Some Kerry Quotes: John Kerry has called out Bush on the Iraq war. Listen up:

Kerry said Bush made his case for war based on at least two pieces of U.S. intelligence that now appear to be wrong that Iraq sought nuclear material from Africa and that Saddam's regime had aerial weapons capable of attacking the United States with biological material.

I don't remember these being particularly key points in the run-up to the war. Anyway, this kind of post-hoc posturing is demolished here.

"He misled every one of us," Kerry said. "That's one reason why I'm running to be president of the United States."

Mmm. Good point. A senator on the foreign relations committee, with experience on the intelligence committee, who was convinced four years ago that Saddam was a threat -- and he was duped into war by a fellow most Democrats think can't even tie his own shoes? That's a man I want to promote to president.

Still, Kerry said it is too early to conclude whether or not war with Iraq was justified.

Kerry supported the war and said Wednesday, "I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone."

He supported the war and is glad Saddam is gone, but he doesn't know if it was justified. Here's a slogan for the campaign: John Kerry: He's a little confused right know, but when he figures things out, he'll let you know.

What Marriage Is: I've followed the gay marriage debate between Sully and Stan Kurtz, and have criticized both for not looking at the issue objectively. Radley has wrapped it up nicely in his Fox column:

... activists on the left and right still want to invite the state deeper into our relationships. They’re both wrong. It’s time to get the state out of our relationships.

He's exactly right. Sullivan's push for "equal rights" and Kurtz's push for a marriage amendment, though they have different goals, both invite the government more fully into our private lives. To quote myself (which I love to do):

The real issue is, "What business is it of the government?" The government should act as a repository of records on marriage, nothing more. I'm not in favor of a gay marriage law, I'm in favor of the government staying the hell out of the whole enchilada.

The current "conservative" positions are statist positions tarted up as civil rights or defenses of instituion of marriage.

Moving Right Along: Where I live, it's a pretty steep descent down the radio dial. There's one classical/NPR station, one eclectica/world/roots station (good for the occasional Dan Hicks cut), and after that it's classic rock or smooth something or other (which I'll actually listen to if hear a note of Foghat, Boston, BTO, etc., on the rock station). There's AM talk, of course. Great. Shoot me. No, shoot them.

So too many pledge drives, stupid world music songs, and Celine Dion-esque singers had me riding the classic rock station long enough to hear Led Zeppelin (which length of time is called a "bonham" and is equal to exactly 7 minutes and 24 seconds). I had listened to their songs most of my life, enjoyed them, and still listened to some of the fun stuff. "Hot Dog" has always been a favorite, for example, and I have a soft spot for a bunch of whiteys from Blighty trying desperately to do funk on "The Crunge." Anyway, I had a realization: I have never, ever, enjoyed Jimmy Page's lead guitar. He plays like he's drunk.

Just had to get this out.

Put Not Your Faith in Men: Particularly the Phoenix bishop who stepped down, finally. Covering up for pederasts didn't bring him down; no, the good people of Arizona had to wait for him to actually kill someone with his car:

Bishop O'Brien ... was returning home when he struck something on Glendale Avenue. He said he thought he had hit a dog or a cat, or someone had thrown a rock at his car ... [He had actually struck] Jim Reed, [who] was of Navajo descent and had been a member of Carpenters' Local 408 for 16 years. Rick Mills, a union official, described Mr. Reed as more than six feet tall and weighing more than 200 pounds.

You hit a rather large man hard enough to kill him, then tell the police you didn't stop because you thought it was a rock or a small animal? The hell with being a bishop, this guy can barely claim the mantle of "conscious." That is, if anyone believes he's not the kind of serially dishonest filth who covers up for pederasts.

By the way, did I mention that he covered up for pederasts?

Well, now I have to rant: Hey, I too own flip flops and I wear them at the beach of all places. You want to wear them at home? Fine. Just remember that when you set those fungi-ridden feet out-of-doors, you had better be heading toward some sand, or they're fair game for me stomping all over them. Agghghgh! I hate those things.

