photo of the day

Courtesy of the Washington Post

Bush's trade ambassador, Robert Zoellick, is trying to get US-China trade in even better shape so that he is hugging babies, baby Pandas. "You want to know how the panda felt?" he asked. "Very soft."

Is he soft on China's human rights record? Trying to get more cuddly pandas for our Zoos? Trying to get the Chinese to float the Yuan? Or endorsing the engagement policy/theory on China?

I think it is a little bit of both...and pandas are soft and I am very jealous. Some day, I want to be trade ambassador so I can hold pandas.

the nerves of Steele

The Balimore Sun seems to have found yet another ethical violation with the Ehrlich/Steele Administration: Pay for Play with Steele.

Officials with three of four African-American groups that in early 2004 received a combined $250,000 - the result of an insurance settlement received by the state - gave $13,711 to the lieutenant governor about the same time or in the months after, according to a state elections board database....The proceeds were distributed to four groups without a competitive application process and were announced in letters stating that the money was given "on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Michael S. Steele."

Michael S. Steele of course is running for U.S. Senate to replace Sarbanes. First he makes up the Oreo cookie story, then he compares stem cell research to the holocaust in front of a jewish audience, and now we learn he either diverted state tax dollars to his campaign or that in order to win contracts, all you have to do is donate. Something is rotten in Annapolis.

Who will be at this party?

Courtesy of Hotline On Call blog

the obligatory look back

canvasing the blogs I read (see sidebar) it seems like some thoughts on the Iraq War are necessary since we have reached an artifical milestone-- 3 years of war. This is just as artifical and just as sad as the other milestone-- 1,000 dead. Now we are over 2,500 dead American soldiers and many more wounded.

A great way to sum up how badly things have gone in Iraq-- how divergent those outcomes have been from the rosy projections of hawks-- is Professor Juan Cole's Top Ten Catastrophes of the third year of the war. Not even top ten of the whole period...and that there are so many to choose from, that one can create a top ten.

The only good things that the Bush Administration did was topple Saddam and appoint this current Ambassador. The trial has been a mess, the security never existed, the country is in civil war, terrorist have the perfect training ground to attack our troops, etc.

Like most Americans, I tire of reading about another bombing in some market somewhere, or a checkpoint bombing, or a mass grave found, or a car full of executed men found. Likewise, I tire of the "things getting better, says Bush" articles and stories on the TV. I tend to just skim the headlines, because if I were to know more, I would be more and more angry and depressed.

Occationally, I think about what would have happened to our world in the last 6 years had Gore won the recount. Saddam might still be in power, but most of those 2,500 soldiers would be alive (and 10,000s of Iraqis). Bin Laden would probabbly have been caught (as more resources would have been directed towards finding him instead of WMD's in Iraq and prepping for the other war). Our air and water would be cleaner, the courts would be filled with moderates rather than extremists. There would have been mass evacuations of the lower 9th ward and many lives would have been saved (Gore himself rented a chopper to save people with his own money and asked for no press) Plan B would have been available over the counter for years now. The Abramoff , Enron, Worldcomm and so many other scandals would have been agressively pursued from the get-go. Global Warming would be a State of the Union issue, and real measures would be made for citizens to curb consumption (Conservative Pundits would compare Gore to Carter). The congress would have tried everything to stop Gore, only to lose Jeffords in 2001 and then the majority in the Senate in 2002. The house would have fallen later, once all the bribery and lobbying scandals became to the fore.

Instead, Gore is a CEO of a TV station and on the board of companies like Apple. And Bush is at 33% and striving to run the country further aground. I wonder if O'Connor regrets her vote.

boycotting Kanab?

I got a great laugh out of this Deseret News story. To me it shows how both sides of the Blue State/Red State talk right past each other and really don't get it.

Kanab, in their infinite creativity, passed a resolution that the Sutherland Institute wrote for them. Fearing the devitalizing scourge of gay marriage and gender equality, their city resolution supports "upholding the marriage of a woman to a man, and a man to a woman as ordained by God." Homes, Sutherland's resolution said, should be open to a "full quiver of children" and young women to become "wives, homemakers and mothers." I am assuming they mean one wife per a household, given the singular use of woman in the above quoted language. I won't even get into the Establishment Clause issue right now.

