What the Dems Are Up Against in 2004: Looking ahead to the Democratic primaries, it's been interesting to read what pundits think the Dems should do. Joe Klein's piece made the biggest splash, and Lee Bockhorn takes it on here. I think Bockhorn is right. Klein's vision is the wonky vision, which played well in the Clinton era. (It's still the standard, too, if you look at all the Dem candidates and their mini-policies on things like Lieberman's "Cure Center" and Edwards's rural economy project.) Clinton never was perceived as a "tough" president. Governance was about tweaking and technology, a subtle manipulation of the status quo -- never too far. George W. Bush ran as the GOP version of that in 2000, the "compassionate" conservative, a "kitchen table" Republican. But events conspired to give him a wall of trophies for achievements he never imagined (and probably wouldn't have advocated in 2000). Now he is the "tough" president, and the biggest risk for the Democrat is looking small, bringing a small-potatoes agenda to the American people. Klein's vision isn't that.

Moreover, I think Americans feel good about Iraq, about what we did, and Bush's opportunity is to use that to make his new mandate. This is something his father didn't do, didn't even understand. Perhaps he thought it was unbecoming for a president to use his war popularity domestically, but young W knows it's fair game. He'll keep the terror threat high on the radar, of course, since it's a big issue (and a vote getter, I bet). But look for him to appeal to America's can-do spirit. Look for him to make implicit comparisons that parse like this: "If we can do what we did in Iraq [What did we do? Let's leave that vague.], then we can certainly do [insert tax reform, entitlement reform, vouchers, etc.]." Bush is going to run as the guy-on-a-streak candidate. He may have to concede that we're not winning the game yet, particularly if consumer confidence doesn't leap, but he can at least argue that he's had a hit at just about every at bat lately.

Where regulation and markets collide: Interesting, if slightly dated, story I read at the Connie concerning a recent accounting scandal with a British food supply company and its American subsidiary. It seems that energy traders and long-distance carriers aren't the only ones stashing away a few hundred million (or several billion depending) for a rainy day. It works like this: retailers negotiate what amounts to rebates if they purchase and sell a certain target amount of a given product. Assuming the retailer reaches the target, then it gets the rebate. The fun part is that the retailer will usually book the rebate before it receives it. So, what happens if the target isn't met? Well, certainly no rebate is paid, but what about the corporate books? Ahhhh, there is the rub. Anyway, the telling paragraph is at the end:

Lack of transparency makes it difficult to say how much money changes hands, but the sums are huge. Mr Venturi reckons that a big manufacturing conglomerate might spend the equivalent of up to 25% of gross sales on “trade promotions” of one form or another. Measured from the other perspective, a typical big European retailer might extract the equivalent of 10% of its total revenues via trade spending. For an individual retailer that often means a sum measured in hundreds of millions. At an industry level billions are at stake.

"Lack of transparency" makes it impossible to say what is going on. Hmmm, where have we heard this before? This lack of transparency is what makes the SEC a necessary evil in our country, but what's worse, is that even with the SEC, it is usually only reactive, not proactive. A band-aid on the femoral artery.

Yes, but how to insure against stupidity?: So, you get married. Your husband continually makes jokes about leaving you when you're old and ugly. Solution? Buy an insurance policy against ugliness. People decry Americans for their hastening the decline of civilization, but here, only a Brit is to blame. If ten builders (her husband being a builder) declare her to be "ugly" she gets the duff. Thanks to FARK.

Tobacco Road: My wife (that's Mrs Enobarbus) brought back some cigarettes from Ukraine. They're actually called "Cossack." Sounds like they should have extra tar. So what's the first news story I see this morning? Reuters: "World Health Body Adopts Historic Anti-Smoking Pact." Folks, this is just the start. International busybodydom, bad as it is, is in its nascent stages. Wait until the EU really gets humming. Bureaucrats in Brussels will come over to your house to make sure you're flossing (and that you don't let the water run while you brush).

So the article says that the WHO is aiming to "[break] a habit that kills nearly five million people a year." This figure is later explained in this sentence: "The U.N. health agency says 4.9 million people die each year from cancer, cardiovascular disease and other conditions linked to smoking ..." What a nightmare of a sentence. (Reuters, like many other news agencies, seems to be staffed by illiterates.) So 4.9 million people die a year from diseases linked to smoking? Does that mean that scientists believe that these diseases often have tobacco use as a contributing factror, or does it mean that doctors have determined that tobacco use was a contributing factor in each of the 4.9 million specific cases? It's a big difference. (And go read Balko on MADD and RWJ Foundation and their method of "linking" alcohol and car accidents. Same kind of pseudo-scientific crap in the service of the lifestyle police.)

Actually, the fault for the lack of clarity doesn't lie entirely with Reuters. Any branch of the UN knows how to play the vague-press-release game. What does it matter what the "link" between smoking and disease is (never mind the ever-weakening link between second-hand smoke and disease) as long as the bureaucrats get their budget increase every year?

I don't know what it means, but it will surely involve Pat Robertson: New research shows that chimpanzees are even closer to human than we previously thought. I don't know how a creationist would explain this away ("Genes are the devil's work!"), but it seems pretty convincing to me.

Do you think?: that t-shirts with the face of Saddam will ever grow in popularity like the now ubiquitous Che Guevera ones indicating that you too are a hell-bent-for-leather sociopath, but a well-groomed one?...that the Iraqi people are just running around looking for "coalition" soldiers to kiss and thank for the now lawless society they live in where the fear of Baathist midnight raids is now replaced by the fear of mid-day carjackings?...that Cheney just sits in his undisclosed locations and just starts cracking up over how he's remained in the center of U.S. political power for going on three decades without ever being elected?...that Bill Clinton is selecting the librarians for his Presidential Library based on their love of reading?...that the Republican Guard was inappropriately named?

Ukraine??: Ye gods!

China Syndrome: (I'm disappointed you didn't get that tag line first) China looooves to kill their citizens. I think that if a week goes by without a new reason to kill off a slew of their "comrades" some bureaucrats lose their job (or get killed...hey, a new reason!). Why does China bother with the one-baby policy when it can just kill the excess off? They don't think very practically do they? As for your question concerning re-naming SARS. Does "AIDS" give you any indication? Plus, SARV doesn't sell well in Nordic states - I think it means "cushiony buttocks" in Norwegian.

Why Are Socialists So Stupid: China threatens to execute SARS spreaders. Hey, great idea! Make sure that anyone with any symptoms will be more afraid to go to the doctor than to ride it out on Dong Quai at home.

By the way, SARS isn't technically a syndrome anymore; it's been proved to be a virus now. When can we expect a name change?

Distractions: My wife (that's Mrs. Enobarbus) left yesterday for Ukraine for a week, and I am at home with the boy. I'm sure I'll be posting sporadically -- maybe during naps. Meanwhile, mull this over. Sounds like the Bush-Roh summit was blathersville, right? Now read this by David Frum. I think he's right, and as I've said before, the South has their head in the sand on the issue of a nuclear-capable North. I think we have to cut them loose, and perhaps this is the first step. If the South were squishy on the North and were willing to put 50,000 South Koreans on the DMZ so we didn't have to be there, I wouldn't have such a problem. But I don't think we owe it to the South to be more pro-South than Roh Moo-hyun.

Before there was Monica...there was Mimi: The Smoking Gun, in its usual fine form, provides us with a transcript of a JFK aide who testfied about her knowledge of JFK's affinity for certain young female aids, who were good for....uh...answering the phone and I'm sure some other stuff. The most enjoyable part is around page 13 or so when the witness talks about even though the press corps knew or suspected of the liason with this girl "Mimi", this type of purient subject wasn't the sort of thing "respectable" newspapers wrote about. I'm sure the presidents appreciated that to no end.

Oh that controversial golf: Vijay Singh is retracting. I'm more amazed that it took this long than the fact that he's doing it at all. The only thing that he said that was at all controversial was that he hoped that Anika missed the cut. He's now saying that he meant to say that if he missed the cut, then he wanted her to as well, because it would be embarassing to be beat by a girl. Right, that's some apology. The stupid thing is that he's right on the big point: there's men's golf, and there's women's ... er ladies'...golf. There's a reason for it, which has nothing to do with oppression or discrimination. It has to do with biology and the fact that the men carry bigger sticks (heheh) and hit the ball farther than their female counterparts. This is kinda important and clearly women, on the whole, would never finish in the top ten if they had to compete with Tiger et al. Now, Anika doesn't constitute a new wave in novelty female golfing, so Singh's comment that she is taking away a job from a man is a bit much, but it's clear, that if the tables were turned, no man would be allowed to set foot in the female...er ladies' tour. Anyway, if she can make a showing into the top 20, that would be an incredible feat...the pressure alone has to be enormous.

Shout out to my peeps: Our collective thanks to Mr. Balko at The Agitator for his having recommending our site. In the nearly impossible instance that you have come to this Blog before having perused at The Agi, then, by all means, get yourself on over for some real writing and analysis.

Now you're getting personal: I don't think Faulkner's logorrhea is an appropriate subject to bring up in discussing his literature. Can't the man suffer in private? I expected more from you than tabloid journalism. As for the rest of your entry, your point is entirely valid, and maybe it's the beginning of the end for serious, artful literature, where simplicity is indeed divine. I don't dispute that these guys seem to just spout off for its own sake. But, while Dickens wasn't self-referential in his prose, he certainly wrote more words than were needed to drive home his point. Joyce wrote a book in near-gibberish, which all the pointy heads look to as one of the crowning achievements in the written word. And, John Milton's "poem", Paradise Lost didn't even rhyme!!! So, I think you need to think long and hard before going after my boy, DFW (how I wish we could footnote on this blog).