Anyway, back to the Olive Pit. I don't even hate the food so much (although it's been years since I've eaten it), it's the advertising. Pretending it's "like family" - well, I suppose it is - most families these days cook pre-frozen food and things they can flash-boil. Pretending they have these master chefs from Italy working for them that come up with these rancid meals. Pretending that every paisan and his seven brothers are beating each other up to see who can get a reservation so they can eat a meal just like Mamma made for them when growing up in Bologna. THERE'S NOTHING ITALIAN ABOUT THE OLIVE GARDEN! Don't believe me? Here's its history, straight from the own website:

Founded in 1982, Olive Garden is a division of Darden Restaurants, Inc. Olive Garden was originally developed by General Mills Restaurants, a division of General Mills, Inc. In June of 1995, General Mills spun off its restaurant division into Darden Restaurants, Inc.

That's right...developed by General Mills. You know, of the Venician General Mills famiglia.

Listen, is it better than eating at McDonald's? Most likely. Will you leave full? Well, since they won't stop returning with breadsticks, it seems likely. But don't insult what's left of my intelligence with this inane drivel about being "genuine". I give it the old Sicilian malocchio!

One last thing: What is it with ranch dressing in the south. I'd eaten it before, but people look at you funny down here if you choose another dressing. "Oh, sure, I think we have some of that vinegarette in back."

I've lived in the South too long to be making stupid jokes about southern culture. Guess I just got a little worked up. It's passed now.

Food and fashion: As someone who's gotten into nearly violent arguments over the wearing of flip flops, I can tell you no amount of criticism or snarky comment will shake these people from their belief that it's not only acceptable fashion, but you must be living in 1950 if you don't agree. I do own flip flops, and if you've ever lived in a house with three roommates and a couple dogs you know why. But every thing has it's time and place and people who treat beachwear as appropriate for anything else are mentally unstable and should be avoided.

Now the Olive Garden, I'll tell you, is something else entirely. Boy, until you've sat down to an entire meal of not just lettuce, but lettuce w/ RANCH DRESSING, you just ain't eaten yet. And gee, if you want more breadsticks you can just ask for them. Stuff some in your briefcase and feast away for hours until you're backed up like Atlanta traffic during Race Week. Or stuff yourself silly with entire pans of la-zon-ya while the kids at the next table urinate in the (fake) potted plants and get their diapers changed on the table before the Death by Chocalate arrives. All right, I'll shut up now so as not to poach on Razor's ranting privelages.

Classy Italian Joints: Better yet...the Olive Garden! I have a whole rant on that place, which I shall save for a later date. They have one across the street from our office - I won't set foot in the joint.

Shower Shoe Fashion: Remember the Cybill Sheperd-inspired Reebok-and-pantsuit power style? This, too, shall pass, and the joke will be on them in a fashion-curve minute. For the time being, have a laugh by making crude and insensitive jokes (quick, before congress makes it a hate crime). Suggested themes: fungus, odor, white trash chic.

What could be better than approaching a woman wearing an expensive suit, giving her a sly smile, looking down at her feet, and purring, "Verrrrrry classy. Let me buy you dinner tonight at a cozy Italian place I know: [this last word in an urgent throaty whisper] Sbarro!"

These are a few of my least favorite things: I'm at the boiling point. I cannot take any more. "Bush's tax cuts?" you ask. No. "The Laci Petersen coverage?" you inquire. No. "Women who wear $800 business suits and $25 flip flops?" you plead desperately. Bingo!! If there's a stupider look, I haven't seen it since hairstyles in the early 80s. I, unfortunately, couldn't get a good picture to use as Exhibit "A" for proving my point, but imagine a nice looking woman walking down the street, you start at her face and hair, then down her fashionable attire, only to end in horror as you simultaenously see the beat-up "stylish" flip-flop and hear it's tell-tale *thlack thlack* sound. What could this otherwise put-together woman be thinking? Plus, most people dont' have that great feet, and well, it's a bit much really. This must stop. As a Democrat, I'd like to legislate against it. What solution does a Libertarian offer?

UPDATE: This was timely. I just happened to come across this article in the NYT. Leave it to that rag to praise the whole concept of flip flops. It's typical of the freedom women enjoy in their fashion -shorts, t-shirts, flip flops - all become "acceptable" at work. If a man rolls up his sleeves, he gets questionable looks. It's a woman's, woman's, woman's world!