Aurthur Frommer, founder of the travel advice empire that includes books videos, and a syndicated column advocated to his newspaper readers not to go to Kanab, whose economy is dependant on tourism. Frommer decided Kanab is "homophobic" and "bigoted," but failed to realize lots of towns in Red State America have passed similar things...in fact I think over 20 of the 50 states in the union have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. There are crazier cities and towns in Utah as well (see LeVerkin and Virgin's no-UN zone).

Kanab's reply? "Mr. Frommer obviously doesn't know much about Kanab," Mayor Lawson said. What is there to know? "His primary audience does not visit Kanab. They go to Europe," he said. "They go to places that have given up on the family long ago. That's where they're comfortable."

Yes Europe, where there are no more families and the continent has given up on them. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Frommer make travel guides for families on a budget? Sure Americans love to travel to Europe, but not because they have given up on families (even if that were true), but to see castles, museums, royalty, and other old stuff.

Personally, I don't think it is Arthur’s place to tell people to boycott Kanab. The people that would be offended by the resolution would have already avoided after Frommer informed them. The others who think it is funny or support it won't boycott the city. And how many of his readers even know where Kanab is? Or LeVerkin? Or Virgin?

Similarly, what will Kanab's resolution actually do? Make people feel better? Gay marriage has been banned twice statewide, most recently in 2004 by Amendment 3. Those who are gay in Kanab will likely emigrate to a big(er) city to meet other homosexuals and to not feel as outcast. I don't homosexual couples would dare live and raise a family in a small city/town like Kanab.

In sum, both Kanab and Frommer wasted their time and effort on a cultural issue that has little real effect on either party. Both just made themselves that much more ridiculous.

On a personal note, I am traveling to a small western town for the weekend to get a break from working full time this week and enjoy my spring break such as it is. Our motel will have wireless, so I can report from the road if a I feel so inclined. Enjoy your weekend.

quote of the day

Conservative Washington state columnist Adele Ferguson promotes school vouchers, defends slavery: “The pony hidden in slavery is the fact that it was the ticket to America for black people.”

Yeah, what a ticket! Nevermind most of the people crammed into the boat died before they even got to North America. Or that folks were beaten to death and or raped by their masters when they got to America. Or that they were enslaved for centuries. Or that it took another century after they were freed to sit in the same schools, drink from the same fountains, wait at the same bus stops, eat at the same lunch counters, etc. as white people. And I won't even get into police brutality, racial profiling, differing employment opportunities etc. Those lucky duckies!

hat tip Center for American Progress

cheating and the war on terror

I looks like yet again, the Bush Justice Department has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. And yet again, they did so by violating the rules which prosecutors are supposed to play by. In Michigan, a case was thrown out after massive prosecutorial misconduct--Richard G. Convertino (the lead prosecutor appointed by AG John Ashcroft) suppressed evidence that might have bolstered the defendants' claims of innocence.

In Virginia, the "20th hijacker" case involving a dude that liked al Qaeda but never actually was part of the plot and might have sorta known about it, the Bush appointees got two witnesses on the phone together and discussed their testimoney, and read back to them parts of the trial transcript. This is highly unethical and violates the exclusionary rule in the Federal Rules of Evidence. The upshot is that the death penalty is off the table for the jurors.

These are just two of the many terror cases the Bush Justice Department has bungled since 9/11. Remember that 'sleeper cell' near Buffalo, NY? All they could get them on was traveling to Afghanistan and going to an Al-Qeada camp...a crime they called "providing support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization."

Is it that these cases are hard to try? That the evidence is always scanty? Or is it that these prosecutors are eagarly tring to make a name for themselves, and in so doing cross the line? It has to be more than a coincidence.

Curiouser and curiouser

When I read the headline yesterday that Slobodan Milosevic was found dead in his cell, I thought 'oh crap.' General Clark agrees with me. "He escaped justice and it's a tragedy for the people of Serbia," Clark told United Press International Sunday.

"They were denied the truth," said Clark, who had met the Serbian leader numerous times. "Milosevic," Clark told UPI, "led the Serb people on a foolish and immoral quest for greater Serbia.

I knew that people would speculate about a murder plot. To wit, this from the Melburne Herald Sun:

Milosevic's lawyer revealed a six-page letter from the former Balkans strongman, written the day before he died and alleging he was being given the wrong drugs in an attempt to kill him.

