Given the record of this administration, it is not surprising that this only came out because a reporter had some inside information and not from the State Department itself. It is also not surprising that the State Department has not released any names yet. There might be a good reason, but the record leads me to be suspicious of their motives. I expect the State Department will stonewall any investigation

Tough call this week. We have Eliot Spitzer with his sexcapade, then Geraline Ferraro and her untimely comment about Obama only being where he is because of the color of his skin, and then there is O.I.L. whose concern for the economy in his speech in NY this week was laughable (NYT).

So who wins? I would say that we can eliminate O.I.L. This is nothing new. It is not like we should be surprised by his idiotic comments, or his lack of responsibility. It is second nature to the guy. Geraldine is a big story, but I don't think it is as seismic as Eliot's. Yes, what she said was stupid, and sure it got a lot of play, but she is a small figure in the campaign without significant impact.

Eliot, on the other hand, is rather special. Describe by many as arrogant, self-righteous and smart, it is quite something to see the Governor of the second largest state fumble so blatantly. Of course, I should would love to know what is going on in the head of his wife.

I have some connection to college sports. I played football at a Div. I school when I was a freshman, then quit and moved to a swimming pool, where I played varsity water polo for three years. I left the sport for many years, but returned about 7 years ago as a volunteer coach for the now club water polo team of my alma mater. To some degree I see what the impact is on many of the students and the strain it places on their lives. I have become a huge advocate of the club college sports scene. I will write more of that at another time. Please read the articles. Mr. Pennington does a great job of describing many of the conflicts with our current athletic system.

"In her first interview with Daily Breeze, published late last week, Ferraro said "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept," Ferraro told the newspaper. She also said Hillary Clinton had been the victim of a "sexist media."

Is this racist? Is it true? It could very well be. People are certainly voting for these candidates because they are black or a woman or white, depending whether you are Barack, Hillary or John. Pollsters and media folks continually break down voting patterns by race, sex and religion almost daily. Does anyone really think that these candidates have achieved their respective positions without taking advantage of some cultural "wave"? Granted this is not the only reason, but I am sure it is a factor. People are excited about the fact that a "black" (he is half white and half black) and a woman are the two leading Democratic candidates. I would contend that many people are supporting their respective campaigns for that very reason. Now a high profile person points that out, and she is blasted by the media. What is their goal in doing so? Perhaps they are helping to stir the pot to generate more viewers. They certainly do what they can to keep race and sex a big part of the political scene. Whatever the real motives, and I am sure they are multifaceted, it sure is interesting.

However, the issue of why the question appears is much more interesting. Again we need to explore the motivation behind the headlines, like why bring up the issue? How does it play out in the media? Does it help sell papers or attract more viewers? The issue of truth is completely different. I would even say that all those "expert" opinions are rather suspect. I have not heard one of them try to differentiate between politicians and the rest of us.

"The flash point in the debate has been the question of whether to protect AT&T and other major phone companies from some 40 lawsuits pending in federal courts, which charge that the companies' participation in the eavesdropping program violated federal privacy laws and their responsibilities to their customers.

Mr. Bush says the companies acted out of patriotism in responding to what they believed was a lawful presidential order. He has said that the lawsuits are being pursued by money-driven class-action lawyers and that they should not be allowed to threaten the financial solvency of the phone companies."

Why change your strategy when it works?

So, why would someone in his position destroy so much of his life? What is driving him? That is a silly question really, in the sense that it is so complex that one almost shouldn't even bother asking. But of course, we do. Why does anyone go to a prostitute when they are in a supposedly happy marriage? Obviously they are not getting what they sexually want from their spouse. And therein is the problem.

Is it the culture, or is it something that is inherent in the differences between men and women? Why is it that men have had a desire to continually seek sexual satisfaction outside of their marriages? Do men want to cheat? Or perhaps they are inclined to have sex, more often, in many different forms than are acceptable to their mates? I am sure this also has something to do with the quality of their relationship, but not entirely. This condition is so pervasive, and historical that I feel it extends well beyond the quality of a relationship. One can't individually blame all men or women for this. Maybe it is the Venus/Mars thing.

The point I am trying to make here is that this is a very complicated. I am not so sure that sitting on a committee or even traveling around the world on some trade commission junket makes you better able to make decisions. I would contend that spending time in Europe does not necessarily prepare you for solving a crisis in South America, or in SE Asia. Those cultures are very different, with distinct problems and ways of looking at the world. I don't think anyone is really knowledgeable enough to say they are really experienced to solve the problems of the world.

There are so many countries, with so many issues, cultures, religions, races, and everything else that exists, that no one person can really know "foreign policy". Perhaps what one should ask is whether an individual running for President has the strength and humility to know how much and little he or she actually knows about a situation. Then, will that person bring in the right experts for advice, and god forbid, actually listen to what they have to say. I would contend that is much more important.

I feel that the media likes to have a conclusion. They must think that uncertainty indicates weakness. They seldom take a longer view that this turmoil might be good. It is part of the political game. It also ensures that different views and perspectives are injected into the political process. The longer this goes on the more likelihood that lots of ideas get into the campaign. We get to see what works and what doesn't. We get to think about viewpoints and issues in ways we might not if the campaign was over too quickly. In addition, we get to see more of the candidates, especially under stress, when their true nature emerges from behind the curtain.

I think of the criticisms of American democracy and its high degree of uncertainty and flux in comparison to controlled states like the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, or now Russia. There is a certain ease when you don't have to deal with the contention and messiness of multiple opinions. It is often less efficient, however when taken in the long run, I would suggest that it actually builds a better society.

I also think that the game is a lot more fun if you don't find out who wins until the last second. Blowouts are a drag.

What is it about our country that we have to label people in this manner? Is it a function of our white culture to exclude those who do not appear to be "pure"? If you have some particular black characteristic, like kinky black hair, are you black?

I would contend that we are still a very racist society and the media does little to turn the re-orient the definitions. We should ask ourselves about the motivation behind the labels. What is going on? Who is scoring points here and who is losing?

Afghanistan risks sliding into a failed state and becoming the "forgotten war" because of deteriorating international support and a growing violent insurgency, according to an independent study.

The assessment, co-chaired by retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones and former U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering, serves as a warning to the Bush administration at a time military and congressional officials are debating how best to juggle stretched warfighting resources.

What is their strategy? What are they gaining by not seriously questioning them? Why do they continue to defer to the O.I.L.? Why do they still believe what he says? Are they gaining something here?