Virginia Ballot Questions

The Democratic Party of my county did a service to all voters by mailing out a voting guide. They highlighted which candidates they want you to support, as well as how to vote on ballot questions: Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

The two statewide questions pertain to the Virginia Constitution, and my roommates and I puzzled at what they were intended to accomplish. A little research explained things:

Ballot question one reads:

Shall Section 6 of Article II of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to provide that members of the United States House of Representatives, Virginia Senate, and House of Delegates who are serving in the year following a new United States Census, when decennial redistricting is required, shall complete their terms of office and continue to represent the district from which they were elected for that term of office and that any vacancy during the term shall be filled from the same district that elected the member whose term is being filled?

The explanation online said this question came up because of confusion in recent years over how appointees shall be selected for districts in transition. An apolitical, technical item, I'll vote Yes on this.

Question 2 is probably equally uncontroversial, but a little darker in its political roots. It provides to extend from three to six the list of successors to the office of Governor. This would provide for more order in a terrorist attack that prevented the Virginia House of Delegates from meeting. It's harmless, of course, unless such an attack happens, but the fact that people in Richmond worked hard enough to put this on a statewide ballot shows how powerful fear has become. This was never enacted during the Cold War, which, in my opinion, had a much greater chance of annihilating an entire state government. My guess is that is being used by the Commonwealth's Republican leadership as a scare tactic; otherwise it would have no fuel.

Handicapping the "horse race" coverage

A number in the self-proclaimed 'highbrow media' have complained at the shift of election coverage from substantive news to coverage of what has been termed the "horse race", which basically denotes the relative polls. Normally, I'm all highbrow, all the time. However, on this point I have to take issue with those who complain at the greater emphasis on the polls than on the candidates, because the former is what I, and many others, care about.

Hearing Bush or Kerry's message after the conventions carries almost zero interest to me and the 90% of other likely voters who already have their man picked. Certainly some things the candidates and their surrogates say are interesting and relevant, but really I'm just waiting for November 2nd. As a responsible voter, I'm basing my vote on the candidates platforms (set before the conventions) and their respective histories. What either blowhard says during August, September, and October is on par with a gossip column.

The mainstream media does a lot of things wrong. But one thing they do right is pay close attention to the things that interest me and millions of other viewers: which candidate is ahead in Ohio and a dozen other swing states. Now, coverage could be more nuanced and intelligent, for sure. But the emphasis? They've got that right.

2004 World Champion Boston Red Sox

Everything that can possibly be said has already been said by others. So I'll just sum it up... in their words:

Breaking News From Boston: There Is A God

Magic 8 ball: Sox rack up history

Sox wrap a season for the ages

Today is Someday

Ain't It Cool?

Thank You!

Mission Accomplished (For Real!)

Special Announcement: The Nation Has Been Set Free

Never again

Such a feeling of providence

"We Believed" in Johnny and the Red Sox!

Bill Bucker Finally off the Hook editor's note: Yankee fans can't spell

So Now What?

Simplicity says it best

YES!!!

Victory transforms a region's identity

For multitudes, years of torment end in bliss

You better believe it

No more 'waiting,' the joy is ours now

The Nation's destination: Destiny editor's note: not work safe; you'll laugh out loud

The Triumphant Red Sox Fan Forum (Formerly Miserable Red Sox Fan Forum)

Soak in it...

The Faith of Our Fathers is Redeemed: Free at Last

Feels good, don't it?

You Won't See This On CNN

Settlers in an illegal outpost made news in Israel by puncturing the tires of an ambulance and "clashing" with IDF troops after a settler shot and wounded a Palestinian teenager. The teen died from his wounds for lack of medical attention, and the IDF is investigating the incident to determine what actually transpired prior to the settler firing multiple shots at the Palestinian.

No Comment

This is a test. This is only a test.

"The Age of Statesmen Is Gone"

William Schambra's article on election invective in the CS Monitor is a breath of fresh air in a constipated campaign. Just hours ago I got into my first office debate - not arguing the merit of the candidates, but arguing whether or not George Bush has ushered in one of the all-time worst eras in American history. Now, regardless of your political leanings and how much you hate Bush, any rational person with a grip on history and economics should be able to understand that Bush can't be much worse than his predecessors simply because he isn't much different.

