Fametracker is a spectacularly funny website. They've got a long story about the Hollywood Star Chamber, a secret vault of five clones of Karl Malden who secretly pick the Oscars. My two favorite quotes:

1: Say "Daniel Day-Lewis" one more time, and I will quit the Hollywood Star Chamber, take two years off to work as an apprentice shoemaker in Tuscany, then come back here and cobble your ass, so help me Hefner.

---------------------------

1: Do we give the directing statue to Marty?
3: Tough one. On the one hand, if we give it to him, we're guaranteed to get an emotional speech and a long standing ovation. It will make for a great story in the papers the next day. On the other hand, we'll be jeopardizing our hard-earned reputation as clueless morons. So I say we give it to Costner.
4: I say we go with Rob Marshall. I loved Chicago. And Happy Days and Laverne & Shirley are classics!
2: That's Garry Marshall.
4: Yes, but you can't argue with Big!
2: That's Penny Marshall.
4: Besides, I think we can all agree that the medium really is the message.
2: That's Marshall McLuhan.
4: I'm going to put anthrax on your Tampax!
2: That's Marshall Mathers.
4: Or is it? I thought it was Slim Shady. I love how he plays with our conceptions of identity.

UPDATE: Jeez, this is funny, too:

This year, Lopez even pioneered the practice of promotional synergy, releasing a single, "Jenny From the Block," that was essentially a press release set to music. "Don't be fooled by the rocks that I got," she sang, even while, on the cover of Us Weekly, you could find her flashing her new pink diamond engagement ring. We can't wait for her follow-up singles: "No, U Really Like My Movies" and "These Aren't the Droids (You're Looking For)."

ANOTHER UPDATE- DON'T STOP THE LAUGHTER: From Pointless Waste of Time:

I have neither any anti nor pro-war speeches in me that could hold water with any person with even a slight education on the topics for more than five seconds. Humor is my safety valve in such conversations, the smoke bomb that lets me disappear ninja-style whenever such situations ensnare me

Male Coworker: "Dude, Saddam is about to take him some all-American dick up his sorry ass! Aaaahhhh yeah!!! He and his communist buddies will be sorry they blew up the World Trade Center!"

Female Coworker: "You should do a little reading. Everyone knows this is all a scheme to boost the stock price of Haliburton, Bush's oil company! They want all that Iraqi oil so they'll have an excuse to drill in Alaska and destroy the environment, even though they know there is no oil there. What do you think, David?"

Me: "I think that, while there may not be a direct threat to America's homeland, we certainly do hold a national interest in... whoops! My pants and underwear just fell off! And I seem to have painted my penis to look like a clown! Booinnnnggg!!!"

P.S.

Sarge didn't make this point, exactly, but I see this kind of argument pretty frequently: "Why don't we see protests outside of the Iraqi/ Saudi/ North Korean embassies, if those lefties supposedly care so much about human rights/ women's rights/ nuclear disarmament? They only seem to protest American actions. Why do they hate America so much?"

Let me answer for myself. My personal hobbyhorse is Zimbabwe. I think that Mugabe can be reasonably compared to Stalin. I wasn't being ironic a few weeks ago when I said that I'd favor an invasion to kick him out of power.

So why don't I drive to DC and protest outside the Zimbabwe embassy? Because what would be the goddamn point? I will bet my right arm* that dictators like Mugabe are not bothered by well-intentioned young people under the window of his embassies. I will bet my left arm that the "Free Tibet" movement has not caused a sleepless night for the Chinese government.

I call my representatives in Washington every once in a while. I doubt that it has any effect, but I expect them to pay attention. They're elected to represent me, I vote for them, I pay their salaries. If I object to their actions, either in personal communications or by means of peaceful protest, I have a reasonable expectation that, at some insignificant level, they'll take that into account.

I have no relationship with Zimbabwe, or Iraq, or North Korea. They don't care what I think. So protesting them would be nothing more than a salve on my conscience, unless I'm doing it to provoke my own government into taking some action against them.

At which point I would be branded anti-American.

* If I'm correct, I get an extra set of arms, which would be pretty sweet.

