TMQ Shitcanned: Imagine my surprise. Radley's take is enough, since it admits that Easterbrook ran his mouth stupidly, but also mentions that he is the most original NFL columnist -- one might even say the only original NFL columnist. Let me say this, though: I don't think Easterbrook was a good fit for ESPN.com, and I won't cry that he's gone. I think he had to dumb down his column for the meathead mentality (no offense, Flyer) that ESPN courts. I hope he lands somewhere better.

Besides which, up Disney's ass. I have no doubt regarding the crudity and idiocy they would embrace if they thought it might get your child's eyeballs on their product for half a second.

More: Reynolds's wrap, as it were.

Shady side of the street: Mayor John is doing his best Clinton tap dance right now. It's true that he is not a "target" (i.e. about to be indicted), but he is most definitely a "subject" (one who is under investigation). Now his lawyer is too - someone who is known as one of the key power-brokers in the city if you want government work, like bonds or construction. Street is also dancing around what he knows about the investigation, whether he has representation or not (he has Arhtur Makadon [as tied in as they come] as his "informal" lawyer), and what the real focus of it is.

Nonetheless, I'll tell you, I don't think Katz is doing this. Here's why: there are enough people in the city that think Street is being manipulated and getting the shaft to de-rail the election that I bet you this scandal brings out as many supporters as it does turn people off who were otherwise on the fence. Katz knows this - he's smart and has advisors of all shapes and colors. This ploy only polarizes the racial lines, and Katz needs to turn (and was succeeding moderately) some blacks his way to win because the margin is such that a few white moderates won't be enough. His message gets clouded by the subpoenas and warrants, and his message is desparately needed.

On the other hand, here's the only thing that is fishy. Street's nepotism is well-documented, and has been for years. So why now, in the past couple of months, is the bug planted? Don't forget, the office was swept in June of this year as well - revealing nothing. Maybe the Feds just took a while to get their warrant and everything, but it's not entirely convincing all-in-all.

Still, I really don't see this as a hatchet job, but more of birds coming home to roost. In fact, if Katz does win, I think this really spoils the victory. Stay tuned.

Word on the Street: It's looking more and more like Philly Mayor John Street should be worried:

Ratcheting up the federal investigation that has engulfed the mayoral election, FBI agents crisscrossed Center City yesterday to search three city agencies and the office of a lawyer who is a top political ally of Mayor Street's and has earned millions from municipal legal work.

Street's still talking a good game, saying that he's not a target -- but if he is, mind you, it's all politically motivated. What do the drums say about Sam Katz, Razor? I don't figure he has the sort of clout that could put the FBI on his side; he doesn't exactly fling his money around Washington.

All a big "misunderstanding": When I said the Jews "ruled the world by proxy" this was a mis-interpretation. I said the Jews "rocked my world [and were] foxy" - which just means I'm really quite attracted to their women. When I said that billions of muslims couldn't be "defeated" by just a few million Jews, I meant it in the context of competing at Koran-memorizing competitions. Now, please, just "forget about anti-semitism".

I'm not sure what Flyer is talking about: According to the papers, the NY Post no less, the Yanks lost. Check your sources...

I Love This Story: Political reporting at its best:

Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he "didn't want to see any stories" quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used.

You know they were giggling at the desk over that one. Thanks to NPR and TNR for picking that one up.

This is even better than the "open secret" wire story a few months back in which Colin Powell, delivering a briefing on background, actually referred to his job (something like, "as the secretary of State, it is my duty . . ." etc.). The wire story quoted that part of his speech, so it was wholly obvious who was speaking. Yet, keeping to the journalist's code on reporting background information, the writer dutifully identified the speaker only as "a senior administration official."

What can you say: And what can you do in the face of greatness! I'm not one to gloat, but having just watched one of the greatest post-season baseball games ever with a Red Sox fan laughing for seven innings, I'm feeling pretty good.

Right now Sox fans are hanging their heads, asking why, oh why, does this keep happening. Just like Cubs fans felt last night. Are we really cursed? My answer: well, yeah.

