sends me an article from the New York Post, excerpts of which appear below, that attempts to determine the reasons why it is difficult to maintain a satisfactory relationship. While the article's theme is predominantly from a female's perspective, predominantly lambasting male professionals, I would daresay suggest that the author's assertions are clearly applicable from a male's perspective as well. There is a distinct sentiment among singles living in metropolitan cities that something better may lurk around the corner. Unfortunately, this anticipation, culminated by a so-called 'wandering eye', clearly injects negativity into the current relationship, ultimately dooming it to failure, and subsequently reinforces this cyclical yearning to meet someone even better the next time round.

On an aside, a pattern appears to be developing whereby single metropolitan professionals have taken it upon themselves to highlight the sorry state of dating in their letters to the editor, an increasing proportion of which are from females for whatever reason. I am not certain if their interest is genuine or if it is, in fact, intended as a subtle hint to yours truly. Well, hint taken…

In the future, interesting letters to the editor will be posted to the site, along with a response or recommendation pulling from my vast relationship experience honed from a decade's worth of walking the city's streets as a single metropolitan professional. It's time you heard the male perspective. -EBO)


NYC Men: Kids in a Candy Store
By BRIDGET HARRISON
The New York Post
Sunday, May 9, 2004

When I first moved here from London three years ago, it took me barely six weeks before I wrote a column titled: "What Is Wrong With New York Men?" We're all still asking the same question.

I have four female American friends who've already thrown in the towel and, fearing singledom forever, have fled the state altogether. And get this: within weeks of leaving, they all successfully hooked up with great guys from places like Seattle. Meanwhile this city is now so famous for containing attractive single women who can't find a nice guy, it's become a cliché.

New York is a honey pot for intelligent, successful women — meaning not only do we outnumber the guys, but they can afford to have ridiculously high standards. Guys here can skip around like boys in a candy store, while we have to make do like housewives with ration books during WWII.

The result: We get a city full of fussy, arrogant men who think they hold all the cards — and a lot of disheartened women who think they deserve better. It's hardly normal to live in a world where women should always wax and men should have wads of money.

But we think it is.

The guys who have the goods can be even pickier. The women who think they deserve men who have the goods become frustrated. Compounding the problem: We all think about this stuff way too much.

The sad thing is, I believe most guys in this city might be half-decent if they lived in Milwaukee — not Manhattan. Because when you get down to it, here's what's wrong with New York men:

They live in New York.

Media Mania Misplaced

It is increasingly clear that bias in the media, including both print and television, is threatening to completely tilt the balance away from objective, investigative journalism. Editorial reports disguised as objective news coverage and an increase in the occurrence of commercial promotion as news, such as interviews with casts from NBC's The Apprentice and CBS's Survivor, illustrate that the American media has lost touch with the public and forgotten its most noble role in society. Their role is the dissemination of information to the country such that our citizens might come to their own conclusions about world affairs. It is understandable that editors would hold some sway over content, but the lengths to which they now manipulate said content in order to achieve a political end is particularly disturbing.

Consequently, ratings declines, increasing subscription terminations, declining advertising revenue, and a surge in weblogs devoted to news commentary demonstrate the reader and viewer's dissatisfaction with the content and format of news as it is currently being presented.

The latest slap in the face to the American public surrounds coverage of the beheading of Nick Berg, particularly in contrast to the still overwhelming amount of coverage being afforded the prison scandal in Abu Ghraib. While the American press seems to have already glossed over the murder of Nick Berg in order to perpetuate its never-ending account of the prison scandal, the public seems to have a strongly divergent interest as measured by their own viewing, reading, and browsing habits. The following comments, collected from different news and internet sources, attempt to illustrate this point more fully:

As reported on Instapundit, Neal Boortz observes:

This morning, in most of the newspapers I scanned during my preparation for the show, the top story was still the Iraqi prison abuse scandal. Nick Berg had already disappeared from many front pages, but the prison abuse stories remain. May I suggest to you that there is a reason for this? Maybe it's just this simple: The prison abuse scandal can damage Bush, the Nick Berg story can only help him. Given the choice many editors will choose the stories that serve their cause, getting Bush out of the White House, rather than one that hurts it.

From the Dallas Morning News, Rod Dreher writes:

Our letters page today is filled with nothing but Berg-related letters, most of them demanding that the DMN show more photos of the Berg execution. Not one of the 87 letters we received on the topic yesterday called for these images not to be printed. My sense is that there's a big backlash building against the media for flogging the Abu Ghraib photos, but being so delicate with the Berg images. People sense that there's an agenda afoot here. As somebody, can't remember who, wrote yesterday, "Why is it that the media can show over and over again pictures that could make Arabs hate Americans, but refuse to show pictures that could make Americans hate Arabs?"

Andrew Sullivan reports on his weblog:

My gut tells me that the Nick Berg video has had much more psychic impact in this country than the Abu Ghraib horrors. Every political blog site has just seen an exponential jump in traffic - far more than anything that occurred during the Abu Ghraib unfolding. My traffic went through the roof yesterday, and, according to Alexa, so did everyone else's. People who have tuned the war out suddenly tuned the war in. They get it. Will the mainstream media?

The search engine Lycos reports on web traffic:

The Lycos 50 discovered that queries for Nick Berg, the US contractor who was brutally beheaded in Iraq, have grown 1000 percent each day since the story broke on May 11th.

Today, we discover that the tenor of the searches has changed. When the story broke, searches were Nick Berg, Nick Berg murder, Nick Berg Prisoner of War, and Nick Berg assassination. Just 24 hours later, the searches are now focused on seeking out, finding, and watching the actual video.

Searches emerging over the past 24 hours: Find Nick Berg video, watch Nick Berg beheading, and Nick Berg video link.

Nick Berg-related searches are so prevalent that they dwarf all other searches, including the consistent pop-culture leaders. Over the past 48 hours, Nick Berg was 38 times higher than Britney Spears. It was 60 times higher than Paris Hilton, and 63 times higher than Clay Aiken.

It is clearly obvious that the viewing public's appetite for Nick Berg has not diminished, in spite of the fact that the mainstream media's so blatantly has.

Continuing, Evan Coyne Maloney from Brain Terminal writes:

On January 16th, the U.S. Central Command issued a press release announcing an investigation into "reported incidents of detainee abuse at a Coalition Forces detention facility." But despite the advance warning, the media reacted with mock shock when the photographs became public.

[However, in reference to Nick Berg] there's nothing like watching a beheading to put things in perspective. Not that you could find any depictions of the horrific murder in the traditional media. Their airwaves were absent of Berg's haunting screams. The media that had--rightfully, in my opinion--showed us the ugly reality of Abu Ghraib prison refused to do the same with Berg's murder.

One day the media was telling us we had to see the pictures from Abu Ghraib so we could understand the horrors of war. But with Berg's beheading, we're told we can't handle the truth. It kind of makes you wonder which masters the media serves: images that cast us in a negative light get a full airing; images that remind us of the savagery of our enemies are hidden from view, lest we get blood lust.

