Love and Theft? Oddball investigative article in the WSJ asks whether Bob Dylan was a plagiarist.

As a 62-year-old physician and writer in a small town north of Tokyo, Junichi Saga knows almost nothing about 62-year-old Bob Dylan.

"Bob Dylan is a very famous American country singer, yes?" asks Dr. Saga. "I'm not familiar with these things."

Mr. Dylan , on the other hand, would seem to be quite familiar with Dr. Saga's work. On the legendary singer-songwriter's most recent studio album, "Love and Theft," he appears to have lifted about a dozen passages from Dr. Saga's book, "Confessions of a Yakuza."

Maybe I'm the only one who finds this hilarious, possibly because Dylan's lyrics have always been so awful that I can't imagine him taking the trouble to steal them. Dylan's manager, Jeff Rosen, offered this piece of non-answer information: "As far as I know, Mr. Dylan's work is original."

The man who discovered the passages suggesting less-than-full authorship, Chris Johnson, is quoted, too:

Mr. Dylan didn't choose the most poetic or most powerful lines from the book, Mr. Johnson says. He appears at times to have clipped phrases almost randomly. Mr. Johnson has given a lot of thought to the process by which Mr. Dylan wrote his lyrics. He imagines the singer sitting in a hotel in Japan, where he has often appeared over the years, and browsing through "Confessions" as he worked on a new batch of tunes, using lines from the book as kindling for his imagination.

"I kind of wondered if he had done a lot of that before on other albums," says Mr. Johnson. "But if he'd been doing this all along, somebody would have caught him a long time ago."

Not if he's using obscure enough books. Actually, that strategy of "clipp[ing] phrases . . . randomly" might explain some of Dylan's work.

Painting a picture with words: Lileks, as no one else can, gives this description of Michael Savage's radio show.

.It’s radio for people who have given up. Radio for people who mistake their anger for conviction. Listening to the show is like bobbing for dog turds in a chum bucket

Maybe not a picture I'd like to see, but he sure is descriptive.

Will be trying to search out Eno's undisclosed location for the rest of the week. Signs I'm on the trail:

the smell of burning Camels

the crying of overly sensitive liberals

golf balls flying in horribly unintended directions

Everyone have a good week.

Connerly in Michingan: I have a healthy (I think) skepticism about the goodness of state by state ballot initiatives, on any issue. They can be useful, to either side, in advancing their cause, but it seems that they always signal a failure of our political process. A failure by politicians to reflect the values and desires of the electorate, and a failure by the people to punish them for it. Voters get bought off with one issue so pols don't have to face the music on another. Then they put it on the ballot, get what they want (or not) and the "representatives" never have to take a stand.

Case in point, Ward Connerly's proposed Michigan initiative on affirmative action. Republicans get to slam him for being divisive and democrats slam him for being "a pawn of the right wing." If he's successful, great, but this country isn't supposed to be a direct democracy where every issue is put to the people for a vote, not the least because it would be too inefficient. If our elected pols are allowed to pass on major issues like this, they're not doing their job. And if the people want to get something through the ballot, then vote the slackers out.

Follow Up: In a post a couple of weeks ago, I compared the fire-breathing Ann Coulter to the leftist demagogues (for whom conservatives are always heartless, socially darwinistic fascists, whatever that means) and also to David Horowitz, the leftist-turned-conservative writer who has relished using the left's rhetorical tricks against his former comrades. Now Horowitz has taken a step away from Coulter, over the very issue I mentioned: her defense of McCarthy:

The problem with Coulter’s book is that she is not willing to concede that McCarthy was, in fact, demagogic in any sense at all, or that that his recklessness injured the anti-Communist cause. Ron Radosh, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes have distinguished themselves as historians by documenting the Communist menace that many liberals discounted. But they have also documented the irresponsible antics of McCarthy, which undermined the anti-Communist cause. Coulter dismisses such conservative criticisms of McCarthy as caving in to the liberals. She is wrong.

Good for you, David. But don't be fooled that she really believes any of this stuff. She's seeing dollar signs.

Enronski: While Russia's growth is to be commended, one shouldn't forget its baseline of near chaos. In that light, while nearly 7% is noteworthy, there's a lot of room to grow. Nonetheless, its flat tax is certainly a step in the right direction. So is this. Of course the problem is you can imagine how many mutual funds will start cropping up now, with local Mafiya dons on the mastheads. "Come! Invest your money with us, comrades. Guaranteed 25% returns. No? Okay, then 48%!" This could be a debacle, and cripple the nascent economy, which is just starting to make an impact on your average citizen. If people start losing their savings to ponzi schemes, it could be a short trip back to the Iron Curtain.

Russia: I wonder how much Russia's hot economic prospects have to do with implementing a flat tax a couple years ago (late 2001 I think). I think we could use a little of the same.

Work all morning. Gotta get a haircut. Then maybe some posting.

Enjoy No. 1 While it Lasts: Funny the EFW Index rankings came out now. Just as Hong Kong is rallying against (and sort of doing a good job of it) the Mainland's "Anti-Subversion Law" which can result in death penalties for speaking one's mind. I think that China realizes that it has to treat Hong Kong differently; and it should. First, the island has grown rather used to this capitalism thingy. Moreover, if China wants a constant flow of funds for dam projects, it better keep HK happy. Still, you imagine the Party bigwigs can't be too happy with the freewheeeling going on over there. The question is whether and when the Big Red Machine will do anything definitive about it.

Making De Facto into De Jure: It was already all but official anyway (link via the Corner):

Administrators at the nine-campus University of California system are rewriting the institution's 69-year-old academic freedom policy to reflect "the goals of the modern university," which, some officials say, no longer demand dispassionate and disinterested teaching or an arrival at the truth.

There aren't many institutions of higher learning where you'd get much argument on that. (Here's one, by god.)

I studied politics first at a state university, then at a typical liberal (and I mean liberal) arts college. In both the atmosphere was absolutely oppressive, and on occasion I felt that a passing grade relied upon holding a prescribed set of beliefs -- which beliefs would, I inferred, drive one's scholarship in papers. This was most true in classes that featured female professors. Most shameful was that data were virtually ignored (unless, of course, the data supported the correct viewpoint), which created a tyranny of good intentions: I once argued, armed with plenty of statistics, that Johnson's "war on poverty" was an unmitigated failure, created perverse incentives for the poor, and should be scrapped while we figured out what to do. This is not a fringe view, as I'm sure you know -- Pat Moynahan was one of the clearest-eyed critics of this flavor (though I don't think he ever advocated scrapping the programs entirely). I'm about as atheistic and socially liberal as one can get in this country, but the professor still rebuked me as though I was arguing for either some kind of family-values fascism or a starve-the-minorities holocaust ("religious right" and "crypto-racist" were two of the epithets she used). Anyone who ever got the morally self-satisfied shake of the head and sigh from a professor knows what I'm talking about. If you don't agree, you must be evil.

I ended up with a degree in English that, aside from studying Chaucer, was based entirely on making up exaggerated Freudian kaleidoscopic interpretations of various authors' works. The atmosphere was no better, but at least the self-satisfied cretins weren't playing their little parlor games over policies of national importance. In other words, the bullshit was less worth getting upset about. You want 40 pages on on how The Sun Also Rises is Hemingway's unconscious allegory about the impotence of a phallocentric society and the violence implicit in the sex act? No problem.

Radley's Link: He's Cato's boy, after all, so he should know about the Cato Economic Freedom of the World report. Some cherce bits:

The EFW index is very useful as a correlate with other desiderata such as income per person, economic growth, income distribution and so on . . . The EFW index is highly correlated with income per capita and economic growth; life expectancy is over 20 years longer in the top economic-freedom quintile compared with the bottom quintile. That economic freedom contributes to a faster growing, more efficient economy that translates into better, longer lives is hardly a controversial finding . . . Many critics of economic freedom focus on the supposed inability of the free-market to create a just distribution of income or in caring for the poor. Exhibits 7 and 9 present the evidence on the validity of these arguments. First, the distribution of income is no more unequal in countries with market-oriented economies than in those that are economically repressive. Moreover, it bears repeating that economically free societies are more productive and that this added productivity translates into higher incomes for all groups.

Hong Kong is still first. Myanmar (Burma) is last. We're in third place, for what it's worth.

Why This Is Important: Bush's political steps toward Africa, along with his consideration of troop deployment, highlight the marked growth of his foreign policy. Bush campaigned against nation building -- and now we're in Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly Liberia, doing just that. This is an important withdrawal from the GOP voices that call for an America First policy (which is typically, though not always, disguised isolationism) and an evolution toward a more mature, balanced policy. Part of the shift is attributable to September 11th. Bush needed to realize that aggressive engagement with foes (and with friends and erstwhile allies) was the only way to protect America. Clinton's world engagement, on the other hand, was a product of a lazy and undisciplined foreign policy (and a desire to admired).

Now, obviously the Bush administration has not reached for the crown of international police and aid agency. In fact, I suspect that his Africa tour will -- as it should -- culminate in a realignment of priorities for American funds. It's time to stop giving money to countries that are impoverished; too often they remain so despite the aid (and often because of the aid). Instead, we should reward market reforms, economic transparency, rule of law, and democratic franchise. (Emergency famine aid should continue, but via relief efforts that bypass corrupt and incompetent governments that exacerbate disaster.) Arguably, socialism (and various quasi-socialistic kleptocracies in which it manifests itself) has done more harm to Africa than drought. It's time to end the feel-good charade in which we offer international welfare and food stamps to regimes (and wantings thereof), assuming we have done our humanitarian duty. Like domestic welfare, this breeds helplessness, resentment, and perverse incentives; and like the Iraqi oil-for-food program, this kind of "charity" is easily manipulated by the powerful, which in some cases (Somalia, for instance) is anyone with a gun. Paying people to be poor has never worked; and it always breeds extra employees.

