An ounce of prevention...: The debate over whether we could have prevented 9/11 is I suppose necessary and may prove useful, but at the moment it just seems like a forum for the politicians and book-sellers to get in the limelight. Clarke would have been more interesting to hear if he sad all this right away rather than when he's selling his book. Let's face it, most of America had no idea who he was until "60 Minutes". The fact is that the intelligence agencies had no shortage of information on a variety of proposed attacks on our country. I bet you they heard "chatter" on using a giant (ACME) slingshot to fling giant balloons of paint at the White House. Anyway, you can only move on what you believe is an imminent or highly likely threat.

Speaking of which, imagine if Bush had authorized the bombing of Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Even if you buy into Kerrey's argument about not needing Congressional approval, there is little question that Bush would have been lynched for it. What is most interesting about 9/11 from a looking-back view point is how much we have changed.

I was watching a re-run of "Executive Decision" which is a decent action flick starring, among others, Kurt Russell, Steven Segal (blessedly, briefly), Halle Berre, John Leguizamo, and Oliver Platt. The premise is that a bunch of militant A-rabs have taken over a jumbo jet and have a bomb. Either they get to land in D.C. or they blow up the plane (this is what I remember anyway).

The director shows several shots of the White House biting its nails on how to deal with the problem. The most obvious is of course to slide a stealth fighter up underneat the plane, then telescope this collapsible tube up to a conveniently-placed hatch, which allows the special ops soldiers and technicians to climb up into the plane (all at 30,000 feet mind you), but sadly, Segal gets literally blown away as the punk Air Force pilot can't keep the plane steady. Anyway, if these boys can't do the job, then the only remaining option is to have the F-14s shoot the plane down before it gets over land. One of the top admin guys says something like: "400 American lives. If we shoot them down, we'll be slaughtered in the election." It struck me how odd that sounded to me.

Nowadays, the fighter jets wouldn't even have the opportunity to bring down the air liner as you'd have a mob on the plane fighting the terrorists hand-to-hand. If by chance they couldn't get control, you can be sure they'd bring the plane down in the ocean. Moreover, I don't think any President or his staff would quibble for too long over the political expediency of bringing down the plane - the order would be issued and that would be that.

This is what 9/11 has done to my, and I expect many others', mind-sets - we're hardened now to the reality that we need to fight, and that the cost may be great, but the cost of not fighting is greater.

Why Condi Rice Isn't Testifying: I don't begrudge Bush his separation-of-powers argument. He's asked Rice to give testimony privately, as he will later do himself. Good enough for me. It's worth remembering that a lot of the people carping about this were happy enough to roll over like two-dollar whores when Bill Clinton announced that everyone including Buddy and Socks all of a sudden had executive privilege. It was a much flimsier case, but the Democrats, nearly without exception, swallowed it without a chaser.

Richard Clarke: After listening to some of his testimony, and reading some of the heavy breathing in the opinion pages, I'm ambivalent about the man. He's smart on the issues of terrorism, although he appears to have revised some of his opinions with the benefit of hindsight; he sounds like a guy who's been beating the drum on Al Qaida for years, in two administrations, with nobody listening until too late.

Of course, the guy bleeds self-promotion, bitterness, and false sincerity. For instance, am I the only one who found his apology to the 9/11 families disgusting? There's a place and time for that, and bully for him if he wants to be "the only one with the guts," etc. But it was self-congratulatory moral grandstanding, pure and simple, to do it in the hearing room.

Clarke makes a great "gotcha" witness for the Democrats, despite the inconsistencies in his story. I don't agree with, say, Reynolds, who believes Clarke is committing public self-immolation (though I agree that his opinion of a president's anti-terrorism efforts seems to vary in proportion to the amount of stroking he got). The media sue isn't playing it that way. To me he sounds, essentially, like a bureaucrat angry because he had it right and nobody listened. (I've known the type.) Of course, he also had a lot of things wrong, which he conveniently leaves out of his self-serving testimony and book.

By the way, a lot of folks are characterizing Clarke's run in with Jim Thompson as a victory for Clarke. I guess it's a draw, given Thompson's own heavy-handed indignation, but I don't buy the "I was just spinning for the Bush administration" excuse. If Clarke wants to admit that, in hindsight, his previous statements amounted to political spin and he's sorry for it, that's one thing. Instead he painted himself as having done the right thing back then, and doing the right thing now. That's the most damning thing so far -- evidence that Clarke, in his own mind anyway, is never wrong.

In the end, he will likely come out looking like something of a wannabe whistleblower, a self-promoting hack, and a bit of a jerk. But he's a jerk who thought al Qaeda was a threat to domestic targets -- whether he was right-right, or just broken-clock right.

I think it's a wash.

More: Do you think 9/11 could have been prevented? Clarke does. I'm not so sure I agree. I think all the agencies could have done better, but the crux of the biscuit lies in the "unknown unknowns," as Rumsfeld famously said. The terrorists, to succeed, need only get lucky once in a while; in defending America, we need to be lucky every single time. There's no way to do that, I think, short of making America a police state with draconian immigration laws. Even then, there are limits to intelligence. That is why terrorism is the weapon of choice for those out of power. At any rate, while there is a non-zero chance that we somehow could have foiled the 9/11 plot, I think pursuing that question, at least to the degree the panel is doing so, is wasted time.

Later: No, I'm not the only one bothered by Clarke's self-serving apology. Jeff Jarvis can't stomach it, either.

Pants on Fire: A funny article by Jon Chait in TNR reviews White House press man Scott McClellan's disastrous performance: his inability to spin well, the way his tics and mannerisms broadcast official discomfort with certain issues, and -- most of all -- his inability to lie.

Chait is right, as even some of the president's supporters have noted, that the White House spin machine has an awful veneer overtop a shabby PR product.

His characterization of Ari Fleischer, though, is so ironically ungenerous (heaping praise on his stone-faced ability to lie, for example) that one might forget Joe Lockhart's incredible ability to dissemble in oddly hyperventilated monotone. For that matter, think back to the days when Mike McCurry was basically forced to announce to the press that he had nothing to say on various matters of some public interest because the president had to be cautious not to prejudice the lies he might need to tell under oath. In fact, McCurry would say, the administration isn't even really talking to me right now. Here's the president's schedule for this week. I consider myself something of a cynic, but I remember being shocked at the brazenness of the strategy.

Guest of Honor: In light of Israel's declaration that the new Hamas leader, Abdulaziz al-Rantisi, is among their priority targets, picture if you will, a phone conversation between Yassir Arafat (YA) and al-Rantisi (AaR):

YA: Hello?

AaR: Yes, Yassir? This is Abdulaziz. What is going on my brutha?

YA: Oh (pause) yes, yes. Abdul...wonderful to hear from you. (muffled mutterings) Ummmm, how are things?

AaR: Well, Yas, as saddened as we all are by the Sheik's untimely death cauaed by the Zionist infidels, we thought it might be nice to have a little party...you know for morale. I want you to be my most honored guest. You shall sit right next to me during the whole event!

YA: Well...(barely audible whispering to someone in room - "He says he wants me to come to his party...yes...and sit next to him!") Ahh, yes this is indeed an honor, Allah be praised, but wouldn't you know it it...uh, hold on (more murmurings)...it's just that I have this awful...very painful...crick in my neck, you see.

AaR: A crick?

YA: Yes a crick, well it may be some nerve damage for all I know and uhh...(what? ... oh, yes, yes...I forgot) oh and you know of course, the real, real problem I have is the house arrest. I mean, the crick is something I could overcome, but the Zionists have me locked in here soooo...

AaR: Well, I see, yes, I forgot about this. Well, there is no reason why we can't have the party over there. I will come over ... yes, I will just walk down the main road and into your compound, you see. Once we meet, I shall embrace you as the true brother in arms that you are....uhh, hello....hello?

But Seriously: Bob Kerrey got in the best, and possibly sharpest, criticism of both administrations. The question came up: Why didn't we act earlier, based on the number of attacks we suffered, starting in 1993, with the first WTC attack. He's just been told by Bill Cohen that the political consensus wasn't there to muster a military response beyond the famous cruise missile/camel's butt stuff:

KERREY: . . . I would disagree. I respectfully disagree. First of all, again, as I said, there are many instances where the president doesn't even come to Congress. Operation Just Cause in Panama. He didn't come to Congress and say, Gee, is it OK to do that? Grenada -- the president didn't come to Congress and said, Is that OK to do it? In Bosnia and Kosovo, the very examples that you cite, the president didn't have the support of Congress, and he went ahead and did.

I think he did the right thing. But the fact that it's unpopular, that it's difficult, that our allies are not necessarily with it shouldn't deter a president who believes that what we have is a serial killer on our hands who had begun killing us at least as early as 1993, who had issued a very specific declaration of war calling Islamic men to join an Islamic army on the 23rd of February, 1998, and then demonstrated that he had the capacity in a very sophisticated way on the 7th of August to carry out that threat.

We had a round in our chamber and we didn't use it. That's how I see it. And I don't know if it had prevented 9/11. But I absolutely do not believe that just because a commander in chief sits there and said, Gee, this thing is unpopular therefore I can't do it, I don't think that's a good argument. I know Secretary Rumsfeld is going to use it here in a few minutes and I'm going to be just as harsh with him. I don't buy it.