We are fighting a war in which our media is seen as a weapon to be used against us. We are, on the whole, a kind and caring people. [But, we] are also enormously self-critical, to the point where it sometimes seems as though we despise ourselves more than we do those who seek to slaughter us wholesale. Terrorists know this, and they play upon these traits to convince us that maybe we're the ones who are wrong, that maybe we should just retract into our shells and stop fighting. But didn't we try that already?

While excerpts from the articles above may seem overwhelming, it is intended to illustrate the hidden motives so clearly expressed by the media today. It is not so much that they have a political bias, rather, it is the notion that they are exceptionally underhanded in highlighting this conflict of interest to the public.

One last comment from Al Jazeera, tremendously concerned about the potential rallying cry of the beheading:

Revolting millions around the world, the video footage of an American citizen's execution has also raised numerous questions concerning its authenticity.

The article by Al Jazeera referenced above is highly suggested and illustrates an invaluable point. The point is that even Muslim fundamentalists understand the overwhelming backlash that the Nick Berg execution video has created. The question of the day is: Why doesn't the American press get it? Too likely, and too sadly, they probably do get it and are simply afraid of the implications of properly reporting it.

Baseball Dates Back to 1791

(EDITOR'S NOTE: All those that love baseball should check out the following excerpts from a story that appeared on the BBC. It seems that officials and historians in Massachusetts have discovered a 213 year old document that is believed to be the earliest written reference to baseball. -BBM)


Thursday, May 13, 2004
BBC News

A 1791 bylaw aimed to protect the windows in the town of Pittsfield's new meeting house - by banning baseball within 80 yards of the building.

The bylaw would have been written before 1839, the long debunked date when baseball was thought to have been invented by Abner Doubleday in Cooperstown, New York.

The document, released on Tuesday, has been verified by the Williamstown Art Conservation Center in Massachusetts.

"This is a wonderful story," the National Baseball Hall of Fame chief curator Ted Spencer said.

"This is a great piece of history in the development of the game."

Problems at the World Bank

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The World Bank joins the United Nations and International Olympic Committee as the world's most corrupt institutions. It is but the latest scandal involving a self-purported charitable and public-interest international body. -BBM)


By STEPHEN GREEN
Vodkapundit.
Thursday, May 13, 2004

Corrupt use of World Bank funds may exceed $100 billion and while the institution has moved to combat the problem, more must be done, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee said on Thursday.

Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, charged that "in its starkest terms, corruption has cost the lives of uncounted individuals contending with poverty and disease."

He commended World Bank President James Wolfensohn for bringing greater attention to the issue, but said, "Corruption remains a serious problem."

Corrupt Enron went broke, allowing reputable firms to have their markets and workers. That's how capitalism functions. The World Bank, of course, has no such restraints on its behavior.

Porn To Be Wild

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Shocking! Appalling! Unwillingly, but on orders from superior officers? We'll await a verdict, but recent reports of photographs depicting Private First Class Lynndie England engaged in sexual intercourse with numerous partners certainly diminish any claim that she was an unwilling participant. While her willingless certainly doesn't justify the lack of leadership and authority in the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, Iraq, it certainly begs the question of how a soldier like Ms. Lynndie was allowed to serve her country in the first place, and in such mediocre form.

In excerpts from an article in the New York Post posted below, the malevolence and crass nature of her and her cohorts' actions is obvious now, to an unimaginable extent of which is just beginning to surface. Emphasis added... -EBO)


Leash Gal's Sex Pix
By VINCENT MORRIS and DEBORAH ORIN
The New York Post
Thursday, May 13, 2004

Shocking shots of sexcapades involving Pfc. Lynndie England were among the hundreds of X-rated photos and videos from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shown to lawmakers in a top-secret Capitol conference room yesterday. "She was having sex with numerous partners. It appeared to be consensual," said a lawmaker who saw the photos.

And, videos showed the disgraced soldier - made notorious in a photo showing her holding a leash looped around an Iraqi prisoner's neck - engaged in graphic sex acts with other soldiers in front of Iraqi prisoners, Pentagon officials told NBC Nightly News.

"Almost everybody was naked all the time," another lawmaker said.

"It was pretty disgusting, not what you'd expect from Americans," said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.). "There was lots of sexual stuff - not of the Iraqis, but of our troops."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who also characterized the photos as "disgusting," agreed, noting, "It's hard to believe that this actually is taking place in a military facility."

The shocking photos and videos, provided on computer disks by Pentagon officials, showed attack dogs snarling at cowering prisoners, Iraqi women forced to expose their breasts, and naked prisoners tied together on the floor, senators revealed as they emerged from the heavily guarded conference room.

"It was significantly worse than I had anticipated," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore). "Take the worst case and multiply it over several times."

"I don't know how these people got into our Army," said Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.), who reported seeing "several pictures of Iraqi women who were disrobed or putting their shirts up."

In another video clip, she said, a group of men were shown masturbating.

Before the pictures of England's sex romps were shown to Congress, the 21-year-old reservist from West Virginia tried to portray herself as a reluctant participant who was just following orders.

"I didn't really, I mean, want to be in any pictures," England told a Denver TV station.

England acknowledged "it was kind of weird" when she was photographed smiling, with a cigarette in her mouth, as she leaned forward and pointed at the genitals of a naked, hooded Iraqi at Abu Ghraib prison.

England faces a military court-martial that includes charges such as conspiracy to maltreat prisoners and assault consummated by battery. She could face punishment ranging from a reprimand to more than 15 years in prison.

Excerpt from Ali's Blog, Iraq The Model

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Not all Iraqis are against a United States presence. Below is an exerpt from a post in 'Iraq the Model', an Iraqi weblog based in Baghdad. He is able to express sentiments of success in parts of Iraq coupled with the feelings of resentment from concerns about the nature and purpose of our 'occupation'. It is also worth clicking on this link to a video presentation for a better perspective on the US mission and how we more likely to being received with open arms by the people of Iraq after many miserable years under the crushing rule of Saddam Hussein. Watch the whole thing, and pay careful attention to the end. -BBM)


Posted by ALI
Iraq the Model
Wednesday, May 12, 2004

My uncle had some unusual sense of humor that didn’t fit quite well in his somewhat religious family. He winked at me and turned to his son and asked him "What do you think of the Americans?"

His son answered, "They are occupiers".

"So you think we should fight them?" his father asked.

Ibrahim said "No, but I don’t like them".

My uncle said, pretending to change the subject, "Do you like your new computer that no one shares with you?"

"Yes of course dad".

"Ok, are you satisfied with the satellite dish receiver we have or do you need a better one?"

"This one is fine but I heard there’s a better one that gets more channels"

"Ok I’ll get you that next week". Then he said, "Is there anything else you’d like to have son?"

"No dad I have all that I need".

"Ok but how about a car?"

