Here's a Shocker

Is anyone still truly surprised by this?

If you don't want to jump, here's the key block:

Saddam Hussein bribed senior politicians and businessmen around the world to secure an early lifting of sanctions, according to the Iraq Survey Report.

Focusing his attention in particular on France and Russia, both permanent members of the UN Security Council, Saddam awarded oil exploration contracts and financial inducements to individuals.

The bribes were at first funded by the Iraqi government, but later derived from Saddam's illegal misuse of the oil-for-food programme, which was supposed to provide food for the poor and medicine for the sick.

Some US estimates have suggested that the Iraqis siphoned off $10 billion (£5.6 billion) from the scheme.

"He [Saddam] targeted friendly companies and foreign political parties that possessed either extensive business ties to Iraq, or held pro-Iraq policies," said the report.

A statesman and a patriot, then! Well, maybe not:

Saddam Hussein believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night. Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war.

Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible." Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

So, no WMDs in 2003? Perhaps, although nobody has looked in Syria's sofa cushions yet. Is it wrong to prevent someone from following through with a clear intention to commit a wrong? As one notable commentator says:

If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that?

Is There Anything More Pathetic . . .

. . . than trolling one's own blog looking for comments?

Answer: probably, but I'd have to think pretty hard to come up with it.

The Next GTA Controversy is Coming

The fawning gamer magazines somehow manage to ignore the elephant sitting squarely in the middle of the room: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is going to send the non-gaming world into a tizzy. This time, it's going to be more than the usual promotion of crime as the primary game function. This time, there are going to be some serious questions about the wisdom of portraying California gang life from the inside. Like the other GTA titles, the gameplay does not culminate in social redemption. Unlike the others, though, the latest game draws on a very real, very violent, and (it has to be said, and will) very race-specific segment of society. How many white gamers will want to suit up as a black gangbanger? More importantly, how many black citizens of Compton or other communities riven with violence on a daily basis even now will welcome gamers of any color virtually participating as one of their own in "missions" that are actually crimes that afflict them every day? Exploitation has a new interface.

A friend of mine recently observed a criminal trial in Los Angeles involving a gang killing. What he learned about the gang world is chilling to those of us who prefer to shut out reality. There are streets in LA, right now, on which you must not travel unless you are of the correct affiliation. In daylight. If you go at night . . . well, chalk up another victory to natural selection, and thank you for removing your foolish self from the gene pool.

Is it, dare I say, insensitive to create a game based upon a tragic subculture in which extreme violence and disregard for human decency is played out on a daily basis (whatever the cause might be)? Sure, drug runners ruled Miami for a while in the '80s, so Vice City was a fun little romp. But gang warfare seems to me to be far more serious. Gang life is based inherently on family or family-like relationships, which is specifically recognized and used by the new game. Unlike drug running, or perhaps even the Mafia activities that are now the standard fodder for suburban crime life voyerism, SoCal gang life is not business, it's personal. It's a part of everyday life for just about everyone who lives in those communities. In games of this sort, it is usually possible to demonize, or at least marginalize, both the protagonist as well as the "enemies." I have a hard time dismissing the crime-committing, posse-building protagonist n the new game. He represents thousands of struggling young men and women living and, unfortunately, dying, right now in South Central. The little bit of humor injected into the storyline that leavens the anti-hero nature of the other GTA titles is going to be hard to come by in the new game.

As I noted at the top, the gamer magazines have not commented on the anti-social gameplay; given the path blazed by GTA in its other guises, that is no longer newsworthy. Watch the news when the game is officially released later this month, though. Along with the usual complaints about the anti-hero motivation, I think there will also be a more serious examination of the setting of the game. It's too close in time and temperament to reality to get a free pass.

And what is most disturbing: Rockstar is too savvy at promotion to not know this.

The Ponycar Wears No Clothes

May I be the first to say this? The new Mustang is ridiculous. All of the aerodynamic expertise for which Ford became rightfully known over the last 20 years has been utterly discarded. The interior similarly disregards years of improvements in human factors engineering, returning to hideous, unreadable gauge markings. Also, hasn't anyone figured out that when you go retro, you have nowhere to go with styling revisions? Dropping itself into its own late '60s styling loop, I guess in a few years we can expect the return of the Mustang II.

I guess once the design departments are no longer in the thrall of nostalgic Boomers (take Pontiac's GTO ... please), we can look forward to the Gen X phase of retro. I can't wait for an updated Fiero ("And we've almost fixed that overheating problem!"), Chevy Celebrity and Honda Prelude.

Actually, a new old Prelude would be a great idea. C'mon, fellow Gen Xers, climb those corporate ladders and bring back the '80s!