Rumsfeld, in fact, gave the best answer in his opening statement. One can only hope John Kerry was listening:

But imagine that we were back before September 11th and that a U.S. president had looked at the information then available, gone before the Congress and the world and said we need to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban and destroy the Al Qaida terrorist network based on what little was known was known before September 11th.

How many countries would have joined? Many? Any? Not likely.

We would have heard objections to preemption similar to those voiced before the coalition launched Operation Iraqi Freedom. We would have been asked, "How could you attack Afghanistan when it was Al Qaida that attacked us, not the Taliban? How can you go to war when countries in the region don't support you? Won't launching such an invasion actually provoke terrorist attacks against the United States?"

Panel Funnies: Despite the collegial atmosphere, there were some bits of standard ass-kissing and demagoguery that partisanship injects. They were typically less substantive than they were embarrassing. Here's a good one, from Tim Roemer, addressing Albright:

Madam Secretary, I want to mention your book, if I may, Madam Secretary -- I don't need to mention a bestseller.

I'll have to take my head out of your ass to quote from it though.

And Jamie Gorelick couldn't resist this sideswipe:

ALBRIGHT: . . . But on this particular subject, I do agree with Undersecretary Wolfowitz.

GORELICK: I appreciate the caveat.

'Cause of course they disagree with his policies on, say, feeding the prisoners at Gitmo hamburger meat made from the Taliban KIA.

Check out this exchange during Colin Powell's opening remarks:

KEAN: Mr. Secretary, we are going to run out of time...

POWELL: Yes, I will get shorter.

KEAN: Thank you, sir.

Not as short as Howard Dean, though . . .

Bipartisan suck-up award to Richard Ben-Veniste:

And thank you, Secretary Powell, for your testimony here today and for your dedicated service to our country. As you know, I have long been a personal admirer of yours, and thank you again for your commitment in service.

Or not. Powell has long been the one Republican ass it's not only politically safe but nearly required for Democrats to kiss.

Finally, there was the exchange between Rummy and Ben-Veniste about using aircraft to attack targets. It's toward the end of the transcript, and it was much funnier listening to it. Ben-Veniste was unable to comprehend the difference between packing a private plane with explosives and hijacking a commercial airliner to use as a missile. It was a moment of ridiculously partisan obtuseness.

Okay, one more, from Gorelick:

So my question is: In this summer of threat, what did you do to protect, let's just say the Pentagon, from attack? Where were our aircraft when a missile is heading toward the Pentagon? Surely that is within the Pentagon's responsibility to protect -- force protection, to protect our facilities, to protect something -- our headquarters, the Pentagon . . .

RUMSFELD: . . . just to put it right up on the table, we're in the flight pattern for National Airport. There's a plane that goes by, you know, how many yards from my window, 50 times a day. I don't know how far it is. But anyone who's been in that office has heard it roar right by the window. There isn't any way to deal with that at all.

In other words: Lady, if a plane heading toward my office was cause for concern, we'd be shooting down a lobbyist-packed US Air shuttle from New York every day. And come to think of it . . .

The 9/11 Panel: It made for riveting radio, yesterday. I wonder how much TV would add. (I don't have C-Span.) Not much, I figure. I was one of the cynics who thought that the Republican members would roast Bill Cohen, while the Dems would skewer Rummy. Likewise Maddy Albright and Colin Powell. The whole thing is pretty darn collegial, though (with the exception of that shrill shill, Jamie Gorelick, who thinks she's trying Leopold and Loeb).

I'll stop short of some teary-eyed, road to Damascus realization of how wonderfully effective government is, and what forthright and upstanding people these former senators and governors are -- although I confess a bit of a hetero crush on Bob Kerrey, even if he did shiv some unarmed old VC bastard in 'Nam.

More: Speaking of Kerrey, here's a great line from the Socialists (at WSWS) on his appointment to the panel, titled "War criminal to probe mass murder":

In a change of personnel that signals a further tightening of the Bush administration’s reins on the supposedly independent probe into what happened on September 11, 2001, former Nebraska Senator Robert Kerrey was tapped Tuesday to sit on the 10-member panel investigating the terrorist attacks.

Got it? The appointment of Kerrey signifies that the Bush administration is tightening its reins on the investigation. Now, read it again and keep it in mind for half a second (WSWS is betting your pea-sized brain can't hold onto it). The story goes on to detail Kerrey's brimful-with-atrocities Vietnam closet and notes that Calley, er, Kerrey has forign policy views disturbingly similar to George Bush's! Then (and here you'll want to be remembering that previous passage) a paragraph near the end of the story says,

The selection of Kerrey was made not by Bush, it should be pointed out, but rather by the Senate minority leader, Thomas Daschle (Democrat of South Dakota).

Golly, boys, what just happened to the point of your f*cking story?

Stop Being Successful: If Microsoft made cars, they'd get sued for not offering their customers the choice of another company's transmission.

This is (was) NPR: Adjust your morning drive accordingly: Bob Edwards got the axe. Is nothing sacred?

The Compassionate Conservative: The GOP would have been nuts, in 2000, to pass up a candidate who

was a uniter, not a divider . . . a reformer with results. He was a pragmatic, can-do centrist from humble Western roots with a gift for communicating time-tested, homespun conservative verities.

I guess the GOP was nuts. TNR has a brief profile of Mark Racicot, who might have been a presidential contender in 2000 had not another Republican run as the exact same character. Ironically, Racicot is now in charge of that other fellow's re-election campaign.

An Idea Worth the Cost of Pursuit? Jonathan Rauch describes the nascent so-called democracy caucus at the UN:

Imagine a better Washington. Imagine a conservative Republican administration working hand in glove with liberal congressional Democrats on a foreign-policy initiative designed to strengthen the United Nations while simultaneously increasing America's clout there. Imagine both parties and both branches bringing this initiative to fruition smoothly and unfussily, during an election year. Say, this year. Say, right now.

Pinch yourself. It is happening.

Since 1996, a handful of foreign-policy wonks have been kicking around the idea of a "democracy caucus" at the U.N. Two administrations, first Bill Clinton's and then George W. Bush's, took quiet but significant steps in that direction. Now, according to Bush administration officials, the concept will be test-flown at the six-week meeting of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights that began on Monday in Geneva.

Now, if you're like me, you don't hold out a lot of hope for the UN to improve in any real way; but you might be interested in an effort to make it perhaps a little less obstructive, maddening, and structurally representative of the very forces the UN was founded to oppose. Or, as Rauch puts it,

The most fundamental [problem] is that the United Nations is built on an obsolete premise: that countries governed by their people and countries governed by thugs, thieves, or tyrants should meet on equal terms, one vote each.

The democracy caucus, as a sub-group of the UN, would presumably attempt to create a bloc of liberal, or at least liberalizing, states in order to counter regional and ideological currents in the UN that sometimes cause member states to vote against their own interests, and to the benefit of illiberal states.

To add injury to insult, democracies at the U.N. are disproportionately weak. The U.N. is dominated by a cluster of regional and ideological caucuses. African countries, for example, are pressured to vote together, with undemocratic governments often calling the shots and democracies going along to get along. Tyrants thus routinely exempt themselves from human-rights resolutions, while log-rolling ensures that condemnations of Israel sail through.

So is there hope? Would you consider me a horrible cynic if I tell you that this passage apprehended me immediately?

Asked if the meetings would be simply organizational or social, as earlier ones have been, [Richard S. Williamson, the U.S. ambassador to the Human Rights Commission] said: "We want to move beyond that. We are hopeful there will be meetings to discuss particular agenda items at the commission meeting and seek to find a common approach to them."

Yes, and after that we'll have a luncheon to discuss the makeup of the executive panel for the conference on the prioritization of agenda items. Sigh. Bureaucracy is inherently a stultifying power. I'm not sure that UN diplomats have it in their power to reform the beast that feeds them. It would be a grass-roots push from inside the DMV for courteous, customer-focused service.

Get Ready: The joys of single-payer healthcare.

A leading British brain surgeon has been suspended from work following a dispute over a bowl of soup.

Dr Terence Hope was sent home from the Queen's Medical Center in Nottingham, where newspapers say there is a 39-day waiting list for brain operations, after being accused of taking extra croutons without paying, hospital sources said on Monday.

Emphasis added, naturally. Did you listen to the Dems in the primary campaign? This is the kind of efficiency they want to bring to America.

Corrections and picks: Having spent a grand three minutes filling out my bracket I misstated my final four picks last week. They look even better now that I've checked the sheet.

Kansas is looking great right now, since I had them beating Kentucky anyway. I think they'll roll UAB since the surprise factor is officially played out. They ought (dangerous word in tourney time, I know) to roll into the final four. And UConn lucked out by having Stanford eliminated - Syracuse is probably their biggest threat out of Phoenix. I actually picked Duke, not Texas, out of the Atlanta region, and that still looks good. I wasn't smart enough to see Xavier being that strong, coming out of the Atlantic 10 conference. I'm a Dayton fan, which means I'm used to seeing my team beaten up in the first round every year. It gives me a low opinion of the conference and so I never pick those teams to go very far. Still, I see them losing to Texas and think a Texas-Duke matchup will be a good game. Finally, I had Pitt beating Wake Forest in East Rutherford, which I think will be one of the best games of the Elite Eight if it comes to be. The danger is my anti-A 10 bias biting me twice and St. Joe's continuing to live the dream. But I don't see it happening. Wake's backcourt is good enough to play with St. Joe's most of the time and they're bigger and deeper all around. A long ACC season should have them prepared.