That said, don't hold your breath for anything too sweeping. We won't cut off aid to Egypt tomorrow (although we probably should), although we might quietly step up some demands to, say, reign in a virulently anti-American, anti-Israel press, at least until some progress is made toward a Palestinian state. But it wouldn't surprise me to see repeat offenders in the Famine-Aid-Corruption racket (Tanzania, Ethiopia) get a little stick to go along with the carrots we're buying them. A rush and a push on GM food aid might get the African bureaucracy to buck Europe on the very crops that could save lives efficiently and quickly.

As we've seen domestically, weaning the poor off charity is politically and socially tough business. We're not yet saving much money from welfare "reform" and poverty hasn't run up the white flag yet. But we can take tougher measures with foreign countries. They don't get to vote -- and if they don't like our conditions, they can find someone else to subsidize their poverty. It's immoral for us to continue doing so.

More on Liberia: I've said previously that a chance to intervene in Liberia provides an opportunity for humanitarian good, coupled with an opportunity to advance U.S. interests. I see some agreement coming from expected and unexpected places. James Robbins is unexpected, but welcome:

Military intervention would have to be complemented with a political-reform effort, and probably some form of development aid. The nation-building effort would not be as expensive as that in Iraq, but would have to be undertaken as a long-term project. Of course there are risks involved in any such experiment — success is never guaranteed. But the future security environment will look radically different from that to which we have been accustomed, and we should start to get used to it. Liberia should be viewed not as a charity case but an opportunity.

More expected, but no less correct, is TNR arguing the humanitarian angle, and taking the opportunity to review its own consistent humanitarian-intervention angle vis-a-vis Iraq:

In a press release today touting his support for U.S. military intervention in Liberia--a fine and important thing--Howard Dean has revealed himself to be something of a moral pretzel. Mr. Dean says, "American military force should be committed only when American security interests are imminently threatened." Those interests, he insists, were not threatened in Iraq, but in Liberia "we face a challenge to our long-term security interests in West Africa." . . . Now, the threat to American interests in Iraq may not have been imminent, but there was certainly no less a threat than is to be found today in Liberia--where, aside from moral concerns, the United States has no interests whatever. As to Iraq not being an impending humanitarian catastrophe, Dean has a point: It was an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe.

It would obviously be silly to think of an unstable West African nation as a slam dunk for intervention and nation building, and it would have to be handled much better than the ham-fisted Iraq occupation, which has managed to turn a mass of liberated serfs into angry, nationalistic thugs. But the fact that Liberia's citizens are calling on us for help should not be ignored. Liberia also dovetails with Bush's renewed vigor in non-Iraq foreign policy, as his African tour this week highlights. This is a chance to do something good, productive, and in our intersts, and in a neighborhood that could benefit from the stabilizing influence.

More: Ralph Peters makes his case too:

YOU could summarize Washington's traditional thinking about Africa in one word: Hopeless. Yet Africa may present the greatest strategic opportunity for the United States in the 21st century: We can do well for ourselves by doing good for others in Africa. Relatively small strategic investments, from health care through peacekeepers to fair trade, could pay disproportionate dividends for all.

It's worth reading the whole.

Coddling the Bear: Robert Lane Greene parses a third of Condi Rice's (attributed) statement on post-Iraq foreign relations, "Punish France, ignore Germany, forgive Russia." He makes a good argument that her realism has firm roots. Russia's economy is the fastest growing of the three:

Indeed, basket-case though Russia may be, the realist Russian-affairs scholar who serves as the president's national security advisor could give her boss plenty of reasons why the country still warrants the benefit of the doubt. And they are hard-nosed, pragmatic ones. The first is economic. Since its 1998 collapse and debt default, the Russian economy has rebounded strongly, growing by an average of 6.4 percent per year between 1999 and 2002, as compared to 2.6 percent in the United States (and 2.7 percent and 1.4 percent in France and Germany, respectively) over the same period. This year the finance ministry expects a net capital inflow into the country for the first time since 1991, reflecting growing investor confidence spurred on in part by reforms of the still-unwieldy tax code and bureaucracy. Corporate governance is also sharply improving.

And, he mentions, Russia has a lot of oil. France and Germany have little to offer in comparison, and trade with the EU will only prove to be more of a bureaucratic nightmare than trade with France or Germany is now. Russia is the new new frontier, with vast unexploited natural resources and plenty of available labor. Plus, the influence of the black market there means that everyone is pretty familiar with practical capitalism.

I'm Speechless: Well, nearly. Either NPR has gone conservative, or they're not getting the point of their own features. Listen to this for one of the most appalling stories ever of learned helplessness, dependence on government services, and poverty encouraged and perpetuated by your tax dollars. It is long. And depressing. Sorry.

Whoops: Nordlinger's trying to kill off the wrong Buddy. I think he means this one.

For this reason we should bomb Syria: Saddam is "most likely" alive. Why do they bother qualifying their statement/analysis? If the CIA said it was "certainly" Saddam's voice on the tape, would that mean anything more?

No Shit Dept.: USA Today discovers depreciation:

A large number of auto buyers owe more on their trade-ins than the vehicles are worth, making it tough for dealers, and expensive for buyers, to finance new purchases.

This is a front-page, below-the-fold story, which strikes me as pretty silly. Don't want to be caught in this situation? Don't take the 60-month note.

Praise from your enemies: Glenn post to this story in the Washington Times about liberals like Richard Gere and Bob Geldof slamming Clinton's efforts in Africa, particlurly AIDS policy, and Bush's apparently better record of actually doing something. This story has been going around for a few weeks and while it is entertaining (I don't remember any criticism while Clinton was still in office or while VP Gore was running for prez), since when do conservatives measure the success of a policy by polling members of the liberal elite. Bob Geldof is responsible for one of the most self serving, useless wastes of time and money in history in the name of "doing something" for Africa. If he's praising Bush's efforts on the continent, we should be scared. The only entity more wasteful an inefficient than government is the hollywood left.

The Future and the Fax Machine: I would certainly hope they "predicted" the fax machine in 1960, considering it was invented in 1842. (Ever brilliant and curious BBC TV fixture Tim Hunkin explains here. Non Secret Lifers can go here and not suffer Tim's artwork.)

The future is now: Thanks again to Arts & Letters for this amusing peek into the year 2000 from 1960. All-in-all, it's not too shabby. Some things it got right: faxes, supersonic flight, rayon undergarments and the microwave (or a close approximation). Some things it got wrong: energy sources (like big oil was going to disappear), synthetic fibers everywhere, and city planning. My favorite is that even 40 years later, they didn't think we'd be able to "circumnavigate[] the moon in a rocket space ship". Moreover, there's this strange fixation on our anticipated ability to not only predict the weather, but control it. How? Well, by laying down a sheet of oil on top of the ocean and igniting it of course! The computer is not at all forecast, instead sheets of rolled paper with holes in them give instructions to machines. Oh, and we all have giant heads with atrophied bodies.

CFR Revisited: One of the things I disliked about the drive toward campaign-finance reform was that its most ardent promoters seemed to have a distaste not for corruption, but for money in politics in general -- and, in particular, money that the other side raised. The current fuss over Bush's $200 million target for '04 seems proof. Byron York makes the case at NR in a way that leads me to believe I was right:

"It's the most cold-blooded and efficient way of raising money in the history of politics," Charles Lewis, head of the Center for Public Integrity, says in Canada's National Post. "These aren't your average Americans. They're the most well-heeled interests, with vested interests in government."

Bob Herbert of the New York Times calls Bush's fundraising dinners "events at which the fat cats throw millions of dollars at the president to reinforce their already impenetrable ring of influence around the national government."

Is any of it relevant criticism? Does it even rise to the level of our attention? York:

That's the kind of rhetoric that was used when rich people and corporations gave seven-figure soft-money donations. Now, with contributors limited to $2,000, all of it hard money, the critics are still using the fat cat argument.

But by any standard of measurement, they're simply wrong. George W. Bush's GOP is the party of the little guy.

A new study by the Center for Responsive Politics found that in the last election cycle, people who gave less than $200 to politicians or parties gave 64 percent of their money to Republicans. Just 35 percent went to Democrats. On the other hand, the Center found that people who gave $1 million or more gave 92 percent to Democrats — and a whopping eight percent to Republicans.

Which would you call the party of fat cats?

So, as usual, it's just rhetoric. The Democrats, the original advocates of CFR, are only bothered that the law hasn't slowed down Bush's fundraising. God knows it slowed down theirs. They'd like you to think they pushed CFR for principled reasons. (If they were so willing to put the good of the country before re-election, wouldn't they push term-limits legislation too?) What they really hoped was that the political mileage of the issue would be more beneficial than the fundraising drawbacks. They didn't count on Bush being just as unprincipled and signing a law that he (at least during the 2000 race) clearly regarded as unconstitutional, simultaneously stealing the issue for himself for a victory and robbing the Dems of the political hay they thought they'd make with the issue. To top it off, you can be damn sure nobody in the White House was unaware that CFR would give them a tremendous fundraising advantage.

Bush fudged, triangulated, and cut loose his principled supporters on this one like . . . well, like Clinton might have done.