The Medicine, Uncut: Bryon Scott, at Slings and Arrows, on the Democrats' 2004 strategy -- run anyone who can beat Bush:

Herein lies the root of the problem. If the only unifying force in the Democrat party is to remove Bush, the cause is already lost. Removal of Clinton was the only thing for the Repubs in 1996 -- see how well that worked? ... Right now the Dem's vision for the future goes no further than November 2004. That just won't cut it.

File this under Beinart's Lieberman lessons. The nominee will have to run against Bush, but will have to get the nomination against other Democrats. Kind of a pointless exercise, then, for them all to run as the Not-Bush Clones, eh? Lieberman has the best chance to stand out on principle. And, I suspect, Bush versus Lieberman might turn out to be a more decent race than we're accustomed to (in both senses of the word "decent").

Better Late Than Never: I accept, belatedly, your rebuke over Eggers. I am too cynical with this generation of novelists. Still, they remind me so much of precocious 4th-grade students on a lunch-box diet of Pixie Stix and Hi-C, bouncing off the walls with a look-at-me smartypantsedness. I don't dispute the ability of an Eggers or a Franzen to create fine characters or reveal interesting conflict. But Faulkner could do that too, and even he wasn't as pointlessly logorrheic as these clowns (er, novelists) -- and he was pretty pointlessly logorrheic. But emotion and character doesn't come simply from a damn-the-torpedoes flood of consciousness, which is what I get, particularly, from Eggers -- as if he were determined to not only leave in every phrase that plopped from cortex to word processor, but to make it a point of pride. "See? I don't have to edit!" No doubt it isn't as simple as all that; it very well may take a lot of work and editing to achieve that unworked, unedited, stream-of-consciousness-prose effect. It still comes out sounding like a 12-year-old saying "I made a poopie" and thinking it's cutesy-profound.

Speaking of streams of consciousness, I have wandered from my humility. I apologize. Perhaps I'll try David Foster Wallace, who by all reports is the grandpappy of this style. Hell, if you're going to drink the effluent of a disposable society anyway, you might as well drink from the fire hose.

Taxing on the Curve: Good distinction, 'twixt fairness and efficacy. It certainly is good, from the point of view of the government, to be able to milk the rich. I think this is why it's presumed so often to be fair: milking the poor, as you said, is not a particularly good idea, and the cash has to come from somewhere. Voila! This reasoning engenders the kind of taxation that Stephen Moore and even Ted Kennedy are willing to call "confiscatory": marginal rates of 70% or more. (Notice that things have to be at the far end of the confiscatory curve to get Moore and Kennedy in agreement. I'm certain Moore and I could agree on a lower figure.)

Anyway, progressive tax rates keep the government in business. Barring a real revolt at the polls, I don't see anything happening with the tax code (other than more additions, deletions, revisions, credits, loopholes, and targeted rollbacks -- all of which guaranteed to make life hell for taxpayers). But as long as we're stuck with the monster code, maybe we could sneak something in to cap the system. Bush drew his line in the sand in 2001 (anything over 33% is confiscatory) and then promptly signed in a rate of 35% that takes 10 years to kick in, then goes right back up to 38% the next year, all after he's comfortably out of office. Profiles in courage, dude.

It's so unfair: My inability to dunk, that is. Anyway, back to flat tax. I agree with you that my semi-coherent argument put the rabbit in the hat; that is that taxes should be about fairness and that the rich should pay more. The argument might go that you want to let the poorer people keep more of their income in order to take care of necessities, while the "rich" don't have such worries, and therefore "can" afford to pay a higher percentage. The third position is to tax the poor more heavily - perhaps as incentive to get rich, but I think most would agree that would be counter-intuitive, or at least, counter-productive. A flat tax, by its nature, is the most neutral, and consequently, the most fair in its strictest terms. If you're going to take away a % of someone's income simply by virtue of them existing within your borders, then you need a rationale, because a tax, from the get-go is arbitrary, and only used instead of the government charging you directly for every service it provides (and presumably that you use). Since it's arbitrary, and we're a republic, then whatever the majority wants to say is fair...is. Fairness is apart from efficacy, which is where the collision occurs.

Flat Tax Unfair? This is one of those ideas that has been repeated enough that it has become "true" for most people, but I've never heard a good explanation of why a flat tax is unfair. In fact, the flat tax is arguably the only fair tax, even without resorting to Atlas Shrugged as a sacred text. If everyone pays a flat rate, the tax is automatically progressive, assuming that progressivity in itself is a fair and worthy goal. Perhaps arguing that a flat figure, say $200 a head, is unfair might be more persuasive. But the leap from flat-figure unfairness to flat-rate unfairness sounds more like an article of faith than anything else. Yes, the rich can afford to pay more, and they do so under a flat rate. Again, this is assuming a certain moral force to the argument that they should pay more. Let's grant that they should. Even then, justifying progressive rates (rather than the naturally progressive figures of a flat rate) is still no more than an article of faith. The simple reasoning that gets you over the first hump (the rich just "should" because they "can") might, I suppose, be applied to the second. But why not say the rich "should" pay more in raw figures, based on a progressive-rate system, plus get hit with, say, a flat 10% on top of that? After all, they can afford it. I've never seen any argument against the flat tax that didn't, in the end, rely on this reasoning.

Lieberman and Schools: The WSJ article mentions that Lieberman, domestically, can pick as his lightning rod issue, school vouchers (especially in failing schools). Clearly, he is at odds with the traditional Democratic base as to how to reform, if at all, public schools. The question is whether it goes to the power base the article chose for him: blacks and southern moderate whites. An article today in the Philadelphia Inquirer revealed telling statistics about the school transfer program we have here, where students can transfer out of failing schools. The article reveals that less than 1% of students have transferred out of non-performing schools. Given that Philadelphia schools are largely black, it would seem that, at least here, this issue wouldn't draw in voters, but only serve to set him apart in debates. Given that there are already many voucher programs (and that I like to govern public schools from the state level down (ideally at the county level for day-to-day issues), I don't think it would help him that much from my perspective.

Tax and Spend?: A flat tax is attractive for the reasons you mention, i.e. ease of administration, seems inherently "fair" as a %, and reduces friction on economy. The flip side is that it's not fair (i.e. rich pay same as poor), and that you will probably have to cut government programs, which is itself a gimongous battle. Hey, I've read Atlas Shrugged like every other blogger, and I understand the attractiveness of encouraging success (the argument goes that there is a disincentive to amass wealth because you have to pay more taxes as you go up in income - balderdash, of course, but it's an argument) and stripping away from the government its overlord tendencies and making it run lean and mean (well, relatively). Tax for usage (i.e. highways) is fine, but then what about airlines, railways, zeppellins? Sin taxes should be gone but they are absolute cash cows, which no one has the courage to argue against. Hmm, I seem to be arguing the practicality and not the idealogy. Bears more thought.

Primary: TNR's quick-hit site on the Dem primary is a hoot. They post minor stories that seem to capture the candidates quirks quite well. Get this story about the debate:

On Saturday night George Stephanopoulos asked all the Democratic candidates at once whether any of them would "rule out raising taxes as president of any kind." There followed an awkward pause. No one wanted to be dishonest--but certainly no one wanted to be Walter Mondale, either. Suddenly Howard Dean, always the most impetuous of the bunch, threw up a hand. Down at the end of the table, John Kerry looked at Dean and followed with something that looked like a hand-raise of his own. Only it wasn't quite that. Kerry lifted his forearm halfway up, then left it suspended in an tentative gesture of ambiguous meaning. It was as if he were Dr. Strangelove, wrestling his own arm as his political and intellectual impulses clashed internally.

Also good: Easterbrook destroys Lieberman's energy proposal.

Plus: Atrios hates it.

Dems for '04: I've been thinking about Peter Beinart's op-ed in the WSJ yesterday on Joe Lieberman. I really think he's nailed it. Lieberman is the Dems' best hope for 2004 for a number of reasons. First, he's a hawk. Second, he's got built-in name recognition. Third, he's historically a bit of a maverick (though you wouldn't know it from 2000). He's positioned to run the McCain campaign this cycle. Beinart's thesis is that Lieberman is a natural to buck the traditional liberal line with issues like vouchers and (to some extent) taxes, hoping to cobble together a new coalition within the party -- blacks and moderate whites. I think it's possible, though maybe a long shot, due to several liabilities. For one, Lieberman is on record as a theoretical, if not active, foe of affirmative action, a stance he had to spackle over in 2000. For another, he's very pro-Israel, whereas the traditional activist base is not. If Lieberman can peel away the black vote and energize the less-traditional white base, he'd have a good shot without coddling the unions and the fringe cases (though he'd still have to kiss Sharpton's ring, which may be incompatable with pulling suburban white vote).

In any case, he would be the best one to put up against Bush. He's the least priggish of the crowd, the least liberal -- at least in a way that's easy to caricature. Kerry can be tied to the tax-and-spend post. Dean is looking less and less thoughtful everyday, though I think he'll still strip enough of the activist base from Kerry to be a minor spoiler in the Northeast. If it all goes well for Lieberman, his only big challenge will be Dick Gephardt, who is looking mighty fresh for an old warhorse. I don't think his health care plan will sell in a general election, but he's hitting the right primary buttons. What's your take from the position of a potential primary vote to be captured?