Overall, my bracket looks pretty good, despite a few holes. I think I look pretty good having all my final four teams alive, since a lot of people who may be beating me now will feel the pain of not having Kentucky and Stanford around for the next three rounds. But I'm sure not spending the winnings yet.

NCAAs: Interestingly, I'm tied for first in my bracket competition - this is a singular event. I picked 25 out of 32 games correctly in Round 1, and 9 out of 16 in round 2. My big failures were picking Air Force to win as many as I did, and assuming Wisc would make it to Sweet 16. However, I picked correctly Xavier and St. Joe's, which were against the grain, even though St. Joe's is a No. 1. Of course I lost on Kentucky, but then again, who didn't? I have 3 out of 4 in final four, but I need Wake to keep winning, which is the longest shot right now.

I agree that Kansas wins, and that Ga. Tech wins, although Nevada sure looked good in beating the Zags. UAB barely won, and seems too reliant on amazing streaks to keep it going - although stranger things have happened.

I'd love to see St. Joe's win, and I think they can, but Wake seems too powerful, and if St. Joe's rainbows aren't falling into those pots of gold often enough, they don't have the inside presence to make it. Pitt is good, but not great. It will be tight. I'm taking OK. I like the 'Cuse over 'Bama too.

I agree with all your others: Xavier, UConn, Duke - I have UConn winning it all, but now that Duke doesn't have to face Kentucky, I expect the Dookies to make it to the finals. Big risky pick there.

NCAA Regionals: As I hinted, two of my final four are out already. My sports motto, therefore, is now "Enobarbus: As accurate as a coin toss." Emboldened by such success, here are my regional picks -- nice and early, Razor, so that I can claim undimmed prescience when my underdogs come through. (Like Seton Hall, eh?)

I like Georgia Tech over Nevada, even though Nevada upset #2 Gonzaga -- I had Georgia Tech over Gonzaga anyway. And I like Kansas over giant-killer UAB.

I'll take Wake over St. Joe's in a close game, and Pitt over Oklahoma in a not-so-close game.

Duke will beat Illinois against my wishes, and Xavier, high on a big upset, will roll Texas.

Syracuse will beat Alabama in a good matchup. And to pick a flat out favorite, UConn will complete the elite eight, beating Vanderbilt.

For whatever they're worth.

Liberal Chatter: Lizz Winstead, of Daily Show fame, is supposedly one of the big guns at the Air America Network -- the folks that want to create the liberal Limbaugh movement. Here she is cracking up Howie Kurtz:

With her slipper-clad feet on the chair and her knees pressed up against her chest, Lizz Winstead is performing for an imaginary microphone.

"Dick Cheney is a man of the people -- the people who run the energy industries," she says.

"The administration is pushing a 'No Medic Alert' bracelet for some people. If they don't have health insurance, you'll know not to help them."

In 10 days, the co-creator of "The Daily Show" will be doing her shtick for a real audience. And her success in devising an entertaining but nakedly liberal program will help determine whether the country's newest radio network achieves liftoff or implodes on the launch pad.

Oh-ho! Stop, before I wet myself! Jesus. I hope for her sake she can come up with some better laugh lines in the next ten days. I doubt it. As we've discussed before, liberals are usually too sanctimonious or self-righteous to be funny.

More: I see, far down in the piece, that Air America has hired Rachel Maddow. I know her stuff well -- she did a morning show locally (full disclosure: she once gave me tickets to the movies and a blues concert, plus she cheered on my wife at a sunflower-seed-spitting contest). She's a natural for a big, pointedly liberal network, in that she illustrates the problem: She's funny and charming, with a hilariously understated out-lesbian schtick; but when she hits politics, her charm evaporates, and she sounds like a standard-issue liberal scold, like someone who wants to abolish fun. I even had to switch off her show when she would go after the religious right -- and I'm a libertarian atheist, for (um . . .) god's sake! It was Queen of the Bitch Valkyries stuff: "People who disagree with me are not only wrong, they're Eeeeeeee-vil!" (Declaring people stupid, wrong, or evil is always more nuanced -- hence legitimate -- when liberals do it.) It was like listening to a liberal Sean Hannity. (The glaring exception to the funny conservative rule.)

Anyway, I generally like her and wish her success. I hope she manages to be funny, but I'm not betting the farm on it.

More Recusal: Here's a nearly fair look from the L.A. Times. Different justices have different standards. it seems to me, though, that the comparisons between Scalia and Ginsberg miss the point. Scalia went on a hunting trip. Ginsberg lends her name to a political organization (NOW) devoted, in part at least, to the protection of abortion rights. In other words, Scalia's trip is a murky and debatable case of indirect social connection and a space-available ride (standard practice) on a government airplane. Ginsberg's situation, on the other hand, is a case of support and outright advocacy on an issue that has been and could again be before her in court, even though the Times mentions her conflict only in passing -- choosing to focus on duck hunting and penny-ante poker games.

More Doubts: About global warming, that is.

In response to human emissions of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, the Earth warms, more water evaporates from the ocean, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases. Since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, this leads to a further increase in the surface temperature. This effect is known as "positive water vapor feedback." Its existence and size have been contentiously argued for several years.

. . .

Using the UARS data to actually quantify both specific humidity and relative humidity, the researchers found, while water vapor does increase with temperature in the upper troposphere, the feedback effect is not as strong as models have predicted. "The increases in water vapor with warmer temperatures are not large enough to maintain a constant relative humidity," Minschwaner said.

In other words, all those efforts to model global warming -- you know, the models that predict the loss of the polar caps, unprecedented species die off, and oceanfront real estate in Nebraska -- were based on an erroneous speculation.

In the spirit of my idiotic final four picks, I think I'll call my bookie push my losses double or nothing on the following proposition: All the climate change alarmists will hold press conferences this week to say, "Hey, things really aren't as bad as we thought."

Link via Ron Bailey.

Legislating...Pennsylvania style: Can't make it to Harrisburg to vote for legislation? No problem, just have your row-mate press "yea" or "nay" for you. Need to step out of the room for a few hours while votes are cast? No problem, just wedge some paper into the button housing so that it goes off all day voting either "yea"or "nay". Arrive in Harrisburg feeling sick, need to go back home, but still want to vote? Don't worry Honorable Representative. See the wedge of paper trick above (pennies and paper clips also work well).

Oh, and don't forget to pick up your $126 per diem on the way home.

You don't let me have any fun: To be serious, I think that judges should make the first call whether they should recuse themselves. Usually, the issue is pretty self-evident, and most judges use the "appearance of impropriety"-type test. There is nothing that says you can't sit in judgment of an acquaintance or professional colleague. You just shouldn't do it if your personal feelings for or against that person or party, or some financial interest, prevent you from being fair - whatever that means.

What I am barking about is that it's easy for Scalia to say all the papers have it all wrong "because I was there." Of course, if we let Martha Stewart decide her own case based on what she remembers having said or done (or not said or not done)...well, you see my point, even if facetiously made.

A Fair Point: But I think, Razor, that you are arguing spurious procedure rather than spurious logic. Scalia's point, as it is addressed in his memorandum, is that polling the editorial boards of the nation's leading papers is not an alternative procedure for deciding recusal. You can argue for changing the protocol if you like, and we can have the other eight justices decide for Scalia instead. Oh, but doesn't he occasionally have drinks with the Chief? Didn't he play handball with Ruthie B. last month? (It's so funny to see them playing in their robes.) Didn't Kennedy and Scalia once share a cold-water walk-up in their Haight-Ashbury days? Maybe we should let the press decide. They are the "fourth estate," after all. Says so right in Article . . . um . . .

Hell, maybe we should let the guy who dishes the slop in the Supreme Court cafeteria make the call.

Recuse moi!: I concur that Sierra is out of its politically correct organic gourd in proposing that he recuse himself based on the strength of editorial outcry. However...

Let's look at how most judicial determinations are made: usually you have two sides that make allegations and then strive to drum up evidence to support same. Then, the law is applied to the facts as appropriate to reach a legal conclusion on who wins. This decision is made either by a judge, solely, or by the combination of a judge and jury, i.e. third parties who aren't supposed to have a dog in the fight.

In recusal matters, we perversely let the judge be not only the one who analyzes the facts and law, but the one who supplies the facts! So, he says: "No, the newspapers have it all wrong. Here's what really happened when I invited Dick Cheney to come hunting and then traded jokes with him all the way down to Loozeeanna in a private jet that the taxpayers were kind enough to provide. Based on these immutable facts, I conclude that in view of the law, I did nothing wrong." Tell me who's doling out spurious logic now?

See, if this were run differently (and admittedly, a recusal motion is not the same as a substantive motion for summary judgment, for example), you'd have the moving party taking depositions, collecting documents to support one's position (i.e. you depose the pilot, the stewardess, Cheney [assuming you can find his undisclosed location], and Scalia himself). Then you try to play mix-and-match with the testimony to find smoking guns and inconsistencies.

Anyway, you can rest assured Scalia is telling you all you need to know. I mean, we know those dead animals ain't talking.

Scalia's Recusal Refusal: Want to read an absolute workout? Here's Scalia denying the Sierra Club's request that he recuse himself from the case involving Cheney and the Energy Task Force (over the now-famous duck hunting trip).