The Young and Restless: The New York Post has been Johnny-on-the-spot with the news on the Cuomo-Kennedy divorce/trainwreck. It's juicy, it's scandalous. I was going to leave it alone until the parties started to fight it out in the tabloids. Despite the denials from both of them that they're not leaking to the press, etc., the whole thing's starting to have a scorched-earth, going-to-the-mattresses stench to it.

Wimby two-cents: The final yesterday was great to watch, but it wasn't a great match. Federer was so clearly in control that the ending seemed inevitable. What made me watch (and I'll kill a tennis match in a second when it gets boring) was the hope of seeing another great shot from Federer, and he didn't disappoint. It would have taken an opponent of the Sampras, Agassi, Edberg league to make the match truly top shelf, but it wasn't boring for the reasons Brennan claims.

A study in contrasts: Nice article from ESPN.com on the routes taken by Phil and Federer to the finals. Also, the routes their careers have taken. Very interesting. Also worth mentioning, as the article does, that Federer didn't double-fault, faced no break points, and only had one deuce in his service games.

Wimby will never be the same: First, they take away the bows and curtsies, then a Swiss guy wins it! First some recap: Henman goes down as predicted here. Fickle fate played her drop shot, once more. Grosjean, being French, takes his bow to the resurgent Phil, as we all salivate at the upcoming Roddick/Phil final. BUT, all of a sudden, this Federer fella starts playing like the reincarnation of Bjorn Borg. He exposed Roddick, and the current state of the men's game, for what it really is: all flash, no feeling. It was really amazing how bad Roddick looked. He stuck to what brung him, I'll give him that, but ye gods, no net play, every shot to the middle of the court, and a middling first serve percentage. Federer hit amazing angles, aced Roddick's arse off, played a wonderful volley game, and overall, made Roddick uncomfortable the entire time. The only adaptation Roddick tried was to put his hat backwards. Roddick played scared and looked it too. Meanwhile, Federer wasn't even sweating! Then he goes on and dismantles Phil the same way. One can only hope Federer is the real deal. As opposed to the womens' game, we could use a little dominance. No comment on the Williamses - it's old hat, really.

Wimbledon Wrapup: Christine Brennan provides a good jumping off point for a Wimbledon wrap in today's typically brainless column. She whines that tennis has gotten boring. Sure, I have been on that hobby horse myself, but yesterday's match was no occasion for whining. She starts, typically, with a gripe about equal pay:

The male tennis players want more money. They're making millions, but they want more. The women, meanwhile, only want equal prize money, which they of course should receive but still don't get from the crusty old fuddy-duddies at the All England Club. (Perhaps it's time to forever abandon the old argument about the men spending more time on the court than the women. The Williamses toiled for 2 hours, 3 minutes before Serena beat the injured Venus in Saturday's final. The men played Sunday for just 1 hour, 56 minutes.)

Note that the length by which the women's game exceeded the men's is more than accounted for by Venus's injury delay. (Another was that Serena didn't seem to be able to take advantage of her injured sister's poor play. I won't psychoanalyze this, though.) And the men's final was so short because Federer put on a clinic. But Brennan can only carp about that, too:

Meanwhile, back to the game. If I see one more huge, unreturnable serve, or a big serve followed by a 10-stroke rally from the baseline, I'm going to scream.

Give me McEnroe. Give me Sampras. Give me Navratilova. Just once, I'd like to hear this announcement from the chair: "Attention, attention. Will someone please report to the net immediately."

Huh? Philippoussis plays a classic serve-and-volley game -- and he doesn't have the knees to scramble the baseline anyway. And Federer, while lacking the supersonic serve of a Philippoussis or a Roddick, still follows many of his serves to the net. (And on defense, who the hell approaches the net on Philippoussis's serve? Sampras? Get real.)

I thought yesterday's final was some of the best tennis all year. Yes, it was disappointing that Philippoussis wasn't able to get more of a foothold in the second set, but it was exciting tennis in the first and third. Brennan calls Federer a "moderate serve-and-volleyer but hardly one of the classics." To say that after the show he put on yesterday -- and to simultaneously complain about boring tennis -- is to lack understanding of the game. Federer may not hit 140 mph serves, but his choice and placement of serves yesterday got him twenty-some aces anyway. His passing shots were beautiful -- Agassi quality. His agility allowed him to compete while Philippoussis came at him with speed and accuracy (Phil was getting 80% of his first serves in during the first set).

I dunno. Maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it. But I hate boring tennis as much as the next fellow, but I wasn't bored yesterday. Federer was brilliant. For once, the men's show was a hell of a lot better than the ladies' show.

Liberia: So Taylor agrees to check out, but we're still expected to send a "peacekeeping force."

President Bush has repeatedly made Taylor's departure a condition for sending a U.S. peacekeeping force.

I realize the situations are different, but if we take the Iraq situation as exemplum, aren't we supposed to go in when the root of the problem refuses to get out of the way? The reason for going into Iraq was that Hussein presented a threat to U.S. security (yes, that's debatable, but there was a case to be made, which there's not in Liberia) and that no amount of diplomacy or threat would remove the problem, Saddam himself. Now we're to go in after diplomacy has done the job it's supposed to? So it's a peacekeeping operation instead of a war. It still cost big money, puts American lives at risk, and put us in a situation that could become a "quagmire."

Never been said better than this: I think this is so appropriate, particluarly in regards to the last two weeks developments. As we try to figure out which way the culture is sliding on any given day, it's nice to be reminded of the ideal.

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually of collectively, in interfering with the liberty or action of any of their number is self-protection...The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant...The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

John Stuart Mill On Liberty

Independence: Enjoy the weekend, compatriots.

Altria: Nice catch, Razor. (Think the branding consultants that came up with "Altria" were aiming at connotations of altruism?) If I may take another slant, though, here's a notable "reaction" paragraph from the story:

"The Kraft announcement is a landmark," said Kelly D. Brownell, a professor at Yale University and head of the school's Center for Eating and Weight Disorders. "It's the first of its kind from a major food company. And because Kraft is the largest food company in the world, other food companies will have to take notice. My hope is that this will become contagious."

You'd think the "paper of record" would mention who Brownell is. Go here to find out for yourself. And go here to read more from the witty and insightful Andy Ferguson. (That's right, Andy, I'm kissing ass. Can I have a job?) One thing for certain, Brownell's neither an impartial legal observer nor a medical expert. He's a partisan in the twinkie tax wars, an interested party, and the Times pulls a punch by not mentioning it.

Editorial Page: Sasha Volokh links to more proof that the national editorial page is more and more the WaPo:

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor writes paeans to diversity in higher education. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, sounding like a sensitive New Age guy, upholds the federal power to impose family leave rights on states in order to protect women in the workforce. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy insists upon the right of gays "to respect for their private lives." These are the dangerous ideologues of the extremist Rehnquist court?

Quite right, I think, and not something that could show up in the NYT.

Beach Reading: Fair warning that I'm headed to my own undisclosed location next Thursday, so you'll hear little from me for a few days after that. I'm bringing two books, both from the "Razor Recommends" book club. First, Flashman and the Mountain of Light, documenting our hero's travels in the Hindu Kush. I've actually started reading it already. It seems like a lark, but beware the footnotes. This fellow Fraser did his homework. Second, Chabon's Kavalier and Clay, based on my (tempered) admiration for the picaresque film adaptation of his Wonder Boys.

NFL X-Files: There's a conspiracy afoot. The NFL has seen it proper to give some of its historic darlings an easy road into the playoffs. Why? Because the NFL is paid by t.v. revenue and if its more popular teams should happen to to the Superbowl, then gee golly, wouldn't that just be propitious. San Fran, Green Bay, St. Louis, even Pittsburgh (history matters in the NFL). Okay, I can see AZ getting the easiest schedule, but no way these teams should be in the lower quarter. It's blatant favoritism (the Eagles get their typical shaft-job). The more interesting question is why Dallas got the second-toughest. Tags must really hate Parcells and Jones together.

Wobbling: Over at the Agitator, Radley has revised and extended his remarks on Lawrence, moving closer to the Thomas dissent. His remarks are worrisome, from a libertarian perspective. In his comments section, a fellow called Bruce says: "I'm willing to believe I'm missing something, but I just don't see where any level of government has a clear Constitutional justification for prohibiting private actions of any sort at all between consenting competent adults." Here's what I added:

I don't think you're missing anything, Bruce. That, I think, is the import of the 9th Amendment and unenumerated rights, and it's the argument libertarians should be making. The spirit (and the letter, arguably) of the Constitution, particularly the 9th Amendment, seems to be that the onus is on the government to make the case for any incursion into the realm of personal liberty. Moral disapproval doesn't cut it.

I'm sorry to see Radley going squishy on this one. We don't have to "invent" a right of privacy. That right is there, though unenumerated, until government provides a clear and constitutional justification for limiting it. To think otherwise is simply to gussy up the logic of statism.

Terrorists Target Santa Claus: From a 1974 CIA terrorism report:

"A new organization of uncertain makeup using the name 'Group of the Martyr Ebenezer Scrooge' plans to sabotage the annual courier flight of the Government of the North Pole," top U.S. decision-makers were warned. "Prime Minister and Chief Courier S. Claus has been notified and security precautions are being co-ordinated worldwide."

Yep, it was just a joke, but it stayed classified for years anyway.

Details of the memo were only recently revealed after historians compared the censored and uncensored versions of the document and realized the CIA considered a decades-old joke about Santa Claus as a matter of the utmost national security.