Ibrahim was astounded and said "Really? a...a CAR...for me?!"

"Of course for you! I'm too old to drive now and my eyes are not that well and you are the older son. So whom else would it be for!?"

"Oh, dad that will be great! When will that happen?"

"Just finish you’re exams and you’ll have it".

"I will dad".

"Are you happy now son?"

"Yes dad, sure I am!"

"Then why do you hate the Americans you son of a b***h!? I couldn’t get you a bicycle a year ago, I could hardly feed you and your brothers and sisters. You didn't know what an apple or a banana tasted like, I couldn’t buy you a damned Pepsi bottle except in occasions, and now you can have all that you wish, and a car of your own! Who do you think made that possible!?"

My cousin's face turned red and didn’t answer as we laughed and I said "What do you think Ibrahim?"

We must hang in there. It would be insane, after all we have gone through - and the Iraqis have gone through - to snatch defeat from victory now.

This Is Who We Are Up Against

It has become increasingly clear that the war in Iraq is not between the United States and the Muslim World; rather, it is a war of freedom and accountability against fundamentalists who threaten to inhibit the freedoms of people all around the globe.

Though attention to this end may have been diverted as of late by reports about the abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib facility outside of Baghdad, let's not forget the true nature of the enemy. It is an enemy who murders innocent individuals at every opportunity. One has only review the following partial list of atrocities that have taken place in their so-called war for freedom against the United States and Israel:

-1992 Israeli Embassy bombing in Buenos Aires, Argentina killing 29.
-1993 First bombing of the World Trade Center in New York.
-1994 Bombing of Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina killing 86 and wounding 300.
-1995 Bombing of the US military compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
-1996 Four suicide bombings in Israel killing 67 and wounding 161 within 10 days.
-1997 Terrorist opens fire on tourists atop the Empire State Building, New York killing a Danish national and wounding visitors before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note claims that it was punishment against the "enemies of Palestine".
-1998 Bombing of US Embassies in Kenya killing 225 and wounding more than 4000.
-2000 Bombing of USS Cole killing 17 and wounding 39.
-2001 9/11 World Trade Center attack killing nearly 3000.
-2002 Bombing in Bali killing 202 and wounding 209.
-2003 Bombing of compound buildings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing 26 and wounding 160.
-2003 Bombing in Istanbul killing 27 and wounding 300.

The list excludes a countless number of terrorist bombings against innocent civilians in Israel, including the Passover Massacre in 2002. It seems as though the fundamentalist Muslim creed is ultimately one of fear and cowardice. It is a willingness to kill defenseless men, women, and children where their previous efforts against a professional military have fallen short. It speaks only to the lowest qualities of mankind. Rather than condemning these attacks, the Western press highlights the attacks and offers airtime to the ignorant crowds in many Muslim nations celebrating these most despicable actions. Sadly, instead of drawing sympathy for the victims, it seems only to reinforce their rallying cries of hatred against the United States, Israel, the Western countries, and ultimately, freedom and democracy.

Well, now let us add the latest tragedy to a long list of cowardly acts: the murder and beheading of Nick Berg, a freelance communications worker from Pennsylvania. Just prior to his execution, a statement was read that mentioned Al-Qaeda, suggesting that Osama Bin Laden may have somehow been involved.

The following photographs of this gruesome atrocity are stills from the video recorded by the assailants and hosted on a militant Islamist web site in the Middle East:

Courtesy of Reuters

Courtesy of Reuters

Courtesy of Reuters

Courtesy of Reuters

While the pictures above are sure to upset many of you, it is important to see pictures and recognize who the real victims are in the Middle East. It is NOT criminals languishing in prisons because of their terrorist and murderous acts. It is innocent civilians like Mr. Berg who work tirelessly to bring freedom to the Middle East.

He is the latest victim, but he surely will not be the last until we bolster our efforts to unmask our enemies and face them head on. While this war may leave an unpleasant taste in many dovish mouths, running away is not an option. Indeed, the fundamentalist nation of Islam will surely not rest until the entire world bows down to their demands.

Outraged at Outrage

(EDITOR'S NOTE: United States Senator James Inhofe from Oklahoma took an opportunity to address the outrage and furor directed at the prison scandal with a little outrage of his own. The following excerpts from an article appearing on Reuters reports his statements. He certainly seems to make a valid argument. It is important to remember that the actions taking place in the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad are an isolated incident. Moreover, the US military took steps to address this issue long before the press reported on the entire affair. In reading accounts of it in the press, be wary to distinguish what is investigative journalism and what is quite clearly more partisan foolishness. -EBO)


From Reuters
Tuesday, May 11, 2004

As others condemned the reported abuse of Iraqi prisoners, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe expressed outrage at the outcry over the scandal and took aim at "humanitarian do-gooders" investigating American troops.

"I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment," Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and an outspoken conservative, told a U.S. Senate hearing probing the case.

In heated remarks at odds with others on the Senate Armed Services Committee who criticized the U.S. military's handling of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, Inhofe said American sympathies should lie with U.S. troops.

"I am also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human rights violations, while our troops, our heroes are fighting and dying," he said.

"These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations," said Inhofe, whose senatorial Web site describes him as an advocate of "Oklahoma values."

"If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."

Spinning the Unspinnable

What's with headline selection in the mainstream press? To read them, one would think that it was the official policy of the United States to mistreat prisoners. Admittedly, there was a failure of leadership...at the prison due to poor supervision. However, below are direct quotes taken from General Taguba, the officer assigned to investigating the abuse scandal since January, followed by headlines in the New York Times and some other pubilcations. From General Taguba's testimony, it is clear that the situation was the result of several bad apples (though these bad apples got away with as much as they did because they could) and not the result of any official policy. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop the negative spin, which I suspect just sells better.

"We did not find any evidence of a policy or a direct order given to these soldiers to conduct what they did. I believe that they did it on their own volition and I believe that they collaborated with several MI (military intelligence) interrogators at the lower level," Tugaba said.

Doesn't it seem that the above quote should be an important headline? Or how about the following:

Red Cross Says US Officials Were Making Progress on Prison Concerns

Here's another photograph from Iraq that has been withheld from the public.


Courtesy of sisu.
"Soldiers on the ground e-mailed this snap of warm greetings from some of Iraq's women and children," reports [Matt] Drudge.

(Indeed, it is not so much the outright disgrace of the prison scandal that is prompting national attention from the meda; rather, it wreaks of as yet another opportunity to distract our focus in Iraq and engage in typical partisan efforts within the government and left-leaning news journals such as the New York Times. -EBO)

Letter to the Editor

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The following commentary was directed to the editors of the realist party in response to Wednesday, May 5, 2004's post entitled, "Can You Really Keep It 'Casual'?". In deference to the writer, the identity has been kept hidden. -EBO)

Anonymous from New York, New York writes:

You've really got me thinking about this article now!!! Especially: "Isn't it strange to share your thoughts and evenings with someone with whom you don't want to share your heart?" That's probably the one sentence I maybe don't agree with, bc I think I HAVE shared my heart in a few instances. But I think it's more about recognizing the things about someone that you WOULDN'T want full time. But it's hard to not want to spend time with people that you enjoy! I think the bigger question is can you compromise on the background points if you are generally happy day to day? And if not, why are you spending so much time with someone who you don't want to be anything more???