The core of Sierra Club’s argument is as follows:

“Sierra Club makes this motion because . . . damage [to the integrity of the system] is being done right now. As of today, 8 of the 10 newspapers with the largest circulation in the United States, 14 of the largest 20, and 20 of the 30 largest have called on Justice Scalia to step aside . . . . Of equal import, there is no counterbalance or controversy: not a single news-paper has argued against recusal. Because the American public, as reflected in the nation’s newspaper editorials, has unanimously concluded that there is an appearance of favoritism, any objective observer would be compelled to conclude that Justice Scalia’s impartiality has been questioned. These facts more than satisfy Section 455(a), which mandates recusal merely when a Justice’s impartiality ‘might reasonably be questioned.’” Motion to Recuse 3–4.

The implications of this argument are staggering. I must recuse because a significant portion of the press, which is deemed to be the American public, demands it.

He goes on to point out, amusingly, how poorly those editorials grasp the facts -- never mind the law.

Surrounded . . . Still: From Reuters:

Pakistani forces have surrounded between 300 and 400 rebels, both foreign militants and their Pakistani tribal allies, in a fierce battle near the border with Afghanistan, the military said on Friday.

Pakistani troops pounded the besieged militants, who possibly include Osama bin Laden's second-in-command as well as many other al Qaeda fighters, for most of the day with artillery while helicopters attacked them from above.

They can't be giving much of a pounding, considering the story broke yesterday morning and today's reporting says the battle began Tuesday. How the hell long does it take to kill "between 300 and 400 rebels"?

Funny, he couldn't have even gotten an intern job today: J.J. Jackson, one of MTV's original "V.J.s" (remember those? Now MTV is like Clear Channel - you have no idea who is bringing you the music, when they actually show videos, that is), died yesterday of an apparent heart failure.

Take yourself back 23 years when MTV first started - I remember it clearly as I could only watch it at my grandparents' house as I didn't have cable yet. I loved that freakin' channel. I remember the V.J.s all hanging out and interviewing musicians with actual questions about their music and careers (as opposed to the TRL crap you see now where MTV brings in a hand-picked audience to scream over the latest lip-syncher). J.J. was 40 years old when he debuted on the channel. 40. Look at MTV today and you won't see anyone over 30 who's not Kurt Loder.

I suppose the channel is just giving the kids what they want, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to tune into the channel and see ground-breaking music as opposed to just what you hear on the pop stations on the radio?

Anyway, good on you J.J. RIP.

Aw, Lay Off: Here's a brief paean I wrote to McPaper last year. I'm much more surprised to find bullshit getting into print in USA Today than in the Times, if only because McPaper has less of a crusader image. USA Today has solid reporters, is easy on the eye, and can be digested with the alacrity of a multivitamin chased with a glass of metamucil. In other words, it does what a paper should do. If I want opinion or "news analysis," I'll go to sources whose biases are declared. Furtive spin under the guise of much-trumpeted objectivity? No thanks.

I'm reminded of a radio spot I heard this morning, an advert for some wireless phone company or other. The joke of the ad was that every time the Dishonest Wireless rep said anything, he mumbled a disclaimer in rapid-fire legalese. Not true of Beacon of Probity Wireless! So if you're tires of the disclaimers, you should try Beacon of Probity's new Special Plan . . . You get the idea. So what comes after the final pitch for switching to Beacon of Probity Wireless? Yes, the rapid-fire, legalese disclaimer.

When I read the Times, I'm always looking for the disclaimer. The chinese wall between reporting and editorial functions about as well as the chinese wall between consulting and accounting at Arthur Andersen did.

Your next Jason Blair: See, this kind of thing is supposed to happen at USA Today, as opposed to the NYT. You have to wonder how many more of these guys are out there. And he almost got a Pullitzer out of it.

Bracketology: It was a day of mixed results for me, with the only bit of wisdom being the Manhattan pick (which apparently everyone else saw coming as well). Depaul beats Dayton (will my boys ever win a first rounder?), the Salukis come up short, and I'm blindsided by Nevada beating Mich. St. Hopefully today will go better.

I'm awful at these brackets and only get in to make watching two weeks of basketball slightly more interesting because of the gambling. I'm too swayed by sentiment. My Final Four this year? UConn, Kansas, Wake Forest, Texas. I think at leat two of those have been in my Final Four every year for the past decade. Oh well, picking Duke is like rooting for Microsoft. You might win, but you don't exactly look clairvoyant. So I'll keep plugging away and hope my Dream Four comes together this year.

I Love This: The New York Post, the most entertaining paper in America by far, decided to try for some Matalin/Carville-style sparks by setting up political opposites as blind dates. They set up two couples: one was Boy Republican meets Girl Democrat; the other was Girl Repulblican meets Boy Democrat. The idea is good enough on its face, but some of the quotes from participants are priceless. Boy Democrat:

I'm a vegetarian and there wasn't much on the menu that hadn't been living or breathing at some point. She had very rare lamb. To be honest, though, I wanted a bite because it looked delicious.

Funny stuff. I'll have the hairshirt with my metrosexual, please.

Girl Republican:

We talked about how we both came to think of ourselves as Republican or Democrat. He was at the Whitney [Museum], so I think he was exposed to the left there.

Think?

Boy Republican:

We started off talking about where we are from. She talked about how much she dislikes Bush and wants him to be voted out. I told her how, basically, that's not going to happen.

Mmmm. Guess who didn't get luck that night.

Girl Democrat:

I found it a bit dismaying that someone could be so extremely conservative at such a young age.

Viva diversity, eh?

Via Swamp City.

More: On reflection, I don't think I talked much politics with my wife (that's Mrs. Enobarbus) until well after we were married. A wise move, as it turned out. It's much easier to drop a loopy boyfriend than a loopy husband.

Manhattan/Picks: Actually, after writing that, I walked down to the lobby of my building to have a smoke and saw the score on the tube. At that time they were up by about 10, fairly late in the game. It could be coincidence. Or it could be My Year of Triumph.

Either way, I refrain from laughing in the face of your Team of Destiny nonsense. (Last time I did so, your Team of Destiny ate my lunch in the AFC Championship.)

I've never had a problem picking against Duke. If you lose, you're a brave contrarian unswayed by the appeal of the Blue Menace. If you win, you're a genius who knew that Duke was always hollow at the core of its evil machine. Win-win, baby.

Eno will take Manhattan.: Interesting dark horse pick seeing as how it just beat Florida - I wonder if you back-dated your timeline on the post. I'll put Flyer on the case.

I am absolutely no good at winning the bracket. This year a co-worker and I went in together on a bracket, but given how well he and I do at managing a fantasy baseball team, I'm not any more optimistic.

But, because we all must do it: My favorite dark horse is Air Force. A perennial loser, hasn't won its conference in forever and this year the team is like 22-8 or something. Just unprecedented. I like them into the Elite Eight. I take Wake over St. Joe's (my local pride just ain't enough), but like the Zags over Ga. Tech. I also like Wisconsin into the Quarters - I'm partial to the Big Ten given my roots, but still, they show some real moxie. CW is that Duke ain't for real, but how do you vote against them, even though you're dying to? I have them at the Final Four, but losing to UConn, who is my team of destiny, even though it's not a daring pick. Although if Okafor's back doesn't improve, that destiny thing must succumb to reality.

So: Kentucky, Duke, Wake and UConn. UConn takes it home versus Kentucky.

Hopeful first or early round bow-out: Cincy (maybe Illinois takes 'em, but I doubt it); and Miss. St. (I like Xavier for some reason for a few rounds).

NCAA: I hate this time of year. After paying little attention to college ball for months, I feel compelled to pick four teams, if only out of pure force of habit. In college (at a perennial also-ran for the NIT invite), it was an absolute, a ritual. My roommate would make a huge blowup of the brackets to hang on the wall, on which he would make copious notes, record scores, and write down mysterious phone numbers -- such as that of a certain "Uncle Louie." Like someone who lives with a devoutly religious person, I learned certain phrases, magical incantations, and the hoops equivalent of last rites when 400 clams was on the line, UNLV was on a tear, and Louie wasn't about to let you roll your losses into the next round . . . again. (As someone who had previously confined his money-losing activities to cards, ponies, and tech stocks, it was a very strange feeling, at least for this cat, to pick a team for the final four, only to be betting heavily against them several nights later, based on a choky near-loss against some ridiculous play-in team.) Anyhow, I've managed to strike a balance between picking sentimentally and realistically -- go long enough to keep it fun, stay short enough to have at least one of my teams stay in beyond the first round -- based on little actual love for college basketball (though I admit its superiority to the pro version) and zero practical knowledge. Pick, then enjoy the side action.

Enough. My picks: Kansas; Cincinnati; Pittsburgh; Maryland.

A couple of sentimental picks: Seton Hall over Duke in the second round; Georgia Tech over Gonzaga in the St. Louis regionals; Wake over St. Joe's in the Jersey regionals; Dayton over UConn in the second round. Total dark horse to win it all: Manhattan, Princeton. Top seed most likely to get bitch-slapped: Duke, if there's a god.

Have at it, lads.

Terrorism as head cold: The fundamental differences between our approach and the Euro-weenies' approach to terrorism is, as Eno has delved into below somewhat, caused in part by what each side views the cause to be.

