We're Back

I've been on something of an extended hiatus. That's about to change. The future is at stake. Where do we stand? Well, it's not good:

• A President we have supported through darkest night is content to attack us with the language of our enemies, variously denigrating well-meaning conservatives as actively working against the best interests of the country and, through his despicable surrogates Linda Chavez, Lindsey Graham and Trent Lott (to name just a few), as knuckle-dragging, Mexican-fearing bigots. All of this in return for our simple -- and rather unremarkable -- desire to preserve our nation's sovereign perogatives to enforce its laws and defend its borders.

• We are saddled with an infantile congressional leadership that pays court to the enemies of modernity, spits epithets at our nation's highest ranking military officers and seeks to hasten disaster on a current battlefield.

• We are confronted with Democratic contenders for the Presidency who are, to a person, frightening for their inability -- or unwillingness -- to accept that September 11 and subsequent events were clear declarations of future intent.
  

Although that's just for starters, it's bad enough. So, where to? I'm not quite sure yet. But I'm not going to just ride along. Here we go.

Ban v. Maliki v. Bomb

Contrast Ban's response to this explosion with Maliki's. Ban? Duck, cover and look confused. Maliki? Don't even flinch. That just about sums it up, no?

Are We the Baddies?

True to His Namesake

Prince Harry goes to war. The only tragedy is that, this time, France is not the enemy. Memo to John Kerry: If only he'd have studied harder, eh?

Game Over?

Is it possible? Has the west actually permitted a tribe of sadistic theocrats to earn nuclear weaponry so cheaply? These days shall be poorly remembered. Some of the players, more poorly still.

Cock of the Walk

Ever since the Landis doping allegations surfaced, I have followed Oscar Periero's public comments with interest. Although Periero initially adopted a humble wait-and-see attitude, he has, in recent months, begun to crow ever more loudly about perceived unfairness. Oscar's main complaint seems to be that neither he nor his team can take financial advantage of what he now firmly believes to be his Tour victory so long as Landis remains formally unstripped of the title. Today, as often happens, another shoe has dropped.

It appears that unlike Landis, Periero tested positive for a banned performance-enhancing substance (salbutamol) -- not once, but twice -- during the 2006 Tour. Periero supposedly has a UCI-issued TUE (Therepeutic Use Exception) for salbutamol but French doping authorities have been asking for hard evidence of a legitimate medical condition since August and Periero has yet to provide one shred of evidence justifying the alleged medical exception. Nor, apparently, has the UCI bothered to confirm the existence of the TUE.

Maybe now the Accidental Champion will stop strutting around like a Tour winner (his second place was, after all, down to Phonak's tactical stupidity) and stfu until the Landis case is adjudicated. I suspect Andreas Kloden is paying close attention to this story.

Finally, do we now need anymore evidence that the UCI, WADA, and French authorities hold American riders to a higher standard? Apparently, the organizations are unflinching in their commitment to privacy and process so long as the rider in question does not race under an American license.

Heil Doenitz

Brilliant. Simply brilliant.

Just Desserts

Actually, if this dessert were truly just, the son-of-a-bitch would be fed to a woodchipper. Feet first. As a general matter, capital punishment troubles me. As a specific matter, not one whit.