Don't like big deficits or unilateralist rhetoric? Meet Ronald Reagan. Can't abide with civil rights infringements? Truman and Eisenhower, and even Lincoln, presided over all of the above. Tax cuts too big? John F. Kennedy, at your service. Pointless war with no exit strategy? That's a Texas thing - he's just filling Lyndon Johnson's shoes. Unpopular with Old Europe? James Monroe set this precedent. Anti-Arab? That began with John Adams.

Neither Bush nor Kerry will lead America into the apocalypse, give nukes to our enemies, or sell the nation off to the special interests. Historical perspective - both on the evilness of a candidate and on the degree of rancour in his partisans' vitriol - would serve us all.

Oh, and I'd be interested to know if anyone downloads and plays the CS Monitor's Power Politics III.

Breaking Breakup News

Israel is disengaging. In a down-to-the-wire Knesset vote, Israel's legislature approved the unilateral pullout from Gaza. Sharon's own Likud Party was split 23-17 in the 67-45 vote, and two ministers were fired for voting 'nay'. However, in a land of stop-and-go peacemaking and broken promises, most of us will wait until the dust settles and the settlers are resettled before evaluating the policy.

The House of Lords > The Issues > Fox Hunting

The House of Lords, a more or less archaic body without much say or much to say in UK politics, has been galvanized by parliamentary legislation against fox hunting. Rather than rubber-stamp the bill per usual, they have bitten the hand that feeds them and resisted the change doggedly, unleashing an interhouse dogfight that will no doubt lead to members of the media sniffing out new angles and hounding them at all turns.

Frankly, I think they're barking up the wrong tree.

Election 04 > The Issues > Stem-Cell Research

Direct democracy is good, but it is also dangerous. InstantReplay firmly supports putting issues on state ballots to let voters decide on specific policies; this is generally a better reflection of the will of the public than a law made by elected officials with special interests and lobbies in mind. As long as constitutions protect the law against the "tyranny of the majority", referendum-based laws can be effective ways of deciding divisive public issues.

The other side of the coin, of course, is that fifty million Californians can be wrong. Referenda highlight the real hearts-and-minds battles at the basis of American polity. Beyond the fancy machines and sophisticated spin, do Americans really agree with a policy?

In this case, the policy is stem-cell research and the state is California. Stem-cell research is already allowed there, as elsewhere; but Governor Schwarzenegger is supporting a ballot measure to approve a $3 billion bond issue funding stem-cell research in the state and intended to catapult California past other states - and other countries - as the bio research capital of the world. With the collapse of the dot-com boom California has been struggling to attract businesses to its high-priced tech Meccas.

Outside of the ethical issues surrounding cloning, which I won't get into here, Californians have to decide whether the measure is desirable and fiscally responsible (which, by all accounts, it's not). Christian Science Monitor has a good article on this, going into more detail and also noting that the measure enjoys 46-39 support among Californians at latest poll.

Questioning Authorities

This year I have been trying to better understand Reform (aka Calvinist) theology and practice. I have been attending a Presbyterian Church, and I have watched as the evangelical/charismatic movement in my lifetime has shifted sharply toward the Reform end of the spectrum. I asked two of my Reform friends (from radically different church backgrounds) what they would recommend as a strong statement of Reform soteriology (=the study of salvation). I was encouraged when both recommended the same piece: J.I. Packer's introductory essay to a reprint of John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Though the essay is a bit dense, I strongly recommend it to anyone with more than a passing interest in Protestant theology.

I came away from my first reading with a few criticisms of Packer's work. Firstly, his style is polemical and argumentative. He sets forth that he is refuting the "new gospel" of contemporary man-centered theology, and then promptly proceeds to tear down an Arminian straw man. He focuses not on what I would call the evangelical mainstream but rather on those who have strayed farthest from biblical soteriology, and criticizes them in demeaning terms.

After boiling away the bile and inapplicable arguments, I found that the principal difference between his beliefs and those of the churches I was raised in is the origin of faith. While many today admittedly believe - and even more effectively practice the belief - that faith originates in human conviction, Packer correctly affirms that faith is in fact a grace extended by God, giving Him sole propriety over each believer's salvation. Beyond this, differences are cosmetic.