Taxes: Stephen Moore mentions something in passing here:

Polls over the past ten years have consistently found that the majority of Americans think that no family in America should have to pay more than 25 percent of its income in taxes. As the Wall Street Journal has pointed out in reviewing these polls, the 25 percent cap includes all taxes: sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, income taxes, cigarette taxes, business taxes, car taxes, you name it. The government is not welcome to more than 1/4th, no matter whether we are talking about Bill Gates or the janitor who cleans Bill Gates's office at night.

What would you say to that? The Fed takes a flat 17%, the state takes a flat 8%, and nothing else need be said. No property tax, no "estate" tax, no sin tax. (One additional thing I would allow is a user fee for road usage, either as a toll or as a gasoline tax, but only with the provision that it could never co-mingle with general revenue. General revenue funding of roads is a sop to the trucking industry, just as railroads were to rail tycoons in the 19th century.) Plus, a constitutional provision that taxes could never be raised. Congress would have an incentive, all of a sudden, to get its fat ass out of the way and really let the economy hum, since rising budgets would be tied to a growing economy.

I think there's something to this.

The UMass Minutewolves: This has been getting a lot of space in my local paper: The University of Massachusetts sports teams are called the Minutemen. This is plainly hurtful, hateful, and unfair to women, the differently gendered, gun rights opponents, and pretty much everyone else except dead white patriots with muskets and funny hats (unless they have problems with premature ejaculation, in which case "Minuteman" is a slur). Name-change money is on UMass Wolves now. Eugene Volokh makes the common-sense argument regarding team mascots. Sorry, Eugene, we've already taken the Great Leap Forward out here. Now off to the re-education camps with you, where you will cultivate organic jute for a few years.

Riyadh: Shades of 1996. Already the hand-wringers are on NPR saying that this must be a reaction to our meddling in Iraq. Wait as second, though: Aren't Osama and Saddam mortal enemies? I think that's what NPR said when the possibility came up of Saddam cooperating in any way with Al Qaeda...

Mix Tape: I don't trifle with mixes anymore. It's a bother. I have a consultant in New York who makes them for me. I'm not sure if I have a favorite, but if I had to pick, it would be the one with the "Batman" theme song, Nina Simone's "Love Me or Leave Me," Mingus's "Better Get Hit in Yo Soul," several choice Enoch Light cuts, "Last Night I Had a Dream" by Randy Newman, a great reggae cover of the Beatles' "Don't Let Me Down" (artist unknown, to me), Peggy Lee's "Is That All There Is?" and a seven-minute workout on the jazz standard "There Will Never Be Another You" played on a Hammond B-3.

Links: I was supposed to put more than one up, so I fell short. Anyway, if you didn't put Volokh up, I would of, despite my love for gibberish.

My Mix Tape: Slate takes note of the recent meta-merchandising of famous rock acts putting together compilation CDs for distribution and purchase (the idea being if you like the artist, you'll like his/her/its picks). So the question comes to us: what if by some magic machine, you could cull your favorite tracks from virtually any published artist, say for free, and then put those tracks on a tape...or even a CD (hey, someday the technology might exist), and then *boom* you have an instant mix of your favorite tunes, without the hassle of buying each entire album? Well, if the eggheads over at Microsoft ever figure this out (because I'm sure it will take billions of R&D money to develop such a device; not any kid in his garage could possibly invent this), then here's what I would put on (12 tracks, plus a bonus "hidden track" - I'm not putting it in any particular order as I don't have all day...really): 1. "Blue Monday" - by Flunk; 2. "Party Hard" - by Andrew WK; 3. "I Would Die 4 U" - Prince; 4. "Knives Out" - Radiohead; 5. "Dancing Days" - Led Zep; 6. "Remind Me" - Royksopp; 7. "The Garden" - G'N'R; 8. Bombs Over Baghdad - Outkast; 9. "Superstitious" - Stevie Ray Vaughn live version); 10. "Dear Prudence" - Fab 4; 11. "There Goes the Fear" - the Doves; and 12. "She Sells Sanctuary" - The Cult. *Bonus Track* - "Such a Night" - The King.

Hypocrite: I mentioned, in passing, that we should find some smaller blogs that we like, and link to them (since everyone has a damn link to Reynolds and Volokh anyhow). You did so, in fine style. Now I'm going to look like a jerk by slapping the Volokh crew up on the scoreboard. I plead guilty. But let me say this: Those folks have one of the best sites going, particularly for someone who loves reading about legal matters but has only so much patience for gibberish (namely, me).

Despair of Blair: Now, the Boston Globe (I'm not going to italicize either) is checking out stories by Blair. What is sort of interesting is that the subjects of his stories complained about them when they were published, but they were never retracted, presumably because the editors asked Blair if they were accurate and he said "yes," and that was that. But doesn't that seem a bit too convenient? Why is it now important to correct stories that were already disputed? Assuming Blair doesn't recant, the only way to prove he was fabricating stories would be to check travel bills, phone records, other extrinsic evidence (also known as "investigative reporting") to play against the purported truth. So, why wasn't the same done when the first complaint was made by the source? The sudden religion that has swept the rags is nice, but kind of like the murderer on death row telling everyone how he's "found the Lord." Or is that a bit harsh?

You're just Eggering me on: You knew this would provoke a response from me, and since David Foster Wallace hasn't written anything in a while, you thought to take on his step-nephew Eggers. First of all I grant you this: the man is annoying. His "style" makes even the most straightforward point one that must be navigated with compass and sexton (and suspenders and a belt!). That said, I liked his book, even if I didn't love it. You are much too cynical with today's younger authors. Not everyone can write "Old Man and the Sea" which does more in 100 pages than many do in 1000. Eggers taps into the post-post-modern style that some call lazy and unreadable, but others like because you get a sense of the author beyond his prose, and it's often amusing, if not on-message. I agree it's not "real" literature, but I find it is validated by its earnestness, and its lack of pretension. The fact that it supports/cultures the generational appeal to 12-second soundbytes and 5-second camera cuts may be unfortunate, but it's like ignoring the elephant on the couch to wholly denounce it. His latest book, which I shan't plug, but which can be found on McSweeneys, is a novel, and less gimmicky.

Cartwheels: That's the only word I can come up with to describe Dave Eggers's Heartbreaking Work etc..., which I have finally read. Those who have read the book will understand. Those who haven't, pick up Bleak House instead. Eggers uses his writing style to perform the actual cartwheels he describes in the book, the way he demands that the world Pay Attention to Him because he's got something Important to Say. Blah. The funny thing is, I liked his characters a lot, and I bet he'd be a pretty good novelist if he'd quit goofing off. The trick of the characters offering critique on the narrative or the author stepping out front and center to comment in a sort of meta-narration? Been done before, Dave. The wiseacre fooling around before the story starts in the Preface, Introduction, Note to the Reader, Acknowledgements, and four or five other species of front matter is, in fact, wiseacre, but no more so than Twain's pre-Huck Finn admonition about looking for theme or plot. Plus, brevity usually is the soul of wit, and on that score, Twain's crack is priceless, while Eggers's stage-managed "meandering" is rather precious. As Miles Davis used to say about some performers preening on stage, there's a whole lot of style going on up there. It wasn't meant as a compliment, either, no matter what the literary world thinks of "style."

I have to say that I don't mind that Eggers has fun with a story that is, at its root, about tragedy and recovery. This is a topic worth having fun with, since sappy tragedy stories are a dime (at most) a dozen. In the end, though, the book becomes too much an exercise in stylistic deconstruction (e.g., about playing reliable narrator tricks and then copping to them in the next breath) and gets lost in its own maze. It's worth finding the characters in the book, for they are occasionally rewarding to find. Would've made a good long-essay piece.

Funny Money: Hell, the Euro has pictures of "landmarks" that exist only in the Third Reich-ish mind of some low-level, Brussels-dwelling Albert Speer. This says something about the European worldview. Call me when you figure out what it is.

Park Place for $400: Well, since it's been like 5 years since the last re-design, the U.S. Treasury thought it'd be a good idea to re-do the $20 bill again, and this time, in technicolor! I had been reading about this for some time, but had hoped it wouldn't come to pass. Didn't we/don't we make fun of the Europeans for their funny money? Granted, we won't have obscure bridges or 15th century poets on ours, but still, this is beneath us, isn't it?

L'Affaire Blair: I feel pretty apathetic for not having an opinion on the Blair matter, but to be brutally frank, I don't much care what happens at the Times, and I'm not convinced it has much shine left to dull. Sure, sure: it's still The Times, after all -- at least in America. That distinction and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee -- and the New York Post, which is all the things the Times is not (for example, fun to read). The Times, at some point, became convinced of its own reputation as the journalistic equivalent of high fiber, but there's actually a quite fine old paper across the river at the Newark Star-Ledger, which -- to my knowledge -- is not excluded from major news stories. Allergic to wire copy? Try the Wall Street Journal, which has its own reporters on the ground everywhere, provides about as much news as you need before you get into the realm of analysis, and sports the finest Chinese wall in the business -- more, alas, than can be said for the Times. (See, for obvious reasons, Sullivan on this point.) And, for all the Pulitzer Committee obscene-phone-call breathing over the Times's columnists, none of them rises too far above the banal in my estimation. Even Safire, the odd man out there and certainly the closest to my political leanings, is more interesting writing on language. Dowd, Krugman, Herbert -- they're mired so deep in Bushophobia, and in such thrall to their own influence, that they rarely rise above a parody of the Concerned Liberal Columnist. Old Rosenthal was interesting, even if it was only because he was a dinosaur; but like a dinosaur he stayed, and like a dinosaur he went.