I Wish We Made Shows Like This

My life changed when our local cable company added Speed TV to the lineup. Now, I get to enjoy the coolest car show on the tube. Great cars, tons of personality, a willingness to savage cars that deserve it, and a fearlessness in utterly abusing cars on the track (as I type this, I'm watching Tiff hang out the tail of a DB7 sideways while dismissing it as a bit of a poser). It's a British import, of course.

I've watched somnabulent John Davis on Motorweek for twenty years, since back in the day when it was the only auto show on TV, hiding in the nether reaches of the weekend PBS schedule. Mr. Davis is clearly a nice man, who has put out a pleasant product for a long time, but let's face it: his show is just another arm of the manufacturers' marketing departments. It operates on the "Home on the Range" method: seldom is heard a discouraging word.

How Do You Say "Conflict of Interest" in French, Russian or Chinese?

Search out this developing story in the coming weeks. It should be above-the-fold news, but then, it should have been a front page story for years. It's not like this scandal has gone unnoticed; some people have been on the trail for years.

This story deserves more world attention as well, not just publicity.

It's sad, really. The UN is not a bad organization, in theory. Like too many other large bureaucracies, corruption runs rampant. Unfortunately, there are truly needy people in the world with whom the UN has broken trust.

Godspeed, Gordo Cooper

We have lost another pioneer.

Thankfully, that spirit of adventure seems to be coming back.

More Manning Happy Feet: I'm Not Howling in the Wilderness

I'm not the only one to be irritated by Payton Manning's micromanager routine. Check out Brian Murphy's column today:

"Sometimes, when Peyton Manning is telling all 10 members of the offense about his next audible, making a big show of it, going to each guy on the line, maxing out his TV time, don't you just wish an O-lineman would turn and knee him in the groin with the admonition: "Just run the freakin' play we called and stop
showing off, teacher's pet!" Maybe it's just me..."

Nope, it's not just you.

The Meek May Inherit the Earth, But They Make for a Lousy Baseball Team

I hate the Rockies. 'Nuff said.

Al Michaels' Best Line of the Night

As ABC showed admitted murder investigation obstructor of justice Ray Lewis pumping up admitted drug ring participant prior to the game, Lewis (R.) exhorting Lewis (J.) to put the pressure of the federal drug case "on your shoulders" (presumably to use it as motivation to excel):

"Well, he ought to know."

Rob Nenn, Phone Home

Four relievers, one out. That's all the Giants' bullpen could accomplish, up three runs going into the ninth. Ugh.

Go Rockies!

Angels Take Care of Business

So, Mr. Beane, how does Moneyball work when your Big Three starting pitchers, who have masked the deficiencies in your team's lineup for years, all have terrible Septembers? Not so well, apparently.

Now if Hermanson can just finish off the Dodgers ...

(Man I love picture in picture.)

Time is Running Out

The A's are watching their season go down the tubes. Macha's walk out to the mound to yank Rincon after giving up a game-tying double (that missed being a home run by a foot) to Erstad, the only batter he faced, was the trudge of a beaten man.

In the Giants game, I love the energy of Cararra spiking the ball after retiring the Giants on a double play in the eighth. I can say that because the giants are up by three, having given up only two hits.

Wasn't Tomko the guy who call Pierzynski a cancer earlier this year? I guess all is forgiven; Tomko's throwing a gem, and the shadows at home are starting to be a factor. Although I wonder what Tomko thought when A.J. called time in the middle of Tomko's windup.

One Down, Two to Go

Neat synchronicity just now. Within the same minute that Hermanson struck out Shawn Green to end the Giants' victory over the Dodgers, Andres Galarraga (yep, he's still around, making another comeback) hit a homer for the Angels to continue their beatdown on the A's. A pretty good evening all around.

No, I'm not an A's fan. I'm a Giants fan, remember? One cannot serve two masters.

Now FSN is showing a highlight of Gibson's homer against Eck in 1988. Boy, the Dodgers need some new memories.

Greg Floyd Is The Man

Warning: Fantasy football geekiness coming ...

Greg Floyd, fantasy sports impresario, suggested, cajoled, and finally begged us to draft Thomas Jones. He predicted that this unknown would flourish in the offensive system that was to be installed in Chicago by the same coaches who had turned Priest Holmes from an anonymous backup in Baltimore to an All-Pro in Kansas City. Pridefully, I resisted Greg's entreaties. I knew there was a pretty good chance he was right; his theory made sense. But I didn't want to look like a suck-up to the master (even though I was the reigning league champ, and had nothing to be ashamed of). Also, I hadn't prepared at all for the draft and felt more vulnerable to draft day screw ups than usual.