Star Wars: Attack of the *snnnorrre*: I saw Star Wars "II" last night. God, how awful (and before you launch into an attack similar to mine against you for your late viewing of LOTR, let me say I purposely didn't see it until now). When you think of Episodes IV, V and VI, a smile probably develops on your otherwise hardened visage. Maybe they weren't the best movies, but they were fun - Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher had crackling chemistry, all the characters were fun and neat to look at, and there was a good balance between silliness and somberness. The last two (well, the first two) are as fun to watch as drying paint. I know that the first three are meant to be ominous as we anticipate and watch the development of Darth Vader, but holy lightsabers, can't we have some fun? Episode I tries to offer Jar Jar as the comic relief, which in comparison to the second episode, is a rousing success. Only when viewed by itself (or in comparison to IV, V or VI) do you cringe everytime that character is on the screen.

In II, Darth (played by whatshisname) and the Princess/Senator (played by the usually likable and awfully cute Natalie Portman) have nothing going on between them. R2 and C3 have a far, far superior rapport (although their clever banter in II is nothing compared to what it becomes in the later episodes). Ewan McGregor is our hero, and he's a capable enough actor, but when a Jedi Knight (who pride themselves on being emotionless) is the center of the action, you better hope for nothing but lightsaber battles and cool telekinesis type action. There are a few cool action scenes, with Yoda's duel certainly being a crowd-pleaser, but this is all about technical prowess - not emotional connection. There's no "there" there. The only dramatic tension comes when you see the beginnings of the emotional outburts young Darth (or as they insist on calling him, "Annie" - could it get any worse?) and you get an idea of why he becomes what he becomes. Still, I was praying for a young Han Solo to show up and wake up that emotion, you know the one...it's called..ummm, oh .... got it..."interest"...in me. Sadly, all we got was more cool CGI battle droids, flying machines, and pieces on the ground.

Food and Freedom: The Boston Globe today runs a review of Marion Nestle's latest howl against the dangers of eating. (Nestle's previous work, Food Politics, is a good starting point for her vision of food-as-tobacco regulation. In fact, the holy grail for the movement is some kind of proof, however dubious, that food -- especially fatty food -- can be addictive.) Not a note of the review is anything but glowing praise for the queen of the twinkie tax movement:

Nestle the scientist includes an appendix on the science of plant biotechnology, offering ''a (very) quick reminder about DNA, genes, and proteins.'' She seems to want to arm her readers with the information they'll need to avoid the common trap whereby industry and government intentionally leave out consumers who do not understand the science. And then there are the other questions about the economic or environmental impact of some decisions, sometimes left out when only the science is discussed.

''It is unrealistic to trust food companies to keep the interests of consumers paramount,'' Nestle warns, ''and we have seen that they are unlikely to pay much attention to consumer concerns unless forced to by government, public protest, or fear of poor public relations.''

Thank god she's here to save us. Look, I read The Jungle, I read Fast Food Nation, I agree with some of the concerns of food safety. But I trust market forces (the very ones that nearly destroyed Jack in the Box when they failed to "keep the interests of consumers paramount") far more than I trust the kind of regulatory nightmares the government produces. Moreover, someone who thinks that "food is too cheap in this country" and "the food industry and the government are in a conspiracy to get people to eat more" should get the same kind of skeptical treatment that the media gives to scientists who, say, question the received wisdom of the environmental apocalypse movement.

Coming Storm: Stuart Taylor has an outstanding guide in National Journal to the Supreme Court fights that will come -- perhaps this year, certainly by 2005. The obvious tactic for the Dems these days is to slowly raise the level of partisanship -- and escalate the use of the filibuster -- to the point where any non-concensus candidate is a non-starter. As I've mentioned before, the risks are huge. First, they gamble on making a judicial filibuster an expected move, but they risk the public image of obstructionism, particularly if the GOP finally calls them on a filibuster, rather than backing down at a failed cloture vote. (I, for one, want to see Tom Daschle tell his troops to call the family and cancel the fundraisers in the home state because they'll be expected to take turns talking to an empty Senate chamber.) Second, a number of Senate Dems have already expressed reservations about setting a bad precident. Some of these are the forward thinkers who realize that any tactic the party legitimizes now will be turned about on them; others are more parliamentarians, who see such tactics as bad for the Senate in general. (On the right, these same concerns underlie the opposition to what Taylor calls the "nuclear option.")