Is there still good, solid reporting to be found at the Times? Yeah, I guess, but there is at the local daily in Bangor or Des Moines or Abilene, as long as you aren't the type to sniff at provincialism. Which brings us back to New York, the most provincial of the provinces. To a Times reader, it's that old New Yorker cover where, once across the Hudson, the country is foreshortened into caricature. In order to buy into the importance of the Times, you have to buy into the importance of New York, and therefore the importance of Importance. It's a worldview that is not entirely without merit, but one certainly couldn't call it a priori pre-eminent. A certain amount of the blogger world is all about puncturing that sensibility: it's a group of well-read, smart, even hip people -- bloggers and readers alike -- who are tired of the talking points, the recieved wisdom of The Times.

Which brings me to my final point, which was also my point in mentioning the Post above: The Times is generally a humorless paper. News, to them, is made and reported with a grim mien. When there is humor, it's often startlingly trite and revelatory of the insularity of the Times staff. The Post, on the other hand, is a big, meaty dish of news, full of weirdos, straphangers, pervs, and all the wonderful Post-isms that only a seasoned reader doesn't need explained (e.g., "Beep to Hizzoner, PA on Wrong Track in Bx" or some other juicy shorthand like that).

By the way, if I ever blog about newspapers again, I'm skipping the italics. (You'll notice I didn't get them all. Screw it. Even an editor gets tired of this crap.)

Next, no beer either: Well, we knew this was coming, it was just a matter of degree. Bars/restaurants in NYC are reporting up to 50% loss in business since the cigarette ban went into effect. Penn & Teller's excellent show on Showtime, "Bullsh*t" exposes the truth on such far-ranging issues such as Ouija Boards to communicating with the dead, to the supposed harmful effects of second-hand smoke. They hit this issue from every angle and their conclusion? The long-and-short of it is that the no-smoke zealots have gotten their way with us. Disclosure: I only smoke at bars, after a couple of beers, and usually only when I can bum a few off of people (something Enobarbus would know nothing about). So, I only care about smoking at bars, because elsewhere, I don't do it. Therefore, I'm particularly discriminated against. Anyway, the Penn & Teller show does this much more justice than I, but in the end, all NYC has succeeded in doing is killing the golden goose, with little to nothing to show for it.

Blair Witch-Hunt: The bloggers are all over the NYT-Blair scandal, as the hated bastion of liberal, elitist thought has gotten its just desserts, some argue. Sullivan makes a good point that as bad as Blair was, the fact that he got away with it for so long and so easily, is even worse. His expense reports (the ones that he did submit) easily show that he was operating in NYC, while purporting to be elsewhere. More disturbing, however, are those problems that didn't take any effort to uncover; namely his writing and reporting. The 7,000 page correction cites to years of mistakes, sloppiness and rebukes, but onward and upward he goes, getting moved from bureau to bureau as he burns bridge after bridge. All of this comes to the inevitable, already made point that if it wasn't due to his being black, then the NYT is a pretty shoddy operation. I don't know what the usual learning curve is at my local paper, but my guess is that at the NYT it's the most grueling anywhere. Yet, this guy was allowed to consistently fail upward...even from his days as a lowly intern, and presumably, easier to fire. The whole thing is shameful, and while I'm sure the efforts to shore this up will be sincere, and the NYT's sorrow real, this may have damaged the Grey Lady's reputation beyond repair.

Stakeknife: From what I'm reading, the IRA is in a major tizzy over the "outing" of the secret British agent, "Stakeknife", who, in his most recent role, was the head of internal security for the IRA. While the shock is no doubt severe to the Irish, one has to wonder what the gentleman really accomplished. By some accounts, he was able to steer assassinations and expose informants. But, can that be all? Or is that all you get for 80,000 pounds annually? I'm going to track this as best I can and see what comes of it. Early word is that the British are ready to pull other agents/informants for fear of exposure or a witch-hunt. In any event, one imagines this has to hurt negotiations.

Do they point their guns the right way? The Weekly Standard takes a break from pushing the tax cut to write an interesting piece on Poland's special forces, and their involvement in the Iraq war. The unit, known as GROM, was formed in the early 90s, and drew from a variety of sources: Seals, SAS, Delta. They have mostly seen action in Central Europe, but they played an apparent key role at Umm Qasr. Let's face it, nearly every straight male loves to read, watch and hear about special forces ops (gotta speak the lingo). These guys sound like they could hold their own with the best of them.

Slumming: Newsweek takes up the defense of "high" art through Peter Plagens, who writes:

High art versus pop culture is no longer a matter—let me switch metaphors here—of fancy French restaurant cuisine versus mom’s home cookin’ or a juicy cheeseburger at the corner diner. High art’s opponent is the equivalent of 10 billion tons of ersatz potato chips made from a petroleum derivative, flavored with a green “sour cream and jalapeno” dust manufactured in the same vat as the latest hair regrower, and served in little silver bags through which not one molecule of air will penetrate until 2084.

If this is so, it is only because, for so many years, high art accepted -- nay, cultivated -- the elitist attitude Plagens shows when he says

High art is elitist. Only a relatively few people have the educated taste for it, the patience to enjoy it and, frankly, the ability to get it.

This assumes, of course, that high art means that there is something to "get." I think that this is true of modern art (in which it is, in fact, only an affectation) but not necessarily of high art. Do we suppose -- in a culture that sports rising literacy, sophistication, and disposable income -- that erstwhile museum-goers have slowly been slipped the Folger's Crystals of pop culture instead of the "real" thing? Plagens obviously does, based on that first quote, though the second quote is off the mark on the wherefores. First, modernists (and their children, the post-modernists) brought pop-culture into the high arts, blurring the distinction. Second, as the distinction was blurred, the elite artists felt more of a need to segregate -- via ironic detachment and an ever increasing resort to "shocking" an anaesthetized public -- those who "get" it from those who don't. In other words, don't create art that is intentionally about "getting" some ephemeral obscurity ("Oh, I love how you deconstruct the prevailing paternalistic meme by transgressing the implied phallo-yonic dialectic so prevalent in the classical still life!" -- as she looks at a textureless sea-green and dun smear) and then bitch because "Mr. Harry Twelvepack," as Plagens patronizingly paints him (people who get it drink wine -- get it?), would rather not pony up $35 for the exhibit -- only to be told, if he questions, that he doesn't get it.

Look a little closer: What is there to "get" about Beethoven? Nothing, it seems, that isn't somehow present in human nature. What is there to "get" about art in general? In it's power to move us, art is anti-elitist, anti-intellectual. The Arnolfini Marriage doesn't require any particular need to "get" in order to appreciate its beauty, despite the "hidden transgressives" that pop up. That is to say, the intellectualized bits, interesting as they may be to scholars, are not what make art. A great example is Dickens, who was an incredible sell-out -- in both senses of the modern word. He was popular, beloved, widely read by all classes. There was nothing to "get" about it. Art invites one in. Let me say that again: Art invites one in. The "get" is simply the burden that modernists have put on art, the sign that says, "Stay out, you don't get it."

More: By chance found this on Lileks's site: "Real art has to be explained, patiently, like the dangers of a hot stove to a small child." Goddammit! Why can he say in one line what it takes me a page to vent?

Why can't Bush be more like Lord Chamberlain?: This....writer...from the Telegraph, entertains us with her self-loathing over loathing America. In her mind, it's simply untenable that America does or has done the following: 1) Engaged in friendly fire; 2) executes [in selected states - she fails to mention] prisoners; 3) detains Al Qaeda members in Gitmo; and 4) invented Coca Cola. She blathers on about how every time she turns on the t.v. she sees American products, faces or currency. Our smug images upset her tea apparently. Your post on British-controlled Iraq is serendipitous because this writer conveniently overlooks the centuries of oppression her country inflicted on millions of people back when her country was relevant. It is not worth arguing over whether every thing this country does is noble and perfect. However, what is worth arguing over is that we are the model for success world-wide, show leadership internationally in every area worth mentioning, and do more to ensure peace than any single or collective group of nations anywhere. This cliche gets tired, but, she deserves it: If it wasn't for us, she'd be speaking German."

Assault Weapons: TNR's &c blog says that Bush's stand on renewing the assault weapons ban (which the NYT called "a bold political calculation") is actually a "political no-brainer." They're close, but still not quite right. As TNR notes, only a small minority favor letting the ban expire, and even fewer guide their voting on the issue. Remember the 2001 flap about the NRA's Wayne LaPierre dictating gun policy out of an office in the West Wing. This is a safe way to demonstrate some independence. Is it pretty much meaningless, since it only maintains the status quo? Yep, and Bush and Rove are no doubt delighted by the opportunity. Besides, the "base" that is alienated by this will go exactly where with their votes? Beyond being a no-brainer, this a piece of nearly painless triangulation, targeted at soccer moms, worthy of Dick Morris. The tax cut rhetoric has been pretty high, but expect that to come down a notch soon, particularly as the Democratic race begins to peel off low performers. The administration will want more and more of these low-cost suburban issues to get the "compassionate conservative" meme back into play.

Agree or disagree with the Bush White House, they are playing near-flawless contract bridge as the Democrats play a silly game of Old Maid right now.