"This shows that the system is not about protecting real security issues," said Thomas Blanton, director of the U.S.-based National Security Archive, which made the Santa records public. "The bulk of what government keeps secret is to avoid embarrassment."

If you were a terrorist, would you screw with a dude who knew how to make a sleigh fly? It's a short step from flight to front-mounted Browning machine guns and Sidewinder-toting reindeer. (Big nod to Hit & Run.)

Power to the people: Ward Connerly is considering a ballot initiative in Michigan outlawing racial discrimination. Politicians from both sides are gonna be running scared if this makes it on the ballot. Connerly plans to make an announcement on the UM campus next Tuesday and the reaction is typical.

Brandy Johnson, a 25-year-old from Detroit who graduated this summer from U-M's Law School, called Connerly's effort a frustrating distraction.

"Are they going to go state-by-state and take up ballot issues now?" she asked. "That's an amazing amount of time, energy and resources that could be better spent addressing inequities."

Sorry, Brandy, but not everybody wants to spend their time, energy, and resources addressing your perceived inequities. And if this quote is at all representative of College Republicans, then I'm willing to concede the ruin of the Republican party here and now.

Others on campus weren't so hesitant. Jesse Levine, 19, a U-M sophomore and member of the College Republicans, said he deemed the ballot measure unnecessary.

"The Supreme Court has ruled," he said. "Our nation has a system of checks and balances, and the final authority has ruled. You should respect that decision."

Hopefully by the time Jesse is a senior he'll understand federalism a little better.

Good luck Ward. You're gonna need it.

No, we're a tobacco company...really!: Who'd a-thunk Altria would be doing this sort of backpedalling over its food products? I mean, Phillip Morris changed its name so people wouldn't associate the stock with tobacco (at least not at first glance) and now they're getting sued over their (Kraft) Oreos. Heaven forbid people use their power of free will to not buy fatty food, or at least fatty food exclusively. I'm really worried about our species. We simply cannot protect ourselves...from ourselves. Staple our stomachs, wire our mouths, do anything, anything, but make us control our impulses. You don't want a washboard stomach? Fine. But there's no reason to have your stomach hang to your knees. I know obesity isn't simply about impulse control, and that a wacky thyroid gland or one's genes will play a part, but on the whole, it's about making the hard decision, which if politics teaches us anything, is the last decision we'll make.

Burn Your Bra, Baby: The leftist mentality in sport: In the name of "equal pay," a bra manufacturer, Shock Absorber, will pony up to the women's champ at Wimbledon:

Under the current financial structure, the men's champion is rewarded with a cheque for £575,000, while the women's champion takes home £535,000 . . . Shock Absorber, which runs a number of high-profile adverts with Russian tennis star Anna Kournikova, decided to pay out to cover the shortfall.

Let's all feel good about ourselves for a minute. Done? Here's Billie Jean King, proving that a couple of Slazengers to the head can impair reasoning:

It means a lot to me and a lot to the players. We want to get closer and closer to equality across the board, in every area of life, so that we can walk side by side with men.

Maybe you could get the events to pay out equal money if you played the same game as the men, Billie, but as long as your sisters cling to the we're-too-dainty-to-play-five-sets status quo, you look like a mewling charity case. "Walk side by side with men"? Give me a day off, for christ's sake. You know, I'm an editor, and Joe Lelyveld is too. Maybe we should both put our salaries into a big pot and divvy up at the end of the year. Of course, I don't put in nearly the hours he does, but after all, fair's fair. I'll take it in cash, Joe.

A spokesman for the All England Club said: "Anything that brings any money into the game is to be welcomed."

Giving someone who just won half a million pounds (and a lot of endorsements) an extra 40 large qualifies as bringing money into the game?

Dandy Dean: Two things with Dean. Number 1: He's getting the press only because he raised more money than his competitors. That is briefly noteworthy, but hardly the lynchpin for an election 14 months away. Number 2: Since the internet fund-raising route (and "digital primaries") is new (hey, why didn't Al Gore, the inventor of the internet come up with this fund-raising twist?), I'm very interested to see how it pans out. Most significantly, I have my doubts that Dean will see dramatic repeat business via this medium. I imagine he got a surge from those most likely to contribute in that manner at the outset, and from here on in, he'll see dwindling returns. Of course, all this media hype might cause a surge, but I'm skeptical. I don't think Dean wins the election just because he was anti-war at the outset (unless, of course, our occupation of Iraq turns ugly in the next year - but even so, that would be as a result of the occupation, not the "war" itself - Dean wasn't anti-occupation nearly as much as he was anti-invasion). As Steyn notes, these guys are going to be trying to out-liberal eachother and see what that gets them.

Harumph: I bet Kinsley thinks he's just thought of something new.

More: Radley's feeling justifiably upstaged too.

N. Korea: If the administration's strategy toward N. Korea is accidentally working, then I, by pure chance, will support it. Actually, it's not so bi-polar, really. Even if it's not intentional, the effect of upping the pressure while keeping open the lines of communication isn't half-bad. This shows you're committed to change, but are willing to do it the easy way if the other side plays ball. Since our embargo isn't enough, I like the pro-active approach of strangling off the regime's illicit drug and weapons sales, even if it's only a minor thorn. That shows our conviction and hopefully will force Kim to slash his budgets on a few of his films.

Reasons to Read the British Press: Number one, the things they say that American papers don't. Here's Mark Steyn, in the Spectator, on Howard Dean's "Democratic wing of the Democratic party":

These are the people who are fed up being told by the slick consultants that they need to make themselves more indistinguishable from the Republicans, and then they wind up losing anyway, as they did in 2000 and 2002. At least when Bill Clinton sold out the Left on welfare and governed as an Eisenhower Republican, he was getting some terrific oral sex in return. The rest of the party feels it’s got nothing to show for pretending to be ‘centrist’, and the Howardly Lion is their hero.

Boom or Bust?: You're absolutely right with regard to what should be our objectives as to growth and employment. Most economists will tell you that unemployment around 5% is considered to be no unemployment as this percentage is really just people in flux between one job and the next, as opposed to being a laid-off steel worker who hasn't had work in 8 months. Moreover, sustained growth of 3% is usually what economists want to see. Too much growth doesn't allow for a solid super-structure to be developed around the scaffolding of boom-time development. As for the stock market, clearly the market is a better indicator of short-term trends than GDP, which is really a culmination of past events. But, it also is the land of speculators which can skew results. Nonetheless, three solid months of growth is encouraging, which means people (well, institutional investors) are taking money out of savings (well, short-term bonds) and going into the equity market. Maybe we're turning a corner?

Economy: If hog-wild spending is so important to recovery, why is "the deficit" all of a sudden such a big deal to Democrats? Tax cuts may not help, but tax hikes will surely hurt. I think the fact that we slipped into recession in the midst of an unprecedented state-by-state spending spree shows that spending isn't the cure. Besides, federal spending is still booming, particularly military spending, which is traditionally a job-creation machine. And, as I've argued before, the economy is recovering steadily. The Dow is up 20% from March, the NASDAQ nearly 25%. The real question is, do we believe that the kind of growth we had in the mid-late 90s is sustainable? What if 3.5% growth and 5% unemployment is, as it used to be considered, ducky? A tick or two down in the jobless rate, and a tick or two up in GDP -- all of a sudden we're in a decent economic situation. Sure, it's not 2% unemployment and 6% GDP growth, but look at the hangover we have from that anyway. The doom-mongers won't declare a recovery until corporations are knocking down doors looking for manpower, like 1997 all over again. But I'll take steady, healthy growth any day, thanks.

Useful Reading: Has the Korea crisis confused you? You're not alone. Lawrence Kaplan at the New Republic says the Bush administration has been unable to settle on a unified Foggy Bottom/Pentagon policy -- and has thus accidentally stumbled onto a surprisingly effective carrot-and-stick policy. I'm not inclined to agree entirely. Keeping open the option of talks is fine, but what is motivating North Korea is that the administration has, for the most part, yawned at the North's Rumplestiltskin tantrums. Yes, our policy is confused and confusing, but that's mostly Colin Powell's fault. (For example, we previously said we wouldn't tolerate nukes in the North; now State says our real concern is proliferation. Which is it?) If hawk line from Bolton at State and the Pentagon gives Pyongyang bursts of temper and threats, my guess is it's the policy to pursue. Frankly, what are they going to do? Kim could use a nuke on the way out. That would be tragic, and it would mean abandoning all hope of staying in power. He'd be toast about 30 seconds after the cloud appeared. Would he invade South? Again, it would be tragic . . . and tragically stupid. The only military options open to Kim are scorched-earth options. He may be nutty, but I think he likes being alive and ruling his country.

Okay maybe it is pretty bad: The Connie relates the plight of our states' budgets, with California being the worst among the lot. Tellingly, most states are planning to raise taxes to help fight the shortfalls - which will nicely counterbalance Bush's political sop to the electorate (again proving that the cut was meaningless). In short, you see the states going one way (raising taxes, cutting spending - floundering essentially) and the Feds going another (tax cuts, explosive spending - okay, also floundering) - anyone bothered by this picture?

Tell me this won't be his answer to everything: Unemployment is up to 6.4% (a nine-year high), in part due to a re-calculation by the government of those in the labor pool, but also in part because...uhh...there aren't as many jobs available. Most analysts are trying to stay positive, but one senses the wait-and-see mentality will soon devolve into a bunker mentality. When asked for comment:

President Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters the president is concerned with rise in unemployment but that he thought recently enacted tax cuts would help in the future. Fleischer said the numbers show a sign of slow recovery from a short shallow recession.