Both sides have so much to lose, I think a tacit deal will be cut, or at least a de-escalation will be recognized. Bush will give up a conservative on the high court for a freer hand in lower court nominations (or vice versa, though that's highly unlikely). But nobody ever went worse than .500 by betting that politicians would be stupid. Equally plausible is that both sides continue to escalate and the center stays home in 2004. Various other scenarios are possible, but one thing appears certain: The Democrats don't like their chances in 2004 -- for either house or for the presidency. To some extent, they have to take the risk, they have to push against every nomination, they have to gamble on obstructionism. It's either an optimist of questionable psychiatric health or a Democrat party hack who can look at the current landscape and see anything other than GOP majorities in the cards for several cycles.

Next: Income inequality: We still hear the fretting too often about globalization. Big corporation goes overseas, sets up a sweatshop, and whips on ten year olds to drive profits. But look here, what happens when a big American company like.....I don't know, Nike, starts giving jobs to people.

Furthermore, the Nike job comes with a regular wage, with free or subsidised meals, free medical services and training and education. The most persistent demand Nike hears from the workers is for an expansion of the factories so that their relatives can be offered a job as well.

Despite the embarrassment that comes from being praised by the Communist Party of Vietnam, this has to feel good.

Blogging hard for the money: I was going to write something last week regarding Andrew Sullivan's "pledge week," but decided that, frankly, I had little to add and little trouble with the concept of "blegging" (can't we do better than that phrase?). The market can decide and if the blog in question adds as much to a reader's life as a typical magazine or newspaper, then why not, eh. Many others had chimed in though and, frankly, I usually have to be "pissed to post" and Andrew's deal doesn't piss me off. Now I see this. And this. And on and on it goes.

Just a little heavy handed, no? At least Sully pretty much makes his plea then goes about the day of commentary. Every other word on The Corner is a tribute to how wonderful NRO is and its readers are. Guys, I get it. And I subscribe. And I see your pop-ups every day. If you want to have a fund drive, bake me a cake.

Buckley was later overheard as saying: "That oughta teach those hippies a thing or two. 'Stir ass and get.' Yessir, Billy boy, still have it. The bees knees, you are."

Prescription for Failure: Sowell on an age-based, Medicare-administered prescription drug entitlement, coming soon to a congress near you:

Arithmetic cannot be evaded by political rhetoric. We do not have any more money collectively than the sum of what we have individually. Even if it were true that we could not afford the kind of medical care we would like individually, then collectively we certainly could not afford that kind of medical care plus the cost of a government bureaucracy to administer it ... Some politicians say that the government can "bring down the costs" of prescription drugs or of health care in general. But they won't bring down the costs by one cent. What they can do is impose price controls -- and price controls have a centuries-long track record of creating worse problems than they solve ... When politicians talk about bringing down the cost of prescription drugs they are exploiting a widespread confusion between prices and costs. Prices are not costs. Prices are what pay for costs -- and if you don't pay those costs, you are not going to keep on getting what you want ... Why would Americans, with the highest quality medical care in the world, and a pharmaceutical industry creating more new major prescriptions drugs than anywhere else in the world, want to jeopardize all that for the lure and the promise of political miracles?

Read it all.

Mr. Bill: Buckley has earned the right to phone in his columns, which I think he does from time to time; nevermind, though, as even his phoned-in stuff ranks pretty high in the world of commentary. Occasionally, he gives a flash of the brilliant wit that used to sparkle when he was PBS's token barbarian. Today, Buckley quotes a bit of testimony from doomed judicial nominee William Pryor, in which he tells Russ Feingold to request a bit of information from the RNC, and Feingold gets in a typically senatorial snit:

FEINGOLD. Will you provide to the committee a comprehensive list of RAGA's contributors and the amounts and dates of their contribution?

PRYOR. I don't have such a list, Senator.

FEINGOLD. Who does?

PRYOR. The Republican National Committee.

FEINGOLD. Will you urge them to provide that list?

PRYOR. If you need that kind of list, then you really need to seek it from them.

FEINGOLD. You oppose a disclosure of this information?

PRYOR. I'm not saying that I oppose it or I favor it.

FEINGOLD. I'm taking this as a refusal to urge the release of this information.