(Why indeed.)

Drug Abuse in Professional Sports?

Courtesy of the Associated Press (AP)

This photograph shows Jennifer Capriati returning a backhand shot in a match against Amelie Mauresmo during their semi-final match in the Ladies German Open in Berlin, May 8, 2004.

Exploitation of illegal drugs in professional sports? Nah...

Old Soldier in a New Army

(EDITOR'S NOTE: There is good news in Iraq...if you look for it. As I stated in a previous post, even the prison abuse scandal presents an opportunity to demonstrate principles of the rule of law and the accountability of democratic governments. Other points are made here in a contrarian's view. Below are excerpts from a post by Mohammed an Iraqi blog called Iraq the Model. He tends to be very optimistic about the future. -BBM)


By MOHAMMED
From Iraq the Model
Monday, May 10, 2004

A relative of mine was forced as the millions of Iraqis to serve in Saddam's army. He was poor and peaceful and couldn't stand the humiliation and the torture that service meant. He lived in Baghdad and served in Basrah.

He said, "you can't imagine! It's like being born again. I've never felt so free before. "But what are you doing for a living now? I hope you've found a job". I asked. He smiled as he said, "I volunteered in the new army". "Really! I thought you'd never wear a uniform after that terrible experience"; he replied "Oh no, this is entirely different"

Now education is an essential requirement when applying to serve in the new army and anyone who hasn't finished high school at least has no place there. In fact most of the volunteers are college and technical institutes graduates.

My relative's face was glowing as he continued, "you can't imagine how much valued we are and how much our religion and traditions are respected".

"I feel I'm somebody now. I'm respected and get all what most people get. Do you believe that they threw one of the Iraqi officers out of the army because he used us to do him personal services, like carrying his bags, and when we complained about his behavior, they told him "Do you see any of us, American officers use our soldiers? You can go home. You still have the mentality of the old regime and you can't fit in this new army!"

"But what about the dangers you are going to face when you graduate? You'll face it everyday, and you'll probably have to fight Iraqis. Have you thought about that? And how do you feel about it!?" I felt some regret as I asked this question, but it was too important to ignore. My relative said, "Of course I thought about it!" He sighed as he continued, "Dangers were there since I was born; wars, MP chasing me for years, chaos etc. These will not stop me from going on with my life, and I have a feeling that those thugs are the same people who oppressed me along with all the poor Iraqi soldiers. No, I'm not afraid of them and I'll do my job. At least this time I know I'm doing the right thing and that my services will be appreciated"

(Other Iraqi blogs are listed below. They range from oprimistic to pessimistic, but all are anti-fascist.)

Healing Iraq

Iraq the Model

Iraq at a Glance

The Mesopotamian

Hammorabi

Where is Raed?

Sun of Iraq

G. in Baghdad

Road of a Nation

(There's many more, but I typically visit the first six or seven.)

Barriers to Free Trade: Hypocrisy Runs Deep

(EDITOR'S NOTE: For years, I have bemoaned the fact that trade barriers between nations are still unnecessarily high. Some of the barriers resemble the offensive form of a blatant tariff vis a vis import taxes and duties levied on international commerce. Others benefit from government assistance seeking to tilt the balance in favor of a domestic industry over a foreign entity, most noticeably with agricultural subsidies. A last method is to use legislation and policy against foreign industry. These tactics all deprive the public of selecting the best product at the best price.

Companies and politicians will tell voters that barriers to trade are necessary in order to protect jobs and minimize dependence on foreign companies for necessities. It is the standard party line for those candidates seeking reelection at all costs. Sadly, and maliciously, they fail to mention the resultant increases in price relative to the lowered cost of foreign goods. In so doing, they are inhibiting the consumption of a superior and/or cheaper alternative which might free up capital to be reinvested in new industries and technologies, thereby contributing to economic growth down the road. While trade barriers may maintain jobs and profits in the near term. job growth and global competitiveness ultimately are sacrificed as worldwide worldwide for more expensive, inferior domestic products slowly but surely diminishes.

Recently, the United States has been called upon to make good on its promise for more open global competition. In excerpts from an editorial appearing in the Wall Street Journal, the Transportation Commissioner for the European Union specifically asks the US to open its skies to international competition. Whlie the EU only seems an ardent supporter of free trade when it benefits their own industries, the US should recognize that increased competition always works in its favor on the long term. Concurent to our agreement to open our markets, the US might politely request that European wine, bioengineered food, and auto tariffs be eliminated as well. For as it is plain to see, global trade is a two way street. -EBO)


Jurassic Flight
By LOYOLA DE PALACIO
The Wall Street Journal
Monday, May 10, 2004

The next few days are critical for the fate of the world's largest aviation merger ever: the creation of a fully fledged trans-Atlantic aviation marketplace.

Removing the raft of trans-Atlantic restrictions that hinder healthy competition between, and international investment in, our airlines would breathe much-needed life into an ailing but essential sector of our economies.

Benefits could include 11 million extra passengers traveling on airlines each year. Consumers stand to benefit to the tune of an annual $5 billion; and 16,000 new jobs could be created with a yearly $8 billion going to related industries. The tourism and leisure sectors could do with this boost, too.

Top of our hit-list in these negotiations are the "Jurassic" restrictions on air services that fly in the face of consumer demand. Today, only four British and American airlines can fly to and from the U.S. to London's Heathrow Airport, the EU's most valuable gateway. U.S. negotiators' zest for prizing open this and other restricted markets is understandably strong. But the zest disappears when it comes to delivering on their side of the bargain by opening up the U.S. domestic market to foreign airlines.

(This must be similar to the reluctance of Europeans to fully open their markets to industries, including agriculture, textiles, and technology.)

I don't get this attitude. What is the U.S. afraid of? The time has surely come to do away with the sclerotic trappings of a bygone protectionist age and unleash the full potential of this most globalized and globalizing of industries. Let's let airlines fly where they want, when they want.

(Amen! But why just the airline industry? Let's extend this ideal to all industries.)

The U.S. position on investment is untenable. It's just plain protectionism to continue blocking such investment and denying the jobs that would result. It is indefensible to protect the inefficient companies Congressman John Mica rightly branded "dinosaurs," at the expense of U.S. consumers and taxpayers. Lifting all investment restrictions will allow the lifeblood of globalized airlines to flow freely. Leaving them in place will only lead to even more heartache.

Ms. Palacio is the EU's transportation commissioner.