However, while Packer focuses admirably on the central tenets of Christian faith, he conveniently skirts the harder questions facing Calvinism. To me, the most difficult is the judgment of God. This is the classic question against Christianity: "If God is loving and sovereign, how can people go to Hell?"

We modern evangelicals are trained with a silver bullet with which to shoot down this question. "God created men good, but they rebelled", we say. "A just God must punish sin. But a loving God provides a way out; He offers forgiveness through His Son's death to all who believe." This answer, a product of the "new gospel", places men as rebels, but puts redemption within their reach.

Calvinism, however, does not have the convenience of this human-centric answer. Since God sets his love on specific persons, whom He elects, then it can no longer be said that He loves the whole world, for He offers to those not elected no hope at all. This is entirely just - for the rebellion is in our hearts, not from Him - but no logical gymnastics can make that "loving" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Somewhat unsettlingly, Packer seems to have no trouble with this conclusion. He writes, "Preaching the gospel, he tells us, is not a matter of telling the congregation that God has set his love on each of them and Christ has died to save each of them, for these assertions, biblically understood, would imply that they will all infallibly be saved, and this cannot be known to be true." He echoes this sentiment elsewhere in the essay; do a Control-F for all instances of the word "love" and you'll get what I mean.

Then it comes down to the nature of God's love? Is it universal? If so, Calvinism is wrong on some important points. Is it selective? If so, where do we hide John 3:16?

The Calvinist's only shelter here is to say that God has a general love for the world expressed in his special saving love for specific people. Packer accuses his opponents of cheapening the gospel and reducing God to an impotent outsider begging to be let in to human hearts. Yet, this explanation of God's love rings so hollow that it would seem to reduce Him to an arbitrary, mercurial tyrant. Now, if this is true, we still have to play by His rules, because He is God. Perhaps a better appreciation of His might and terrible justice would make His specific love for me seem more like love and less unfair; for now it seems a pretty ungodlike way to characterize Him.

Never Again

After the Super Bowl riots and the death of a young Bostonian fan, we thought the city and the fans had learned their lesson. Apparently BPD didn't get that memo. While tens of thousands of fans partied in a much more controlled environment than they did last February, a policeman reacted to a threat with fear and violence, using his pepper-spray-pellet shooter like a machine gun, and killing Victoria Snelgrove, an Emerson student.

Many will react to the above paragraph by saying that I'm overreacting, jumping on a bandwagon, or blaming the police for something the hooligans did. However, when I say that could have been my sister, I mean it quite literally; she was part of that crowd of thousands for at least a few minutes, and she certainly wasn't drunk or threatening cops.

Certainly, no mercy should be granted to the "knuckleheads". Make the punishment fit the crime: snag 'em and lock 'em up without bail and without TV or any other news source for the entirety of the World Series; then prosecute them to the full extent of the law. I have zero sympathy for these fools; they posed, no doubt, a greater danger to my sister's health, if not her life, with their drunken stunts. I can't help noting, though, that they've at least been more discriminating in their visigothery: the only car to be torched had New York tags.

If the knuckleheads are to blame for the incident, how can I blame the police for the death?

Simple: the number one duty of the police in this situation is to make things better, never worse. As in Denver during their Super Bowl riots, insufficiently trained police reacted by making the situation worse; fatally worse. Officers who do not have drilled into their skulls what is appropriate range for one of their weapons, and what is an appropriate way to deal with crowd violence, should not be holding potentially lethal weapons. It's as simple as that. They can be there, but only those who have undergone effective crowd control training should be allowed to wield and use things like rubber bullet and pepper spray cannister guns.

Here are InstantReplay's Top Ten Tips for handling future Boston wins:

• 10. Install conspicuous, temporary cameras in key areas (Hemenway, Lansdowne, Kenmore) and use them liberally in making post-facto arrests.
• 9. Arrest anyone who steps out of line. Don't wait for people to escalate violations. If somebody climbs a billboard or a store awning, a cop should be there to arrest them in 60 seconds. There'll be more arrests, but the level of gamesmanship won't escalate.
• 8. Check ID's. If you're not from New England, you don't have a right to riot. Go back to your dorm and root for the New Jersey Devils or the Pittsburgh Pirates or something.
  