All right, there's really no such thing as a curse, it's not just luck, and it's not money. But it's really hard for a team to shed the negative feeling that comes with coming up short over and over again. And winning breeds winning when you play for a dynasty. When the Yankees get down, they believe they'll come back. When the Sox get down, they have to feel just a little like the planets are lined up wrong. How can you not?

There was no real key to tonight's win that I can identify. Giambi's homers? That's what he's supposed to do. Boone's game winner? Good management to bring him in midway through the season (although I was cursing Torre's decision to leave him out of the starting lineup in favor of Enrique Wilson, who's error partially caused the game to go to extra innings). Maybe Torre's decision to leave Mariano Rivera in for a third inning when he usually is good for only two, was the most important call of the night. And maybe it's those calls that make the difference in the end.

I'm not going to criticize Grady Little, who did a great job getting his team to the ALCS, but I think the the only real way the Yankees outplayed the Sox was in the management department. Pedro outpitched Clemens so bad I was seeing spots after four innings. The Sox bats were certainly on, getting eleven hits to match the Yanks. But Torre made gutsy calls every time he needed to. Three of the Yankees starting pitchers threw tonight, Clemens, Mussina, and Wells. The bullpen had looked shaky and Joe knew it was now or never. On the other side, Little negelected to take Pedro out, giving his pitcher the option. Pedro gave up the lead, and you know Little was kicking himself. After all, Pedro's not known for going deep in games, being injury prone as he is. Tough call, but do you really let the pitcher, even a stud like Pedro, make it? Then, after Alan Embree was pulled after facing one batter, Mike Timlin was brought in to intentionally walk Ruben Sierra. The Sox escaped the inning, but it just seems odd to bring a guy out of the bullpen, all fired up, and make him throw four balls inentionally. Maybe it worked out, or maybe he could have used his pitchers a little differently and not had to go to Tim Wakefield so soon.

It was a thrilling series and a thrilling game, so it's tough to pinpoint key moments. Both teams played their hearts out, one moves on, as always. No point in nitpicking, I guess. I'll just be glad we came out on the upside of this one, a game that had me pacing a little more than I would've liked.

Game on: I've refrained from blogging about the baseball playoffs, in particular my beloved Yankees and the Sawks. Game 7 is getting underway and I'll have my thoughts afterward. But for now, go Yanks!

Environmental Thinking: Here's a good survey of the current state of environmental thinking, from computer models to Kyoto. The author is obviously a global-warming skeptic, but is not unfair in his arguments. The more I read about this, the less I like Kyoto, which could become a reality in the next Democratic administration. The cost-benefit analysis, persuasively laid out by Lomborg most recently, simply doesn't support significant policy changes. (Via A&LD.)

I'm forced to set loose a sleeper cell of Liberal School Librarians to picket outside your house for more diversity in the curriculum.

I'm Forced to Mention This: Speaking of trips to the East, weren't you in Cyprus recently?

South East Asian Literature: And then you went on that book tour in Laos. Next thing you know, the newly "elected" government is calling for trials on all remaining Khmer Rouge agents. Well, they say the pen is mightier than the sword. Or at least that's what Novak keeps saying to me...

Malaysian Coincidences: You're going to get me killed, Razor. I've never been anything but a bureaucrat.

I'm sure it was just a coincidence: If I remember correctly, just a few weeks after you began writing for that magazine, three high-level Islamic fundamentalists in the Malaysian government disappeared, never to be heard from again. And then you quickly got a new job writing for some Philipino rag, right? Funny how quiet Jemaah Islamiah was during that time...

Those Darn Jews: Malaysia's PM, who heads into retirement shortly, is unable to resist a last stab at the Jews:

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad on Thursday told a summit of Islamic leaders that "Jews rule the world by proxy" and the world's 1.3 billion Muslims should unite, using nonviolent means for a "final victory."

No coincidence, I'm sure, that his phrasing reeks of "final solution" rhetoric. On the one hand, I think this kind of "nonviolent jihad" has a chance to take root in some of the less fanatical Muslim countries. (Note the fawning praise by one Hamid Karzai, the supposed George Washington of Afghanistan, buried in the article: "His speech was an eye-opener to a lot of us and that is what the Islamic world should do.") The rejection of the violent al Qaeda-style tactics is enough to keep them as a U.S. trading partner; but the rhetoric can still be a tool for managing the frustrations of the public.