NASA to Go X-Prize One Better

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The X-Prize, awarded to the first private company that launches a reusable manned vehicle into space, should be won by the end of this year. Now, NASA plans to unleash the near-limitless creative power of the American entrepreneur with the "Centennial Challenges". Sit tight. It should be exciting. -BBM)


Excerpts from NASA plans contests for space feats
by ALAN BOYLE
MSNBC
Friday, May 7, 2004

What happens when worlds collide? NASA will find out next month; not by launching an interplanetary probe, but by inviting aerospace entrepreneurs to help flesh out the agency's plan to reward feats on the final frontier

The June 15-16 workshop in Washington will focus on drawing up NASA's first batch of "Centennial Challenges"; government-funded competitions that would encourage non-governmental teams to develop technologies vital to NASA's exploration initiative. For example, a better astronaut glove might earn its developers $1 million, while the first team to put a privately funded lander on the moon could win $20 million.

The scheme is modeled after this spring's DARPA Grand Challenge for autonomous ground vehicles, and the X Prize for private passenger rockets. Some say the Centennial Challenges are NASA's best hope for recapturing the spirit of the early space effort.

"No dollar spent on space research will yield greater value for the American people than those prizes," Elon Musk, founder of the SpaceX rocket company, said this week in testimony for a Senate committee hearing on space policy.

Here are some of the challenges on Sponberg's list:

-Invent a device capable of turning moon rocks and soil into, say, liquid oxygen or fiberglass, with the technology tested on simulated lunar material.

-Develop a rocket-powered robot that can make precision landings under conditions similar to those on Mars; that is, little or no satellite navigational data or surface imaging. The robot that comes closest to the target wins.

-Create a remotely operated robot that can build a simulated space habitat in the Arctic or a similarly challenging environment. The prize would go to the first team to finish the construction race. Other possibilities include an Antarctic robot race or a Mars-style robotic "triathlon."

-Build a spacecraft that can put a 22-pound payload on the moon, or perhaps even bring samples back from an asteroid or one of Mars' moons. Other spacecraft possibilities include small re-entry capsules or solar sails.

(NASA has ossified under the weight of the usual stultifying bureaucracy common in large government organizations. Hopefully, these initiatives will help breath new life into the organization. -BBM)

Infiltrator's Account of Scientology Celebrity Center

(EDITOR'S NOTE: This post arrives courtesy of my good friend Marco Chong trapped these many years in Bern, Switzerland. Marco's penchant for suspicion and good humor often make for a lethal combination. The following excerpts from an investigation into the Church of Scientology undermines yet again the noble pursuit of religion when entrusted in the hands of mere mortals, and plain imbeciles for that matter. -EBO)


My Life as a Celebrity Scientologist
by HARMON LEAN

We go to a fancy, roped-off office on the first floor. There's a large desk, a book shelf, and a lot of pictures of boats on the wall.

"And this is L. Ron Hubbard's office."
"The actual office used by L. Ron Hubbard?" This is like being in Jesus' room.
"No. Each Scientology center has an office for L. Ron Hubbard, decorated in a way he would like it."
"Oh, so the office was used when he was visiting, ya?"
"No. He died before this hotel was refurbished."

Someone should mention to this lady that dead guys don't need offices. Especially an office built for a dead guy after the dead guy is dead.

Harmon Leon is a guy who specialises in infiltrating odd places through impersonation, thereafter writing hilarious accounts of his deeds. His infiltration of the Church of Scientology's Los Angeles Celebrity Center is a classic.

A Small Victory for Democracy in the Caucauses

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Here's some good news for a change. Promotion of democracy is the best way to provide long term security for the world and prosperity for its people. I'm glad to see when it works as illustrated in excerpts from an article below, courtesy of Instapundit. -BBM)


Posted by NATHAN
The Argus
Wednesday, May 5, 2004

Twice in six months, the United States and Russia have told corrupt, authoritarian, Soviet dinosaurs that it's their time to shuffle off into the sunset. Each time it was against Russia's better interests. Each time, the United States was firm in its commitment and made this commitment clear to Russia, the world, and Georgian leaders who insisted on holding back their people for personal gain. With the Ajaria situation, we also had a Georgian leader that took the world to task for its willingness to sell short Ajarian human rights and dignity for the sake of stability.

Say what you will about the Bush administration. Tell me it's all about oil. Tell me it's a plot to substitute fine Georgian wine with Coke. Tell me Saakashvili, a US-trained lawyer, was groomed for this role by the CIA.

I don't care.

Bottom line: half a million people are free tonight that weren't free this morning. Why? The Bush administration, the State Department in particular, did a fantastic job of sticking to its values and convincing Russia to stand by our side to bring freedom to Ajaria.

If that's unilateralism and cynical manipulation in pursuit of profits, pass it on down, I want some more.

(Me too. And bravo for the State Department.)

The Iraqi Prisoner Scandal

Horrible! Devastating! The military prison guards' actions almost meet the definition of treason by giving aid and comfort to the enemy in the form of marginalizing our efforts. Rightly so, more is expected of the United States and we let the world down, or validated their concerns depending on your perspective. Nonetheless, we need to keep OUR perspective. Where there is disaster, there is also often opportunity as expressed in comments from Instapundit.

In fact, though the whole thing is clearly devastating overall, it does provide an opportunity to demonstrate to the illiberal world:

-The meaning of the idea of rule of law (i.e. - the rules apply to everyone, including those in power).
-The accountability of democratic governments.
-The unhindered nature of the western press.
-No one has ever apologized to the Arab world for anything in the past.
-Our response will demonstrate that while evil may lurk in the hearts of all men and women, this type of behavior does not simply have to be tolerated any longer...western political structures are accountable.

Moreover, it's worth noting that over 300,000 members of our armed forces have rotated thru Iraq. If 30 are found guilty, that represents 0.01% of our forces. If it expands even to 300, we're still talking 1/10th of one percent.

(While the prison guards' actions are still not excusable, it certainly highlights the exceptionally small minority of the military presence in Iraq. -EBO)

Nevertheless, it's still just staggering that it happened at all..

War stress does funny things to people. A lot (though not all) of these detainees were shooting at our guys just a few hours earlier... or planting roadside bombs. Add in the fact that they represent a defense of chauvenistic, reactionary, fascist, mysogynistic culture, it is easy to see how they could become "less than human" in the eyes of our troops. This dehumanizing of the enemy has been true of all wars.

Naturally, this does not excuse the behavior. We are supposed to be (and are) the most professional force in the world. This just isn't supposed to happen... and probably caused more damage to the war effort than anything else.

These actions are unacceptable, and punishment should appropriate. At least 3-4 years in Leavenworth busting up rocks for those directly involved, and dishonorable discharges for any superiors found to be negligent. In fact, it seems that the military legal process and systemic review had begun prior to the widespread disclosure in the press:

-Dec/Jan timeframe (implied various sources): A soldier, recognizing the behavior at Abu Ghraib as criminal, reports it. Army CID investigates the allegations of abuse at Al Ghraib and apparently establishes the case against most of the currently accused, including Army Staff Sergeant Ivan L. Frederick II.

