A few things that have fallen through the cracks, but deserve mention:
Pat Sajak is not only the host of Wheel of Fortune, but also a rather astute thinker as well — and his piece on the murder of Theo Van Gogh is well worth reading.
King Banaian of SCSU Scholars is continuing to do an absolutely brilliant job of covering the situation in the Ukraine. He’s not only been a great supporter of this blog, but also is proving the worth of the blogosphere in providing astute analysis and reporting.
Mitch Berg wants to see heads roll with comment spammers. I agree. Note also that many of the domains from these spam sites seem to be coming from Verio — a company with a history of spam complaints.
Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns has been picked to be Bush’s new Agriculture Secretary. Democratic Senator Ben Nelson was looking vulnerable against Johanns for the 2006 Senate race.
My guess is the White House recruits former Nebraska Cornhuskers Coach and current 3rd district Congressman Tom Osborn to run for Senate in ’06. If Osborn does run, Nelson will be destroyed. As Republicans go, America could do worse than Osborn.
As for Sajak’s diatribe, I think he better stick to the business of “giving the wheel one final spin” because his reasoning skills are pretty flawed. Suggesting that the “muted response” of Hollywood towards the murder of a Dutch director in Amsterdam is part of a conspiracy to make the Bush administration look bad (and, of course, to stay on that powerhouse bogeyman Michael Moore’s good side) is pretty indicative of why Sajak’s late 1980’s CBS talk show was cancelled after one season.
I liked Sajak’s article, and I’d also point out that salon.com did a very good article on Van Gogh last week as well- so there have certainly been liberals paying attention to the story. It would be nice to hear a big name american director stand up and say something, though… Spielberg, are you listening?
Obviously, if anyone actually READ Sajak’s opinion piece, they would know that he never claims the existence of a “conspiracy.” He simply asks the question (and it is a good question) “where’s the outrage?” It is the existence of an attitude in Hollywood that he wonders about.
So why the “muted” response from Hollywood?