We had this discussion before about the tax cuts. I think my position was that if you must cut taxes (and I'm not saying one must), then really cut them. How can anyone believe that the extra $61 in my paycheck (or whatever it is) will help the economy "in the future"? If anything, people will save more money when times are tough, as opposed to blowing it on X-Boxes or cruises. As with all tax cuts, they come too late - they are political reactions that politicians use to say "Well, at least I did something." The point is that the President isn't to blame for the recession or the rebound. He's merely along for the ride like the rest of us. Nothing short of WWII-type spending could hope to actually pull the economy out of the doldrums - and hell's bells, this isn't much of a recession anyway. Hmm, did you hear that thunder clap?

EU: How the hell the Franks and Huns are ever going to deal with the US is a true mystery. They can't even deal with the Italians. First, the German should have known not to disparage Berlusconi. Like an Italian is not going to rise to the challenge? Second, Europe has to get over its collective snit that the pro-Bush PM of Italy is getting a spin in the EU power seat. Grow up. This is manufactured twaddle, meant to embarrass Berlusconi and punish Italy for supporting the Iraq war. (Note the mention, here, that Schulz "admitted he had set out to provoke Berlusconi.") As far the post-war "mending fences" goes, Old Europe still shows no signs of wanting to re-stoke their US relationship. For them, a thaw in relations necessarily means Colin Powell, hat in hand, showing up to admit that the Iraq invasion was wrong. The Bush administration is shrewd enough to know this, just as they know that, to Democrats, being "bipartisan" means capitulating to the left. You juat can't win with socialists.

If this is "union" I can't wait to see European discord.

Mein Gott!: Much ado about Italy's PM, in taking the EU reins, making an unflattering comparison of a German official to a concentration camp kapo. Like Berlusconi was elected for his strict adherence to ethical governance. I think it was brilliant. There's no better time to poke sharp sticks into the eyes of the Germans. Dare them to march on Rome. It's not like the guy has any credibility to lose - and you know his countrymen had a great chuckle.

Writing Off Republicans: I'm not sure what you're asking. Like I said, I'd give Bush another look if he did some short-top-and-sides work on spending, and I named some of the big offenders, both of commission (farm bill) and omission (social security). The fact that Bush has made some small environmental-policy changes is nice, but I'll admit that this is an issue where he can't really win or lose my vote. Environmental policy is gravy, to be addressed, ideally, after you've figured out how to stop taxing people for short-sighted, poorly managed, and often counterproductive federal programs.

I think I've mentioned before, though, that I can afford to be extremely critical of Bush. With or without my vote, Massachusetts will drop into the (R) column in 2004 about the time that Boston gets a July 4th snow. In a way, I'm one of the lucky ones; I get a cost-free license to vote my conscience, make a protest vote, or simply not vote. My actions don't improve the chances that a Democrat or a Republican will be elected to the presidency, since Massachusetts is a Democrat gimme except in the worst of circumstances (say, Reagan vs. Mondale). That might go some distance to explaining my attitude toward Bush. For me there is no lesser-of-two evils moment, since my state is, essentially, not in play. Thus, the only things that could bring me to vote for Bush are, first, a big turnaround on the size and scope of the government (I'll excuse some pro-lifing and pandering to the Jesus lobby during the election, since it's like complimenting a hostess on her dress -- required, even if her dress is unspeakably ugly); second, as a statement. A statement of what? I dunno. If the election had been in the November immediately following the big September 11th ruckus, I would have voted for Bush -- solidarity, a message to the world, don't change horses, etc. I honestly don't know if there is a message worth sending in '04.

Governor Riley is getting worse: I blogged on this a month or two ago (link unavailable) when Alabama gov Bob Riley first proposed a major tax hike to balance the state budget (as if it would work). Well, papa's got a brand new bag. It seems economic policy doesn't sell itself without some good old fashioned religious rhetoric.

"Alabamians are a faithful people who believe that creating a better world for our children and helping our neighbors are both sacred duties," Riley wrote in explaining his tax plan.

Alina views this as Christian overreach in mixing church and state, a la Muslims. Also a pretty good vote grabber when so much of your souther populace is Christian. But I bet this is all about trying to get out of the economic hole his overspending ass dug for him and that he'd use any religion that he thinks could fly if it would help him raise taxes. It's just more "for the children" rhetoric, subsitituting the word poor for children. It could be schools, libraries, or puppies, anything to give Riley an out from the mess that's been made.

Easy turbo: I'm in no way defending Bush's domestic policy, or saying he's done nothing wrong. You had said,

If Bush can swing Social Security reform, I might give him a look -- but so far he's given me nothing but soft soap tax cuts (ahem, maybe some tax reform, please?) and Democrat-lite rhetoric.

I was merely trying to see if fighting the environmental left (just as important a domestic issue as any, for my money) with an aggressive policy that banished their junk science from the debate, would allow you to consider voting Republican, as you say you might if Bush pulled off major SS reform. To me, the environment is an issue there can be a major victory on; there have already been some minor ones, as you note.

I've recently put a lot of study into the education issue, and am a major advocate for privatized education. I also recently risked life and grade by challenging the dean of my business school (a Nucor Steel board member) on the issue of steel subsidies. I agree that Bush not only dropped the ball on both issues, but probably put the education and free trade movements back a step. It was also his administration's sell out brief to the Supreme Court in the Grutter case that has gotten us an endorsement of discrimination. And, war supporter or not, there are legitimate questions about his foreign policy/diplomacy tactics. I know that when the election comes around we'll have the age old "lesser of two evils/wasted vote" debate, so I'm trying to find out what policies Bush could engage that (being a weak-tea conservative at best) he might actually put on the table. Or have you written him off altogether?

Bush: No, Dr. Flyer, I'm afraid you misunderstand me. It is precisely when Bush turns his attention to domestic policy that we see his true brand of conservatism. Protectionism? By golly, he's for it on steel, lumber, and -- if Kerry gets the nomination -- probably airplanes too. Controlling the spiralling cost of education? Goddamn, man, he sung the duet with Teddy Kennedy on that gross bit of spending. (By the by, if anyone out there still hasn't gotten the hint that money doesn't make good schools, send your kids to the D.C. public schools -- the country's highest per pupil spending -- for just one year. God save you.) The farm bill, the biggest welfare racket in the budget? Bush not only didn't put up a fight, he barely even mentioned it.

No, Bush has done a great deal wrong, and it's clear that he's done it all for the short term political gain. You can spot a jerk-off politician pretty quickly when they go to Iowa and praise ethanol and corn subsidies. Ethanol is about the dumbest, most environmentally unfriendly fuel you could find. (Sure it's renewable, but it takes more energy to make a liter of ethanol than that liter can produce in combustion. A six-year-old can get that equation.) Bush's domestic policy has been pretty much to go to Iowa on almost every issue.

As for the environment, this might be the one area where Bush has actually made some progress. He's succeeded in taking off some of the regulatory heat that kept polluters from modernizing and cleaning up. Smart move, getting the market to work for you. This could apply to farm policy and education policy too. But Bush knows that. He ran on those issues. Did you read Kevin Hassett's article in National Review this week on spending increases in Bush's first 3 years? Scary.

Junk science: Iain Murray (in two articles today - The Washington Times and Tech Central Station) takes on the hype over the Bush administrations "censorship" of documents relating to climate change. Murray points out that the documents had been discredited and the removal of them was necessary to maintain scientific integrity. What's interesting is the administrations weak tea approach to fighting environemtnal extremists. Maybe this is another example of Ponnuru's shift to the left, particluarly as campaign season comes into view. But a principled stand on environemtal honesty would go a long way towards securing the Republican base and attracting those young, hip libertarians (like Eno, if we define hip loosely enough). If I understand you your disappointment with Bush is not so much that he's done very much wrong, but that he 's done very little right. Democrat-lite, as you say. Would an issue like the environement be enough to make you support a Republican, if they took an aggressive posture?

1972: It is 1972 again in that the string of presidential candidates mostly generate a huge yawn (McGovern only seemed popular next to the horrow shows standing beside him). Similar to W, as well, is that Nixon had a dedicated team of fundraisers who will likely out-do their competitors (well, by definition the standing president will almost always clobber his competition because he doesn't have that pesky primary to concern himself with). Anyway, the key differences with 1972, which bodes ill for the Dems, is that in 1972, Nixon had this little thing called Vietnam hanging around his neck, while W is still riding high on 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq (although his father's debacle can't be too far in the back of his mind). Still, it's hard not to foresee a landslide, isn't it?

Punt: Someone more cynical than I might say that Bush is the epitome of the watered down mess that the GOP has become (hardly the NeoCon poster boy many hoped for). Sop to religious right, sop to the defense industry, sop to big business - buuuuut - expand the federal workforce, punt on a host of domestic issues by giving into half-assed compromises, and alienate our former allies without a plan to really replace them (unless you find an Albania for Germany trade appetizing). Reagan and Bush always thought globally. Bush seems only to think locally (not domestically, mind you), while as the leader of the last superpower, every sneeze he has causes ripples in foreign currency markets. For all of his assembled brainpower, his administration is either too busy with the Middle East or simply too arrogant to care.