The Euro-weenies (hereinafter the "EUW" or ewwww) think that poverty, disenfranchisement and (again to borrow from Eno) the price of goat cheese cause terrorism. There is a hint of truth in that concept because if everyone was living it up in Monaco, it would be hard to find someone willing to strap on a satchel of C-4. But I'd suggest that poverty and its cousins only make it easier for the message to spread; they're not the cause itself. We view terrorism as being spawned by radical hardliners who only want power for themselves, but they dress it up in tones of nationalism and religious fervor, or they just blame it on the jews.

So, EUW thinks that if they play nice, give away more free healthcare, and subsidize labor, farms and exports, oh and turn their head away from every bit of terrorism that occurs elsewhere, then they'll have solved the problem, or in any event, be left alone from making the hard decisions.

But, if we compare today's terrorists to the Nazis (and there's no good reason not to), we see that while the messenger is buying into the message, the author is only buying more Mercedes or bad art. Meaning the creator of terrorism only cares about himself and his own skin; not the so-called jihad.

Terrorism is the disease, everything else is just a carrier or a symptom. So, to get rid of the disease, you don't focus on anything else other than destroying the genetic make-up of the pathogen so that it can't spread and eventually withers away. While any good doctor must treat symptoms to alleviate the pain, he or she knows that it's just a temporary fix. The Spaniards have chosen Advil over an antibotic. They figure if the fever and aches go away for a few hours, then they must be all better. What they fail to realize is that they have the Plague, and those black boils developing under their own arms are about to kill them - perversely and sadly - again.

Terror and Europe: I'll be blunt. I get the feeling that, up until last week, the whole "war on terror" thing was something of a parlor game in Europe. It was fun to joke about unsophisticated Americans, just cowboys really, seeing things in black and white. Blah, blah, blah.

Our reaction to 9/11 was outrage, anger, giving rise to vengeance. I'm more convinced than ever that the general European response, though veiled in "Nous sommes tous Americains" bullshit, was really more like, "Well, you did have it coming to you, after all." I say this because, now that large-scale terrorism (as opposed to assassination and violent demonstration, IRA style) has struck Europe, the tone has changed entirely:

EU President Romano Prodi took this lesson from Madrid: "One thing is clear: things will only start moving when we have resolved the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians." A non-sequitur for the ages, or simply a strategy of mouthing the words of fanatics? After all, scratch an Arab nationalist and you'll find someone who thinks the high price of goat milk, the heartbreak of psoriasis, and the dictatorial nightmare of a government he's saddled himself with can all be cured if only we could get those cursed Jews off the back of that great friend of peace Arafat.

Freshly minted Spanish PM Zapatero said: "Fighting terrorism with bombs, with operations of 'shock and awe', with missiles, that does not combat terrorism it only generates more radicalism . . . The way to fight terrorism is with the rule of law, with international legislation, with intelligence services . . . This is what the international community should be talking about." Oh. In other words, let's return to doing whatever it was we were doing back when these folks were only attacking America. Zapatero has formulated the tall dandelion principle for a new generation: Walk quietly, don't draw attention to yourself; maybe you'll get the part of Vichy France in the next global revival of that old classic Freedom versus Fascism, and avoid being cast as Poland. (In a fit of typecasting, Poland will no doubt get that role again. She plays it so well and, frankly, I don't see anyone in Old Europe with the stomach to handle the demands of the part.)

I won't even bother to quote from Chirac and Schroeder's bunny hug, in which they declared war on everything but cliches about terrorism (root causes, economic dislocation, and all the rest of that stuff: no doubt you've noticed the other economically dislocated populations around the world crashing jets into tall buildings).

Of course, some root causes are more equal than others. Item: "Chirac backs Mubarak in opposing US plan for Arab democracy"

French President Jacques Chirac backed Egyptian counterpart Hosni Mubarak in his opposition to a US initiative for political and economic reform in the Middle East, saying the plan amounted to "interference."

You can't make this stuff up.

The wearin' o' the green: Michael Graham gives a timely refresher on John Kerry's confusion about his roots. Who can blame him, though, for wanting to be Irish? Just remember, John, never substitute rice for the potato.

T.O. in da House: So, the Eagles, one of the more conservative, buttoned-down teams in the No Fun League, bring into the fold one of the most outspoken, selfish, yet terribly talented and determined players to ever play the game.

Early on, even before the free agency filing fiasco, the CW on TO was that there was no way Andy Reid, a monotone mormon, would ever agree to coach such a flamboyant and at times, mutinous, player. Then we start to hear of how much Andy and TO saw eye-to-eye at the pro bowl games (Andy has coached the last three by virtue of being the losing coach in the NFC championship), and that despite their disparate personalities, the leadership in the team (both players and management) would keep him under control. Well, it's an interesting theory.

What is clear is that Eagles took a hugely aggressive stance in the free agent market and nabbed two of the arguably top 3 or 4 free agents available. As we have seen in places like Washington, big names and salaries does not always equate into big wins, but when you look at the Iggles, they had two glaring problems - no consistent pass rush, and their receivers couldn't get off the line much less get open, thereby causing McNabb to get crushed. Well, no more excuses and the Iggles get a free pass through and including the first game from criticism.

The legal theories being batted back and forth concerning his contract were also interesting. As it stands, it looks like not too many teams are going to be eager to deal with Donohue of the 49ers, nor will too many players want to sign with such management.

But First: Before launching into the politics of Spain's awful week, I should have posted my earlier thoughts. Having been away for a few days, I didn't get the chance to say that I feel for them terribly. Last week we were all Spaniards, and I mean that quite seriously and not in a condescending, French kind of way. Tragedy is tragedy, no matter who they picked in their election. I happen to think they picked a defeatist socialist. (And Zapatero doesn't seem to protest either description.) But I understand the conflict of emotion that suffuses their country now. On September 11th, I dialed two New York phone numbers, cell phones, until I thought the buttons would wear out. One belonged to a friend who worked in the financial district. He called safely from midtown, later, on his long walk home amid chaos.

The other number belonged to a friend who had been downtown to pick up his girlfriend. He didn't find her until that afternoon (she had been among those who sought escape on the Hudson ferries and ended up in Hoboken and Weehawken, watching the smoke rise from across the river). He called that night, drunk and pessimistic.

There was no personal tragedy for me; my friends were safe. But I remember the emotions welling inside me as I called again and again, hearing only emptiness or "no service" messages. I was frightened; I was angry. Who the hell knows whom I would have voted for a day or two later? Bush wasn't exactly a pillar of leadership in those first few days.

That was more than two years ago. Today I wonder about my friend Cynthia Rodriguez, who lives in Madrid and who tried to teach me how to say the "d" in "Madrid" like a native.

It's worth noting, and many have, that Spain is still occupied territory in the Islamist mind. I disagree with those who take the lesson that Madrid was bombed because of Iraq. Yes, Madrid was bombed because those who wish to hurt America cannot (at least not right now, though they wait for our guard to drop again), and thus Spain became a surrogate target. But others have pointed out that Turkey, after rebuffing U.S. entreaties for strategic aid in Iraq, suffered bombings just the same. In this conflict, the grievances are too old to be parsed neatly. In Istanbul or Madrid, 1918 or 1492 might as well have been yesterday for all the safety it buys them. Ataturk or Ferdinand might just as well still be in power for all the enmity they still inspire.

So I hope for a change of heart among the Spanish, and I hope their new PM will pause before he takes his country out of an alliance that, I think, is the only hope the West has.

Required Reading: The always-insightful Robert Lane Greene wonders if Al Qaeda just won it's first election -- in Spain:

It is still not too late for the incoming Socialist government to deny Al Qaeda an election victory: The Socialists must under no circumstances pull Spanish troops out of Iraq by the summer, as they said they might do during the campaign. If they do not break this promise, they will be allowing Al Qaeda to dictate policy outcomes in a democratic country--which will surely encourage further attacks in democratic countries, especially those that were part of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. The Socialists have a right to their views on the war. But they also have an obligation to the community of free nations, all of which will suffer the consequences if Al Qaeda believes it can use bombs to play electoral politics. For the moment, that obligation trumps the promise the Socialists made to Spanish voters.

I'm not optimistic.

More: Any doubts that this is clearly Al Qaeda's plan will be ended here:

"We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it," the al Qaeda document says.

"If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed -- and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto."

(As Sullivan says, "If it worked in Spain, al Qaeda might surmise, why not try it in the U.S.?")

Still more: A splash of Vodka.

U.N. Oversight Causes 800,000 to Die!!!: Sorry, I just wanted to try my hand at journalistic hyperbole. But seriously, dude, this is like totally messed up.

The best part of this is that the "experts" assumed that the flight recorder couldn't possibly be from the downed flight because it was in such good condition. Like it was too much effort to simply plug in some headphones and listen to the first thirty seconds.

Following the Money: The WSJ on the Oil-for-Food program: "Fortunately, Saddam appears to have been a stickler for record-keeping."

Read it all.

More here (via Glenn Reynolds). The UN should provide the same transparency we require from businesses operating in America, or we should suggest they find another sugar daddy.

Supremes to decide gay marriage?: From MSNBC [forgive the lack of block-quoting - just easier to read]:

Q. What indication has the U.S. Supreme Court given that it might decide that marriage between homosexuals is a right protected by the U.S. Constitution?


In their ruling last June in Lawrence v. Texas, a five-justice majority of the court struck down state anti-sodomy laws, deeming them a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(Justice Sandra Day O'Connor concurred in the ruling but used different reasoning, saying anti-sodomy laws violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.)