Matt Welch recommended this Sgt. Stryker post, so I went over to read it:

I have one thought for those who argue for containment. Where the hell have you been for the past 12 years? When they blew up a large fuel truck outside the Khobar Towers, killing 19 people and wounding 500, where was your righteous anger? I know where I was, but where were you? It got a blip in the media and the rest of you went about your lives, chasing riches and enjoying blissfully ignorant lives. After all, they're just a bunch of fools and idiots in the military. They're supposed to die.

Where were you when they blew up the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people and wounding more than 5,000? Where were the instant foreign policy experts? Where was the indignation and anger? I know where I was, but where were you? Oh, it's just a bunch of foreigners. I've got to track my 401k and my internet stocks! I'm gonna be a millionaire in a few weeks! It's great to live in such peace and prosperity!

Where were you when they blew a hole in the Cole, killing 17 and injuring 38? Where were the calls to hunt down these terrorists and end their madness once and for all? Where was the fury? I know where I was, but where were you? Oh, it's just those military people again. My stocks are on the rise! Will this era of good times ever end?

And then they brought down the WTC and hit the Pentagon. They had to hit here before you people cared. 3,000 people had to die to wake you up to what was going on. It wasn't foreigners or military people getting blown up in some faraway country this time. They had to hit you where you live. Oh, now you notice. Now you're angry. Now you think these terrorists might be dangerous. Now comes the wailing and gnashing of teeth and the righteous anger and the fury and the instant foreign policy expertise. And now some of you would like to just contain Iraq. You know what? I've had plenty of friends and fellow servicemen die over the years doing just that. They, along with our African friends, have been atomized and cut to shreds while you slept peacefully in your beds, with visions of stock dividends dancing in your heads. And I'll tell you something more: They didn't deserve it then and they don't deserve it now. They don't deserve to go on dying just so you can go back to living your blissfully ignorant lives. They don't deserve to continue dying based on a hunch that the terrorists might not hit America again. Is that what you're thinking? That maybe the terrorists will go back to just killing servicemembers and foreigners in distant lands and leave you alone? To hell with that. You have to deal with this stuff now and you can't go back to sleep murmering "containment." It's more complicated than that and such wishful and simplistic thinking isn't going to solve the problem.

If you want to avoid a war, then come up with something that doesn't call for the continued deaths of American servicemembers and allows you to go back to living your self-absorbed and sheltered lives.

I like Sgt. Stryker very much- he's been on my blogroll for as long as I've had one- but I can't find a way to read this so that it makes sense.

Is there any plausible outcome in which our soldiers will be safer? There are reasonable arguments that the United States will be safer after an invasion, because Saddam won't be able to use WMD on us, or give them to terrorists. But even if we perform a rather stunning intellectual gerrymander and write off the deaths of servicepeople during the invasion of Iraq, we're going to have many thousands of servicepeople occupying a big, heavily armed country in which a non-negligible portion of residents will hate our guts. It's not going to allow any soldiers deployed in the region to come home, and it takes quite a lot of optimism to think that it will reduce the motivation of radical Muslims to attack US soldiers.

Michael Robinson, in Sarge's comments, puts it succintly:

Do you believe that an occupied Iraq will provide a more hospitable environment for U.S. military personnel than Saudi Arabia? Or do you believe that the occupation will be short, thereby reducing the time U.S. servicemembers serve as target practice? Like Somalia, or Lebanon, maybe?

Do you really think that for U.S. troops, the occupation of Iraq will be jumping from the fire to the frying pan, rather than vice-versa?

Joe Katzman at Winds of Change has a great roundup of interesting war-related stories. And you probably know that Sean-Paul at the Agonist is watching it all like a, um, hawk.

SHORTER TED BARLOW: A pox on both of your houses.

----------------

LONGER TED BARLOW:

"My father and I disagree on the current (projected) war, but we don't disagree about how unfortunate it is that that peace movement -- and this one -- have been ruined by jackholes who are really just posturing, or actively rooting for the other side."

Glenn Reynolds

"You really can get more flies with honey than a thumb in the eye."