On the other hand, Mahathir is a twisted old nut who has been running what amounts to only a nominal democracy for more than 20 years. I used to write for a Malaysian zine run by Malaysia's "Generation X" types. Among them, there was widespread and derisive eye rolling (though not much else) when Mahathir went on another of his "Jew tirades." From the Malaysians I know and worked with, there's a chance that Mahathir's generation could take much of the antisemitism and anti-Western animus with it as it goes to the grave.

Powell in the Sandbox: If the press has any sense of fairness, this will be played as a huge win for Foggy Bottom -- specifically for Colin Powell and John Negroponte:

The United States will get unanimous support for its new resolution on Iraq after Syria decided to join Germany, France and Russia in backing the measure aimed at attracting more troops and money to the war battered-country, a U.N. diplomat said Thursday.

A couple of weeks ago we were gunning for a French abstention, at best. The media, and not incidentally the Democrats, have been howling for better diplomacy, more UN involvement. Well, now that State has shown that it can play nicely with others, how about a pat on the back from the NYT editorial page?

I still don't see what a UN resolution accomplishes, in reality. If nothing else, Bush has retroactively zapped a criticism of his administration's diplomatic policy by showing it can go back to the sandbox and make friends. But it changes little on the ground.

A Gentle Reminder: Hypocrisy is when someone abandons or contradicts his or her views in speech or behavior, essentially creating a double standard that exempts, for example, oneself, one's friends or family, one's political allies. A nice, fresh example is Rush Limbaugh: big supporter of the war on drugs; got his yuks bashing Clinton as a pot-smoker. Come to find out he's been popping pills himself -- which, done without a prescription, is as illegal as rolling up a joint in your off-campus pad near G-town.

I don't think that definition is controversial at all, and you probably don't either. But one thing hypocrisy is not is a license for everyone else to abandon or contradict his or her views in speech and behavior. Another fresh example: Jeff Jarvis, who has been taking heaping servings of schadenfreude out of the Limbaugh story (see here, here, here). Whatever: I'm not here to defend Rush in the slightest. He did set himself up on this. But here's the problem: Jarvis says, "I read a lot of people saying that we should be giving Rush sympathy now. Yes, about as much as Rush gave other drug addicts -- even while he was popping thousands of pills." Now, I take it that Jarvis is implying that, yes, an addict -- someone with a sickness, in the therapeutic jargon -- deserves sympathy. But he's also saying that that sympathy is revocable based on the political views, and the consistency thereof, of the addict.

Jarvis has a couple of questions to answer: First, either addiction is a sickness, or it is not. Jeff: Agree or disagree? Second: Addiction is a sickness deserving of our sympathy, like any other suffering. Jeff: Agree or disagree? Third, supposing Rush's sickness was, say, inoperable cancer; supposing further that Rush opposed federal funding for cancer research: it would still be fine to ridicule him and revel in schadenfreude. Jeff: Agree or disagree? (Yeah, it's not an exact parallel, but it's meant to capture the suspension of sympathy based on hypocrisy or disagreement.)

Like I said, I have no brief for Rush, and I'm a big fan of Jarvis. I just think Jeff's dancing is making him look small (even in comparison to Rush, who has -- as Jarvis notes -- offered no sympathy to drug addiction "victims," but who has asked for no sympathy and refused to call himself a victim). Any hypocrisy by Rush is not, as I said, a license for Jeff to abandon his previous position in order to more gratuitously stick his ass in Rush's face during the victory dance. Or, put briefly, the only antidote to hypocrisy is steadfastness, Jeff; thus, if you think addicts deserve sympathy, your only proper response to Rush's situation is to shut up and offer sympathy.

A bit more: I don't want to be the hypocrisy police or the arbiter of the proper response to Limbaugh's predicament. I'm just calling out Jarvis because I think he's not only smarter but more compassionate than he's acting.