The language of the decision implied that the liberty protected by the due process clause included the liberty for gay couples to get married.

Although the question of marriage itself was not squarely before the court, the majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is significant in indicating the future direction of court's rulings.

"Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education," Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The Constitution, he added, demands respect "for the autonomy of the person in making these choices."

Then he added, "Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."

Open Letter to the word "success":

Dear Success,

You stare up at me every day from my keyboard. Granted, you're not assembled yet, but I see you nonetheless. You taunt, you wiggle, you laugh. You revel in your power over me just as Delilah did when caressing Sansom's long, flowing locks - checking for just the right place to snip. "Come on big boy," you lilt "you know you want me. Here I am. Use me."

You lie in wait for the opportune moment. Maybe I'll need to describe a recent sporting even to a friend. You know the one where my favorite team suce--succesf--sucessf--scored the final goal in a winning fashion? Yeah, there you are again. And what's up with the "two-c, two-s" thing? And what's with the hard "c" followed immediately by the "s" sound in the middle where only two c's reside? You defy logic, you defy memory, you defy the very concept which you embody.

Were it not for multiple taps of the backspace key (seemingly the only one able to rein you in), my pages would be littered with pieces of you. Your incomplete formation reminding me of all my failures; my inability to complete what I start.

So, I'm done with you. I'm moving on. I'm ready. You're not all that no more. From this point forward "triumph" is my boon companion. We shall triumphantly march together towards our goals, checking off each accomplishment (with triumphant aplomb) as we go by. Others shall comment in wonderment: "Who is that man who cuts such a triumphant figure?" Like the Romans in Carthage, I shall sow your once fertile soil with salt, rendering you barren for ages to come. "Success", meet "failure".

Yours in triumph,

Democratic Money: Down toward the bottom of this piece on erstwhile Democratic candidates fundraising for Kerry, this paragraph shows up regarding the last important holdout:

Several officials familiar with the discussions say Dean is prepared to endorse Kerry soon, campaign for him and ask his own campaign contributors to donate to the Massachusetts senator. His actions depend on the course of the conversation between the two men, these sources added, saying it's unlikely Dean would be willing to turn over his donor list.

A couple of things are worth mentioning here. First, Howard Dean is proving (as he warned he would be) reluctant to share his long list of contributors. Why? An eye toward 2008, perhaps? Even someone as odd as Dean must realize that his shelf life isn't that long. A cabinet post? That could be a sticking point. Howie has gained a reputation for shooting his mouth off, not being a team player, and burning his bridges with the other candidates, to say nothing of his ability to burn through stacks of money with nothing to show for it -- not the first things you look for when picking, say, the next HHS secretary (although the last of which is what you usually end up with).

Second, assuming accomodation can be reached, what does this vaunted Dean's List have to offer John Kerry? Dean has put the touch on them so many times, he likely closed off quite a few general election prospects. Besides, these donors opened their wallets mainly because of Dean's outsider appeal. His campaign was premised on the notion that he was not an insider -- that he was not, to be precise, John Kerry. Remember that last year, Dean shot up in the polls mainly at the expense of the presumed favorite, Kerry. Why young, disaffected Democrats would now shell out yet more cash, and to the very man they rejected in favor of Dean, is a question that needs addressing. Lacking a convincing argument to the contrary, I think Dean's donor rolls are basically a white elephant this year.

Don't worry, it will taste just as good as those Atkins bars: Pepsi, not daunted by such stellar products like "Pepsi Clear" and "Pepsi One", has decided to put another nick in it's soda line with "Pepsi Edge". Half the sugar and carbs. Here's what a "soda analyst" has to say:

"This is a huge and major development for the U.S. beverage industry," said John Sicher, editor of industry journal Beverage Digest. "It represents functional innovation in carbonated drinks and responds to the key consumer issues of calories and carbohydrates."

Boy, I'll say!

Anyway, the sodas are trying to do what the beer companies are doing with beer - and the beer companies can't do it fast enough, to wit:

Pepsi's move mirror trends in the beer industry, where Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc. has found a winner with its low-carbohydrate Michelob Ultra offering. Adolph Coors Co., which has seen its Coors Light brand suffer because of Michelob Ultra, recently introduced its own low-carb offering, Aspen Edge.

Coke is promising its own lower-carb soda too...my bet is that it's "edgy".

Still More Jobs! Nice links, Flyer. I was just speaking about this subject over the weekend (with a Kerry-backing liberal we both know and love -- let's call him Elmo Reese), specifically about structural versus cyclical job losses. Here's the article I found most informative on the subject, by Clive Crook in National Journal. (No permalink, so hit it soon.) It seems to fit with the Investor Insight piece, which also quotes the NY Fed and makes many of the same points regarding skills and re-training that Elmo made.

Well, I hate to sound like a broken record, so I won't belabor the argument yet again (go here, here, and here to have the dead horse soundly re-beaten), but the current level of unemployment represents a structural shift from an aberration, a historical blip during which we had employment figures that typically only accompany a hot war. Employment will slowly work its way back to historical levels (and, as I've said, 5.6% is pretty damn close to what was, historically, "full" employment). Meanwhile, the GDP growth and productivity growth we are seeing are good things, particularly combined with low interest rates and low inflation. This economy is, by reasonable standards, humming. It's not a jobless recovery; it's a return to normalcy.

More: Kudlow hedges a touch, by playing up the payroll survey/jobless claim differences, but ends up agreeing.

Stern: Julian Sanchez has a post up at Hit & Run on the Howard Stern slow-motion debacle. I think he's summed things up fairly nicely. It's of course not in violation of the First Amendment for Clear Channel to dump Stern; however, the FCC can create a "chilling effect," a de facto hostile environment for those who rely on free speech for their living. (To wit, even Rush Limbaugh has defended Stern.)

It's worth remembering that the infamous Hollywood blacklists of the McCarthy era were not mandated by some big brother appendage of the federal government. Rather, they were employment decisions by private companies, free to hire whomever they chose to write and direct movies. But are we able to recognize, at a distance of fifty years, the environment in which these decisions were made, and the political and economic consequences that followed from them? It wasn't illegal, but it was cowardly, and it emphasized the root problem: Because of the implication of intervention, the concentrated attention of the government is, in effect, a basilisk's stare.

Jobs: Radley discusses state hostility to business as an important factor in job losses/creation, on NRO today.

For further analysis of the jobless recovery, I recommend John Mauldin's Investor's Insight page. It's long, and references some long pieces from places like the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but it's an interesting take. Short version: these weren't cyclical jobs that were lost in the 2000-2001 recession, but permanent ones which are harder to replace. Unfortunately, there's nothing President Bush or candidate Kerry can do to affect the situation before November, and not much more to do after the election.

More jobs! The Man Without Qualities looks at historical revisions of Payroll Survey numbers and warns that George W. might be a vicitim of the same bad numbers that helped Clinton oust his Papa.

If the recovery is and remains "jobless," it is possible President George W. Bush might not be re-elected, as happened to his father in 1992. But it's worth noting that after that election, the revised 1992 employment numbers were better than had been thought. Payroll employment was initially reported to have risen only 423,000 during 1992, - but that number was later revised to 1,157,000. That made for an average of 96,417 per month during 1992 - in contrast to the average 35,250 per month thought to be the case while the campaign was being waged. It would be an irony for George W. Bush to succeed in avoiding all of his father's mistakes, but nevertheless failing to be re-elected because the Department of Labor statisticians had not failed to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors from 1992. Life is not always fair - but irony in politics always comes cheap.

And speaking of jobs.....

Social Security Addendum: Stephen Green brings up a point that I ignored in my recent post on Social Security. Whenever the debate on Social Security turns to the fact that the "trust fund" financing the future of the program is full of nothing but IOUs from the Treasury, the folks who use phrases like "lock box" in their arguments say things like this:

To say the funds are not real is to say the benefits can be withheld because taxes that have been paid are not "there." This is absurd. In titles to wealth, there is never any "there." There are relationships regulated by law. You buy a share of IBM, the law says you own a piece of IBM. The law says that taxes in excess of expenses in Social Security, plus accrued interest, have been loaned to the Federal government.

The short version of that argument is, "Social Security will get paid for. After all, the government isn't going to default on those IOUs." Yes. That's exactly my fear.

My score: I rated a 50, though I'm expected to become more extreme. I don't see how, as I anwered every question by trying to formulate a libertarian argument I could live with for every proposition. There might be a few I'd waffle on, but if I made the anti-libertarian choice on an item I meant it, no take backs. But my category of "soft-core libertarian" is one I'd agree with.

Razor's right about privatizing every last government function - it'd be confusing as hell and who wants to write that many checks every month? And who wants all the freeloaders who won't pay for police protection? How do you know if the guy getting mugged is late on his payment and you call for a cop anyway? Who gets the bill, there? At some point the government becomes the most efficient actor, even if they're still making some inefficient decisions.

Update: looked at few of the commenters on Radley's site, and sheesh, talk about hard-core libertoids. Government may be an annoyance, even at its best, but "inherrently evil" is a bit strong, don't ya' think?

Gas Prices: Coincidentally, I was thinking about this over the weekend, in response to one of the many stories on "record gasoline prices." Gregg Easterbrook takes down that misinformed boilerplate in his TNR blog.