More GOP: I've meant to add something in here about Howard Dean, whose big showing in the (mostly meaningless, but buzz creating) on-line straw poll and big-time fundraising skills have catapulted him into the first tier of Dems. Dean really unnerves me, partly because, to indulge in oxymoron, he's so frankly dishonest. He can retail spin in a Clintonian way, which is why he doesn't get called out nearly as much as John Kerry (who?) for his bullshit.

Something else unnerved me, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Luckily, Ramesh Ponnuru did:

[Republicans] are happy about every sign that the Democratic party is lurching leftward, since they think a left turn would create the possibility for a Republican landslide. It will be 1972 all over again ... I write here to suggest that those Republicans who are conservatives ought not to be so cheery about what's going on. Conservative and Republican interests converge quite frequently, but not entirely. The resurgence of the Democratic Left is one of the places where they don't. It is something that would indeed help the Republican party, but not the conservative cause.

One of the reasons that parties benefit when the other party becomes extreme is that it allows it to hug the center. But if Republicans are moving to the center and Democrats to the left, that means both parties are moving leftward-that the center of gravity of American politics is moving leftward. Isn't that, too, part of the story of 1972?

It is, after all. I remember debating a Republican in college, a real party guy who liked the shock value of sticking up for Nixon. (This was a bit before Nixon became an "elder statesman" and was still just a discraced former president.) But Nixon, I said, was a liberal. I get the same liberal feeling from Bush. I'm rather fearful of a duplicitous lefty like Dean in power, but if Bush will only offer a slightly reduced-fat version of the Dem platform, what's the difference, really?

I've never voted for the Republican, and it looks like 2004 won't threaten that streak. If Bush can swing Social Security reform, I might give him a look -- but so far he's given me nothing but soft soap tax cuts (ahem, maybe some tax reform, please?) and Democrat-lite rhetoric.

Next?

Hypocrite? Having slagged Dutch so heavily, what do I do? Read Peg Noonan's When Character Was King. She's not exactly an unbiased source, is she? Nevertheless, she was there as the history was made, which counts for something. She's not exactly a movement conservative, either; I've always seen her as a archtypical Reagan Democrat -- Irish Catholic, working class, New Yorker. And she draws some interesting parallels to Dubya. It's well known that Young Bush admires Reagan greatly, but Bush lacks the commitment to principle that Reagan had. Reagan thought he was right, and he dragged the country -- sometimes kicking and screaming -- along with him. Bush plays toward the center a lot more. He's an odd hybrid: the tough talk and cowboy persona of Reagan, but wedded to the big-government Republicanism of his father.

Reagan was always thought of as the consummation of the Goldwater movement -- even the elder Bush called supply-side economics "voodoo." The idea was that Reagan had profoundly changed the GOP, but I think we're seeing that to be false. Dubya has no real calling to get government out of our life. In fact, his philosophy seems to be, basically, that he doesn't mind seeing the government grow, as long as the economy grows fast enough to pay for it with lower taxes. A good example is the latest Medicare change, giving the geezers a pharmaceutical handout. Why not means test? This will be the last time we can means test, after all, since the "greatest" generation would at least bow to the idea of not sacrificing the income of its grandchildren to give rich pensioners drug coverage. (The baby boomers, in general, will shiv their grandchildren for free Viagra in a New York minute.) Bush seems happy to go along with a new entitlement, explicitly without the reforms to Medicare that he indicated would drive his participation on this issue. Not particularly Reaganesque.

More: Robert Samuelson, an honest smart boomer, backs me up:

We baby boomers (I am 57) are involved -- through our silence, selfishness or ignorance -- in a conspiracy against our children. The right way to do a drug benefit would have been to use it as a lever to force a broader review of retirement policies: drug coverage in exchange for long-overdue revisions of Social Security and Medicare (gradual increases in eligibility ages, trimmed benefits for wealthier retirees). By this bargain, the burden on our children of rising retirement costs might have been tempered, though not reduced.

Sports Blogging: Have you seen the BBC's Wimbledon match play coverage on the web? It's done just the way a blog is, with updates dropping in at the top of a column. I'm following Henman/Grosjean right now. It's supposed to auto-refresh, but it's spotty -- and the time between updates can really vary. But it's a nice window into something I'm missing otherwise.

Ouch: My brain hurts! Antidote! Antidote! Ahhhhhh.

Mission Improbable: RE-EDITED: Without any intentional mocking, I'll throw my hat in the ring. First of all, I don't know that it is really possible to compare team sports with individual sports. An individual only has to worry about herself. She travels, trains and plays. If she's really good, she wins, takes home prize money and rings up some endorsements. If healthy, the superior player should win a goodly percentage of her matches. Compare to a team sport like the NFL. Somewhere upwards of 50 players. Add to that two dozen coaches and trainers. Add to that laundry, supplies, medical staff, accountants, executives, lawyers, physical plant and/or stadiums. Throw in some marketing, ticket sales, and premises liability. A pinch of salary cap and free agency, and just a smidgen of rules and regulations. Stir together over low heat, and just to make matters more fun, a tax dispute with the city in which you play. Your roster isn't set from game-to-game, much less year-to-year. It has also been shown, consistently, that the "dream team," one with a collection of the best individual athletes has no guarantee of winning the championship (see our Olympic effort with basketball a couple of years ago). So, it may be difficult to compare, say golf to hockey.

Now, take team sports. Look at hockey and baseball vs. football and basketball. One set has a purposeful salary cap designed to level the playing field to a certain extent, and allow smaller markets the illusion of equality. The other set (for the moment) has no real limit on spending. Again, money does not always equal winning, but it sure don't hurt (viz. Yankees). So, it's hard to compare those two sets because the money factor really skews the charts.

So, then, for the sake of an example, let's compare basketball with football (assuming you're still buying into my argument, and to make it as simple as possible); and remembering your question was whether it was "harder" to win in one sport versus another. Let's look at the last ten years in basketball (chart below goes: Year/Winner/Loser/Games/Series MVP).

2002-03 San Antonio Spurs New Jersey Nets 4-2 Tim Duncan, San Antonio
2001-02 Los Angeles Lakers New Jersey Nets 4-0 Shaquille O'Neal, L.A..
2000-01 Los Angeles Lakers Philadelphia 76ers 4-1 Shaquille O'Neal, L.A..
1999-00 Los Angeles Lakers Indiana Pacers 4-2 Shaquille O'Neal, L.A..
1998-99 San Antonio Spurs New York Knicks 4-1 Tim Duncan, S.A.
1997-98 Chicago Bulls Utah Jazz 4-2 Michael Jordan, Chi.
1996-97 Chicago Bulls Utah Jazz 4-2 Michael Jordan, Chi.
1995-96 Chicago Bulls Seattle SuperSonics 4-2 Michael Jordan, Chi.
1994-95 Houston Rockets Orlando Magic 4-0 Hakeem Olajuwon, Hou.
1993-94 Houston Rockets New York Knicks 4-3 Hakeem Olajuwon, Hou.
1992-93 Chicago Bulls Phoenix Suns 4-2 Michael Jordan, Chi.

What do these games have in common? In most years ('94, '98 and '01 being the exceptions), one of the two finals teams had the best player in the league playing (remember, Hakeem won when MJ was pursuing baseball). Below is each season's MVP:

1992-93 - Charles Barkley, Phoenix
1993-94 - Hakeem Olajuwon, Houston
1994-95 - David Robinson, San Antonio
1995-96 - Michael Jordan, Chicago
1996-97 - Karl Malone, Utah
1997-98 - Michael Jordan, Chicago
1998-99 - Karl Malone, Utah
1999-00 - Shaquille O'Neal, Los Angeles Lakers
2000-01 - Allen Iverson, Philadelphia
2001-02 - Tim Duncan, San Antonio
2002-03 - Tim Duncan, San Antonio

This trend makes more sense because basketball goes 5 on 5 (okay, with subs, it's more like 9 on 9), and now more than ever, the game is about individual players. Therefore one player can have a much greater impact on a basketball team than on a football team. So, that wouldn't necessarily work in football, right? Here's football champions over time (year/winning team/regular season record/losing team/record/Superbowl score):

1990 New York Giants 13-3-0 Buffalo Bills 13-3-0 20-19
1991 Washington Redskins 14-2-0 Buffalo Bills 13-3-0 37-24
1992 Dallas Cowboys 13-3-0 Buffalo Bills 11-5-0 52-17
1993 Dallas Cowboys 12-4-0 Buffalo Bills 12-4-0 30-13
1994 San Francisco '49ers 13-3-0 San Diego Chargers 11-5-0 49-26
1995 Dallas Cowboys 12-4-0 Pittsburgh Steelers 11-5-0 27-17
1996 Green Bay Packers 13-3-0 New England Patriots 11-5-0 35-21
1997 Denver Broncos 12-4-0 Green Bay Packers 13-3-0 31-24
1998 Denver Broncos 14-2-0 Atlanta Falcons 14-2-0 34-19
1999 St. Louis Rams 13-3-0 Tennessee Titans 13-3-0 23-16
2000 Baltimore Ravens 15-5-0 New York Giants 14-5-0 34-7

And MVP's:

2000 -- Marshall Faulk, St. Louis
1999 -- Kurt Warner, St. Louis
1998 -- Terrell Davis, Denver
1997 -- Brett Favre, Green Bay and Barry Sanders, Detroit
1996 -- Brett Favre, Green Bay
1995 -- Brett Favre, Green Bay
1994 -- Steve Young, San Francisco
1993 -- Emmitt Smith, Dallas
1992 -- Steve Young, San Francisco
1991 -- Thurman Thomas, Buffalo
1990 -- Joe Montana, San Francisco

Strangely enough, the trend holds pretty much as well for football too. Get the superstar, get the ring (or at least get to the finals). But is it harder to do it in the NFL?