• 7. If it's not already on the books, put a public drunkenness law in effect temporarily. This will give the cops a good way to nab people who haven't broken any other law yet but are clearly headed for trouble. Disturbance of the peace is another good one they've been using, but it's tougher to prove than public drunkenness.
• 6. Force the teams to hold Games 7 during the day or early evening. Put your foot down. People have way too much time to drink with 8:30pm starts. That's too late for us East-Coasters anyway.
• 5. Hold better riot training and differentiate between experts and laymen. Use close, personal tactics, singling out lawbreakers and arresting them. Use overpowering force: three officers per arrestee. Use paddywagons, and fill 'em up with punks. These aren't tough mobsters or even angry strikers; they're drunk children, and they'll ditch their lawbreaking friends in a hurry if they see targeted, determined police honing in on one person at a time. And keep the guns aimed below the shoulders.
• 4. Write a ticketing law for "Accessory to Destruction of Private Property" or something for those who are caught on-camera not blatantly participating in car-flipping, etc, but also not trying to stop it. It's way too easy to be on the edge, egging on the grandstanders. A $250 ticket would be a deterrent to those who flirt with the law, and would be a way of bringing home to parents and schools what their kids are involved in.
• 3. Convince universities to expel anyone arrested or ticketed for any reason during riots. Also convince them to hold on-campus rallies, and find ways to send them the bill for destruction caused by poor preparation and poor campus policing. To date, the schools have been perfectly happy to send students off-campus to wreak havoc elsewhere.
  
• 2. If it gets really bad, use water cannons to hose down the crowd. Nothing sends people home in New England as quickly as icewater. It should only be used, however, on truly dangerous, out-of-control crowds, such as the car-flipping hooligans of the post-Super Bowl, etc.
• 1. Recognize the energy, and channel it; don't fight it. The City needs to plan victory events to draw the peaceful fans. These could include fireworks, an outdoor concert, ticker-tape, a flyover, etc. Fans need a way to participate in something larger than themselves; if they can't find a productive way to do it, they'll go along with the destructive.

OCTOBER REVOLUTION

The Boston Red Sox wrote themselves into the history books at just over an hour ago. The most amazing comeback of baseball history has been consummated, and Red Sox Nation is in excelsis, but also looking forward.

The sixty-eight hours between 12:02 am today and 8:20 pm on Saturday should be known as the Days of Two Faces. For now all Red Sox fans are looking in two directions at once. One face looks backwards, exulting, and finding freedom from the myth of Yankee invincibility. The outcome could not possibly have been more decisive nor more deeply etched in the consciousnesses of the Nation and the Empire. This first face is smiling too broadly to describe, laughing too loudly to hear, and walking too tall to measure.

Meanwhile, another face looks forward. Mission 2004 has surmounted one great obstacle, but the greater goal lies yet ahead. Failure is no further than it was before, though success lies nearer by. Verily, the road to success could not possibly be more excruciating than this most recent, but that by no means precludes failure.

Without minimizing the October Revolution, the Red Sox and the Nation must transition from the Face of Victory to the Face of Choice. We have all seen two Red Sox teams this season - and this series. Somehow, the Winning Red Sox, the Revolutionaries, the Victorious, must choose to take the field on Saturday; otherwise, the Curse will enter its 87th year not diminished in poignancy but enhanced.

Extreme Commuting

As I fell hard and slid wetly down the muddy embankment on my way home from work, it occurred to me that commuting is underrated. Maybe I'm the only one who has extraordinary experiences on ordinary, daily trips, but I suspect that if you really thought about, you could come up with a wealth of mishaps (and happy haps) in everyone's workaday commuting.

Here's a few commuting experiences I came up with; add your own in the comments:

• Sliding down an embankment
• Surviving a near-drowning
• Completing a triathlon
• Being told to exit a train because the weight of the people had broken it
• Waking up unconscious lying spreadeagled on the sidewalk
• Failing to save a woman from getting run over by a bus
• Reporting a domestic violence incident to the police
• Walking two hours
• Getting to work on time

What about you?

Saint Curt v. The Sore Losers

The Red Sox made history tonight by being the first team in baseball history to come back from a 0-3 deficit to force a seventh game. History itself will be on hand to witness tomorrow's game, for even history dare not predict the outcame of Game Seven II.