Then Buckley offers this juicy paraphrase of Pryor's testimony:

In street talk, this would read: You want that? Well, stir ass and get. Don't use me as your research assistant.

God knows in what decade Mr. Buckley's "street talk" was current, or what street it was. It's pithy, anyway.

You Know: I could see these tactics being effective for NARAL or Greenpeace, or some other liberal-cause group that needs to convince people that the sky is falling (so send us money to build a huge sky-buttress!). But to see it coming from the DNC really underscores how afraid the Democrats are that they're about to follow the Whigs into the history books. It just seems unserious. Besides, aren't these the people who complained in 2000 that an RNC ad "subliminally" highlighted part of the word Democrats?

Try to imagine a similarly spirited RNC ad, set in a suburban neighborhood, focusing on a family house. The doorbell rings; the door opens:

Woman of the House: Yes?

Man at Door: Good morning. I'm from the Democratic Party. We've just won the presidential election, and we wanted to let you know how things will change. Let's see ... First priority is, of course, abortion ...

Woman: But I oppose abortion.

Man: [Grows fangs] Too late! You're already scheduled for one, next Thursday. Another thing, your paycheck will now be direct deposit.

Woman: That sounds vaguely non-threatening.

Man: [Laughs with evil relish, as thunder rumbles] Direct deposit to the U.S. Treasury! Ha ha ha! We'll send you a stipend ... as long as there's money left over from our wasteful new initiatives!

Woman [Horror] No, you don't mean ...

Man: [Shrieking now, brimstone raining down about him] Yes! Yes! Mandatory 30-hour work weeks in the private and public sectors! Subsidized child care for men and women who had children in the middle of their career because it seemed like the thing to do and who now feel stifled by the demands of parenting! Affirmative action programs and other various benefits for those who, through no fault of their own, are too stupid to perform a job competently! Six months of paid time off if your daughter's 5-and-under soccer team goes to the All-County Rugrats League Championship, where, incidentally, score will not be kept and the trophy will be given out to the team that fields the most diverse squad, perfect diversity being, of course, an entirely black team!

Etc. Lee Atwater would've done it, I bet.

No more Che! t-shirts: Careful readers will remember my question of a while ago about whether we'd ever see Saddam t-shirts in the same spirit of the now-ubiquitous grainy Che t-shirts signifying that you're either a) a failed revolutionary or b) a poseur hipster. In any event, most would reject the idea of placing the murderous Hussein in the same league as the noble Che. Well, think again. While it's no doubt true that Guevera didn't kill as many people as Saddam, it's likely that it's only because he didn't have the chance. Perhaps more accurately, if he didn't kill as many, it's because he wasn't as good at it. In any event, Guevera, like Castro was a fraud. The only difference is that Che died, and Castro has lived (on and on and on). We all know an early death covers up many flaws (see JFK and MLK), and tends to leave us with a distorted memory of who that individual actually was. In any event, I was pleased to read this piece if only to puncture those gas bags who find the Cuban "struggle" of the highest order. Who needs to eat, have a house without holes, or a the right to free speech when you get to live in a communist paradise, where everyone is equal?

O'Reilly's not even original: O'Reilly burst onto the national stage with a seemingly different show that dealt in moral absolutism instead of pandering inclusion. While it wasn't necessarily shouting, it was stern lecturing with bombastic interruptions, that made every guest automatically ratchet up the tension level. Well, guess what. He's just doing Morton Downey, Jr.'s act (the linked site is a bit squirrely). Remember "The Loudmouth" who dared to smoke on t.v. (even back when smoking wasn't illegal everywhere, it was still daring), and who stood up and screamed at losers on t.v.? He was interesting for about 10 minutes, and then by his own admission, he went over the top and promptly jumped the shark. We discussed awhile back that guy who used to be on WABC Radio in NYC. He's Bill O'Reilly 15 years ago. Of course, you can't find that guy on the dial anymore. Just give O'Reilly time. He'll say something really stupid or bad and he'll begin the descent into obscurity.

Back...again: Spent the past 10 days prepping and conducting a jury trial in Federal Court, only to have the client suggest settlement last night, which resolved the case. This after two settlement conferences in which I was assured there was no possibility of settlement. Oh well. Welcome to Flyer who, as it seems, was successful in his little power play. However, much like Tiger Woods, my time away should not be considered evidence of a slump.