An old friend: I haven't read Road & Track regularly since I was 18, and maybe picked up 5 issues or so off the rack since then. The days of drooling over Lambos and reading reviews of the Top Five Vehicles You'll Never Be Able To Afford are past, mainly because I have zero interest in the latest Beemer or whatever else they're pushing. But today I was browsing the magazine rack looking for an article suitable for a marketing class discussion and I came across R & T.

Bang! Right there on the cover, Lotus Elise Coming To America. My last memory of Lotus cars is the dealership near my old hometown (was it in Peapack?). Beyond that, it's crank up a tape of For Your Eyes Only and watch Bond destroy two (?) Lotus Esprits. They had fallen on hard times after the death of Colin Chapman, lost their focus and all but disappeared. So sad.

Well, to paraphrase George Costanza, "They're back, baby!" The new Elise has done well in Europe and it's coming to the states. Priced (supposedly) under $40,000, R & T's reviewer calls it "...arguably the most enjoyable car on the planet to drive..." The thing is tiny, smaller than a Miata, so you won't be climbing into the back seat for a cuddle and a grab, but if you've got a yen for a sportster that will make somebody's Boxster look like a Volvo, this is it (assuming you've got $40,000 to play with, of course). Pictures in the mag (sorry the articles not available online) are of the Euro model, but if the U.S. version is similar, it's a true stripped down rocket sled. The interior looks as simple and uncongested as you could want, but A/C is standard, in case you forget to take the top down, as is a Blaupunkt stereo, in case the wind and engine noise (which is billed as "nominal") aren't enough.

I'm still too jaded to sit drooling over pages of exotic toys priced higher than my still in progress graduate degree, but I've got a soft spot for Lotus. It's nice to see them rising out of the ashes. Hope they succeed.

Now if they'll just bring back the F1 team all will be made right.

Dinklage: Glad you mentioned this; I meant to. I remember him first from Middle School. He played "Jud" in "Oklahoma". The Jud character is the best character in the play because he has the most depth and intrigue about him - basically the only dark note in an otherwise syrupy sweet musical. Dinklage, despite his size, had a booming bass/baritone that really carried. My only line referred to Jud, and his apparent murderous intentions: "Tried to stab him with a frog-sticker!" Thank you, thank you.

I then sang with him freshman year at the private-school-that-shall-remain-nameless that I had the foresight to get out of a year before Eno came to his senses. Again, Dinklage was one of the leading singers.

The only movie I actually saw him in was "Living in Oblivion" - a Steve Buscemi-starring indie film which is a hilarious look at a director trying to make his first indie film. Kathleen Keener also stars - and she's hot baby, hot! Dinklage played a funny role which took on directly his size - he plays a dwarf in a dream scene. He storms out mid-scene complaining of why dwarves only seem to get roles in bizarre dream sequences - a clear slap at "Twin Peaks".

Anyway, he's a good actor and a very commanding presence. People of his size will always face the challenge of being cast for a "normal" role, i.e. one that doesn't depend on the character's size for one purpose or another. Good luck, Pete.

Struggling Actor: The Globe had a nice feature this weekend about actor Pete Dinklage, who has generated some buzz from "The Station Agent," an indie flick that caught serious attention at the festivals this year. I went to school with Pete, who was a year ahead of me, and though I didn't know him well, I remember him from the school plays and musicals. He was a fearless actor then, ready to take any part and throw himself into it. From the article, it sounds like not much has changed.

As it happens, Pete is four and a half feet tall.

With the success of "Station Agent," Hollywood has come calling, but it's clear most studio executives aren't sure how to pigeonhole a talented leading man who comes in at under 5 feet. "After Sundance, I was in LA for a few weeks, and everybody wanted to meet me," says Dinklage drily. "Nobody had a project, but they all wanted a 'sit-down' -- heads of movie companies and all that stuff. I guess they just wanted to `catch the buzz' . . . I hope it doesn't slip into, 'OK, I'm writing a movie about teaching tolerance and let's call Pete.' "

Good on him. Maybe sooner or later, they'll just stop making movies that aim at "teaching tolerance."