It appears not, when comparing apples to apples (admittedly one is Red Delicious, the other a McIntosh). When playing under the same rule structure, it's all about managing that structure in a way to get the best possible player, and surround him with a competent supporting cast (clearly, Montana and Young needed Rice and Craig; Shaquille needed Kobe -- the point being really good supporting players make the superstar all the more brilliant), all the while dealing with injuries, egos, coaches, t.v. revenue, and league rules. Admittedly, the above example is really only anecdotal evidence of how to do it. Flyer's question wanted to go across the board with sports and figure it out.

One way to look at it might be to look at these artifical constraints then. Individual sports would seem the easiest for a dominant player to achieve greatness. Those sports are then followed by team sports without cap rules, followed by those team sports with salary caps. Now, someone go out and get the empirical evidence.

You mock what you do not understand: I'm willing to concede some of what you say, but it doesn't really address what I'm looking for. I don't care if football is a harder sport than baseball, and, obviously, the actual game of tennis is more physically demanding than golf. What I'm curious about is whether it's harder for a given athlete or team, within their own sport, to rise to a level of dominance signified by winning the ultimate championship, or even sustaining excellence over a period of time. Is it harder for the best golfer to rise to the top than the best tennis player? Is the sheer physical demand of "putting the shot" greater than the dexterity and touch needed to....uh....whatever the hell you do to the tiddlywink.

As to the stupidity of le Tour, that's just your silly bias. All sports are games, which are childish and unproductive wastes of time (unless there's a fat Nike contract in there somewhere, in which case it's commerce, a noble endeavour indeed). The only thing that distinguishes tennis from badminton is the length of the grass and the amount of perspiration (in fact, these people are pretty serious about their shuttlecocks).

Clearly I'm trying to compare apples and oranges (or pigskins and horsehides), but if you could find the right factors and standardize them for each sport, you could derive a relative difficulty for any achievement. Or, I could just say fuck it. And watch some NASCAR.

Impossible: Somebody's been reading a little too much ESPN The Magazine. Write to Allen Barra c/o the Wall Street Journal. Razor and I went a couple rounds over his seeming belief that the numbers tell all. (I defended him, half-heartedly, because he says some interesting stuff, but he's eternally wrong.) He'd love your idea. Anyhow, here are some answers for you:

Comparing Wimbledon to the Masters is like comparing the shotput to tiddlywinks.

The Super Bowl is more difficult to win than the World Series; in the latter, the only fat piece of meat likely to hit you is Roger Clemens, if he's sober enough to see you.

The Tour de France is the dumbest sporting event ever conceived. Imagine riding your bike across the French countryside, an idiot trustifarian sort of accomplishment at best, without stopping to swill some vin ordinaire, eat some cheese that smells like your biking shoes, and take a twirl with the comely lasses of the villes (suggested courting gifts: perfume, economy size, and a twin-blade Bic).

Impossible?: So my thoughts last night about Lance Armstrong got me thinking. Could you design a formula of sorts that would accurately compare the difficulty of winning the defining championship of any sport. Is the Super Bowl more difficult to win than the World Series? Is Wimbledon a greater feat than the Masters? How can individual achievements, like the Tour de France, be compared to a team event? Is it possible? Somehow, I think it is. Is it important? Of course not. But what factors would need to be included in the analysis? Physical demand, mental toughness, length of season, likelihood of injury, strenth of competition. Do dynasties in a given sport make the case that it's easier to win or harder? All questions puzzling me this evening. I'd like to know if anyone has attempted this feat. Let you know if I find anything.

Draw the line: I don't know if I lose my Libertarian Kidz Kamp decoder ring for saying that things may be going too far here, but I don't ever want to see a pregnant man. I mean it. It wasn't funny when Arnold did it, and it won't be funny if it ever happens for real. The only upside would be a major throwdown between Sullivan and Kurtz that would make the gay marriage debate look like ordering chinese food.

As for womb transplants to women, I can see all kinds of problems. The parallells with in vitro fertilization and surrogate mothers come up quickly. Probably other issues as well, but I'll have to think about it. But men getting preggers is too much to deal with.

Let the gratutitous insults begin: From Radley. Bloggers not liable for libel. Unleash the hounds!

Is there anybody out there?: We at FauxPolitik don't employ fancy, hi-tech traffic meters, nor do we develop hi-res graphics that flash and bounce around? Why? Because the money we save not doing those things is passed along to you the reader. But, the question remains, who is our reader? We are not asking for money. What we are asking is that you take 1-3 minutes to click on the "Contact" link to the right of our postings. Just send an email telling us that you read FauxPolitik, how often (whether it's every day or never again), and how you found us. This is an informal poll, but even if we only get 1% of our vast, vast audience to write, we can make sure that our marketing research is on point. More importantly, your input will help us decide whether to take this thing "to the next level" where we provide true archiving ability, message boards, and spiffy graphics. It's in the budget, although Flyer may object to our replacing his company Audi with the '87 K car. Anyway, witty writers get customized shout-outs from Enobarbus, replete with obscure references, as is his wont. You too can make a difference.

Hong Kong: Hundreds of thousands of protesters take to the streets over the Beijing's first real push to curb HK's special status:

"Return rule to the people," they chanted as the rally began to denounce the bill which critics say will impose Beijing-style control over free speech and the media.

As Bill Clinton was famous for saying, "Go, baby!"

Under the legislation, people can be jailed for life if convicted of subversion, treason or secession from China. It also allows gives police sweeping search powers without court orders.

But the government's much-criticized handling of the bill and many other issues may have set the stage for a bigger battle.

I hope so. I wouldn't want to be the apparatchik tasked with doing a Tienanman in Hong Kong. Those folks are rough-and-tumble capitalists of the first order. It's too bad we're not anymore; we should be sending them our support instead of thinking of their oppressors as 1 billion customers. What the hell do the Chinese buy from us anyway that makes it so important for us to stroke them? (That is, other than fast food franchises . . . )

Legal Musings, Again: Looking again at some of the rulings from the Supremes recently, I'm puzzled by the right-wing arguments. I would expect someone of a conservative temper to set a fairly high bar for the state to have to leap in order to meddle anywhere in personal liberty. Yet Scalia's argument, in the Lawrence case, implies that it is up to the people to craft an argument to keep the state out of, say, the bedroom. Now it may be a tenet of "strict constructionism" not to recognize unenumerated rights (though, as I said, the 9th Amendment explicitly bursts that balloon). But as long as one is psychologizing for "founders' intents" and such intangibles, isn't it fairly obvious to see that the spirit of the Constitution is that individual freedom is paramount? Certainly it's worth noting that there is no explicit right to privacy in the Bill of Rights. But there's no explicit right to breathe air, either. We have to extrapolate that from the general principle of liberty. Sexuality, in which the strands of procreation and pleasure cannot be truly teased apart, functions along biological lines, like the drawing of breath.

I suppose the Massachusetts SJC case on gay marriage could technically go to the Supreme Court, at which point we'll see if Scalia puts his money where his mouth is. If a state can legislate against something on community moral grounds, according to Scalia, it should be a slam dunk that they might legislate for something. As far as "protecting the institution of marriage" argument goes, I don't remember anything in the Constitution about the right to have your institutions protected.

Napster, Aimster, Posnerster: Aimster, one of the many Napster derivatives, has been shut down, temporarily, in a lawsuit by the RIAA for being a "substantial contributor" to the copyright infringement its users commit daily. Judge Posner, writing for the Seventh Circuit, does his usual turn with an opinion by giving us history, philosphy as well as law. The issue is whether Aimster, by virtue of its providing the technology, can be tagged as a contributor to the delinquency of its users as they degrade the copyright status of the songs traded back and forth.

Judge Posner, gives considerable attention to the old Sony case which involved the Betamax as tool of the consumer who wanted to tape t.v. shows and remove their commercials. The Court refused to shut down Sony from distributing the machines, because there was evidence of non-infringing use, which defeats the contributor status. However, in the Aimster case

[i]t is not enough, as we have said, that a product or service be physically capable, as it were, of a noninfringing use. Aimster has failed to produce any evidence that its service has ever been used for a noninfringing use, let alone evidence concerning the frequency of such uses. In the words of the district judge, “defendants here have provided no evidence whatsoever (besides the unsupported declaration of Deep) that Aimster is actually used for any of the stated non-infringing purposes. Absent is any indication from real-life Aimster users that their primary use of the system is to transfer non-copyrighted files to their friends or identify users of similar interests and share information. Absent is any indication that even a single business without a network administrator uses Aimster to exchange business records as Deep suggests.”

So, on the one hand, too bad for Aimster. On the other, it's going to be easy to come up with such evidence. The opinion only stems from an appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction. The trial must still occur.

Nothing immaculate about that reception: Easterbrook writes the article that was long overdue. His point? God can't possibly care who wins a football (or baseball, or soccer or cricket, or ...) game. It's simply inconceivable. Athletes need to get over themselves and leave their religion inside their homes and churches. Gregg does it so much better than I, so I'll simply let you read the link.

Humor: The Weekly Standard makes sport of their own Neocon reputation. It's funnier than you'd expect.

Sportsmanship: A noteworthy point in Grosjean's defeat of Ferrero:

There was a moment of sportsmanship that arguably could have cost Grosjean another break in the ninth game but saved the umpire a potential flashpoint with the [Ferrero].