-Late Dec/Early Jan: The three members of the 320th MP Battalion awaiting courts martial (scheduled for late Jan) elect non-judicial punishment in lieu of court martial. They are discharged from military service, two have their ranks lowered, and all three are ordered to forfeit pay for two months. (5 - see also here)

-Jan: General Karpinski was formally admonished and quietly suspended, and a major investigation into the Army’s prison system, authorized by Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq, was under way.

(A parting note from an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, May 3, 2004: "The irony of this latest episode is that American soldiers may be held accountable for abusing Iraqis before Saddam's worst henchmen are." Indeed. -EBO)

Love the One Like You?

(EDITOR'S NOTE: A startling discovery has been made in the ever puzzling field of personal relationships as reported by Reuters in a news story posted below. Indeed, it seems to finally make complete sense out of the turmoil often plaguing men and women in relationships.

In the beginning of relationships, lovers adapt to one another and tend to be more giving and caring. Essentially, when two people love one another, they adapt to each other's tendencies, emotionally and physically. Scientists have discovered that testerone levels among couples in love increase in women and decrease in men. It certainly validates the age old suspicions that marriage emasculates men. Moreover, it clearly explains why women become so demanding and moody during relationships. As such, we can conclude that perhaps humans are not heterosexual nor homosexual, but ultimately identisexual?

Of course, the mysterious changes eventually wear off, men's testerone readings return to previous levels, and separation quickly follows. Hence, the notion that men are pigs. Speaking for the male sex, I can wholeheartedly understand this concept. But it's not our fault; blame testerone. Feel free to offer your own interpretations and I'll post some of the more interesting responses tomorrow. -EBO)


Falling in Love -- a Gender-Bending Experience
From Reuters
Thursday, May 6, 2004

Falling in love -- that crazy, blissful feeling -- causes gender-bender changes in men and women's testosterone levels.

A study by an Italian researcher shows that when couples fall in love their testosterone levels alter. It falls in men and rises in women so they become more like each other. 'Men who were in love had lower levels of the male sex hormone testosterone -- linked to aggression and sex drive -- than other men,' New Scientist magazine said Wednesday. 'Love-struck women, in contrast, had higher levels of testosterone than their counterparts.'

Donatella Marazziti, a scientist at the University of Pisa in Italy, made the discovery after studying 24 people in love. 'It's as if nature wants to eliminate what can be different in men and women, because it's important to survive at this stage,' she said.

Not all scientists agree with Marazziti's interpretation of the results and some say changing testosterone levels could be a result of increased sexual activity.

But whatever the reason, it doesn't last long. Two years later, when the same people were tested again and were no longer madly in love, their testosterone levels were back to normal."

Contrasting American and European Worldviews

(EDITOR'S NOTE: There is a growing divide between the EU and the USA. This has become more obvious since 9/11 and Iraq, but the process started after the fall of communism. After all, the term "hyperpower" originated in France as a way to describe America in the first Clinton administration; it was not meant as a complement. "Power and Weakness", by Robert Kagan, is an excellent article that discusses some of these root causes. The essay has been expanded into "Of Paradise and Power", which is also excellent. Another good essay focuses on the emerging transnational progressivism as described by John Fonte in "The Ideological War within the West". And of course, there are those who argue that Europe is frankly in decline: "Old and in the Way", by Karl Zinsmeister. Below, Robert Samuelson scratches the surface in his commentary in the Washington Post. They are all are well worth reading to toss around the ideas, in spite of the fact that you may not agree with the conclusions. Emphasis added. -BBM)


Drifting Apart
By ROBERT SAMUELSON
The Washington Post
Wednesday, May 5, 2004

This ought to be a moment of great triumph for Europe and America together. Instead there is mutual disenchantment. On May 1 the European Union accepted 10 countries -- most of them remnants of the Soviet empire -- into membership. The EU is now a massive free-trade area and loose political union with 25 countries, 455 million people and an $11.6 trillion economy. After World War II, farsighted Europeans and Americans promoted European unification to end a history of ruinous continental wars. The vision has succeeded spectacularly, and yet there's no common celebration.

It's not just that many Europeans oppose Bush's Iraq policies. They mistake the motives -- and that's scarier. The implication is not simply that the United States made an error. It's that something about Bush or America (it's not clear which) represents a permanent menace. One view is that Bush went into Iraq for oil. About 60 percent of the French and Germans believe that, says Pew. Another view is that U.S. foreign policy has fallen hostage to Bush's religious fervor. Militarism becomes a heavenly mission.

Bush, it's said, created this rift -- and can end it by embracing cooperation or (involuntarily) retiring. There's something to this. Love him or hate him, Bush has a knack for offending critics. But the roots of disagreement, I suspect, go much deeper. In his book "Of Paradise and Power," Robert Kagan argued that Americans and Europeans have divergent views of military power. Americans believe that only raw power can defeat evil, he wrote. Having controlled historical hatreds through the EU, Europeans prefer negotiation and compromise.

Not surprisingly, Europeans and Americans see Sept. 11, 2001, differently. "Americans felt this was the beginning of a war," says Roland Koch, a leading German politician. "This is not the feeling of Europeans." The terrorist threat is seen as "more or less far away." In the Pew poll, 57 percent of the French and 49 percent of Germans said Americans overreacted to terrorism. Even the Madrid bombing didn't much change opinion, Koch says.

The truth is that Europe is too weak to lead and too proud to follow. It doesn't want to undertake costly new commitments. It's already got more than it can handle. In some ways, George Bush is a political godsend. His style and language offend so many Europeans -- he seems simplistic, trigger-happy, uneducated -- that opposition to him camouflages more basic conflicts. I've been repeatedly reminded here that Europe and America share too much (common cultures, political systems and economic interests) to drift apart. Maybe. But we're still drifting.

Can You Really Keep It 'Casual'?

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Ahem. I'll reserve any comment about this article that appeared in the New York Post on the grounds that it may incriminate me. It was brought to my attention by my sister, Alessandra, who is surely trying to make point. Of course, about what that point is, I have no idea. Read on... -EBO)


By BRIDGET HARRISON
The New York Post
Sunday, May 2, 2004

I have fallen into the classic New York relationship - the kind half the singles in this city are having. It's called "just casual enough."

It's the relationship in which nothing heavy is ever said, the future is never discussed, and plans are kept to a minimum - as are emotions, affection and neediness.

We have no complications, just a good time.

But I'm torn. Sometimes I think this suits my life perfectly. Other times I wonder if it's turning me into a cold-hearted witch.

My "just casual enough" relationship started back in January with a blind-date fix-up. And at first I barely noticed I was having it.

I met the guy - a 30-year-old economics post-grad - for a drink. I found him sexy, well traveled and clever; we got drunk and argued about politics until five in the morning.

We parted with the feeling that we'd like to meet again. I figured at some point he'd call, and was pleased when he did.