The letter, dated March 10, was addressed to the Russian embassy. A one-page English-language cover note asked the embassy to forward the letter to the Russian Foreign Minister.

The letter alleged that a powerful drug used to treat leprosy or tuberculosis had been found in his blood during an examination on January 12, said Milosevic's legal aide, Zdenko Tomanovic.

"They would like to poison me," he quoted Milosevic as telling him.

Reading a sentence from an English translation of the letter, Mr Tomanovic said: "In any case, the persons who are giving me the drug for the treatment of leprosy surely cannot be treating me, and especially those persons from whom I defended my country in the war and who also have an interest in silencing me."

Somehow, there was an antibiotic found in Slobo's bloodstream during the autopsy, that is designed to counteract those high blood pressure meds. Was he drugged to death? Was he trying to make himself sicker so he could go to a Russian medical facility and never come back to the Hauge? Did he comit suicide, like his parents had?

Somehow I doubt we will ever know for sure. I am pretty certain that what Slobo said was a lie. No one at the UN or ICC would try to kill him. If anything, some Croat, Serbian, or Kosovar general did the deed. To me, the most likely scenerio is that he tried to get himself sick and did too good of a job.

Photo of the day

We raised nearly three and a half thousand dollars this week. Even if Cheney won't, I am retiring...from my position as president of my student organization. Let some young blood in and let me sleep finally.

This week is spring break and so I might go somewhere last minute, but in all likelihood, I will just work and study. Happy Friday everyone.

over the hump

as tired as I am, I feeling pretty good. This week's fundraising has gone really well in my book and I am proud of all the volunteers, all the donors and all the support in general. Lots of people came up to me over the week and expressed their graditude for what our group was doing and all the work we had done to set up every morning, take down in the afternoon, and talk people into donating during the day.

To wit, we have raised nearly $3,000 for needy 1Ls and 2Ls that will be working over the summer for a non-profit or government job that is little or no pay. This sleepiness was worth it. Tomorrow is our last day of constant fundraising and my last early morning set up.

Politically, I loved watching Bush implode over the ports deal, and their weasel out attempts. I am enraged about Intelligence Committee and Pat Roberts in general. What a horrible senator he is because he is acting as a member of the Bush cabinet and not as a member of the legislative branch or representative of the residents of Kansas.

long week

man, it feels like it is wednesday or thursday already. I have been up early brewing coffee for the college of law along with setting up bagels and much more. Then today I got up early and taught my high school students.

and somehow I haven't been able to get to sleep because of the various things and I just feel drained.

port security--WH 08 edition

Who gains, who loses politcally? Of the likely candidates, Hillary has legislation that is nationalistic (all ports must be American owned). Edwards in his senate days had a bill on port security that he can point to, but he really hasn't said much on the UAE deal. Clark has spoken out very clearly on this issue, saying it doesn't matter who owns the port, we need to make sure the containers are checked here and their originations points.

Winner: Clark and maybe Clinton. Hillary's stance is one that in theory would play well in the heartland and plays off the GOP's fearmongering of Arab countries, but then again, it is Hillary, and the heartland will still hate her for various other reasons. Clark cut to heart of the matter and disagreed with Clinton while not saying he is against her bill, as George Stephanopolis wanted him to say. In fact, this issue is a winning one for Clark, because it plays into his national security and foreign affairs strength. It is one less time that he has to try to talk about domestic stuff, which he was clearly less confortable with in 2004.

As far as the GOP WH 08 race, McCain seems to be coming to Bush's defense ("Could you spare a few more staffers for my campaign, George?") by telling everyone to take a deep breath about it. Frist is staking out some breathing space between him and Bush by asking for a delay...which is just to give Bush more time to sell/hope people forget about it. I haven't heard from the other folks about the deal.

My problem is not necessarly the fact that UAE is in charge, although they aren't as trustworthy as i would like. my issue is that bush broke the law again and doesn't care.

what's a matter with oscar

poor Jon Stewart. It looks like his jokes were all watered down like American beer. We are now on our second montage and I just learned that Lauren Baccal can't read.

Why does there need to be a theme? Or an ode to film nior or bio pics? I mean really, the Oscars are an hour and a half show that is made into 3+ because of over production. And annoyingly enough the producers always manage to get Emmys.