The Yankees looked like losers tonight, and their fans like sore losers. Faces taught with frustration lined the first-base dugout in the late innings, as the NYPD was forced to dispatch riot police to quell a crowd of sore losers. In all the painful days of Red Sox lossdom, never have the Fenway Faithful made a display of anger as unsportsmanlike as the Yankee fans did, throwing balls and debris onto the field when the umpires ruled (correctly) against them on a few occasions. The umps themselves were completely professional, caucusing on tough calls and getting it right.

The biggest story of the night, of course, was Curt Schilling, who gave credit to God for the win. Game One he said, he tried to pitch in his own strength; this was not only a godlike pitching performance, it was God. Should we nickname him Saint Curt?

I have no life

I'm a Boston Red Sox fan.

Have You Ever?

Have you ever tried to buy T tokens with a $100 bill? I just dreamt that I did... after finding $1006.00 lying on the street in front of a car with the license plate 999-SSS. So if you know anyone who lost a 500, a few 100's, a fifty, two twenties, a ten, a five, and a one, tell them to give me a call. And I'll dream it back to its rightful owner.

The shock of getting a $10,500 raise hasn't worn off yet.

Bells Are Ringing!

I just had a wonderful day. A job interview this morning led to a job offer on the spot and a jaw-dropping salary figure this afternoon. For those of you who have been kept in the dark, I was unemployed for the last two weeks. The job search had been pretty slow, but my friend Tom asked for my resume and sent it to his bosses. That led to the job interview, and I'll begin working alongside him at 9:00 tomorrow! This layoff - never an enjoyable experience - is panning out to be a blessing in disguise: I'm getting a $10,500 raise. Praise God!

Too Little, Too Late

Good pitching beats good hitting. And mediocre pitching beats downright lousy pitching. And the Red Sox will be playing from a deficit tomorrow as Pedro faces up to his Daddy. I feel sick.

Flashpoint: Taba

Earlier this evening, the resort town of Taba - recently restored to Egypt from Israel - was the site of what will be remembered as one of the highest-profile terrorist attacks of our time. The Taba Hilton has been a common meeting place for leaders in the Middle East, and Taba itself is perhaps the most rosy symbol of Arab-Jewish cooperation, as the resort is a cheaper alternative to neighboring Elat for vacationing Israelis. Tonight, the Hilton was subjected to a major bombing, killing at least 16 and wounding over 135; other nearby resorts were also attacked.

The Washington Post is already fingering Al-Qaeda as a likely suspect, given the style and scale, though the World Islamic Group is claiming responsibility(Haaretz). Eye-witnesses indicate multiple explosions, including a car bomb and missile attacks from surrounding hills.

The likely consequences of this action will be intensified cooperation between U.S., Egyptian, Jordanian, and Israeli security. If Al-Qaeda is indeed responsible, this will be significant as the first major action directed against Israel, and if it represents a pattern, could change the dynamics of the War on Terror and the corresponding War on Infidels. More directly, this will set back Israeli tourism in Egypt and elsewhere, which was a key first step in establishing good working relationships between the private sectors and civil societies of each.

One bright spot is the level of cooperation achieved between Israeli and Egyptian relief and security forces in the aftermath. Some reports point to the difficulties had in negotiating the international border to get Israeli casualties back to the care and safety of Israeli hospitals, but by my estimation, the level of unplanned and high-pressure cooperation is a strong sign of trust along the border.

Two Down, Nine to Go

I asked people to place wagerless bets on the score of tonight's Red Sox-Angels playoff game. Here's what I got:

• InstantReplay: Red Sox 4, Angels 3, 11 innings.
• Josie: Red Sox 3, Angels 5.
• Kevin: Red Sox 6, Angels 4.
• Jackie: Red Sox 8, Angels 5.

And the winner is Jackie! My prediction looked safe until the Red Sox decided to unload a second helping of what they served Anaheim last night. After a game of fast-pitch baseball (the only non-fireballers on either side were Myers and Foulke), the falling Angels arrive in Boston to watch the butterfly pitch and set Kelvim Escobar up as the stopper against the on-fire Red Sox. In the meantime, the Yankees and Twins guaranteed their series will go to four games at least, and gave their bullpens three extra innings of work tonight. Keep at it, boys!

