even though he was super nice, and had that great smooth jazz going on in the background, i was always a little scared of mr. rogers.

nobody i ever knew talked like him. that slower, sharper, adult-talking-to-kids-speak.

the puppets scared me, his neighbors scared me.

everyone was just a little too happy, a little too old, and a little too peppy. as if mr. rogers’ neighborhood was the county seat of speed and everyone was in on it except for Lady Elaine.

his trolley was cool though.

i cant tell you why.

i cant remember one thing that mr. rogers taught me. i don’t remember him teaching the alphabet or numbers or geography. i don’t remember anything about him except the opening and the closing routine.

i suppose that means the show was successful.

i do remember a time that Stuttering John from the Howard Stern Show bum rushed a Mr. Rogers book signing and asked if he hated Barney.

without getting the least bit flustered, Mr. Rogers said, “no, I don’t hate Barney. Do you?”

it was a very sweet and slightly southern “you” that rose up and curled off like a trail of smoke from a doorway stick of incense.

i suppose i will miss Mr. Rogers. he seemed to be a genuine fellow. a minister, a jazz musician, a tv innovator and producer. far as i can tell he never really cashed in on his name or on the show, and i appreciate that.

i never saw a bunch of dolls or trains or tshirts with his logo on it. no coffee mugs. no mouse pads.

so adios, mister rogers. you were never my neighbor, but if you were i would have waved at you if you were watering your lawn, and ignored you just like i ignore my other neighbors.

which, i believe, is the best things neighbors can do for each other.

sk smith + amy + jeff jarvis

especially the times.

i never sound right in sound bytes. i talk too fast. i talk too crazy. the best way to find out what i think is to chat with me in the IM like a few people did last night, including a young lady who showed me some nudes of herself.

eighteen. gorgeous. admitted that she had a crush on me.

the times said that i thought that Mark from Boing Boing was a nerd.

i dont remember saying that. if i did say it, i meant it in a nice way. for most of my life i’ve been around computer geniuses and sometimes i refer to them as nerdy, but as a synonym for brilliant.

i do remember saying that i was suprised how nervous he seemed. i do remember saying something along the lines that any guy who can launch boing boing, illustrate like this, and go back as far as the Well shouldnt be nervous about talking about blogs.

but whatever. if even the girls who get naked with me, and sleep with me for years on end misunderstand me, it makes sense that a stranger writing for the times would have a hard time with me, especially after i was flying off the buzz of that great panel discussion.

for the record, i was not suprised by how “down-to-earth” Doc Searls was, as i was quoted to say. i had met him once before and he was down-to-earth then, so i didnt expect anything different than what he is: your typical santa barbaran excellent soul living the good life that he deserves.

why must the Times torture me so.

i want to hate them but everyone i meet from there are so nice.

i want to fight against them but i want to work for them so badly. i want to write a blog for them. a blog that they would never do the way i want it, a blog that they would never let me write.

a blog that would have special guest stars like my pal karisa who would write about which bar she danced on top of on a wednesday night. special guest stars like shaq who loves technology and the web. special guest stars like courtney love, who is a los angelino, love it or not.

and then there would be me. commenting on the day to day life of la in a way that you all know i can. but moreso. if i had a car, a press pass, and access to places like staples center, the wiltern, and dodger stadium, the blog that i could write daily for the times would rival anything else that youve ever seen anywhere.

and unlike this page, everything would be true.

mr rogers died yesterday.

and i did think that ev was way cooler than i expected.

fucker.

evhead is back

to have a conversation with george bush.

where im from we would have said that bush was “called out.”

from what i got from saddam’s interview with dan rather on “60 Minutes II” last night, saddam seems to think that if he could work out a “debate” live, unedited, via satalite, he could convince the world that the US is wrong about Iraq. but what he was really saying is George Bush is a liar, and too damn dumb to be able to have a simple conversation about why Iraq shouldnt be bombed to hell.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: If– the American people– would like to know the facts for what they are, or as they are, through a direct dialogue, then I am ready to conduct a direct dialogue with the President of the United States, President Bush, on television. I will say whatever I have to say– about American policy. He will have– the opportunity to say whatever he has to say about policy of Iraq. And this will be in front of all people, and– on television, in a direct�uncensored � hon – honest manner. In front of, as I said, everyone.

And then they will see what the facts are, and where falsehoods are. And I would not object to see this dialogue conducted on– by– by Mr. (UNINTEL).

Rather: Are you speaking about a debate?

This – this is new. You– you are suggesting, you are saying, that you are willing, you are suggesting, you’re urging a debate with President Bush? On television?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Yes. That’s my proposal.

Rather: Well, that’s an interesting…

This is not a joke.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: No, this is something proposed in earnest. This is proposed out of my respect for the public opinion of the United States. And it is out of my respect to the people of the United States. And to the people of Iraq. And in– out of my respect to mankind in general. Humanity at large. I call for this, because war itself is not a joke. Whoever chooses war as the first choice in his life, then he is not a normal person. I think the – the debates would be an opportunity for us to insure peace and safety.

where i come from, if some dude says that your choices are not ones of “a normal person,” thats called a dis.

right there saddam dissed the president of the united states and a lot of its citizens.

but in a twisted way, he’d doing the perfect thing. he knows he cant win any war against the US. but he’s gambling that GWBush live isnt smart enough to substantiate this war. i think it’s beautiful because i dont trust either of these men. but who wouldnt want such a debate on live tv? and why on earth wouldnt the US want the opportunity to state their case verbally, show proof, and then follow it up with force?

60 Minutes II reported that White House officials dismissed Saddam’s offer, saying Saddam wasnt serious.

Rather: Mr. President, where would this debate take place, that you imagine– what would be the venue?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: It will be in a place, as President of the United States, and Saddam Hussein will be in a place as President of Iraq. And then the debate can be conducted through satellite.

Rather: Oh. So, a satellite television debate. Live.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: And if Mr. Bush has another proposal, a counterproposal with the same basic idea then we’re prepared to listen to such a proposal.

Rather: Would you be prepared to come to the United Nations for this debate?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: The basic thing is that as far as debate to be heard in the natural, normal– in a (UNINTEL) accurate manner. In the United Nations, voices are not heard. Not always. And I do not mean that I go and I make a speech at the United Nations and then that Bush will make his speech at the United Nations. That is not what I mean. What I mean is that we sit– as we are sitting, you and I, now as– Here is– I will address questions to him and he will address questions to me. The position of Iraq and he will – the position of the United States.

He will explain why � �I will (UNINTEL) go to war.� I will explain why we are insistent on peace and we want to maintain peace.

Sounds good to me.

I dont see what would be so bad about seeing what the two leaders have to say to each other. Saddam said a lot of stupid things, like maintaining that he was elected by a majority, and when he said that Iraq didnt lose the Gulf War. Why’s Bush afraid that Saddam wouldnt be equally foolish on live tv?

Maybe it’s because GW knows that he has everything to lose by going on tv against Saddam, and nothing to lose if he just bombs the f out of Iraq.

It’s not like Bush is gonna get re-elected or anything.

the full transcript