Wlady….did you notice how California Angels Manager Mike Scioscia -- previously referred to here by our mischevious Prowler as "classless" -- comported himself during and after the outright and outrageous 9th inning robbery last evening? The word "classy" comes to mind. Just saying.
The Spectacle Blog
I admit it. I miss Al. Has any single American politician ever had a more developed ability to both amuse and bore an audience simultaneously? Thank God the press caught his Stockholm gig.
Uncle Al's latest rant included a riff on "How America would be different if I had been elected..."
The media reported his remarks that we would not "routinely be torturing people." Unfortunately, they missed his silent musings which were later revealed in the thought bubble above his head.
John Fund's latest on Harriet Miers definitely furthers the debate about her qualifications and shines a light on the vetting process, though sources inside the White House dispute that associate White House counsel William Kelley was the one who actually pushed Miers' candidacy.
Instead, they say that it this was WH chief of staff Andy Card's play all along.
More important than the tick-tock of the vetting process for Miers, the Fund article may loose some of the plugs from the dam holding back criticism of Miers from some quarters who have remained comparatively silent.
ABC's report on loose security at college nuclear reactors is more than a little disturbing. It reports that, at about 25 campuses around the nation, security was so lax around research reactors (some of which use highly-enriched weapons-grade uranium) the ABC crew was able to drive a large truck right up to the reactor. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is investigating, but we have to wonder: where is the Department of Homeland Security (or, as Homer Simpson might accurately pronounce its acronym) the D'OHS?
Many of us have long wished for a liberal meltdown at Ivy League schools. But the thought of a large truck bomb being turned into a dirty bomb, or that some bunch of terrorists could infiltrate a school and steal quantities of weapons grade uranium, is enough to make me wonder just what the heck D'OHS has been doing for the past few years. Apparently, not enough.
Wlady, I was in bed too early to catch that ninth inning, but an email from my dad was waiting in my inbox, subject line, "They was robbed." Caught the replay on ESPN.com. The ball was caught, the ump gave the out sign. In the interview room, he maintained that even after watching the replays the ball hit the ground. But Jon Kruk had a fine point on Baseball Tonight: Josh Paul should have tagged Pierzynski.
The Post goes for the whole pitcher today, with a shrinking Arctic ice cap on the front page and alarming temperature graph after the jump. But as those who read Tom Bethell's "The False Alert of Global Warming" in the May issue of TAS know, this data is highly unreliable (which one scientist in the article points out). And the author suggests many different sources for the new "2005 is the hottest year on record" data, preventing a close look at the source. But the worst part is the lazy way in which the article raises the man-made global warming specter without comparing the years of rising temperatures to years of rising pollutants. But such data doesn't help the alarmists' case, as Bethell pointed out:
Well, that didn't last long. John Roberts put in a good word for umpires at the start of his confirmation hearings. Now last night an umpire returns to his more typical role as arrogant regulator, gives the White Sox an extra out, and the Angels go down to bitter defeat. Given that the umpire in question initially gave an out sign on the swinging third strike, only to reverse himself for reasons best known to his hypnotist, people will be comparing his cynical, incompetent performance to that of the basketball officials who gave the USSR three chances to defeat the U.S. in the 1972 Olympics. I don't think we've heard the end of this.
Thursday is a special time for Washington Post readers -- it's Tina Brown day. If there's ever been a sillier sharper super snob in newsprint, I've not yet come across him, er, her. She's a Brit, of course, now living in New York, probably dreaming that Tom Wolfe might still write a novel about her. Briefly, in her U.S. career, she saved (if that's the word for it) Vanity Fair, vulgarized the New Yorker while serving as editorial groupie to Bill Clinton, moved on to an even more ambitious undertaking with Talk, which blew up in her face. Then a chat show on cable that drew fewer viewers than a typical act at Hyde Park Corner, leaving her with only thing to do: write about herself and the "values" and politics of her Charlie Rose set. Who'd have thought that such a dynamo would end up doing her best work as a catty scribbler.
Somehow we missed this quote from Manuel Miranda reported in the New York Sun: "I think Ed Gillespie is way out of his league. He's running this as if it's a campaign."
Miranda was referring to Gillespie's serving as an adviser on the Harriet Miers nomination. Miranda, who has a number of axes to grind against a number of Republican establishment and conservative types (he was a victim of political infighting in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and was forced out of his position in the Senate), including Senator Orrin Hatch, has in classic Inside the Beltway fashion created a job for himself as judicial adviser to the Bush Administration whether they know it or not. But he shouldn't be taking pot-shots at or second guessing in the press a fellow like Ed Gillespie.
There are few in this town who could dispute that Gillespie did a bang-up job for Dick Armey and House Republicans back in the 1990s, or for Republicans nationally in the 2000 or 2004 elections. He by all accounts did a fine job with John Roberts. He surely is doing the best he can with Harriet Miers.