Above Average: Taranto has had a funny exchange with some folks at the Sacramento Bee over test scores. (To follow the story, start here. Here's the SacBee in response. To see Taranto's follow up here, scroll to "Wobegon."

A Grand Moment: Savor this. O'Reilly. Lileks. Ssssssssssmack!

Will somebody please pack that whining punk back off to Massapequa or New Rochelle or whatever tony suburb he's pretending he didn't come from? I'll even pony up for a closed circuit TV system so that he can direct-broadcast to the four people who watch his program.

It's Official: The FauxPolitik family has grown just a wee bit bigger. Flyer has consented to join as an associate blogger. A little about him: He's an MBA candidate, but we don't hold that against him. He is by all accounts single, which we desperately hope will speed the flow of the supermodel traffic to our site. Expect expert opinion on the matters of golf and its attendant charms, namely drinking and swearing. Welcome.

Enough about me: Let's talk about me, now. Geraldo trying to sound humble:

BUT AS MY BOSS KEPT TELLING ME WHEN MY INSTINCT AT THE TIME WAS TO LASH OUT AT MY TORMENTORS, THE IRAQ STORY IS NOT ABOUT ME. IT'S ABOUT THE GI'S AND THE PEOPLE AND THE WAR.

This despite the fact that his site is about nothing but him. It's not really a blog, so much as a regurgitation of his (quite meaningful) Iraq experience. You can almost hear G.R. gush over how important the whole experience was (simaltaneously to him and because of him). Kind of like that documentary of him sailing around the world that somebody (MSNBC?) made a couple years ago. "Here I am, standing on the bowsprit of history, thrusting my large, masculine jaw into the wind, fighting off NYT pundits ruthlessly trying to besmirch my integrity." Pure dreck, dug up by asparagirl.

More Agitator: Radley had this post on Friday, and sadly I missed it. Since my city will soon be installing red light cameras, it's very disturbing to hear stories like this, even if they may be exaggerated. The possibilities are frightening enough.

Question: Is the point of these cameras to deter motorists from running red lights or to punish them if they do it anyway? The left never fails to reminds us deterrence doesn't work when the death penalty is threatened, so why should it work when a hundred bucks is on the line. And if deterrence is the point, and it miraculously is successful at getting motorists to break their bad habits, are we then left with a bunch of unnecessary, legacy technolgy that ceases to pay for itself with ticket revenue? This is a terrible idea. This is a better one.

Get the message:Robert Toth reviews Steely Dan's newest album , Everything Must Go. It's a very positive assessment, an album Toth describes as a contrast to offerings from the left and the right trying to capture the post 9-11 world. He criticizes artists like Steve Earle and Radiohead for essentially playing to the far left true believers (think Dixie Chicks "speaking out" at a concert in London - tres chic!) and offers up this wonderful line to make sure flag-and-country knuckle draggers don't feel left out:

I'm grateful, for example, that Darryl Worley wrote the flag-waver "Have You Forgotten?," and I'm glad that so many people have taken it to heart. But musically it's about as expansive as Staff Sergeant Barry Sadler and his "Ballad of the Green Berets," a song that makes me want to join a commune and do some gardening in the closet.

Anyway, Toth seems to think Steely Dan has gotten it right. I haven't heard the album yet, but I became a fan the first time I heard them and most (if not all) of their music remains fresh to me. Too often our musical heroes don't rise to their own standards in the later stages of their career (it's bad enough The Stones are still touring, but do we really need to hear Mick say "And now here's a song from our new album"). I hope Fagen and Becker have done as well as Toth implies.

It Wasn't That Subtle: Radley has a funny post challenging another red state/blue state myth pushed by the perpetually disgruntled left. This time he's smacking Atrios. Careful, Radley. I started out just smacking him occasionally. You know, it was fun. Now I want to smack him all the time. I think I may be an addict ...

Oh, and check out Balko's List of 21 White Guys with Soul. You'll find plenty to disagree with, no doubt (could there be a topic of more contention?), but I think you'll find he has the essentials -- even if they're in the wrong order.

Good Night, David: While I was away, the greatest passed away. I learned politics watching David Brinkley. It was easy to learn, actually, because David said it straight out. He didn't pretend that there was any truth to the "sacrament of public service" myth the Kennedys and others had been pushing as an excuse for careerism. Brinkley knew it was about power, and he never pretended otherwise.