Three weeks later, we got around to a second date. We went to a party, and the following day met for burgers. Again it seemed we'd like to hang out more, even though both of us made it clear we were very happy being single.

Then one Friday we went dancing at Cielo and ended up kissing like a couple of teenagers on the dance floor - and I went back to his place.

But in the morning I took off early, not wanting to give the impression that my staying over had upped the ante. In my mind, it hadn't.

That was three months ago and we've been seeing each other since - although if anyone asked either of us if were "seeing anyone," we'd still likely say no. We still call ourselves single.

I call him if I have a free night, or want a movie companion or a date for a party. He does the same. We're even planning a camping trip. We're always pleased to hang out.

He goes on dates with other girls and I've given my number to other guys. I've told him I don't care what he does when I'm not with him. And I don't.

Sound perfect?

Just freedom and fun.

Here's the dilemma.

As a typical New Yorker, who is obsessive about not being tied down and eternally poised for that mystery around the corner, my "just casual enough" relationship is surely ideal. But something nags me that carrying on in this way is ultimately a soulless waste of time - and is making me soulless along with it.

Although it's normal for this city, is it really normal to spend a lot of intimate time with someone without it being, well, intimate?

Isn't it strange to share your thoughts and evenings with someone with whom you don't want to share your heart?

Isn't the real pleasure in being with someone to desire to give yourself to him?

I know that under the right circumstances this guy has the capacity to be a great boyfriend, and I can be a great girlfriend (well sometimes, anyway).

And deep down I suspect we are actually missing out on the best of each other.

And yet, we don't want it. He recently moved to the city and doesn't want to be tied down. I don't want to feel any commitment to anyone unless they blow me away.

I still feel wonderfully liberated knowing I can ring him up at a moment's notice to come out with me, and that we can both leap out of bed not worrying about having to explain how we'll be spending our week.

But does this mean I've simply got the New York attitude that this setup is enough?

Back home in London, people often ask me why there are so many single people in this city. Perhaps this is the answer.

We train ourselves so brilliantly with non-committal arrangements that we become incapable of anything else.

Those Friendly Iranians

(EDITOR'S NOTE: I have always suspected that the media exaggerates claims of anti-Americanism in the Middle East. Burning flags and constant violence certainly make for better headlines. Nonetheless, an editorial from the New York Times, a more refreshing perspective is offered concerning the goals and concerns of middle easterners. Indeed, with the continued proliferation of the internet and satellite television, I suspect that fundamentalist propaganda, along the lines that we have experienced in Russia, Korea, and China as well, will continue to be diminished. To that end, it begs that attention of any US administration in their attempts to curb violence and terrorism while simultaneously extending the hands of diplomacy. Indeed, I have always been of the persuasion that knowledge trumps might any day.

Read the following excerpts from the aforementioned editorial and get a better sense of what I mean. -EBO)


By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
The New York Times
Wednesday, May 5, 2004

(Tehran, Iran) Finally, I've found a pro-American country.

Everywhere I've gone in Iran, with one exception, people have been exceptionally friendly and fulsome in their praise for the United States, and often for President Bush as well. Even when I was detained a couple of days ago in the city of Isfahan for asking a group of young people whether they thought the Islamic revolution had been a mistake (they did), the police were courteous and let me go after an apology.

They apologized; I didn't.

I stopped to chat with one of the Revolutionary Guards now based in the [old U.S. Embassy]. He was a young man who quickly confessed that his favorite movie is "Titanic." "If I could manage it, I'd go to America tomorrow," he said wistfully. He paused and added, "To hell with the mullahs."

...because being pro-American is a way to take a swipe at the Iranian regime, anything American, from blue jeans to "Baywatch," is revered.

...many people don't believe a word of the Iranian propaganda.

"We've learned to interpret just the opposite of things on TV because it's all lies," said Odan Seyyid Ashrafi, a 20-year-old university student. "So if it says America is awful, maybe that means it's a great place to live."

Indeed, many Iranians seem convinced that the U.S. military ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are going great, and they say this with more conviction than your average White House spokesman.

One opinion poll showed that 74 percent of Iranians want a dialogue with the U.S. - and the finding so irritated the authorities that they arrested the pollster. Iran is also the only Muslim country I know where citizens responded to the 9/11 attacks with a spontaneous candlelight vigil as a show of sympathy.

Left to its own devices, the Islamic revolution is headed for collapse, and there is a better chance of a strongly pro-American democratic government in Tehran in a decade than in Baghdad. The ayatollahs' best hope is that hard-liners in Washington will continue their inept diplomacy, creating a wave of Iranian nationalism that bolsters the regime - as happened to a lesser degree after President Bush put Iran in the axis of evil.

Oh, that one instance when I was treated inhospitably? That was in a teahouse near the Isfahan bazaar, where I was interviewing religious conservatives. They were warm and friendly, but a group of people two tables away went out of their way to be rude, yelling at me for being an American propagandist. So I finally encountered hostility in Iran - from a table full of young Europeans.

Different Standards for Israel

(EDITOR'S NOTE: There has always been a double standard for Israel. Anti-semitism? Judge for yourself after reading the following post in the excellent American Thinker. -BBM)


From The American Thinker
Wednesday, May 5, 2004

Writing in Israeli newspaper Maariv, Amos Gilboa compares the European Union's position on Cyprus, where refugees were created in the armed secession of the northern, Turkish-dominated Muslim section of the island from the southern, Greek, Eastern Orthodox-dominated section. Approximately 200,000 Greeks and 50,000 Turks fled their homes.

The EU recognizes no "right of return" for these refugees, although Israel is hectored to allow the "return" of descendents -- some of them four generations removed -- of the Arabs who voluntarily left Israel in 1947, on the promise of return with the victorious Arab armies who would push the Jews into the sea.

Gilboa adds:

It is interesting to remember (and remind the UN and EU, in the future) that in Cyprus, the basic assumption of the plan was that the new reality of refugees and settlers, which has been created in Cyprus during the last 30 years, was the decisive factor to be considered, not abstract claims for justice.

Yet again, Israel is judged by standards which are applied to no other nation or ethnic group. That is the textbook definition of racial bigotry.

UN Hits Bottom, Digs

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Courtesy of LGF. The UN has really become a farce... what with its peacekeeping failures (Screbnicia), inability to address disasters until too late (East Timor, Rwanda), fundamentally undemocratic nature (all members are unelected and equal weight is given to democracies and dictatorships), and the ridiculous committees (where Libya can chair the Human Rights Commission and Iran can chair the Anti-weapons proliferation commission). Recently, word has come of the largest financial scandal in history (Oil For Food), which basically made it impossible to build an international consensus on the Iraq invasion. It is readily apparent that Russian, German, and French leaders were bought off with oil contracts and kickbacks. Finally, add to this long list of failures an eerie silence on the genocide and slavery taking place in Chad, where Arabs are butchering the black minority. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? Why do we underwrite the UN with taxpayer money when the only thing that they specialize in is frustrating our strategic aims? Frankly, the medical missions and relief operations can be undertaken by private charities or the WHO, to far greater efficacy and efficiency. Fortunately, there are already murmurs of possible successor. I think that viable international institutions are important, but they must be subject to oversight. More importantly, they must reflect inherent democratic values. -BBM)


From Reuters

African nations have ensured that Sudan gets a seat on the chief U.N. human rights watchdog and angered rights groups who want more liberal democracies to win a place.

