Let us assume that Kerry is bad, nay, evil, nay, worse than Bush. (I believe the first two charges and am willing to entertain arguments for the third.) Does it then follow that anything negative (or ostensibly negative) said about him must be accepted or at least ignored in light of his proven negatives? If someone lies about Kerry – even about crimes of far less moral gravity than others we know Kerry has committed – should we give the liar a pass? Extreme analogy, coming right up.

Hitler and Stalin were incredibly evil men. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, neither was a pedophile. Now, pedophilia, as bad as it is, is far less bad than what we know Hitler and Stalin actually did. So if we hear someone padding Hitler's or Stalin's rapsheet with pedophilia, should we merely say, "Oh well, both were genocidal, sadistic maniacs, so why not throw in the kitchen sink?"

No, we should object – not to defend Hitler and Stalin, but to defend the truth. For one thing, if a false belief in the pedophiliac tendencies of these men were to become common "knowledge," our understandings of their actual motives might become terribly distorted. We might de-emphasize (or even forget) the centrality of each man's political creed to his actions, explaining them away as manifestations of a "mental illness." (Which has, to a great extent, already happened with Hitler, with the endless literature on his childhood, his artistic frustrations, his missing testicle, etc.) Whatever we have learned about the fundamental evils of Nazism and Communism would be swept away by the shallow insights of pop psychology. I can almost hear leftists saying, "Stalin had some great ideas; he just needed a little therapy." And from the hard right: "Militarism and the corporate state aren't so bad, so long as a pervert's not in charge."

Second, I would have several questions for anyone who fabricated such stories about Hitler and Stalin. What, they weren't bad enough already? You and your audience aren't sufficiently impressed by the concentration camps or the gulags? Why did you choose that specific charge? Are you trying to deflect certain questions about yourself?

All of which are reasonable questions to ask the Bush campaign about the dubious attacks on Kerry's record in Vietnam. Why not run an ad accusing Kerry of war crimes, instead of whining over his testimony about them? Oh, that's right, your audience doesn't give a damn about how many Vietnamese civilians were raped, tortured, or murdered, so that wouldn't score you any points. Why not question Kerry's eagerness to kill innocents, instead of questioning his valor? Oh yeah, because your boy only wishes he had had the "courage" to go and bag some gooks.

Before you leave any furious comments, please note that I'm not defending Kerry by any stretch of the imagination. I'm defending the sad, sorry truth: In 2004, we get to choose between two mass murderers separated only by their personal willingness to shove in the knife.

NBC's coverage of the Olympics has included a few touching human interest stories, allowing us to glimpse a spiritual subtext to the physically demanding competitions on the field. Some of these stories are of an historical nature. In one feature, Tom Brokaw detailed the Olympic games of 1944. 1944? History records that there were no games during World War II. But these games were unique.

On the 60th anniversary of a very special Olympiad, Brokaw told us of Polish officers who, after valiantly fighting the Nazis, were captured and detained at a prison camp in Woldenberg. Four of these officers are still alive, in their 80s and 90s, and testified to their remarkable experiences.

The Poles had been captured in 1939, many of their comrades slaughtered. Understanding the intimate tie between mind and body, the survivors focused on their physical fitness as a means of bolstering the mental strength they required to deal with the nightmarish conditions of Nazi internment. By July 1944, with Germany in internal turmoil, these men were granted permission, miraculously, to stage a prisoner Olympics. (Interestingly, other POWs staged Olympic games in camps close to Nuremberg in 1940.) Some 6000 individuals assembled in the camps and raised a makeshift Olympic flag, one made from bed sheets and other cloth. Even the German prison guards saluted the flag, treating it with solemnity. Men on both sides of this lethal divide, were moved to tears. Brokaw explains:

The games continued for 22 days, including soccer, track & field, and volleyball. There were tickets issued, a detailed program, commemorative stamps, diplomas for the winners. Some concessions were necessary. Boxing was reduced to 2-minute rounds, and due to repeated injuries, soon canceled. Not surprisingly, the Germans would not permit the javelin or the pole vault.

The survivors testified to the psychological value of participating in these games within the confines of their prison. They reveled in their individual achievements as athletes, gaining a respite from the horrors of a war that had consumed tens of millions of people throughout the world.

Eventually, the Germans were driven out of Poland; many of the Woldenberg prisoners were marched 300 miles back into Germany in the winter of 1945, resettled in camps there, where they were saved from liquidation by the advancing US 12th armored division. Some of the prisoners, however, remained behind, where they soon found themselves in a new prison of Stalin's making.

Those Woldenberg Olympians who outlasted the Nazis and the Communists built monuments to the"the Olympic idea transcending war." As Brokaw concludes:"They are the last ones left, men who survived on will and imagination, and a determination that the day would come when the world would not be at war, but together in peace. The Olympic flame may never have burned brighter than it did in a prison camp in 1944."

Still the U.S. has a lot to be happy about with their younger players (many of whom are Tar Heels!) especially Lindsey Tarpley who's rocket in the first half put the U.S. up 1-0 and Abby Wambach who's header gave them gold. Adieu Mia, Joy, and Julie. Thanks for the memories.

Some Republicans are not very happy campers over Dick Cheney's words of support for his lesbian daughter, which come, curiously, a few days before the GOP convention in NYC. Apparently, the federalist idea that marriage regulations should be decided on a state-by-state basis is just not appealing to those who seek a national, constitutional amendment defining the institution in strictly heterosexual terms.

Now comes word that the organizers of the Republican National Convention have nixed the discounts offered to delegates by NYC's tourist bureau to a popular, gay-friendly, off-Broadway play called Naked Boys Singing, a riotous, hilarious production I saw a few years back.

The organizers said 'thanks, but no thanks'; the play just does not"best suit our audience," exclaimed Leonardo Alcivar, GOP convention press secretary. Apparently, though, as a testament to the Big Tent that the GOP constitutes,"about a dozen people had bought tickets" to the play. These people used"the special code offered on the Web site," and the producers of the show said that these"tickets will [still] be honored."

Not sure if these dozen people constitute the wholeLog Cabin Republican contingent, but I'm glad to see that the Big Tent remains a Republican ideal.

I just wish the tourist bureau would have given theater discounts to all New Yorkers; as it is, we have to wait for the GOP to invade Madison Square Garden next week just to get a sales tax break!