Intermission Entertainment: The Veeps

The Vice-Presidential debate this evening was, like it's 2000 counterpart, a calmer and tangibly less tense meeting than the Presidential candidates' last Thursday. Not that it was kinder or gentler - each went for the jugular with ad hominem attacks halfway through.

Gwen Ifill was terrific and totally in charge. Coming across as a cross schoolteacher, she cowed both the Vice President and Senator into submission with tough questions and a sharp tongue. Precisely what's needed in a moderator. The debate had a much different veneer, as each candidate knew he was performing for a much more limited audience than last Thursday's. Motivating their own tickets and framing the previous and upcoming presidential debates was as important as the 'victory' in the current contest.

Cheney, I think, won the issues debate, demonstrating an ability to recite complex policies and point to work his administration has done and is planning. He gave the right impression: that Kerry and Edwards are interrupting a busy administration which is working overtime to meet a variety of goals. Edwards, on the other hand, came down hard in a few places, and that was all he needed to do to stay even in the debate. He effectively questioned Cheney's credentials, including not only his shameful congressional record but his equally questionable Halliburton ties. Cheney attempted to match Edwards mudsling for mudsling, but Edwards got off the last salvo and effectively won that part of the debate. How many voters will be enticed to the Democrats - or simply kept away from the polls - by Cheney's dirty laundry remains to be seen.

In other news, The Daily Show continues to be the most effective media I've yet seen. Unlike most of the outlets, which report the candidate's words and deeds, but rarely give the background or do appropriate fact-checking, Jon Stewart is not afraid to debunk the media myths o' the day.

Today's brew: the "global test" phrase uttered by Kerry in Thursday's debate. It was, needless to say, a terrible political mistake on Kerry's part. However, in context it was a harmless, even meaningless, phrase, implying that each intervention would be viewed in the context of American interests worldwide. The instant I saw it, I knew at once that Kerry did not mean what "global test" implies to many, and I also knew it would be harped on by the Republicans. However, the major media have simply reported on the GOP's harping; they should follow such coverage by saying, "those who heard Kerry's statements understand that's obviously not what he meant, but the Republican we just interviewed knows it's an effective phrase to pin on Kerry." And vice versa for mischaracterizations of Bush. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks the media should be an independent voice, not a mouthpiece for the spin doctors, as Jon Stewart refreshingly mocked the spinners for misusing that phrase.

Tonight's assignment for the professional media is to fact-check on the debate. What is the actual spending figure in Iraq? $200 billion or $120 billion? That's my money - I want to know! Also, have Cheney and Edwards really never met? That's difficult to believe, what with the photographic evidence and all.

Breaking Off the Engagement

I'm not sure who proposed to whom, but the Israelis and Palestinians have been wearing each others' diamond rings since the 1994 Oslo Accord, for better and (more often) for worse. Ariel Sharon is planning to return the ring.

Many observers, myself included, have wondered why the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is such a bad idea. Of course it's not complete justice to the Palestinians, but partial justice is better than none, right? A lot of Arabs, Europeans, and Israeli leftists disagree. It's all part of some Israeli version of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

In a typically Israeli bout of unadvised honesty, a Sharon aide (who will soon be looking for work, no doubt) talked with interviewers from Friday magazine:

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians. What I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."

A pretty damning interview. If only the American media covered it, it could make Bush look like he'd been hoodwinked by Sharon, and would embarress the latter in the eyes of the American public. But that won't happen, which is one reason Israeli officials are so often loose-lipped; and one reason I read Haaretz regularly.

So does this mean InstantReplay is withdrawing its endorsement of the disengagement plan, or Operation Formaldehyde as it could now be called?

No. Not because I agree with Sharon's conclusion that the best solution is to keep the Palestinians in a super-sized prison until the next epic regional catastrophe changes things; his ideals are abhorrent. Rather, the Israelis are beating themselves at their own game: facts on the ground. Since the early 1900's, the Zionists found themselves stymied in political processes unless and until they went out and created 'facts on the ground'. Since 1967 this effort has been mainly placed in building settlements, which Sharon now proposes to dismantle (including, presumably, his own home). Even if his motives are underhanded and unjust, the results on the ground will look the same as if it had been negotiated in some grueling 4-week marathon between sweating, overweight diplomats in an American or Norwegian resort. The formaldehyde will only last as long as Likud is in office; a reinvigorated Labor government a few years down the road will be forced at some points to go back to the negotiating table, this time with one chip fewer.