Last week the national average for regular unleaded was $1.71, while "the record," USA Today declared, was $1.74 in August 2003. But all that matters to consumers is inflation-adjusted cost, and in this real-dollar calculation, gasoline prices remain about where they have been for most of the postwar era . . . The current gas-price level that Spencer Abraham, Dan Rather, and others are hyping as close to "the record" is actually 39 percent lower than the true price peak.

Perhaps this is why I remain pretty sanguine about fuel costs, despite a commute that amounts to over 600 miles per week. I don't think the cost I pay for gasoline is disproportionate to its value to me. At any rate, failure to adjust for inflation is a rookie mistake that Easterbrook is right to call out. On the other hand, none of this excuses the machinations of OPEC or the technological (and cultural) backwardness of numerous oil-exporting nations. If any reasonably stable, generally free-trading Western nation had the kind of oil reserves of a Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, gasoline would be about $1.00 per gallon -- most of it taxes. (I'm betting that any serious reduction in the price of petro-products would be partially offset by rising taxes, on the theory that the market can bear it.)

That brings up a final point. When discussing the "record" price for gasoline, one can't ignore the tax burden. I don't have the figures, but I don't suppose the taxes on gasoline were higher in the 1950s or 60s, were they? The better comparison (lacking the tax data, which I am too lazy to find right now) would be inflation-adjusted prices of crude (here, indexed to 2000), which still ignores technological advances, but bypasses the taxes built in at the pump.

Speaking of political ads: They're going after Kerry with some rather spot-on humor. Priceless.

Score: Heheh...I was a 17. Part of the problem (as with any quiz) is the way the questions are worded. These were particularly black-and-white, which makes sense given the slant. My score just barely puts me in the "soft-core" arena. I can tell you towards the end, I answered "no" to just about everything ("Cut this in half, cut that in half"). Kind of absurd.

Things like free speech are easy (well, for me at least). I even was for vouchers because I find efficiency and competition in schooling the only way to solve the problem (as opposed to more money). But privatising money, courts, military, fire, etc. I find too disencfranchising and likely more complicated than the system we already have. Just loook at one service that we pay for privately - insurance. Now car insurance works pretty well - factors like where you live, the car you drive, and your record add up to a premium. Then look at health insurance - fiasco for all involved. Oh, and throw in all those who can't afford insurance.

Now, picture privatizing the police department. Picture the most stereo-typical inner city block you want. Now imagine those people don't or can't purchase private police because, gee, their premiums would be sky-high. If the state doesn't do it, no one will.

I suppose you could make the argument for privatized fire service (the banks or landlords would blend the fees into mortgages or rent), but too much of the quiz was really unrealistic in my opinion - but I suppose that's why you can score in the 60-100 range and still be only medium- to high- as opposed to absolutely devoted to the cause.

Libertarian Purity Test: I scored 66 (out of 160). This means I am

a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

Well, that's spot on. I'm consciously aware of how I deviate from the hard-line; though I'm perhaps still evolving in that direction. Part of that is because this quiz, like others we've seen, asks binary questions. That is, sometimes I'd like to answer a question, "No, but . . ."

I'm rather curious to see where you fall on the scale, Razor, since you come at the question of freedom from a different angle. I would guess that Flyer is not far from where I am -- though I may be wrong.

Via Radley.

Polling Kerry: John Ellis makes the point that Kerry polls even with Bush (or ahead, but within the MoE) -- after a mostly patty-cake primary.

The Opinion Dynamics/Fox News poll is up. It's not good news for Senator Kerry. No one has said a negative word about him in four months and the best he can do is 44 percent.

This is worth remembering. Kerry's negatives will never be this low again. His positives will likely never be this high again, save for a few twinkling moments following his nomination. Bush is a known quantity, and whatever Kerry says about him, the voters have heard it (and worse) before. Kerry is the unknown quantity, the stand-in for the "generic Democrat" in the poll questions a few months ago. Everything indicates that this is still Bush's race to lose.

You go, Hugo: Hugo Chavez, in another showing of just how far out of it he's become, threatens a "100-year war" if the U.S. tries to meddle with his wildly successful nation and its sovereignty. Yeah, we wouldn't want to mess up that whole socialism thing - really paying dividends right now. Assuming we'd even care to "invade" what makes him think he and his "friends" could stop us? Okay, if he cut off the oil, we probably would invade, but that would take, what, about 3 days (two of those just to get everybody over there).

The Rules: I didn't mention this, thinking it was just a minor fuss on a slow news day:

The Bush/Cheney campaign's first three TV ads were barely on the air Thursday before families of 9-11 victims, firefighters and some of President Bush's most vocal political opponents were demanding that two of them be withdrawn.

Today those groups plan a press conference in New York to say that the ads' use of video shot at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, is insulting to the memories of those who died in the 2001 attacks.

Oddly, this issue was still among the big stories in the news today, and Bush is taking it seriously enough to round up his own group of 9/11 victims and families to defend the ads. But what are the rules here, anyway? I don't see any reason for this to be off limits. After all, the big networks used plenty of 9/11 footage for their own "We brought you there" news promos.

Over the weekend, I finally saw the ads. They're extremely tasteful. Unimaginitive and virtually content-free pabulum, but tasteful.

Saint John: Here's the first example I've seen of the great media suck up: WaPo's featurette slugged "Kerry Dots Deliberation With Decision." The story gives only a quick, passing nod to Kerry's reputation for "wanting it both ways" on many issues (although this story spins it as indecision, only briefly noting that his critics see it as political posturing, not some righteous crusade to get all the information before deciding); from there, the story is a puffy, anecdotally based refutation of the criticism. This is old-fashioned water-carrying journalism at its best.

The only thing I can think of that comes close on the other side of the aisle is Bob Woodward's series in the Post (from his book) on the White House after 9/11. But in that case, every meta-media talking head on TV went out of his way to point out that Woodward has a reputation for trading puff for access, and that his "version" should be taken rather skeptically.

Late entry: Love the weekend song topic, and Eno's covered many from my youth (it's like you were there, man!). I'll add another that hits all the right notes, though not technically a "weekend" song. "Five O'Clock World" by The Vogues, though I have a version by Hal Ketchum.

But its a five oclock world when the whistle blows
No one owns a piece of my time
And theres a five oclock me inside my clothes
Thinkin that the world looks fine, yeah

Tell me that doesn't move you. Hal even throws in a little yodel on the end of the chorus that I don't recall from the original. Sets me free.

Purrrrrr: Well, Eno, you are at least making this writer's Friday a great deal brighter as you bring to mind the dulcet tones and glorious harmonies of The Bangles. I didn't want to overplay my love for the band (and how can one, really?) by bringing up the greatest weekday song ever, but you knew how to pierce me to the core. Just consider the juxtaposition in the song: "Just another manic Monday...woaaaoohhhaoohhhhh...wish it was Sunday...woaaaoohhhaoohhhhh...'cause that's my funday...."

Indeed.

Elton: Funny, I was going to mention that one, along with Triumph's "I Live for the Weekend," as one of the atrocities. As for post-weekend songs, don't forget "Manic Monday." Now, who did that one again?

Weekend Wonders: Funny post. Couple more coming at ya!: "Saturday Night's Alright (For Fighting)" - the Taupin/Elton composition which is one of the more straightforward of their songs ("Don't give me none of your AGGG-ravation, we had it with your discipline..."). Or, how about a little revolution on your weekends to go with your coffee and paper, with "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" by U2?

Then when the weekend is over, you only face dread, i.e. "Rainy Days and Monday Always Get Me Down" - The Carpenters. Truer words never sung.

Friday's Lazy Slow News Day Pop Music Post: John Kerry could endorse Mel Gibson's deicide fetish flick today and I couldn't blog about it. Dear god, do we really have to spend eight months with these two insufferable hacks, Bush and Kerry?

Having always been an unabashed fan of pop music, I have a soft spot for that particular category of awful song: the weekend song. You know the drill. Knucklehead millionaire musician tries to connect with you working stiffs by singing about his "job," his "boss," etc. On Friday afternoons of my youth, DJs across the country lined up these evil gems like missiles in a Moscow May Day parade. (They may still, for all I know.) Some of them are memorable just for being bad. Others are serious biscuits.

The most calculatingly fake-a-loo populist of the lot was artiste-cum-producer-to-the-stars Todd Rundgren's "Bang on My Drum." (Todd redeemed himself, though, by recording the self-deprecatingly hilarious "Emperor of the Highway.") The most common was likely Loverboy's "Working for the Weekend." I hope those guys invested heavily and well in pharmaceuticals (and I mean Pfizer and Merck, not reds) and are now living comfortable lives with no thoughts of a comeback. The enduring lesson of pop music is: Yeah, it was cool for a while, but please go away now. (Meatloaf. The prosecution rests.)

The Easybeats are exceptional for hitting this category twice (three times, in a way; read on). "Friday on My Mind" is a staple of Friday radio, and "Good Times" rides the same rail. And "Good Times" made a return twenty years later, covered by INXS with Aussie mad-dog screamer Jimmy Barnes. (That their locomotive-pace reading of the song channels a bit of AC/DC is fair enough. AC/DC producer George Young [Angus and Mal's big brother] was an Easybeat.)

You'd likely have to wait until Sunday night to hear it on Vin Scelza's show, but Tom Waits's "Heart of Saturday Night" is worth mentioning, since it hits all the thematic elements established by Sam Cooke 40 years ago with "Another Saturday Night": pocket full of money, cruising the streets, looking for a little, er, companionship.