Next time, I'll check my pride at the door and follow Greg's advice. Jones, picked in our ninth round, is the top running back in the league, and is the fourth most prolific fantasy point scorer, behind such luminaries as McNabb, Culpepper and Manning. Crud.

Could the Dodgers Miss the Playoffs?

Everyone around here says that the Dodgers are one win away from the NL West crown. Fine. But the Dodgers are also a few losses away from missing the playoffs, I think. Consider: the Giants are three games back with three to play. If the Giants sweep, the teams play again to determine the NL West winner. But Houston is tied with the Giants for the wildcard lead. What if Houston sweeps Colorado? Considering the Rockies' sorry bullpen performances of late, that's a likely scenario. If Houston sweeps, and the Giants sweep, then those two teams would be tied with ... the Dodgers. Hmm. How does this work? I'm guessing a playoff to determine the NL West champ. Then another playoff to determine the NL Wildcard team would follow, I presume. So if the Dodgers lose their last five games (regular season and two special playoffs), LA could be out of the postseason. Nobody is talking about this.

See, as a Giants fan, I'm not just looking to get into the playoffs. I need to find a way to keep the Dodgers out, and I think it can be done. 5% chance of coming to pass, maybe, but a guy's gotta dream.

UPDATE: I was right. The schedulemakers have thought this all out, even if nobody has written about it yet. A Giant-Dodger playoff would be in San Francisco; if the Giants were to lose, they would stay there and play the Astros. If the Dodgers were to lose, a coin flip would determine whether the playoff to become the Wildcard team would take place in Los Angeles or Houston. Let the games begin!

Thank God for Picture in Picture

As they say, it just doesn't get any better than this. NoCal v. SoCal, in both the leagues. Giants-Dodgers, A's-Angels. Playoffs on the line in the last three games of the regular season. You will find me parked in front of my teevee this weekend, unless the Giants fall out of contention. Then you will find me bashing old nails into scrap wood, just for theraputic reasons.

Mt. St. Helens, Live

The Volcanic One has her own webcam. The picture was feeding yesterday, before the Instalanche, and before today's eruptions. Very interesting stuff. Somewhere in the many boxes I continue to drag around with me from my childhood I think I still have a little clear plastic envelope of St. Helens ash from the first eruption. My grandparents' farm in Oregon was covered in the stuff.

Debate Roundup, Round 1

It will be rare that I wade into political waters here, but in the last weeks before a monumental presidential election, it is difficult to stay completely dry. So ...

After the most partisan voices cancel each other out (or are thrown out, like the high and low scores in Olympic diving), we are left with what seems to be a general consenus that the debate was basically a draw. Interesting, and perhaps troubling if you are pulling for Bush. The topic on the table last night was terrorism/safety. Even with the profound differences of opinion over the war in Iraq, this figured to be Bush's strongest area (powerful response to terrorism is required, with moral certitude to match) and Kerry's weakest (waffling on support for the armed forces; vague notions of alliances [multi-lateral or bilateral? Ah, it depends]; he didn't have to make the tough decisions). This is the basis for the sharp divide between the camps, and there is probably little Kerry can do to change the minds of those who believe the Administration's military actions were correct because this is, after all, a war. Thus, Bush operates from a position on strength on these issues; notwithstanding the vehemence of the opposition, that opposition is countered by at least an equal amount of support. Bush stands to be much more vulnerable on domestic issues, which have flown under the radar for the most part, and are also more likely to be where the Administration's support erodes even among the party faithful, who aren't going to be pleased with the increased governmental spending we've seen over the last four years. Mixed economic numbers (or at least the impression that the numbers are not positive) don't help, either.

The difficulty in forecasting all of this is that the shrillness of the most partisan supporters on both sides tends to overwhelm a considered debate of issues, particularly those issues that don't pertain to 9/11 and military action. That's why I believe the debates that look beyond the war on terror will be the most revealing.

Of course, I fully anticipate that unless Kerry throws up on his shoes (figuratively or literally), he will be hailed the victor in the next debate by most media outlets because of Bush's perceived weaknesses on domestic concerns. You read it here first.

We should all do ourselves a favor: read the transcripts and track down the facts. Sadly, just because Dan Rather says it's so doesn't mean much any more.

Best Amusement Park Ride Ever

I would gladly wait in line for an hour to go on this ride.

[Editor's note, June 2008: this link used to go to the Michael Vick simulator commercial, in which the rider is transported up and over the line of scrimmage in a wild, twisting leap. For obvious reasons, I suppose, all evidence of a connection to Vick has been expunged from Nike's servers. For less obvious reasons, this post has received some hits recently, and those visitors have undoubtedly been confused and/or disappointed with what they found. Sorry; blame Ron Mexico!]