Warning

It's T minus 18. Johnny Damon is checking his bats and doing wind sprints. Curt Schilling is psyching himself up for his biggest game since Game Seven of the 2001 World Series. And I took a look at what archives of InstantReplay people have visited today. Somebody searching for "Valentine breakup statistics" found IR's entry from last October 18th:

The breakup is slowly dimming. I've concentrated on thinking about other things, thinking about the future, and lowering my expectations. I guess I expected too much. But if you aren't willing to let yourself go when you're head over heels in love, how will you ever attain your destiny?? It's the great paradox of pain and love - you can't love unless you're vulnerable to pain. I suppose that's the way God created it; it's even the way it is for Him. Mea culpa: I'm talking about the Red Sox. And yes, the pain is dimming. The great grace of breaking up with the Red Sox is that they always promise to get back together with you on Valentine's Day, or a week or two thereafter. Then the whole cycle begins again. Someday, we really believe, our collective love for this team will not be scorned, and our shame will be lifted. I'm not the only one this unbalanced. The Sports Guy talks about the only one he loves more than the Red Sox (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on that, actually): Anyway, my wife understands now. She only jumped on the bandwagon a few years ago, thanks to me. Now her Sox virginity has been taken; she was near tears last night. "I finally understand why you're so crazy about this team," she kept saying. "I can't imagine going through this for my entire life. This is horrible." Add another one to the list.

Those of you who know this team didn't need to read that. But for anyone who is new to the bandwagon, don't say you weren't warned.

Burden of Proof

South African President Thabo Mbeki is angered, reports the BBC, by the claims of his government's critics that he is doing too little to stop rape and the spread of HIV in South Africa. He fought back, using the term "racist" to describe a journalist who is also a white rape victim who criticized Mbeki in a recent article. More recently the opposition politicians weighed in to compare Mbeki's comments as an "own goal" in the war on crime and AIDS. In his defense, Mbeki claims rightly that his government has brought crime to a post-Apartheid low.

Mbeki is correct when he identifies the issue at stake here: The psychological residue of apartheid has produced a psychosis among some of us such that, to this day, they do not believe that our non-racial democracy will survive and succeed. Can an African-led democracy in a multi-racial, multi-cultural land such as South Africa survive? Or will the country collapse, forcing back toward the racism, or (more likely) the authoritarianism of apartheid.

Mbeki is wrong, however, when he blames his opposition for raising the question. The question exists, and no veneer of public-spiritedness can cover it over. The responsibility does not lie with the media and the world at large to call South Africa a success; the responsibility lies with the new Black leadership to make South Africa a success. If they fail, they should have the maturity to admit it, and to ask for assistance from the world's better-established democracies.

Compare Mbeki's finger-pointing response to the response of the leader of the first attempt at a multiracial democracy:

...a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure...we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln, who of course is the speech-giver, takes upon himself and his nation the responsibility to see the noble American experiment through to its logical and just conclusion. He of all people could have laid blame on the secessionists, who were actively attacking the democratic Union and denying racial equality before law. Yet Lincoln took for granted that he and America would face opposition in the attempt to build a just and democratic society, and thousands of Americans showed their willingness to die for the Union and the principles on which it was founded, in that war and others.

President Thabo Mbeki and the others leading South Africa need to take a sheet from Lincoln's playbook, and understand that the success of great moral efforts is not foregone, and they, like the previous generation of Black South African leaders, sometimes must fight great adversity with great courage to see their noble experiment succeed.

Our Mice Are Mocking Us

Last night, the mice won another round. They tripped - and broke - one of the two traps we had set up. At the other, they pooped on the trigger, and left it unsprung.

This means war.

Going Yard

I visited Camden Yards for the third and final time this season. After tomorrow, the Orioles will not be playing baseball. Nor, as of today, will the Oakland A's or the Chicago Cubs. How you like them apples, Nomah? Dusty Baker might want to get his resume ready.