James Lileks

Not that it particularly matters, but I've never stayed off the fence for long with regards to war on Iraq. I have a lot of sympathy Glenn's sentiment. There are a lot of jackholes in the anti-war movement, and we all know it. I'm genuinely embarassed to see some of the folks and some of the causes showing up at anti-war rallies. At the same time, it seems pretty obvious to me that anti-war protestors who are "actively rooting for the other side" are pretty freakin' thin on the ground. Glenn surely knows this. This kind of thing makes it hard to feel especially enthusiastic about being on either side, you know?

I don't want to give the impression that I've made up my mind based on the fairly superficial question of "who's got the dumbest, loudest arguments?" But it does affect you, and I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of people can't ignore the question who they loathe more, pro- or anti-war extremists. Ana Marie Cox described herself as "anti-anti-war". I think that Jim Treacher would agree:

You know, here I was thinking there were good arguments on both sides. But now that the people of San Francisco have spoken, I realize that George W. Bush is worse than a million Hitlers with AIDS buggering altar boys while talking on cellphones in their SUVs.

He's saying this in response to the the San Fransisco vomit-in. A dumber protest surely there shall never be. You could spend hours and hours pointing at dumb, childish and ugly anti-war protestors, as many have.

On the other hand, would you want to bring these guys home to meet Mom? From Digby:

Our increasingly irate new friends accused us of supporting Saddam over Bush. When we explained that nobody "supports" Saddam, they went ballistic.

"You know what? You two are the reason why this country's going down the fucking toilet."

"This is why I hate you city folks. Fucking city folks. Why don't you go back to New York? The fucking toilet."

"Communists. That's what you are. Communist feminists. Fucking liberals."

As disturbed as we were, at that point all we could do was laugh. They were behaving so preposterously, each yelling louder than the other one, slamming the bar and sweating. A couple who'd arrived halfway through the conversation looked at them and shook their heads at us sympathetically. We shrugged.

They didn't appreciate our indifference to their anger. The calmer we were the more enraged they became.

The businessman slowly turned to face us directly.

"How 'bout this. You like those people so much? You like those fuckers so much? How 'bout I throw a veil over your head and drag you by your ponytail out the door? Veil. Over your head. Drag you. By your ponytail," he said, dissolving into a bizarre, almost tribal chant.

No one would want to be represented by these folks, or by the woman on NPR this morning with a sign that says "PROTESTORS=TERRORISTS." But it doesn't end there, at least if you're a heavy blog reader.

I can't be alone in feeling that if (say) Kenneth Pollack was the premiere pro-war blogger, he would have won over more of us terminal fence-sitters than Andrew Sullivan or Glenn Reynolds. I'd feel pretty uncomfortable marching under the banner of Andrew Sullivan, who has been raining hyperbolic abuse on anyone who disagrees with him since September 13, 2001 or so. Most recently, he announced that he will be "blogging around the clock", bringing up the rear behind the tanks and missiles. To quote Eric Alterman: “Saddam, my savior, we are doomed. The 99th Airborne we can handle, but our men in the field now tell us we may get a 'Begala Award.'”

Glenn has been punctuating the flow of useful and interesting information on his blog with an increasing flood of scorn for fellow Americans who don't want war. (And if you're not American, you might as well get off here.) If you've been reading InstaPundit over the past few months, you've learned that anti-war (sorry, "antiwar"- no, sorry, anti-liberation) partisans like the Pope, Glenn's dad, and most of the population of the world are a bunch of objectively pro-Saddam racist sexist appeasers and Commie dupes who have "made preservation of Saddam Hussein (their) top priority."

I feel pretty confident that no one was won over by rhetoric like this.

There's no particular moral to take home; most passionate political discussions are like this, I guess. But if I quit this blog entirely, please understand why.

UPDATE: Glenn links to a story about a town in Iraq eagerly greeting American troops, and says,"This is the "peace" movement's worst nightmare, isn't it?"

Common misconception, apparently. The "peace" movement's worst nightmare would be that these troops would lose their lives in battle, or after being exposed to chemical or biological weapons. Now that the invasion is underway, I can pretty much guarantee that every member of the "peace" movement would love to hear that the Iraqis laid down their arms and surrendered without loss of life on either side.

Happy to clear that up!