Iraq: The latest Smithsonian has a brief look at British-controlled Iraq following the first world war. It is, if nothing else, a bleak cautionary tale. The British relied too much on educated Sunnis, who came to dominate the bureaucracy and, later, the Ba'ath Party. Colonial-style administrators showed and exemplary tin ear for the feelings of the minority Shi'ites and Kurds, who resented the Sunni Faisal and vented their frustrations on the ostensibly pro-British Iraqi Jews. In 1917, when the British marched into Baghdad, British General Stanley Maude declared:

Our armies
do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies but as liberators.

Familiar refrain. The British proceeded to dominate Iraq, militarily or by proxy, until the Qassem coup of 1958, which removed the Faisal line and engendered the Ba'athist counter-coup ten years later. Fascinating stuff and, hopefully, forefront in the minds of Jay Garner and Paul Bremer.

I don't foresee similar American plans, mainly because out country won't tolerate colonialism the way the British did for so many years. In addition, I'm enough of an idealist to think that a federalist-style republic will go a long way toward pacifying the fractionalism and vying nationalisms of Iraq, while a British-installed Sunni monarchy -- even when it flirted with anti-British sentiment -- merely continued the need for British interference.

Hypocrisy? An intellectual exercise for those on the right still confused about the Bennett deal: Imagine someone who is a really committed environmentalist. She gets on your case all the time about recycling, about not littering. She nags at various companies about polluting the land and water with various harmful chemicals. She loudly protests GMOs and harps on people who don't have efficient windows in their house or keep their thermostat too high. A real pain, a killjoy. One day you see her pulling up to the TV studio to do her latest on-air rant, and she's driving the biggest gas-sucking hog of an SUV you've ever seen in your life. You call her on it. She says, "Hey, it's still legal to own one of these. Besides, I never really made a big deal about automotive pollution." You'd give her a pass, right? Yeah, sure you would.

Hypocrisy knows no idealogy: Balko, writing for FoxNews, shows the hypocrisy of the Right in their collective rush to defend Santorum and Bennett all in a well-woven article which draws from the famous "No Guardrails" editorial from ten years past in the WSJ. Balko's point is that the Guardrails mantra was that we need self-imposed limits, that not every form of behavior, even if ostensibly legal, should be encouraged or practised (i.e. homosexuality). So, when Bennett goes out and throws down in Vegas, even though he's exercising his own right to give away his money, that behavior shouldn't be encouraged or defended, yet the Right circles around him like he's a fallen general. Say it with me: "Do as I say, not as I do."

Plus his cologne stunk: It seems his mastery on the court never quite translated into the board room. Yes, Michael Jordan will not be running the Washington Wizards again. This man left his comfy job as "President" of a moribund, but hopeful franchise in order to put in a couple years of service so that he could teach the young kids how to play, while also taking some pressure off of them whille they developed into their own identity. Good idea, horrible execution. Instead of taking the pressure off, he took over. He played ridiculous minutes, demanded the ball at crunch time, and then whined when the 20-year old millionaires didn't work as hard as he did. One could argue that he left the team in worse shape than when he came in. Rather than developing a squad, he developed acrimony; so much so that many of his teammates wouldn't contribute to his retirement gift. This is Michael effing Jordan!! In the end, his Airness didn't teach his team anything other than how not to wrap up a glorious career. But there's always the new Charlotte franchise to burn down.

Oil Connections: I think you're right that the Halliburton story may be off and running now. The fact that Waxman is ready to make a stink means that he sees some firm footing to the story. I think there may be some truth to the defense that Halliburton was the only firm that could field a unified team for a job so strewn with unknowns. That said, the fact that Iraq was taken so quickly and with so little oil-infrastructure damage should mean that bidding could open up quite soon. Any attempts by the administration to kick the bidding down the road some more will have to be taken as a gift to Cheney's old firm. On the other hand, there is a great deal of brainpower in the administration, no small part of it Cheney's. He knows he's vulnerable on this issue. He also knows that even the appearance of favoritism in contracting Halliburton will be a serious publicity problem, particularly considering that Cheney just re-upped as Bush's number two. I don't think the administration is dumb enough to step on such an obvious landmine. Then again, who thought Clinton would be dumb enough to get head from the help while being sued for harrassment? Or that Nixon would continue to record incriminating conversations in the high days of Watergate? Everyone has blind spots, and this may be Cheney's.

There's oil in them thar dunes: This story has failed to grow legs of late, but this may get it in Nikes yet. The fact that Halliburton got the contract without any bidding is curious enough, but it was always played that it was only for putting out fires, and there was no time to take bids. Fair enough, given that Halliburton had the expertise. Now we learn that the contract is for a whole lot more than just fire-fighting. The article says that the competitors haven't screamed too loudly as of yet, because the expectation that the remaining work will be put up for bid, and everyone wants a piece of the action. Still, it can't be all coincidence, can it?

The Open Secret: Senator Edwards's fund raising activities show a troubling pattern. Who knows what's going on here, but such patterns have shown up before. Al Gore's Buddhist temple visit also raised suspicions that reimbursement-for-donation practices were widespread. I think they surely are, in both parties. If it's done right, it's a tough thing to prove. This is one of the penalties of our campaign finance laws: when donations are capped at such a low level, the incentive to find back doors is incredible.

Shiflet must read FauxPolitik: Note his uncanny honing in on how gambling at slots (which you can teach a "blind pin-headed monkey to play") and video poker (akin to "crack"; leads to death of one's children) are without even the argument of merit, whilst interactive, table poker is an actual skill which demands interaction to boot. Hmm, nope, nothing like that ever said here a day or two ago.

When will Bush's daughters turn 35?: Your proposition of Condi becoming Veep and/or the Prez certainly is logical and well-reasoned...which of course makes it fatally flawed. Look at our last say, 6 presidents, and tell me which one was the logical choice...at the time the campaign season began. None of them, save Reagan, were the real front-runners in the beginning. None was without serious (apparent) drawbacks, whether it be issues of "character", intelligence, gravitas or ability to speak. No, what it comes down to is an odd mix of party machine and vox populi. For example, W was the clear party choice - "they" figured he could be controlled, was a known entity, and had many debts that had to be repaid. Conversely, Clinton was a clear people's choice (although a diluted one with Perot in the mix initially), that the party probably wouldn't have figured for their first pick (although, at the time, his charisma had won many over even at the party level). Reagan was hand-picked by the oil and business establishment, many of who were his friends, and most figured that he too, could be handled and depended upon to reward his friends. Carter ... well, he was running against Ford, which perhaps made him the default candidate. Bush, Sr. was a continuation of Reagan, which was partly to blame for his defeat by Clinton four years later. Nixon was at first the rebel in his party, but his near misses with JFK meant he couldn't be denied. Again, back to my point ("Oh, you have one?"): while Condi appeals to demographics, from what I've seen she has as much charisma as Mondale, no make that Dukakis. She's probably too smart, and may even be a bit scary to the Party because heaven forbid she get "too black." No, I think your Jeb push is more appropriate (given that Neil may be a bit busy by then with his divorce appeal).

"Retractor"..."check"...: So you're saying that even though it's true, he doesn't deserve it? Well, no one is arguing that Bennett is a bad person (not really), and certainly being a gambler puts him in stead with, oh, half of America...make that more than half when Powerball is running hot. So, one might say that he shouldn't be lambasted from coast-to-coast just because of who he is. Well, darnit, that's the point, isn't it? He's perhaps the most sanctimonious person in America that doesn't have a talk show. His entire joie de vivre is VIRTUE. Throwing away millions of dollars to a machine, no matter how you cut it, isn't virtuous. Okay, then, is it non-virtuous? Maybe. It's like finding that Jimmy Swaggert likes to sleep with hookers..again and again; like Michael Jackson bleaches his skin, and like Clinton sleeps with white trash. Interesting, but irrelevant to the normal functioning of everyday life. No one would like for their own peccadilloes to be thrown into the light, but when you make it your job to do that to everyone else, as they say, turnabout is fair play.

Retraction: I'm going to take a baby step back on the Bennett fracas. I'll let everything stand as written except this: I said on Monday, "Boy does he deserve everything he gets." Well, Jonathan Alter was on Imus this morning. Imus asked where the scoop came from, and Alter hesitated. Imus then asked if someone leaked Bennett's gambling history to embarrass Bennett. Alter replied, "I think that's fair to say." As much as Bennett is a self-righteous prig, this is starting to sound less like publishing gossip and more like a journalistic "hit." Is it newsworthy? Probably. But I'd love to hear a journalist explain why. Alter's only explanation this morning was (paraphrase), "If you don't see why this is news, you just don't get it." I don't think that'll fly from a professional.

More: Shiflett, with usual good humor, on the Bennett flap.

OMB: Bush budget man Mitch Daniels heads back home to Indiana. You know who'd be a great pick to replace him. The guy who should've had the job in the first place: John Kasich.

More: Serious fiscal conservative Stephen Moore agrees. That's bound to be the kiss of death in a "compassionate conservative" adminstration.

Some Questions about Cheney: I have to admit surprise at how this is being treated as not-necessarily-news. Sure, there's this paragraph:

There had long been speculation Bush would replace Cheney, who has had four heart attacks, and take a running mate who could run to succeed him in 2008 if the president wins a second term.

How mildly can you put it? First, it's a serious blow to the party to have no one waiting in the wings for 2008. Yes, Cheney could step down in, say, 2006 to let an heir come aboard, but don't you really want a battle-tested VP rather than a Gerald Ford?