The best bit so far was Steve Carell's bad makeup bit and the negative advertisment gag film. I love how they send out latina who bombed her singing of a nominated song last year for 'Crash' song.

reredistricting is unconstitutional

In my opinion, it goes against the spirit and word of the 13th and 14th amendments, plus against all that Madison and company talked about in the Federalist papers.

However, after reading reports from election law experts who attended the oral arguments of the Texas reredistricting case, it seems that the Justices were leaning in the following directions [according to UCLA's Rick Hansen and OSU's Ned Foley]:

"1. No majority to find a partisan gerrymander (under equal protection, First Amendment, or any other clause of the Constitution) ---apparently this leaves Vieth in place [one of the least helpful opinions since Furman v. Georgia], because it does not appear that Justice Kennedy was signalling he's ready to vote for nonjusticiablity distinguish between a statewide gerrymandering claim and the distric-specific claims that Stevens was interested in... for more read here

"2. No majority to hold that mid-decade redistricting violates one person, one vote because of the failure to use updated census data.

"3. No majority to find a Shaw violation (maybe that gets only Justice Kennedy's vote)." Some find Thomas' silence "intriguing" while I find it wholly unsurprising for a me-too judge. Ginsburg and Alito were also silent, but she fell asleep at the end of arguments and Alito is probably not wanting to make a big splash. It was hard to read CJ Roberts views since he has tough questions both ways.

"4. A possible majority to hold that one or two districts violates section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but no majority to hold that coalitional or influence disticts count for section 2 purposes (and a possible majority to affirmatively reject that stand)." Most commenters thought this was a far fetched possibility. Sounds like Orals did not go well for the petitioners.

In a few years, when state after state reredistricts whenever there is a change of hands in the state house, the US House will change hands since the party divide in this county is pretty narrow (since I believe the 15 seat edge the GOP have will sigificantly deminish after 2006, if not turn into a deficit). Maybe the unintended consequence of this will be de facto term limits, or maybe the Congress will turn into California's legislature, where there is barely any institutional memory and choas abounds. Maybe then congress will get off their duffs and redistrict themselves in a fair fashion...or they will just protect themselves as much as possible.

As things stand, every 10 years, candidates pick their voters, instead of every two years the voters pick their representative, as the constitution mandates.

Ye almighty [Republican] Executive

Isn't it sad that the minute the White House changes party hands, the Republican congress change their tune completely? How many inquiries did we have to the silly messups of the Clinton White House? How many grand inquisitors did Congress hire for that (3)?

Yet those same folks phone in their questioning and document requests and hearings. Folks like my Senator Orin Hatch ask softballs to administration officials when they are appointed by Republicans, but when hired by Democrats, he is all over them.

Now you can say partisan politics is corrupting both sides and copy and paste that into a "moderate" washingtonian column. But reality is that if Democrats were in control of congress and the presidency, the two branches would still eat each other alive (see 1992-1994).

McCelland Democrats

Digby's right, bloggers aren't extreme in the ideological sense, they are extreme in the tactic sense.

We are tired of being asked for more troops (money) without any more action (aggressive challenges) against the Rebels (extremist Republicans). The DC pundits and consultants seem to be afriad of their own shadows.

Bush's approval rating is at 34%, an all time low. The port deal is starting to smell more and more of cronyism. For the first time ever, more of the public believes Congressional Democrats, not Bush, have their best security interests at heart. Democrats lead by fairly large margins in generic ballot tests. Democrats are poised to pick up the majority of the governorships in the country, especially in the key swingable states of Ohio and Arkansas (and possibily Florida). Race by race polls show that if the election were held today, Democrats would have 49-50 seats in the senate, and make similarlly large gains in the House.

Now is not a time for timidity, now is a time for boldness. While the GOP is divided and weak, Democrats need to strike. They need to put out a platform that shows what we are for at the end the summer (launching a nationwide campaign starting labor day).

We need more Grants, and less McCellands.

Virgil [No]Goode and John Dolittle [for his constituents, but lots for his coffers]

Don't ethically challeneged GOP House members have great names?