I've got a hot anger when it comes to politics right now that I don't want to feed. I'm going to take a few days off.

Hope for quick victory and enjoy the lightbulb jokes. They're funny.

UPDATE: Not angry anymore. Some people are just jerks, and I shouldn't let them bother me. And that's...

One to Grow On.

Regular blogging to commence when I have something to say.

Longish but very interesting profile of Wal-Mart in Fortune. Just a sample:

Product Wal-Mart's
U.S. market share*
Dog food 36%
Disposable diapers 32%
Photographic film 30%
Toothpaste 26%
Pain remedies 21%

*Percent of all sales through food, drug, and mass-merchandisers.

As for a supplier raising prices, good luck: In some cases Wal-Mart has been known simply to keep sending payment for the old amount. "The days of the price increase," Joe Galli has told his troops, "are over."

By systematically wresting "pricing power" from the manufacturer and handing it to the consumer, Wal-Mart has begun to generate an economy-wide Wal-Mart Effect. Economists now credit the company's Everyday Low Prices with contributing to Everyday Low Inflation, meaning that all Americans--even members of Whirl-Mart, a "ritual resistance" group that silently pushes empty carts through superstores--unknowingly benefit from the retailer's clout. A 2002 McKinsey study, moreover, found that more than one-eighth of U.S. productivity growth between 1995 and 1999 could be explained "by only two syllables: Wal-Mart." "You add it all up," says Warren Buffett, "and they have contributed to the financial well-being of the American public more than any institution I can think of." His own back-of-the-envelope calculation: $10 billion a year.

Two good links from No More Mister Nice Blog:

A parody Dixie Chicks apology. This is especially good:

And most important of all, I realize that it's wrong for a celebrity to voice a political opinion, unless they're Charlie Daniels, Clint Black, Merle Haggard, Barbara Mandrell, Loretta Lynn, Ricky Skaggs, Travis Tritt, Hank Williams Jr, Amy Grant, Larry Gatlin, Crystal Gayle, Reba McEntire, Lee Greenwood, Lorrie Morgan, Mike Oldfield, Ted Nugent, Wayne Newton, Dick Clark, Jay Leno, Drew Carey, Dixie Carter, Victoria Jackson, Charleton Heston, Fred Thompson, Ben Stein, Bruce Willis, Kevin Costner, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Bo Derek, Rick Schroeder, George Will, Pat Buchanan, Bill O'Reilly, Joe Rogan, Delta Burke, Robert Conrad or Jesse Ventura.

And a story about Pep Boys, who are apparently firing military reservists who have been called to active duty. This is a violation of the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act. Apparently they even sent a letter asking for an exemption from the law on September 11th, 2001.

Says Steve:

You know what, folks? The Dixie Chicks don't hate America. Barbra Streisand doesn't hate America. Pep Boys, if what's being alleged here is true, hates America.

I've got to say, I think that Mickey Kaus is making sense about Iraq.

Isn't the bold move precisely to put France on the spot? Chirac has already shown he's sensitive to the impression that he's being unreasonable -- witness his vague, last minute "30-day" proposal. Why not, if only for global P.R. purposes (which are not trivial at this point), make Chirac a final offer he looks stupid refusing: a substantial (4-month?) delay, massive inspections with U.S. intelligence guidance and onerous anti-Saddam conditions, plus automatic war if either a) disarmament benchmarks are violated or b) a forbidden weapon is found (i.e. the French promise not to react with the predictable "inspections are working" gambit). Make it clear that a French veto will mean the U.S. abandons the U.N. and immediately starts the attack it seems about to start. In other words, make the French vote for war (or at least make it look like that's what they are doing when they turn down a reasonable war-postponing alternative).

I'd support that. In real life, however, the decision was made months ago. All indications are that we're going to war this week. I've often thought that the world would look exactly the same if we all turned our blogs into Hello Kitty fanpages, but there's no point in pouting about that now.

All we're left to do is pray for a quick victory and fight like hell for an honorable follow-through. Here's hoping.