Who would've thought that the Cure could produce one of the best of the genre? Might as well wait for Morrissey to sing about a sexually and emotionally fulfilling relationship. But "Friday I'm in Love" makes you think that perhaps there's one day on which Robert Smith isn't brooding in his bedroom.

And how much flack would I get for this one (if anyone read this blog, that is)? "Saturday Night," by the Bay City Rollers, was a fine, fun song, though you won't hear it on the radio. It's a fickle medium, and it's surely a point of pride now to trash such twee puff. But Joey Ramone famously loved it, taking it as inspiration for "Blitzkrieg Bop."

Three cheers for the sleaze machine: Easterblogg is handing out kudos to porn studio Vivid Video for not portraying violence and sex together, like a crack dealer who won't buy a teenager a twelve pack of Bud. He contrasts this with mainstream studios who turn out "irresponsible" movies like "Scream" and "Natural Born Killers," movies whose violence has a detrimental effect on the culture and may even lead to Columbine-like tragedies.

I'm glad Vivid limits itself to porn movies that portray happy couples, threesomes, etc. getting it on in every conceivable way, ending every scene with smiles on their faces, but I'm not going to stand up and cheer because they've adopted the slogan, "Vivid Video: We Don't Make Snuff Films." Gregg argues that porn movies are actually empowering to women because they're better paid than the irrelevant men in the movies and they have more artisitic control than women in traditional studios. I'm no prude, and I have no desire to see John Ashcroft go on an anti-porn crusade (at least not while the life and death matter of athletes on steroids is unresolved), but it's certainly wrong to pretend that an industry that exists solely to objectify women has no destructive impact on those women or society at large. Movie violence is what they call in the industry "pretend" and the women being slashed are actresses who go home at night having not been filled out like an application by a dozen guys that day. I doubt very seriously that she'd trade places with some chick bending it over for Vivid.

Live Free or Ski: Killington, Vt. residents try to secede from the state.

The town's residents are angry over Vermont's education funding system, which they say has led to sharply higher property taxes since it was changed in 1997 under order from the state Supreme Court.


New Hampshire, which lies about 25 miles east of Killington, has no income tax or sales tax.

I'm sure there's a Howard Dean joke to be made here.

Back to CFR: The issue that wouldn't die. We hashed this out pretty thoroughly way back when, but it continues to surface. Here, David Tell of the Weekly Standard goes hunting for substance in the legislative-judicial-regulatory thickets of campaign finance governance. Things are awfully confusing, numerous erstwhile "crusaders" have switched sides on soft-money regulation, and the Democrats have fully woken up to having shot themselves in the foot with the McCain-Feingold pistol they were twirling with such apparent dexterity a few short years ago.

The soft-money regulation is not the most constitutionally troublesome part of CFR, though it is proving to be a nightmare to implement. (The restriction on all third-party advocacy within 60 days of an election, to me, was always the grossest example of stifling speech.) Still, I hope some strong lessons are being carried away from this. The foolish (and bipartisan) belief seems to be that political advocacy can be effectively regulated, if only we can tweak the wording just a bit more. Hear me on this: The regulations could be 6 pages or 60,000 pages long; it doesn't make a difference. The only inroads made are on what you are free to do with your money. The parties and the 527s can afford staffs of full-time lawyers and regulatory experts gaming the system and stretching the loopholes. What've you got?

I'm not lovin' it: The following is definitely not in reaction to the lawsuits and negative press; okay? Got that? NOT: McDonalds is removing the "supersize" option from its menus. The real reason is that it reduces the number of buttons that employees need press, which makes their already over-taxing job much easier. You know, removing all those buttons...like the one marked "supersize" -- yeah, that one.

The over/under: The number seems to be 5.6, as in 5.6% unemployment, nationally. Tim Blair suggests through a rather amusing analysis of news reports that unemployment that deviates upward from this figure by as little as 0.1% can be seem as a "jump", and a similar deviation downward a "fall". These words of course depend on who is the president at the time. Plus that 5.6% is seen as either "low" or somewhat alarming again depending on the Oval Office occupant.

Props to FARK.

There goes the neighborhood: More National Guard units are being put on alert, including the 256th Infantry Brigade of Louisiana. A friend of mine is an officer in the 141st Artillery, which accompanies the Brigade, and he made it sound far more certain that they were going when he called yesterday. Sometime in May, was the closest he could come to a departure time, and said he's been told to be prepared for up to a year and a half deployment. I think that's probably unlikely, and probably includes the next 3 months of drilling and preparation. Either way, I hope Baghdad is ready for a huge headache. Not from the artillery, but from the highly vocal drunkenness that accompanies the 141st every time I've ever seen two or more of them together.

Should they, in fact, deploy, I've been promised plenty of "man in the sand" interviews and insights, which I'll post here.

Susan, my love: Now you've gone too far Eno. Tomorrow, on the red carpet, at ten paces we shall meet. I'll be wearing Hugo Boss.

War of the Worlds: Tomorrow they (and you know who "they" are) are going to announce life on Mars...or something akin to it. I'm going into my shelter, wearing my tin foil beanie.

Ms. Sarandon: I can't see Robbins or Sarandon without the old Tom Waits line drifting through my bean:

His wife was a spent piece of used jet trash who made good bloody marys and kept her mouth shut most of the time.

Well, two-thirds of it, anyway.

Later: Okay, that was perhaps gratuitous.

Oscars: I didn't watch, so if I missed anything shocking or interesting in the telecast, forgive me. I was cheering for LOTR: ROTK and was glad to hear that it won. Eno may be a little jaded by the "post-Lucas world of bloated, slightly ridiculous trilogies," but I thought each of these movies was fantastic. Lucas' Star Wars downward spiral of vapidity is even more awful when it stands next to a work of fantasy that doesn't treat every viewer like a child even when they're making pretend. As for "Oscar worthy," I think the bar was forever lowered by Titanic and ROTK cleared it with no trouble.

Lost in Translation and Master and Commander were both very good films, but neither one engaged me like ROTK. "Lost" was just a little too narrow in scope for a Best Pic winner and "Master" lacked the love story that Oscar insists upon (and Peter Jackson tossed in as a bit of a sop to the Academy). I didn't see Mystic River or Seabiscuit (I think the latter was thrown in purely to give Billy Crystal plenty material) but it seems most of the accolades had to do with the performance of Penn and Robbins, who each won in their own categories.

...the soul of wit: Yes much ado this weekend.

Oscars - I like your turn-of-phrase for Mystic River. It was a bit in-your-face about the emotions it demanded you feel. Still, I think Penn was well-deserved. He is simply levels above the rest. The ending was screwball, but I'll forgive it. Robbins was creepy, which was the point, but hard to say whether it was a virtuoso acting job. Kind of like a "Rainman" deal there. Still Susan Sarandon is way hot. I'm in love ... again.

For LOTR, I disagree somewhat of your characterization that this film wins only in the post-Star Wars era. I think LOTR compares more accurately with Ben Hur in terms of spectacle. Yes, Ben Hur was more character-driven, and clearly focused more on a couple actors as opposed to the ensemble that was LOTR. Still, having read all the books and seen all the movies, it's hard to imagine a better telling of the story on the screen. Jackson simply nailed it. He gets all the Oscars this time because it was the last one. I don't think Return of the King was all that better than Fellowship (although it was better than Two Towers). This was the recognition for the whole kit and kaboodle. Too bad for the rest of the movies, really. Master and Commander was another incredibly well done adaptation of a series of books with a cult following.

Haiti - I guess it was something to be happy about for all those Haitians to see Aristide gone, but now what? In a few days the euphoria will wear off and it will be time again to focus on jobs, health, and safety. None of those things are likely to get better short-term -although the aid packages will likely start flowing in. I assume Aristide had his financial planner working on an exit strategy for some time and that the 1% skim off of GDP will keep him in good stead in whatever 3rd world country he ends up.

Lyle Lovett: The New Yorker profile shows the face of a Texas conservative -- which I mean non-politically. He still lives in his grandparents' old house, across the way from his mother, in the town where he grew up.

"My great-grandpa's barns were built in the eighteen-seventies, and when we fixed them up, for me that was a real proud accomplishment," Lovett went on. "I understand everything has to change, but all my life I’ve been interested in preserving the old stuff."

. . . We stood quietly for a moment, then Lovett broke the silence, saying pensively, "Progress is the hardest thing for me to accept."

Brevity: A lot to talk about, obviously. Haiti, the Oscars, and Iraq's constitution are all getting big play right now, but I'm pressed for time this week. Briefly:

Taking the first and last together: So, Haiti loses another corrupt ruler. I'm more hopeful about the future of Iraq, and partly because the UN has been so effectively sidelined there.

Mystic River was a forceful movie, but upon reflection I find it seeming more and more like emotional pornography. Lost in Translation was a better film. I didn't see Return of the King, but it strike me that it is Oscar-worthy only in the post-Lucas world of bloated, slightly ridiculous trilogies.

Speaking of which, I watched a bit of Phantom Menace last night while I folded laundry. The movie suffers comparison's to the first one (i.e., Episode IV), but only because these are children's movies. And we were kids when the first one was released. As for quality, though, the dialogue is equally inane; the plot is at once nebulous and baroque, and requires olympic suspension of disbelief; and the ponderous pacing makes John Ford's epic drag seem like speed-cut, Jackie Chan fare.