Fourteen vacant seats will be filled on Tuesday and on Wednesday for the 53-nation U.N. Human Rights Commission. Many have been decided by regional groups before the voting in the Economic and Social Council in New York.

Sudan has been the target of worldwide criticism, including an expression of concern from the Geneva-based commission in late April. It has been accused of backing Arab militia destroying villages, raping and killing black Africans in the Darfur region.

"A government that engages in wholesale abuses of its citizens should not be eligible for a seat at the table, especially a country just criticized by the commission," said Joanna Weschler, U.N. delegate for Human Rights Watch, one of 10 advocacy groups that issued a protest statement.

"This is a major credibility test of the regional bloc structure at the United Nations in terms of how it nominates candidates for key U.N. posts," Weschler said.

In the African regional group, which rotates candidacies for commission posts, Sudan, Guinea and Togo - all called undemocratic by the rights groups - will be filling seats on the commission. A fourth will go to Kenya.

(Here's your chance to speak out...click here to write a letter and express your outrage with recent events in Africa.)

Continuing Efforts to Rip Off the Little Guy

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Google made front page news last week in their announcement to issue shares in their initial public offering (IPO) using a process known as a Dutch auction. This version of an IPO allows any investor to bid for shares at a price that is amenable to him. All of the individual bids are then used to determine a "clearing price" at which shares will be offered. It is a process that has been implemented several times in the past, most remarkably in the sale of wireless spectrum in Germany a few years ago. Essentially, a dutch auction allows a company to extract the most value for its shares at issuance, particularly if desired ownership in the company is high, as is the case with Google. Moreover, it allows any investor, corporate or individual, to command an ownership stake at issuance if the bid is high enough.

Of course, investment banks, large mutual funds, and hedge funds have already begun to voice their doubts about the process. The reader should recognize that these entities have historically been the prime beneficiaries of the "favored allocation" process implemented by banks in IPOs during the late 1990s. In excerpts from a Wall Street Journal article, it is easy to see why they would be against a more equitable allocation of IPO shares, at the expense of the small individual investor. As always, emphasis and observations added... -EBO)


Big Funds Could Pressure Google for Better IPO Prices

By AARON LUCCHETTI, JOHN HECHINGER and CHRISTOPHER OSTER
The Wall Street Journal
Monday, May 3, 2004

Google Inc. may be sticking up for individual investors with its plan to auction shares to the public, but powerful institutional investors still could wind up having a big say in how the deal works.

In the coming weeks, mutual funds, hedge funds and other big institutional investors are expected to exert pressure on Google and its underwriters to get a piece of the deal at a price lower than a true auction price. In other words, the big funds don't want to just own a piece of the Mountain View, Calif., Internet search-engine company, they want to profit from it.

Mr. Brooks is skeptical of the auction process. "This will be new" for a deal of this size, he says of the estimated $2.7 billion Google offering. "Who knows whether it will be a good process? You want to develop a strong shareholder base and I don't know if [the auction] does that."

(A strong shareholder base does not pump and dump IPO shares, as do hedge and mutual funds, resulting in extraordinary one day gains followed by weeks of performance malaise. Individuals have often been the more reliable longterm investors.)

Some fear that distributing the shares to an unusually large number of individual shareholders could increase Google's costs for communicating with investors and might even hurt the stock's performance.

(Of course, these are the same people, read hedge and mutual funds, who fear that they may not be able to guarantee outsized profits on the day of Google's IPO. Moreover, Google's goal is not to guarantee investor returns, but to maximize the capital raised during the process to fund future operations and growth.)

But critics of the traditional IPO process say individuals can be better shareholders than institutions, whose managers are overly concerned with short-term earnings performance and more likely to jump in and out of a stock to help their own short-term fund performance.

The auction system is, in part, a reaction to the way Wall Street doled out IPO shares in the late 1990s. Regulators alleged that favored Wall Street clients -- mainly executives and hedge-fund managers -- received hot IPO shares in return for such things as padded commissions or promises of future business. These favored clients then benefited from what was often a big gain the first day the shares started trading.

American Century's [Chief Investment Officer, Harold] Bradley adds that "it's common practice" for firms that trade a lot and pay high commissions to get a fat IPO allocation and then quickly sell the stock.

(This is a spot on assertion.)

Google said its goal is to avoid a first-day pop and sell its shares at a price that will remain relatively stable. In addition, a first-day pop leaves the issuer, Google in this case, wondering if it didn't reap all the cash it could, since a first-day spike in price indicates that the offering was priced lower than market demand. The risk in an auction, however, is that investors could bid up the price of Google shares so high that they actually sink in post-offering trading rather than soar.

One option for money managers is to sit out the IPO and wait for the stock price to settle down after Google starts trading.

Even if the offering price is high, fund managers are likely to feel pressure to buy at least some Google shares because their performance could fall behind that of their peers if they don't own the stock.

Some fund managers say the auction could help them, since the Google shares won't necessarily go to the favored clients of Google's underwriters. "A real investor should be able to get a real position in this," says Paul Cook, director of technology investing at Munder Capital Management, a Birmingham, Mich., money manager with $35 billion in investments. "This could be attractive."

Petrodollar Diplomacy

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Courtesy of Instapundit. This speaks for itself. -BBM)


Diplomats failed to disclose their own Arab links

Some of the most prominent former diplomats who condemned Tony Blair's policies in the Middle East have business links with Arab governments, The Telegraph can reveal.

In a letter published last week, 52 former British diplomats condemned the invasion of Iraq and the Government's support for Israel.

The letter failed to disclose, however, that several of the key signatories, including Oliver Miles, the former British ambassador to Libya who instigated the letter, are paid by pro-Arab organisations.

Some of the others hold positions in companies seeking lucrative Middle East contracts, while others have unpaid positions with pro-Arab organisations.

The disclosure last night prompted allegations - denied by the diplomats - that they were merely promoting the interests of their clients. Andrew Dismore, the Labour MP for Hendon, said: "If an MP had made statements like these without declaring an interest in the subject they would have been before the standards and privileges committee we would have had their guts for garters.

"This casts a very different light on what the former diplomats have said."

(Yes, it does. And I suspect that this merely scratches the surface where former diplomats -- and, perhaps, current diplomats and journalists -- are concerned. I'm also pleased to see that the phrase "have their guts for garters" is still in general usage in Britain, something I didn't realize.

More information can be found at the website "Friends of Saddam"...The UN Oil for Food Scandal (UNSCAM), Saddam, and his many Global Friends.)