Second, what does this say about Bush? Does it say that, even after Iraq, he doesn't have the confidence to move his eminence grise to an informal role and take on someone like Condi Rice as a running mate? She's about the sharpest knife in the GOP drawer right now, plus she isn't a 70-year-old white guy from the midwest. She's a sharp Californian (by transplant, but aren't they all?) with serious foreign policy cred and (let's be honest) the soccer-mom-vote-magnet trifecta of being black, female, and young. She looks great in a suit, too.

Third, I think we need to start asking the as-yet-unspoken question: Is Bush doping the ticket with Cheney in order to clear the 2008 decks for Jeb?

Social [In]Security: A large spread in the "Ideas" section of the Boston Globe this weekend featured an infotorial (now in the pay-only archives) by Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot of CEPR in which they argue, in effect, that Social Security reform is a sop by the GOP to financial big boys. (Never you mind that the late Pat Moynahan, who was anything but in bed with Wall Street, was one of the first to point to the coming trust fund deficit.) Beyond that, Baker and Weisbrot's analysis is so full of holes that it's a wonder that it was run by any self-respecting editor. Some examples:

The "war against Social Security" is based on a shortfall, within 75 years, of "three-quarters of one percent of our national income," by which I assume they mean GDP, which shortfall will have to be covered out of general revenue via higher taxes. (Three-quarters of 1% appears to come out to about $100 billion, which is about enough to float 1 million retired baby boomers for one year, at today's rates -- which will be laughable 30 years from now, even at a low rate of inflation.) First of all, that kind of share of GDP is "huge" and "risky" when it's in the form of a tax cut instead of a tax hike. (Plus, run it through some dynamic analysis and you might find it does nearly as much harm as good.) Second, and more to the point, it's a weaselly statistic, since the important relationship is between revenue and shortfall, not GDP and shortfall.

Real-wage growth, they argue, will more than offset any tax bite to cover the trust fund deficit. That's possible, but in the next paragraph the authors steal that possibility when they note that the 30-year U.S. trend of real-wage stagnation makes Social Security all the more necessary. So which is it, boys? Can we grow our way out of the crisis or not?

The authors also aim to debunk a number of "accounting tricks" that reformers use to bolster their arguments. They say that reformers point to the fact that demographics suggest that we will move from an earners-to-recipients ratio of 3-1 today to 2-1 in 2035, then they claim (again) that increases in wages and productivity will cover demographic shifts. First of all, they cherry pick their numbers. Reformers are more likely to point to the 16-1 ratio in 1950 and the 5-1 ratio in 1960 (perhaps you see a pattern emerging?), and to the further demographic trends that threaten Social Security, like retirees living longer after retirement. Baker and Weisbrot's argument seems to be that this ship is seaworthy by redefining the meaning of "hull."

Another "trick," the authors say, is that the trust fund is "disparaged" as a box of IOUs. (It is exactly that.) "The bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund," they say, "are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, and it is a bit ridiculous to suggest that our government would default on them." Wow. Straw Man Alert! I don't recall anyone saying that default was the problem. The problem will be the costs associated with not defaulting. The trust fund took in the Social Security withholdings and loaned it to the Treasury, which promptly spent it. So the only accounting "trick" here is in the hands of the authors when they say that the trust fund contains securities "amounting to $1.5 trillion and growing by $200 billion a year." The only thing growing by $200 billion a year is the debt on the trust fund. When those securities are called due to pay benefits, guess where it'll come from. General tax increases. As noted before, the authors call it a "relatively small" tax increase needed to cover the shortfall. But remember that it is a tax in perpetuity, not a one-time hit to cover an anomalous shortfall. And this will not "pay for" Social Security. It will simply be a necessary complement to what is already drained from your paycheck as Social Security contributions.

This is ridiculous stuff, and the Globe should be ashamed for running it. Even the GAO sees the need for reform, and the GAO is not exactly known for being packed with fire-breathing Friedmanites.

Say it isn't so...: No I mean it. Say it's not true. Give examples, give plausible explanations. Open your bank records, defy anyone to find one iota of improper income/spending. Show us that you're a principled objector to U.S./U.K. actions in the Mid East. Do anything to give me reason to doubt that the only thing wrong about kicking you out was that it came 30 years too late. Please. Help me out here...I'm begging.

Bill Clinton: Yeah, this is old stuff. Why rehash it? Because Sidney Blumenthal is about to. Howard Kurtz quotes from the preview of Sid's new memoir:

The Sid Blumenthal book on Bill Clinton is coming out, and the Salon excerpt includes this striking moment from the ex-president's second inaugural: "Chief Justice Rehnquist . . . had been chilly and inexpressive toward the president throughout the morning. He was grim while swearing in Clinton to his second term, with Hillary holding the Bible. Now Rehnquist turned to speak to him. 'Good luck,' he said. 'You'll need it.'

"'They're going to screw you on the Paula Jones case,' Hillary said."

Think this happened? Sounds like a Robert Reich situation to me (see here or here).

I Concur: Hillary Clinton will make a dandy president one day ... the day she completes her twelve-step program for recovering totalitarians and starts taking her anti-whining meds. Come to think of it, maybe a brain transplant would be easier.

Good to see you were paying attention: You have passed the test and are now worthy of entry into the inner sanctum of political bloggers. All that I require is four hairs from your head, and $3,000 (25% of which goes to Andrew Sullivan to support his writing for which we remain truly appreciative and indebted). Besides, for us to get sued, as public figures, they have to show "actual malice," and I'm as innocuous and un-malicious as they come. Just ask anyone, I'll wait..........see?! Anyway, what's the difference between one war monger and the next? All I know is what I read in the New York Times and that oil drilling in Alaska has GOT to go. And Hillary Clinton will make a fine president one day.

Kerry/Kerrey: This is John Kerry, the blowhard senator from Massachusetts running for president, the one who looks like he should have bolts in his neck for applying electric charge. He did go to Vietnam, though vets I know are wary of him.

This is Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska senator who may or may not run for president someday because he may or may not have committed atrocities in Vietnam. (He is currently the president of a school that may or may not be an actual university but plays one on TV.)

Now, try not to get us sued.

The Debates: Of course, I didn't watch them either. I don't have a life, but I still didn't watch them. From what I heard and read, it was Kerry falling back on Vietnam - saying something to the effect that Howard Dean didn't need to teach him about courage, because he has plenty...especially when killing all those innocent civilians...oh wait, he didn't say that part. Anyway, some are beginning to actually appreciate Gephardt. One spin is that even though many will disagree with his healthcare plan, he's the first candidate to evidence any real policy initiatives, and he can keep talking about "my plan" when all anyone else can do is try to shoot it down, without offering a real alternative. Lieberman clearly has the goods on morality and hawkishness. The spin on him is that the Jewish community may not actually want a Jewish president at a time when peace is trying (for the 149th time) to be hammered out. Like Palestine needs another reason to doubt our support for Israel. In any event, Lieberman won't lose because of something he does, it will be because of something he doesn't (or because he's too short). Dean impressed me in his appearance before Russert a while back when the war in Iraq was still a "what if." He sounded principled without being too high-and-mighty. Of course now he has to backtrack, but his comments won't really hurt him because he didn't espouse them in attack mode. Graham's only blip in the debate was pledging to beat Jeb in Florida. Ooookay. How 'bout the rest of dem 49 states? Edwards did little to separate himself, as far as I can tell, which is troubling because he was basically at home. Anyway, too hard to handicap for me just yet. Oh, and Sharpton's hair never moved.

Bennett, One Last Time: Eugene makes a point worth noting: that Bennett isn't a hypocrite if he really believes, say, that drugs are bad and gambling is not. But my problem is not with Bennett gambling or possibly being a hypocrite. My problem is with him being a nanny. My problem is with anyone who advances a moral argument against a transaction between consenting adults, whether a business transaction, a sexual transaction, or a social transaction. Clinton (you brought it up!) is a good example of both the sexual and social transactions: his affairs in the context of his marriage. Bluntly put, I have no problem with his dalliances. That falls under his social agreement with Hillary. If she's willing to excuse it, if she's in the relationship for something other than sexual exclusivity, so be it. My interest in Clinton-Lewinsky (other than it being just great Page Six stuff) was that their relationship had a direct bearing on a sexual harassment case that the Supreme Court had cleared to proceed. (Whether the court was right to do so is another matter.) And Clinton himself supported the law that allowed a plaintiff in a sexual harassment case to call in testimony from the accused party's other, er, conquests. When he perjured and obstructed, specifically to undermine that law, he committed a crime that rose to the level of impeachment.

Bennett, on the other hand, is guilty of nothing more than looking foolish for preaching self-control and practicing excess. And, while I don't find gambling sinful in any way, shape, manner, or form, dumping eight million clams into the slots is excess any way you slice it.