Mitchel Wade, who bribed ex-Rep. (current con) "Duke" Cunningham, has pled guilty to giving illegal contributions to Goode, to the tune of $46K [by having his employees and their wifes donate to Goode and then reembursing them]


According to TPM, "Wade asked that Goode request appropriations funding for an MZM facility in Goode's district soon after he'd just delivered most of the $46K. This was at some unspecified time "in the spring" - the contributions were mostly made in March of 2005, so it can't have been long. By June 2005, 'Representative A [Goode] confirmed to Wade that the appropriations bill would include $9M for the facility and a related program.'"

Doolittle was busy taking Abramoff-paid trips (as were his staffers), as well as the other Duke briber, Brent Wilkes. Again, TPM lays it out:

Wilkes convinced Doolittle with $85,000 (from himself, his employees, his lobbyists) in contributions over three years. In return, PerfectWave won Doolittle’s support for $37M in earmarked appropriations. In a Washington Post story on this last week, Doolittle responded with a statement that "he frequently supports 'well deserving projects throughout the state.'" And "his support of PerfectWave Technology ‘was no exception and based completely on the project's merits and the written support of the military.'"

These two aren't the only ones, just ones with most scandalworthy names.

In response to commenters Bob, Col. Takashi and la

Here is the statement that was in the Salt Lake Tribune, they have it on tape, they have witnesses to confirm that it happened.

At a recent meeting in American Fork a man identifying himself as a former Green Beret stood to share his testimony.
"If you're a Democrat, I want you to understand that I support my president," he said in comments recorded by the church for homebound members. "And if you have a problem with that, we can talk behind the church."

I don't know if this is typical, or if this guy was LDS (I assume he was, otherwise, what was he doing testifying). I was only going off an interview of the article's author (who did interview lots of people and got many replies to his article) as to the extent of the problem. My concern is about over deference to authority, not the threat of violence.

As for the comparison of what Clinton did to what Bush did: Clinton did a limited strike based on concrete information. And for all we know, this strike is what eliminated WMD's in 1999 and Saddam fudged having them until 2003. By the way, republicans wanted to see proof and talked about "Wag the Dog" when he did it. I have no way of knowing what Clinton's motivations were. I think he is a smileball for having an affair with a 23 year old intern and lying to the public about it and his staff (and wife). But I don't think it was an impeachable offense.

There is mountains of evidence that the Bush administration knew that the intelligence was not rock solid, but they ignored or whitewashed any doubts or hesitations of those officials. There is some sketchy evidence that a DoD official (Larry Franklin) shopped the fake yellow cake documents to people in Italy to get the idea that Saddam had nukes or wanted them in the for front.

I can name dozens of times Cheney, Bush, Rice, and others misled and insinated that Saddam was connected to 9/11 and had nuclear weapons or was trying to get them. All of these instances are on tape.

As to Bush as sinner. I get the redemption thing and I am sure Bush doesn't drink anymore and he believes in all the doctrines of the Southern Baptists. And hats off to him for that. But he still a liar, he still supports tabbacco companies, he still thinks he is more important than other people, and he still is jealous, vengeful, hateful, hypocritical, deceitful, arrogant, incompetent, and irresponsible. And to make him out as more religious than say Kerry is ridiculous. Kerry was an altar boy. He goes to mass...religiously, he went even though there were threats to deny him eucharist because of his position on abortion. Anyone and everyone can refer to God (in God we trust, etc.), and that is fine with me. But when they say to friend that God put them there to do, it bothers me. As Lincoln said, both sides of the war think they are doing God's will; they both can't be right.

I think the Church leaders ARE more moderate than their political leadership. Rumor has it that the Prophet (President Hinckley) is a Democrat. A very good Mormon (head of the mission in Vancover or Montreal) was liberal Democrat: fmr. US Rep. Wayne Owens. I knew Wayne; he was a great man who spent his last days working for middle-east peace and leading search parties for Elizabeth Smart.

I sure hope that Bush has been dropping in Utah. I don't understand what there is to like about his administration, what he has accomplished. And don't say 9/11: any president would have done that. And Iraq, well I am glad Saddam is gone, but the country is definately less stable and less secure becuase of our presence (see the bombing of a Shite holy site today in Iraq). I wouldn't consider that an accomplishment. No Child Left Behind, Medicare part D, and other domestic legislation has been a disaster. The tax cuts haven't helpped anyone but the rich. I gave all of my $50 2001 tax cut to the Red Cross after 9/11, then wished I could have given it to a better organization. THe Bush presidency has been a failure and a sad example of how far partisanship will ruin our constitution and our country.

a pattern emerges

When did they bother to tell the president? That has become the question of the last couple of weeks and might as well be the question of the Bush presidency.