The umpire awarded [Grosjean] the point at 0-15 but Grosjean would not accept the point because the ball had clearly double-bounced - Ferrero went on to hold for 5-4.

It's an atrociously written article, but I'll give the BBC the courtesy of not revising it any further since you get the idea what happened.

K-Hep: Funny, the first time I saw "Bringing Up Baby" I thought it was the funniest movie I'd seen. Repeated viewings dampen that enthusiasm somewhat, but I still think it more than holds its own. "African Queen" was perhaps her best role, although the character was one she had done before. Hepburn was type-cast in a good way, and perhaps there was no other choice given her personality and ahhh, lifestyle. I'm swell on Audrey as well ("Weekend at Tiffany's" being one of the very few movies I've ever bought), but one cannot compare apples and oranges.

Henman's Hopes: It's good to dream of a British champion, but I'm afraid that Pat Cash is as close as they're ever going to come. Poor Hennie. He really is, as you noted, a good serve-and-volley player, with some flair. But, he's destined to be a player like Todd Martin, Malavai Washington, or Michael Chang (throw out his 1989 French Open victory as a fluke - at Roland Garros, anything can happen) - guys who are consistently upper-echelon players, who show promise and flashes of brilliance, but fold when push comes to shove. You heard it here. It's not just pure playing ability - they all have that (and there's not the huge separation in talent like in the womens' game) - it's more about the mental process, and Henman, only does well at Wimby, and only because he rides the crest of crowd support (rather than crumbling under it). He doesn't have the extra edge needed to get over the hump. I think he's the Hugh Grant of professional tennis - good looking, amusing, has the ability to occasionally thrill, but on the whole, lacks the drive to be truly and consistently brilliant.

The Girls: As long as you take them seriously, that's alright mama. Bangs was a frustrated musician. I, on the other hand, am simply a man writing the pure truth.

Bangles: I never know when to take you seriously. And Lester Bangs just rolled in his grave.

The Bangles: Where does one begin? The media and the public at large often forget (or they never knew) that The Bangles were formed in 1981! This was a bleeding edge, trailblazing group of young women, who played their own instruments, and wrote many of their own songs. People scoff at their punk-lite beginnings which morphed into a lite rock, Top 40 sound, and dismiss them as the Go-Go's lesser cousins (despite their tenure in the industry). In truth, The Bangles were the most innovative all female band ever. Their demise at their peak came from two main sources: management and Hoffs. The problem is that they (management and Hoffs) both wanted the band to be nothing more than a Hoffs vehicle (she the sultry gamine who purred every song like a cat lying in a sunbeam), with her bandmates playing the competent, but anonymous, step-sisters. Hoffs, unfortunately, overplayed her hand - going solo, trying to land starring acting roles - and found that indeed, she was no more than a part of a greater whole. Susanna, Debbi, Vikki and Michael (as idiosyncratic as her name) were each integral to their stunning success.

Which brings us to "Doll Revolution" (also the title track and a cover of Elvis Costello's tune). This is the perfect Bangles album. It expresses what they were all about before stardom (specifically Hoffs') took them off course. The Costello cover sums up the album as a whole - it's really an homage to their musical roots, which drew strongly from Brit-Pop and the Mersey Beat. Tell me you don't hear the Beatles, the Stones, the Mamas and the Papas in such songs as "Stealing Rosemary", "Ride the Ride" and "Lost at Sea". Ignore the single now getting play ("Something That You Said"), and focus on the remaining tracks. A true poppy gem is found in "Mixed Messages". This is true, honest music craftsmanship. The Bangles are dead. Long live The Bangles.

Wimbledon, Cont.: Your point is well taken, and I agree with the spirit of it, if not the letter. Here's my objection: Henman, despite his reputation for never making it to the dance, is a fine grass-court serve-and-volley player. He doesn't have the chops, or honestly the physique, to take that game to the hard courts, the way Rafter did -- but Rafter's body gave out because of it. Anyway, Henman sent sixth seed Nalbandian to the showers yesterday, and Nalbandian was a finalist last year. Henman will have to face Ferrero or Grosjean next, both fine players but not grass-court specialists. If he passes that round, he'll face an unseeded player in the semis, Popp or Philippoussis. Meanwhile, money-man Roddick had to dig deep to get past Srichiphan, and will likely face the fourth seed, Roger Federer, in the semis.

If I were a Brit, I think I'd have my hopes up, unwise as that may seem.

Wimby Update: Whilst away at my undisclosed location (getting Hamas to agree to the three-month ceasefire isn't leisurely work - nor was finding the original KISS pinball machine for their meeting room that they demanded), I had the occasion to observe a few matches, with the Agassi-Phillapoussis match being the most recent. By the way, that whole thing with Rusedski. The funny part is that he's really Canadian, but because his mom was from the U.K. he was granted citizenship - all in the hopes that it would help with his seeding and crowd support at the tournament. Well, mission accomplished mate. Now, about the actual playing....

Anyhoo, once Agassi got broke in the 5th, you knew it was over. And, not to take away from the Aussie's serve, but a record-tying 46 aces, plus a large number of service winners, against the supposed best return man alive. Hmm, do you sense a shift in Agassi's career? Yes, he's number 1, but Sampras was number 1 well after he stopped winning the biggies. Yes, there's nothing you can do if you can't see the ball, much less hit it, but Phil (I'm not going to keep spelling it) is held together with gum and duct tape. Give him his 46 points for free, add in about 35 unforced errors, and he really shouldn't be gaining that large of an advantage. You're telling me Agassi shouldn't have had him running back and forth, in and out, all day long until his knee gave out? I wonder if Andre still has it.

Roddick has to be the odds-on favorite, but Eno's earlier post holds sway. He simply is a baseline banger. Net play doesn't garner much media attention these days. Was there ever a quieter champion than ol' Patrick Rafter? No one else uses the volley today. It's simply not done. Much like the way of the jump-shot and team offense in the NBA was wholly supplanted with the isolation moves and the slam-dunk, it's better for t.v. to hit the cracking serve and the huge inside-out forehand. Henman should bow out in the quarters, and I'd be surprised if any of the remaining eastern eruos can knock out A-Rod. We'll see.

Here's an Idea: Let's let the UN administer post-war Iraq. It could be just like Afghanistan!

"The world had promised us so much and yet . . ." [an Afghani policeman] said, trailing off, as a black Land Cruiser blew by. "N.G.O.," he said, as if it were a dirty word. He complained that millions of dollars in aid money had gone to nongovernmental organizations and United Nations agencies that spent it on fancy cars and fancy offices, a belief that I found was common in Kabul. "What have they done for us?" he said. "I have yet to see them put two bricks together."

Of course not. They don't do any actual work until you have completed the required 30 credits in post-colonial studies, at which point you will be able to accurately pinpoint America as the source of all your problems. Once you're there, who needs rebuilding? It's pointless in a world where the U.S. is the unilateral hegemon terrorist hyperpower.

Back to Politics: I can't resist. All Things Distorted last night did it to me. Without a hint of reality, NPR aired clips of famous southpaws on the Cuba crackdown of a few months ago. Big Idea: That leftists are reconsidering Cuba. (Translation: Maybe these amoral domestic totalitarian cheerleaders can see past their ideological blinders and realize that Castro treats his people like animals.) The lefties said: Nope. I don't have a link to the audio, but it's on NPR's site. (Update: Here's the link, courtesy of Radley.) Anyhow, the appalling Howard Zinn said (in effect) that we in America can't criticize Castro for executing the men who hijacked a ferry (as a means to escape oppression) because "nobody loves the death penalty as much as America." Howie didn't mention exactly how frequently we in America execute people for trying to leave the country. He also didn't mention exactly how many dissidents are languishing in jail here (no fair counting the Mumia-type heroes who "dissent" from "Amerika's" evil racist policies by killing people). Notice, though, that Howie and his buddy Noam are free to travel, speak, and basically live unharrassed. And, outside a little yelling and boycotting (two things southpaws are traditionally in favor of), nobody seriously proposed punishing the Dixie Chicks for their political comments, unless liposuction for the fat one counts.

Between Limbaugh on one side and NPR on the other, can I get some decent radio for god's sake? It's all benn downhill since they canned the Greaseman.

On that note: As someone who occasionally tries to read a bike as fast as possible for dozens of minutes at a time, I have to say that what Lance Armstrong has accomplished over the last four years is astounding. I'm not sure I can compare it to anything else in sports history (horseracing's triple crown, maybe?). He enters this year's Tour de France seeking his fifth title in a row. There is no more difficult event to win year after year, certainly not an individual sport. His cancer story has been well publicized, but it's compelling at all times. The fact that bike racing is one of the most unwatchable sports imaginable shouldn't detract from the excitement of the event. Oddly, many of my more serious riding friends don't care for Lance. Maybe every story gets old and every champion needs to be dethroned. But I'll be pulling for Armstrong.

If I don't slow down I'm gonna crash: Hallelujah, I'm finally posting (from home!) at high speed. Yes, the move is completed and all is well. The system is set up and I can now post at all times of day and night. Upside: I'll be able to scour the news and the blogs at all hours in order to make comments in a more timely fashion. So no more posting about topics that are so three hours ago (or at least I can't blame anyone else for my slackness). Downside: Razor, that means way more posting about golf. Sorry.

Anyway, major thanks to the roommate for splitting whatever needed to be split and networking our small world so I can have my own set up. Paid for in beer.