I know Bill Clinton....you're no Bill Clinton: You alluded to this yesterday; the conservative wags circling the wagons around Bennett. Mr. Last, of the Weekly Standard attempts to shelter Bennett in the considerable shadow of Clinton's sins. The argument goes that if we wouldn't impeach Clinton for adultery and perjury, because his overall work as a president was above (legal) reproach, then we shouldn't cast stone after stone at Bennett, because hey, what he did was legal, and was his own money. Isn't this putting the rabbit in the hat? When did Clinton ever scold someone for cheating on his/her wife? When did Clinton ever mock someone for not telling the truth? Okay, let's go more to the point: When did Clinton ever write 4 books about not lying and cheating on one's wife, and then go on talk show after talk show to ram home the point? Bennett doesn't mention gambling in his books, which is certainly a convenient omission, and beside the point. If you claim to be an expert on virtue, and are willing to castigate in public those who fall below your artificial standard, then you better not be boinking your nanny in the closet, or throwing away millions of dollars on slots, where -- again -- it's statistically impossible to win on anything close to a regular basis. Yes, he also played video poker - I guess regular poker was too interactive. In any event, the guy holds no public office, he can't be impeached - all we can and should do is stop buying his books and stop listening to him spout sanctimonious. I'd love to say more, but I have to get down to the track. I have a tip on a can't miss.

Grading the Debate: Kurtz has a general wrapup. I think I can safely stand by my Friday predictions, since according to Kurtz the candidates more than lived up to the flippant treatment I gave them. I'd like to follow up, though, on one of the candidates. Howard Dean.

You already know the nature of the town I live in. These folks are pretty representative. Note that they carry the Howard Dean banner on their site. Anyway, this weekend was the gay pride march in my town, so my partner (that's Mrs. Enobarbus) and I took our son to see it. It was what you would expect, and later, cooly considered over a pint, we mulled what to make of a pride march in a town in which sexual freedom is like bread-buying freedom. (I swear, most of the people marching seemed to be doing so to demonstrate not that they were here and queer, but that they held the correct opinion on the matter, despite being straight.) I know, I know, I'm getting off the subject! The point is, Howard Dean's troops (forgive the war analogy, Howie) were thick on the ground in what is nominally Kerry Country. Kerry strikes me as a man ready to stick out his jaw and coast, and if he doesn't get the nomination it'll be (to him, anyway) the country's loss. Dean, on the other hand, is on the offensive well before the first primary. Does grass-roots organizing still count for anything? If it does, Dean will surprise a lot of people.

More Bennett: The conservative pundits are circling the wagons on Bennett. Usual suspects Jon Last and Jonah Goldberg, both writers I read and like, mention the ironic hypocrisy of the left: they'll all squeal in glee at Bennett's comeuppance, even though this surely falls within the Clintonian "private behavior" standard the left set. True enough, but that's simply a deflection or distraction. They also mention, in one way or another, that Bennett never claimed to be "perfect." Yes, true again. (Even if he had, we wouldn't have believed him.) But this, too, misses the point. Bennett has carped about everything from marijuana, which is illegal (even if it shouldn't be), to violent television, which is clearly legal -- so the "gambling is legal" defense is meaningless.

Moreover, in the words of Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN):

Gambling weakens our ability to teach our children the basics, if you will, the Cal Ripken values of hard work, patience, human achievement and personal responsibility. What is the message being sent to our children by clever television and radio commercials for lotteries that bombard us with the message that wealth is only a play away? It says that if you play enough you can hit the jackpot and be freed of the discipline of self support through a job or a long commitment to ongoing education. This same erosion of personal responsibility is at the heart of family dysfunctions, drug abuse, criminal behavior and abortion. We cannot tolerate the get rich symbolism of gambling, of pleading with our children to avoid other tosses of the dice that lead to unhealthy living and destructive behavior. [Emphasis added.]

That kind of sounds like Bennett could've written it. That's not to say that Bennett should take responsibility for everyone who uses his "voice of moral authority" style. But it certainly means that people within the mainstream, in fact some of Bennett's ideological allies, think this is a moral issue. And in doing so, they bring the same sort of "virtue pressure" that Bennett uses to push his issues. Conservative voices like National Review and the Weekly Standard need to acknowledge that fact before defending Bennett. Yes, the left will act like Bennett got caught with a joint between his fingers outside a nudie club in the tenderloin; but the right is already acting like Bennett got caught ripping the "Do Not Remove" tag from his mattress.

It's easy enough for Bennett to say that, while mindful of moral arguments like Lugar's, he respectfully disagrees. But other people respectfully (and otherwise) disagree with Bennett on issues such as the supposed effects of TV violence and sex on children. It doesn't seem to affect his crusade at all. Go figure.

More: Mysterious non-Volokh Philippe de Croy is more succinct.

Isn't gambling virtuous?: As Kinsley pointed out, it's not the dream "gotcha" but it's pretty good. How many gamblers rationalize their behavior with "I'm not hurting anyone" or "I can still pay the mortgage" while slowly drifing into that vortex of panic-gambling (when you make increasingly large and ill-afforded bets hoping to "one-time" yourself back into the black)? And playing slots? He can't even argue he's doing it to "test his skills" or for the love of the camraderie. It's blind chance. Very principled of him.

Radley on Bill Bennett: Oh, yeah. It's a serious beating. And check out this USA Today story (via Drudge):

But expressing annoyance at the attention generated by news about his gambling, [Elayne Bennett] said her husband may have pulled his last slot-machine lever. "He's never going again," she said.

I can only add a Nelsonian "Ha-ha." Boy does he deserve everything he gets.

The Vision Thing: In 1992, it was Bush's father who didn't have the "vision thing" mastered. Now here come the nine Dems for 2004. Pricesless quote on the first debate:

Ed Craig, a small businessman and former director of state Democrats in South Carolina, said he was "fairly disappointed" in the debate. He said the Democrats did not seem to learn a lesson from last November's election losses.

"They were arguing over the same themes that we heard then, and they did not resound that well," Craig said. "Where is the guy with a vision?

I didn't see the debate, of course. (I have a life.) But I can guess the themes. "George Bush wants to have an enormous tax cut to give money back to the rich! [Note: Have somebody from the DNC give the air conditioning system a good whack so that everybody shivers a little whenever we say "rich."] I don't see why we should cut taxes when we have a perfectly good rathole in Washington we can pour that money into. Again."

Score One for the First Amendment: District Court strikes down "major provisions" of McCain-Feingold. Effective immediately, barring a stay by the Supremes.

The Debate: I'm not so worried that I'll miss this weekend's political fun, although nine angry Dems whacking on each other might be fun to see. Howie Kurtz has the roundup, as usual. He quotes American Prospect's Mike Tomasky, who refers to the focus on Santorum-like GOP miscues, rather than on a progressive strategy for 2004:

Pop quiz: If the Democrats are going to stand a chance of beating George W. Bush in 2004, they are going to have to put tremendous effort and creativity into winning over which of the following groups of voters: a) gay men and lesbians or b) people (gay, straight, whatever) who currently think that the post-September 11 United States is just somehow more secure in Republican hands?

The New Republic was on board with Afghanistan, Iraq, and homeland security very quickly, arguing (correctly) that Bush was fighting what amounted to a liberal cause. To oppose the war in the name of opposing Bush, TNR argued, was dumb, short-sighted, and a betrayal of liberal instincts.

So back to the seven, er ... nine dwarfs, I'm not one to indulge in snap judgements, but here's how I see the field going into the first debate.

Howard Dean: This man might have gotten a bigger war bounce than Bush, since he was very nearly the only Dem not falling all over himself to revise his position daily. The devil over his left shoulder must have wished for a quagmire in Iraq. 15 to 1 with a soft up arrow that will get softer as Iraq fades

Lieberman: Pros and Cons here. Pro -- He's polling higher than Edwards in South Carolina. Con -- He's polling lower than "undecided" in South Carolina. The real hawk on the Dem side has name recognition, strong foreign policy cred, and a great moderate record to fall back on in the general election, but he can't seem to generate electricity. Maybe a hip-hop campaign ad? 5 to 1, steady

Kerry: The pre-war momentum is stumbling. Yes, the waffling hurts, but why on earth did he allow Dean to put him on the defensive? Chris Lehane is at his worst and nastiest playing defense. And note that, so far, he hasn't come up with anything better than the Vietnam card, which is going to be a hard sell in domestic policy debate. Still the only serious frontrunner, though. 2 to 1, down from 3 to 2

Gephardt: Speaking of domestic policy, Howdy Doody looks surprisingly strong. He's pushing his health care policy lately, while the others are pushing buttons. He'll have to write off New Hampshire, since Dean and Kerry are the local boys, but Iowa could obviously be a big win for him. And he's the only heartland candidate in the pack, which gives him some general election cred with red-country Reagan Democrats. 6 to 1, up arrow

Carol Mosely Braun: No odds. Only in the race because the DNC would rather not cut a deal with ...

Al Sharpton: Get real.

John Edwards: He's not leading the field in South Carolina? What part of the country is Senator Handsome expecting to pull? He's a question mark, to be sure, but every time I hear "up-and-comer" I think "Dan Quayle." 8 to 1, with a big down arrow if the S.C. debate doesn't put his numbers there through the roof

Dennis Kucinich: The Democrat that ate Cleveland likes to talk fiscal responsibility while touting a "progressive" agenda. As a pro-life Catholic, he'd have to scramble to make the party comfortable with him, which they won't be anyway. He's the epitome of a politician who has failed upward. 100 to 1, and gone before the primaries

Bob Graham: Positive spin: He'd carry Florida. Maybe. Negative spin: Bob who? 20 to 1

Monkey Wrench: With the first big-group Democratic debate coming up, wouldn't it have been a lovely piece of mischief if Bush had invited Joe Lieberman (the only contender for the nomination who has been four-square behind dumping Saddam from day one) to bask in the glory with him on the Lincoln? That would surely send John Kerry into an I-served-in-Vietnam-and-shouldn't-be-held-to-the-same-standard apoplexy. Seriously, though, there are some folks on the other side of the aisle (Lieberman, Zell Miller, and to a lesser extent Dick Gephardt, not to mention the now-former-Senator Bob Kerrey, who knew no partisanship on this issue) who did the right thing and gave their full support to the Commander. Bush needs to share some glory with the loyal opposition.

