6/7/2003:   There was a "Twilight Zone" episode, many years ago, that starts out with a woman rushing to her husband to tell him she's been raped (or maybe it was a boyfriend/girlfriend, or maybe even total strangers; it's been a long time since I saw it). Anyway, she tells him that she's been violated, and he helps her to the car so they can go to the police.

On the way there, she sees a man walking down the street and begins screaming, "That's him! That's that man that did it!" The man flies into a rage, pulls over grabs the guy, and kills him, all while the guy proclaims his innocence. He disposes of the body, then puts the woman back in the car and starts to drive home.

Just then she sees another man walking down the street and begins to scream, "That's him!"

"What do you mean, that's him?!"

Then she sees another man, and another, and each time she goes into hysterics, screaming that that man is the one that violated her. Our anti-hero begins to realize that whatever happened to her has traumatized her to the point that she sees her attacker in any strange man. And he also realizes that he has quite probably killed an innocent man.

That's sort of what it feels like now. Bush has told the nation in a press conference that he's just sure they WMDs that were the primary reason for invading Iraq and paying the price of that invasion with hundreds of U.S. lives, will turn up Real Soon Now. He's "absolutely convinced" that the biochemical and nuclear weapons will be found. And meanwhile, it's starting to dawn on an entire nation, as more and more reports come in that the data Bush handed Congress was partially or wholely fabricated, that, while Saddam's regime could hardly be characterized as "innocent", it certainly did not pose the terrorist threat that was pushed down our throats continuously for months until, in a foaming rage, we struck a small nation with all our (non-nuclear) might and slew thousands.

We were motivated to a murderous, though seemingly justified, rage. Our elected officials, acting on the information that was given them by our top leader, gave Bush the clearance to perform that most dreaded of deeds, the waging of war. And hundreds of the men and women that Bush put in harm's way have paid the price for that action.

And now you can see Bush starting to point a finger at Iran.

And Korea.

And Turkey.

And Bush is telling us that these guys have each, in their own way, committed some crime that can only be repaid by going to war.

I hope that it starts to sink in that this guy is a bit too thirsty for blood and too willing to have the U.S. military do the muscle work to complete his delusions. Are these nations dangerous? Sure they are. Have they once committed acts that may have called for war? Yes, but we passed. Why can't Bush respect the decisions of elected officials that went before him?

6/7/2003:   There was a time when the U.S. fought to create the United Nations. The League of Nations had failed, but the need for an international governing body was recognized and the call was finally answered. The U.N. did a reasonably good job, given the incredibly diverse crowd that populates it.

One thing that is rather grand about the U.N. is the political pluralism it supports. The Soviet Union can practice communism, Iran can have its theocracy, England can have its Parliament, the U.S. can have its democracy, the French can have their stinky cheese... uh... socialism, that is.... well you get the point. But no matter how your government was structured, all the states would send representatives to iron out disagreements and make plans for a better, more peaceful world. In theory, at least.

But the U.N. was shafted by Mr. Bush. Rather than follow the law, he set out on a not yet sanctioned war. I say "not yet sanctioned" because I really think that if the U.S. had been patient and kept applying pressure, they might very well have gotten the necessary approval from the U.N. But rather than be legal, we'd rather just do what we want, when we want, right?! Yeah!! So now Bush is an outlaw. Well, isn't that dandy?

And the international policy that Bush is pushing is something along the lines of, "If we don't like you, we'll overthrow you and put in a democracy."

The problem is, no democracy that you put in in Iraq is going to last. There is exactly one thing that keeps the peace there: a crushing theocracy. Iran has a crushing theocracy, and riots, civil disobedience, and the like are unheard of. The people of that country respect that form of government. Pakistan, by way of comparison, does not have that form of government. Different religious factions are constantly killing each other over there. This weekend, several guys on motorcycles opened fire with machine guns on a police bus loaded with trainees, killing 12 men. The police! There is little respect for the government, social unrest is constantly boiling under the surface, and it's all the leaders of that country can do to hold it together.

I say that, given that Muslims seem to like working out their differences by killing each other, we should pick a Muslim religious leader, someone that's not a Sunni (I believe that's the dominant religion in Iran), and let that person pick his cabinet. That would end up being a government that the Iraqis would respect. Anything else we do denies that region the political pluralism it deserves. I realized that, with a democracy, there could be religious parties, but try to teach that to your average Middle Eastern Muslim who understands and respects might, not law, and your argument will be a waste of breath.

And by the way, whatever happened to Afghanistan? Don't hear much about them anymore, do you? Are we still helping to rebuild that country? From what I hear, we just left. Hope things don't get bad over there again....

6/7/2003:   Y'know, I liked Tony Blair. I really did. He looks kinda nerdy in a Prince Charles sort of way, but his personality says he's just one of the chattier, funnier guys down at the pub who's dang smart and always has a cool story.

But apparently poor ole Tony fell in with the wrong crowd. He took Bush's rendition of the Saddam/WMD situation, hook, line and sinker, and now his own political party, not to mention the general British populace, is taking him to task for it. I feel bad for him, I really do. He'll go down in history as one of those leaders that could have had a glowing legacy, if not for that one *really* big screw-up.

6/7/2003:   The French Open showed just how stupid the folks in France can be. In the matchup between Serena Williams and Henin-Hardenne, the line judges were making blatantly bad calls and cheering when Serena would make a mistake.

Do you hear what I'm telling you?! Cheering! The line judges!!

At one point, Serena took the time to circle the spots where her ball was landing so the court judge could see that the calls were bad. The court judge had to rule in her favor, which really put the French fans in a snit. They even booed her as she left the court at the end of the match. Putzes.

The hostile treatment rattled her, and she eventually lost. Her opponent's response? "She's had her chance so many times, maybe it's time to give someone else a chance."

Uh huh. Except maybe she didn't get a fair shake, honey. Why don't you have a seat, adjust your ponytail, and do some cola ads or something, ok sweetie?

Don't get me wrong; Henin-Hardenne is good, probably the only player out there right now with the juice to beat Williams. But did she really win, or was Serena at least in part defeated by the incredibly hostile and downright unfair treatment handed to her by the French fans and officials? Can she really and honestly call it a victory in that situation? Or just a high embarrassment?

Not being one to state a problem without also having a solution handy, here's what I think we should do: At the next international tennis match held here in the states, when a French player comes up, the fans should yell "OUT!" every time the French player serves. Every time. Good serve, bad serve, doesn't matter. And cheer on every mistake. But the judges should be impartial. Y'know, like a good tennis line judge should be.

The point we'd make is, we don't like the way the French acted. And we too can do things to unfairly unnerve opposing athletes. But our officials are, and should be, above such concerns. In other words, draw attention, but make the point that we are turning the other cheek, that we're better than that.

And if they do it again, nuke'em.

(just kidding!)