Several people have linked to this article in Newsweek. I want to highlight one part:

The war on terror has given the United States a core security interest in the stability of societies. Failed states can become terrorist havens. That means we must focus attention and expenditures on nation-building. For all its flaws, the United Nations is doing on-the-ground work to create stable societies in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Cambodia and Mozambique—and for the most part, it’s succeeding. The European Union and Japan pay most of these bills. Were Washington to move to an entirely ad hoc approach, why would the rest of the world agree to clean up its messes?

Fighting terror also requires constant cooperation with countries across the globe. America could not have captured Qaeda strategist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed without the active partnership of Pakistan. And yet if you ask Pakistanis what they have gotten for this, they will point out that American tariffs continue to strangle their textile industry and U.S. aid remains meager. Having asked for help in de-Islamizing their education system—a matter of crucial concern to America—they have received little. Meanwhile the overall tone of Bush administration foreign policy has made General Musharraf embarrassed to be pro-American.

The last point is perhaps the most crucial one. Being pro-American should not be a political liability for our allies. The diplomatic fiasco over Turkey is an excellent example. For well over a year now it has been obvious to anyone watching that the Turkish people were deeply opposed to a war in Iraq. Yet the administration assumed that it could bully or bribe Turkey into giving it basing rights. But Turkey over the last year has become more democratic. The military is less willing to overrule politicians. The new ruling party, AK, is more open to internal debate than Turkey’s other parties. It allowed its members to vote freely on the motion to allow America basing rights, only to have it defeated. Since more than 90 percent of the Turks oppose giving America basing rights, this should not have been surprising. The administration wants democracy in the Middle East. Well, it got it.

"Being pro-American should not be a political liability for our allies." I'd like to see the Administration write that on the board 500 times before they let Rumsfeld anywhere near a microphone again.

So, my neighbor's company bought a block of tickets to the closing at the Houston Rodeo that they needed to fill. Rob "Get Donkey" Humenik, my lovely fiancee and I went to one of the "reddest" Red America events that I've ever been to. This was the same rodeo where the brawl broke out the other night because some kid didn't stand for "Proud to be an American."

We got there a little late, but still got to see bull riding, calf roping, chuck wagon racing, a calf scramble with a few dozen 4-H kids, barrell racing, a little parade with surprise guest former President George H. W. Bush, and a concert from the country music group Alabama.

A few impressions:

- I can't help but suspect that the Dixie Chicks career is over. There was a commercial at one point for a country music magazine which included a montage of magazine covers. The Dixie Chicks was in that montage for a half a second, and there was a LOUD boo from all around the arena. It couldn't have been much louder if they had shown Saddam himself. The rodeo announcer made a point of saying that he was proud that George W. Bush was from Texas, as did Alabama. Both got loud cheers. I strongly suspect that this is pretty good sample of the opinion of people who buy country music. If they want to stay in the music business, they had better make a wicked awesome crossover album.

- It's hard not to be impressed by the difficulty and danger inherent in (for example) riding an angry 2000-pound bull with a rope squeezing its testicles, when you know with 100% certainty that you're going to get thrown. I quite enjoyed the rodeo events.

At one point, to kill time after the rodeo events were over and before Alabama started, there was a "blooper reel" of the most serious accidents at the rodeo. The person with the most serious accident, as judged by the volume of audience reaction, got a cash prize. One guy got dragged across three posts and spent a week in the hospital. One guy was thrown right into a gate and hung there like a rag doll.

The winner was a guy who was thrown from a bull but still had his hand cought in the rope around its neck. He was dragged and body-slammed for a while, then left unconscious. During a close-up of his bloody hand, the announcer said, "Don't ask him to give you a thumbs up- it ripped off his thumb!"

I turned to my fiancee and said, "We're about one inch away from Roman gladiators, aren't we?"

- The concert itself was harder to enjoy. I didn't know any songs by Alabama, but they reminded me so much of the Country Bears that I half-wonder if Alabama wasn't the model for the puppeteers. Very bombastic and anthemic, but then, country music's not my thing.

- They didn't play the "Star-Spangled Banner" before the concert. They played "Proud to be an American." I don't know if they played the "Star-Spangled Banner" before the rodeo itself. At one point, Alabama played "America the Beautiful," and it felt genuine.