At least he didn't overuse "evildoer": I absolutely agree with you. Comparing the speech to the setting is like extolling the virtues of the Ferrari 360 Modena's ashtray over the engine. I hardly heard anything he said. Instead, I focused on the faces (almost all gleefully smiling and cheering), and the fact that he was standing on one of the most powerful war machines the world has ever seen, that takes 5,000 sailors and pilots anywhere around the world, and can sustain battle operations indefinitely, given adequate supplies. And we have like six of them! We did in about four weeks what the U.N. couldn't do in 12 years. Less lives were lost in the whole combat operation than Iraq probably lost in a year from Saddam directly. The only unfortunate part is that this speech should have been given by Bush, Sr. about 11 years ago. Anyway, although he can't express it adequately, Bush and the backdrop provided an excellent symbol of what this country can and (now) will do if necessary.

Remember This: These are the people who, had they been active at the time, would have defended Stalin's purges and show trials by pointing to America's "grave damage to the norms of understanding, debate and mediation among countries." Folks, a dictator is a dictator is a dictator is a dictator. Point to American "imperialism" all you want, but at least we get a shot at new leaders every couple of years. Remember, always remember, that Castro is in power because he has a knife at the throat of his people. That is all.

And jeez, my train was five minutes late!: Some days, you just shouldn't complain.

Alone Again (Naturally): Sullivan found it a "hubristic" piece of pageantry. Reynolds thought it "rang false." At least Stephen Green saw it for what it was. He's right that this was the anti-Dukakis moment. And it was pure political theater. And Bush hit it out of the park. Hubristic? I think America is willing to forgive a victory lap. If there was one group that Bush risked offending, it was the military. Think of it this way: Clinton couldn't have pulled it off, the flight suit, the landing, the "I flew this plane" smile. The military would've taken one look at Clinton giving that performance and thought that it belittled the life and death edge they live on, the danger of carrier sorties and returns in theater. But Bush pulled it off; the military clearly digs this guy and his almost-fighter-jock attitude. If they approve, America will too. Hell, even old Pat Cadell on Hardball last night admitted that Bush came off looking great, even though he thought the whole business was over-the-top staging. And what the hell's with Pat Cadell anyway? He looks like he should be sitting around a place he calls a "pad," listening to Herbie Mann records (on vinyl), writing mash letters to Jerry Brown.

Another thing: Both Glenn and Andrew think the speech was better than the staging. Wow, 100% wrong. I have to admit that I've never been a fan of Bush's speechwriters. I think their stuff is boring, jejune, like a list of platitudes and rather stock phrases. Its speech by Powerpoint, which plays to the worst of the Bush type. (Remember Dana Carvey doing Bush the First as Powerpoint man? "No new taxes. Thousand points o' light. Stay the course. Not gonna do it!") Last night was a great time to introduce a Reaganesque theme, something like "As a country, we do what we say we'll do." A simple theme like that highlights the president's resolve in the midst of Democrats waffling (my brother calls John Kerry's war stance "L'Eggo My Policy!"); it reinforces the message to North Korea, Syria, Iran that we can call them to account any time we wish; and it draws a line of distinction between the way the previous administration approached diplomacy and the way this one does. Luckily, the entrance was grand enough to make a ho-hum speech enough.

What does a Libertarian ... I'll ask one if I see one. Actually, I am (in theory) of the mindset that the market should sort this out. Even if the government should get involved, is a couple hundred mil really going to be a disincentive for companies that shift that kind of cake daily? In any case, I'm a firm believer in the caveat emptor school of responsibility. I'm sorry if some folks out there don't realize that when they get a call from their "broker" (ahem, "salesman") humping a stock, the broker isn't doing it because he loves you and wants you to be rich. He's doing it because his boss told him to move 50,000 shares of Xyz Corp. or his bonus this year will be fractional. That's life with the big boys. As long as they've got you on the line, they're gonna sell you their product (in this case, the teetering IPOs they just underwrote). The people who got "burned" must be the people who keep telemarketers in business by saying "yes" to every stupid pitch that jingles "O Sole Mio" on their Motorola. One writer made an extended comparison (in another context) to the "Whiffle Life": there are people who really believe that everything they do should be as risk-free as the whiffle ball. Everything needs to be padded by extensive, nerfy government paperwork. At some point, the market will catch up. You'll know when investments are risk-free when the Dow goes up about 2 points every year forever.

Sidebar: This reminds me of the people who lost their retirement shirts in Enron. Sure, Enron was doing shady stuff, but if you have your nestegg tied up, undiversified, in the in-house stock of a business that makes its money in speculation, maybe you needed a lesson.

What does a Libertarian say about all this?: Wall Street caves in and agrees to collectively pay out $1.4B in fines for its unethical business practices during the internet boom of the late 90s (right, only during that time). So, a purist libertarian might say that this is so much bushwah...merely a high-handed government ploy to essentially put another tax on the stock market. "Let the market sort this out," the libertarian might continue, "Surely, an informed consumer could decide to not give business to Company A because it touted WorldCom and instead to to Company B, who said to stay with Pepsi." Moreover, the evidence collected is hardly as "damning" as the Connie would have you believe:

The settlement reveals some damning e-mails from Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, hitherto regarded as minor offenders: one Goldman analyst lists his three most important goals for 2000 as “1) Get more investment banking revenue. 2) Get more investment banking revenue. 3) Get more investment banking revenue.” A Morgan Stanley counterpart wrote: “Bottom line, my highest and best use is to help [the bank] win the best internet IPO mandates.” Similarly, at Merrill Lynch, conflicts of interest were not limited to Mr Blodget’s group. One analyst outside the group passed on important, unpublished information about companies to favoured institutional clients. It also appeared to be common practice at Merrill for analysts to send draft research to the companies they covered, seeking feedback on what to write.

The horror! The Goldman analyst wanted to get more banking revenue for the for-profit company by which he was employed! Ahhhh, the system is doomed! Now, the pre-screening of reports is a bit much, but one could certainly say that only if the writer's words are twisted, inaccurately, but the company he is covering, would such a practice be improper. Obviously, separation was needed between the research and the banking sides, but is this the way to go about it? He asked unknowingly...

Testing: Thomas Sowell looks at education this week. It's worth reading for itself, but this paragraph struck a local nerve:

The other thing that happened last week was announcement of a study showing that forcing students to take tests that have real consequences for the students, the schools, and their teachers, seems to help minority students. This should not be a surprise to anyone but these results go completely against the grain of what our "educators" believe and practice.

Massachusetts is trying to rein in some school districts who are flouting the state requirement that high school seniors pass a standardized assessment test (the MCAS, or Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System exam). Principals and superintendents have threatened to ignore the requirement, although the state is having some success bringing them in line. My own town, last I heard, is holding out.

I'm split on this. I'm for local control of public schooling, assuming that such a beast will exist; but if it does exist, it should be held to some kind of standard. Given the nature and state of public schooling, there is no reason to believe that school districts will hold themselves accountable, absent any kind of voucher/charter incentive. I don't see anything particularly odious about a state-imposed standardized test to evaluate schools by some quantitative measure.

Tests with consequences make it harder to play all these games. Moreover, these tests give parents, voters and taxpayers some way to keep track of how well or how badly the public schools are doing their work. No longer can a lot of cheery-sounding mush from teachers and administrators substitute for hard facts.

I'll frame it in more libertarian terms: First, local schools shouldn't have to bow to the state, as long as those same local schools are content to do without any state funding. Second, when the state runs a near-monopoly on the education racket, citizens should have access to information on performance. In the free market world, it's called transparency.

Back to Sowell.

Now that a study has shown that minority students benefit from tests with consequences, do not expect teachers or administrators to pay the slightest attention to this study -- except as something to deplore or try to discredit. Real teaching is hard work. Job fairs, play-acting, assigning students to keep diaries or write letters to public figures, or encouraging them to vent emotions in class -- all these things are a lot easier than teaching.

Easier than learning, too. His point is important because I think both the students and the schools suffer from the same problem -- a lethargic torpor brought on by a lack of several things, among them accountability, standards, and responsibility. Further, the schools specifically have no incentive to innovate, and no competition exists to motivate a near-monopoly to return some semblance of rigor to education. Time to go to vouchers.

The Area: Via the Corner comes this little game. Brookings scholars will know them all. The rest of use could stand the review.

To the scullery with you...: I only caught the last part of the three-day series, "Manor House," but what I saw was quite fascinating. The premise is about 19 people volunteer to go live "Upstairs/Downstairs" for three months in a fully restored Scottish manor. The upstairs is comprised of a real-life family (father, mother, spinster sister, and little son) and the (Indian) tutor. The downstairs is replete with butler, maids, chef, footmen, etc. 18,000 people applied...18,000! They had to rigorously adhere to custom; meaning the servants averted their gazes and really worked about 16-18 hours a day, while the "aristocrats" ate, entertained, and did whatever they wanted. It was to take place in 1905, Edwardian England and by all accounts it was true to form. At the end of the time there, they were nearly all in tears for having to leave eachother...although they were happy to get back to their real lives. They're replaying it, so catch it if you can.