When Cheney shot a man accidently in the face, Bush didn't hear about it for several hours, and he had to beg Cheney to go on Fox News. When Katrina hit New Orleans, it was several days until someone explained to the vacationer in chief that the levees had failed. When we were attacked on 9/11, Bush's detail waited 9 minutes until they bothered to tell George to stop reading "my pet goat" to Florida school children. When a plane accidentally entered restricted airspace and officials evacuated the White House and Capitol, no one interupted Bush's bike ride in nearby Maryland. When DHS has outsourced our port security in key cities to a company controlled by a royal family that met with Bin Laden in 1999, no one tells the president until the information is leaked to the public and a fury erupts from everywhere.

Cheney sees himself as the co-president I guess, getting the right to call the shots from the situation room with Lynne on 9/11 while Bush is on Air Force One running away, and declassifying matters of national security for political purposes. Meanwhile, White House officials don't seem to think informing the president is that crucial in terms of decision making on major policy issues.

Is it because he doesn't like to hear bad news? His input is unnecessary if Cheney has given his? They don't want to scare/confuse him? Or Bush isn't really in charge? If the last one is true, then who is? Cheney? Some senior WH official? A cabinet level guy like Rumsfeld? Who elected these people?

Because when Bush is asleep at the wheel, bad stuff happens politically. And when he is on the ball, bad stuff happens administratively, and eventually politically.

America's spoiled brats in Torino

I know a million bloggers must have said this already, but I am tired of hearing about seeing or thinking about Bode Miller. All talk and hype (on the cover of TIME and Newsweek and probabbly sports illustrated) and nothing. The most impressive thing I saw from Miller was after he hit a gate and was already disqualified how he stayed on his feet with only one ski on the course (the other he was trying to get back in front of him). He doesn't seem to care about being there or winning or anything. He just wants to try some crazy way down the hill instead of finishing.

Even worse is Shani Davis, the speedskater. I know I am supposed to be all jazzed that he is the first black man and the first individual African-American winter olympian to win anything, let alone gold, but he is a jerk. And it isn't just that he decided last minute not to do the team race. That was his call and really all those speedskaters do their own thing. But it was another to be annoyed to talk to the NBC people after he won. The lady asked softballs, tried to get him to say something memorable, something positive. His answers were "yeah," "uh huh" and so on. Then he claimed "I am at a loss for words" when his tone was completely flat and there was zero smile on his face. The facial expression of his interviewer after tossing it back to the booth was priceless. To me it said, "I gave it my all guys, but he just is too cool to talk to, what the heck is his deal?" He was the moodiest gold medalist I have ever seen.

Shani could have turned his gold into more gold for him and his mother. He could have been nice and happy and flashed a smile and said something funny or memorable and gotten a nike endorsement. He could have even played the race card and been discussed. Now he just comes off as a bratty only child. His mama smeared the US speed skating organization, but didn't elaborate on how they "operate by intimindation, and I am not going to be intimidated." He trains with some guy in Canada most of the time, why doesn't he just join the Canadian team since he doesn't seem to care for the American one. And he isn't a poor black kid from the bad part of town in Chicago, they live in Evanston, one of the wealthiest areas of Chicagoland.

Meanwhile, the guy that got a silver in Shani's race, Joey Cheek, gave the bonus money he won from his medal (and the gold bonus money from the 500m race he won too) to a non-profit that allows kids in war-torn areas play sports. He asked the NBC people to talk about the non-profit and especially Darfur. They didn't even really interview Joey, too busy focusing on the bitch off between Shani and an ex-inline skater on the American team. Why aren't we celebrating Joey Cheek, NBC? He seems like an average guy who is humble, nice, good looking, and "All-American." Seems like perfect sponsorship material.

Watching this year reminds me of how cool it was to have the games in Salt Lake, and how magical it was to fly out from college and be able to see some events and go to the German house etc. There is talk about bringing the games back to SLC in 2014 or so. Hoepfully the city by then will normally feel like the city did during those 2 magical weeks in 2002.