- I was pleasantly surprised at the lyrics of Alabama's opener. It was an environmentalist anthem called Pass it On Down

Well there's a change taking place way on the mountains
Acid rain is falling on the leaves
And down in Brazil, the fires are burning still
How we gonna breathe without them trees...

Now we all oughta feel just a little bit guilty
When we look into the eyes of our kids
'Cause brothers it's a fact, if we take and don't put back
They'll have to pay for all we did

Josh Marshall:

As the Post aptly notes, we've made the job of the French government easy, alienating friendly governments which should have been our allies, not theirs. As each new government turns away from us, the president's allies at home heap new abuse on the new defector, explaining how they've never been good allies to start with, and how this is still more evidence we shouldn't rely on allies in the first place. It's not a policy or even an argument. It's a self-validating feedback loop which always leads to the same conclusion: we were right all along!

At long last, the Lightbulb Joke Warehouse is complete. Share and enjoy.

A few good posts from the weekend:

CalPundit, on how access to ultra-secret information makes it hard for even smart people to learn anything new.

Late Night Thoughts, on why Chirac might be behaving the way he is.

Atrios, on the political correctness of the right.

I'm sure there are more.

Here's the letter that I wrote to PETA this weekend:

When I first saw the "Holocaust on Your Plate" ad campaign, I assumed that it had to be a joke. It must have been a mean-spirited parody by an individual or group that hated PETA and what it stands for. When it turned out to be an actual PETA campaign, I was truly shocked. I don't know if you realize the damage that you've done to your organization and your credibility.

Let's ignore the ethical blindness inherent in comparing meat consumption to the genocidal slaughter of the Nazis. On a purely practical level, surely someone in your organization noticed that the Holocaust is practically a secular religion in the United States? Surely someone realized how hurtful and outrageous this would seem to many people who would otherwise be sympathetic to your cause? Apparently not.

I am a pet owner and have a deep vein of sympathy with your cause. But the day can't come too soon that a more responsible group takes your place in the media as an opponent of cruelty to animals. You deserve the abuse that you are recieving.

It's "light a single candle" time. If you love animals, hate PETA, and are plagued with piles of money clogging your drains, you might want to consider giving some to the ASPCA or the Humane Society of the United States. Any other suggestions are welcome.

Some pro-liberation patriots expressed their support for the troops in North Houston this weekend by vandalizing the house of an old woman.

Francoise Thomas has lived in Kingwood in the Retreat Townhomes for 14 years and says this is the first time she has ever experienced hate. "I just put my garbage can here and then I turned around to go back to my condo and then I saw that and I really was very upset," says Francoise Thomas.

The words, "Go back to France!" were spray painted on the side of her home.

Actually, I saw it on the news this morning, and it said "SCUM- GO BACK TO FRANCE". Small detail.

This woman has commited the same sin as Matt Welch's wife Emmanuelle: she was born in France.

Matt Welch had a post recently about "freedom fries" and suchlike:

I think if a senior government official, for instance, uses "axis of weasels" to describe Chirac & co., he is emboldening the population to go several steps further, and legitimizing poisonous discourse. Already, you can see a progression of allowable jokes -- let's "Pave France," let's "Bomb Canada," etc. Many of these jokes are funny, of course, and I am definitely not the kind of person to take "offense" at them. But they veer into the genocidal, and I daresay if you saw jokes like that emanating from the ANSWER crowd, or directed toward Israel, you would give them no quarter.

It would be unfair to act as if everyone who's been chuckling at "Bomb France" jokes would ever be party to vandalism. Of course they wouldn't. But I hope that you'll pardon me if I've been a little humorless about them. I have no objection, on any level, to fierce criticism of Jaques Chirac. Call him a worm all the live-long day. But the speed and enthusiasm with which that morphed into fierce criticism of ordinary French people was, frankly, a little scary. The French people are not exactly alone in their opposition to war on Iraq. I don't know how this war on Iraq will be go, and I don't know how it will be judged by history. But I feel entirely confident that "freedom fries," wine boycotts, and all that bullshit will bring us no glory.

"Scum- Go back to France." Either you're against demonizing people because of their national origin, or you're not. I'm sorry, but there's a right answer and a wrong answer on this question.