The Orioles, who haven't made the playoffs since 1997, are probably the Worst Good Team in baseball, just as the Rangers are the Best Bad Team. With a legitimate ace, a few excellent relievers, a strong lineup, and a rookie surprise in Newhan, the O's could have expected a much better record. They're 9th in the league in runs scored, 3rd in batting average; though they're just 19th in ERA.

Of course, the Yankees are 20th in ERA and 2nd in runs scored, while the Red Sox are 11th and 1st in those respective categories, despite finishing 1 to 3 games back.

A day before the end of the season, the AL East is 21 games above .500 as a division. This occurred despite apparent improvement of four teams in the division. The Yankees will end within a game of last year's win total, the Red Sox have improved by three, and the Orioles and D-Rays by six each. However, all this is offset by the collapse of the Blue Jays, who quietly won 86 games last year, and quietly lost 93 this year. In 2002, however, the AL East was 16 games below .500, and in 2001 a whopping 42 games down.

Some statistical oddities, to be sure, but a relevent train of thought as we size up opponents like Minnesota, which is 45-29 v. the AL Central and and 46-40 v. the rest of baseball. The Central was 40 games below .500 this year, and has been every year since 1994, when three of the teams of the brand-new Central Division were above .500 when they went on strike. Despite these numbers, the Twins are still considered the #1 contender outside the East, which is a two-team juggernaut once again.

OK, I'm going to stop rambling and go to bed.

The Jury Is Back

Gallup's post-debate survey shows results similar to InstantReplay's predictions. Of the 615 viewers polled, 53% said Kerry won, 37% said Bush won. Gender was not an issue, but party preference certainly won. Despite the President's worse-than-expected showing, 68% of those planning to vote for Bush said he won. However, among independents, Kerry was the concensus by a 60% - 29% margin. Perhaps most importantly, 46% of viewers said they came out with an improved view of Kerry, while just 21% had an improved view of Bush.

I think IR reader Dubya nailed it down the other day: Kerry didn't sway a lot of people to his side through this debate, but he proved that he's a legitimate candidate. Bush came into the debate with the momentum, but Kerry has it all now.

Hard Work

It's hard work running for president. And it doesn't get any easier. In 2000, the electorate gave Governor Bush some leniency on foreign policy; he was a newcomer with a fresh look, and we were tired of a Clinton's "world policeman" attitude. Now he has to hope for some grace from America, because his basic response to Kerry's scintillating, well-reasoned attacks on the president's foreign policy was that it's "hard work".

Kerry faltered early in tonight's debate, blowing some easy questions by overcomplicating answers and trying to explain too much background information. However, he rebounded and took Bush to town, sticking with his strategy of systematic exposition over the course of the debate. He also muffed a late chance to nail down his anti-terrorism credentials by bringing up nuclear proliferation on his last direct question. On the whole, however, the Senator presented a coherent view of the last four years, though he remained predictably vague on the next four.

Bush, on the other hand, had his strategy backfire. His "handlers" have long believed that he does much better by hammering home a simple message again and again than trying to adapt or explain. In a debate that was extremely well-run, that didn't work. Unlike the Gore-Bush debates of four years ago, each candidate didn't try to vaguely restate their entire position with every chance to speak. Unfortunately, the President was not prepared or willing to go off-strategy and get into some of the concepts that Kerry was bringing up. Rather, he looked overmatched and out of sorts, struggling to bring each question back to the concepts of "fighting terror", "consistency", and "hard work". He's not unable to speak coherently on the issues - his opening and closing statements, obviously well-rehearsed, were equal in every way to Kerry's.

Will the outcome of this debate hurt Bush? Perhaps a bit. However, people who understand the nuances of foreign policy are already committed and few in number. Furthermore, anyone whose vote will be determined by foreign policy has already decided. In fact, I'd put myself in the only demographic that is likely to be swayed by this performance: educated conservatives who support Bush on most issues, but are frightened by his foreign policy. Tonight's debate put the candidates' fluency in the ideas behind foreign policy in sharp contrast, and Bush lost out big.

One of these two polemicists will be running the biggest army and the biggest diplomatic corps in the world next year. As Bush would say, that's hard work.