I'm surprised at how many obituaries mention his brief spat with Bill Clinton in 1996. They mention that Brinkley called the president a "bore." Wow. Narcissism is boring. No, what I remember of Brinkley's rambling comments was the impression that he saw Clinton's life in politics as a quest for some kind of approval, the narcissists dream of sustained adulation. By implication, it was a criticism of Clinton's life, his constant pursuit of the quick fix or the short-lived jump in the polls (and perhaps a short-lived jump in the closet with the chubby intern, as well).

"If I was to start today," Brinkley famously said, "I probably couldn't get a job because I don't look like what people think an anchorperson should look like."

That's for damn sure. Brinkley was a homely, odd Southern boy -- stark contrast to the modern, effete, blow-wave anchor, with his pasted-on look of gravity and not a thought in his head other than a slight curiosity what color panties the the news-bunny correspondent is wearing. But what really made Brinkley stand out was his manner of speech. Far from the dried out midwestern monotone of the cable news era, Brinkley had an actual accent, one that became more pronounced with age. And he had a tempo all his own. He took stranges pauses, had unusual emphasis. But this was not Paul Harvey's staccato interruptus. It was a loping Carolina stride, perhaps with a touch of a polio limp: a voice of character.

I've watched some of the old news shows at the Museum of TV and Radio, in New York, and it's odd how the format of evening news is nearly unchanged since the "Good night, Chet" days. The sets are flashier, the suits more expensive. But, for example, until Robert MacNeil retired, he and Jim Lehrer could still be counted on for their nightly echo of Chet and David. The biggest change since then? Sometimes the anchors deliver the news standing now.

The place to see David was on "This Week," which my wife and I watched unfailingly until the man stepped down. Brinkley, I think, talked less than anyone on the show. But he was the conductor of the orchestra. He would bring in George, fade out Sam, add a little more Cokie, whatever the discussion required. Bob Schieffer still runs his show a bit like that on CBS, but nobody watches. Nor do they watch the abomination that became of "This Week" when it was passed to, first, Sam and Cokie, and then to that puffball Stephanopolous. The warhorse Meet the Press rolls on, and Russert is a tough host. But it's a blood-and-guts newschatter show, with an automatic, hit-the-headlines-and-newsmakers guiding force, utterly lacking in style and (sorry, Tim) sophistication. For a Sunday political breakfast, it's red flannel hash in a can and two broken yolks. Brinkley's show was oeufs en cocotte with fresh tarragon.

No Kidding: Don't ask how I found this.

Climate Change: Over at the conspiracy, Iain Murray goes after junk science in support of worst case scenarios surrounding the environment. His summary:

This is a perfect illustration of the way the greenhouse theory is manipulated. The base theory suggests warming that isn't happening to the extent it should. Science then suggests something else. A new theory is produced, or an old one updated, to make the new data fit with the base theory. Worst-case scenarios are dreamed up and promulgated, normally worse than before. Action is then demanded now from policy-makers to avert the worst-case scenario.

Greens will forever see the environment deteriorating and remain focused on assigning blame rather than getting the science right.

Skeleton, meet my closet: I watched about 8 minutes of the drivel on NBC called "For Love or Money" (no link because I refuse to give it any more publicity) which has a typical air-headed hunk and the bevy of catty beauties. The catch this time is that the chosen female gets to pick the guy or $1MM. The guy is presumably ignorant of this zinger during the filming. Anyway, The Smoking Gun did its ususal excellent job of smoking out the truth. The guy (who for a lawyer shows a unique inability to either speak out loud or forsee that his charade would collapse) stated on his resume that he was a Marine Corps JAG officer, who received a prestigious medal for running the tax center (braver than most). This resume was posted both on the website of the law firm where he worked as a contract lawyer (read: a lawyer who can't get a real job) and the NBC site. Turns out he was kicked out of the JAG program for groping a female JAG officer. He didn't think this was worth mentioning. Anyway, it seems like you'd have to be an idiot to go on these shows these days - given the way your secrets are bound to get out. Not that I've groped anyone lately (besides myself -ewww), but god knows what someone would say about me, or how a bad picture of me would surface, or something would come up and I'd be labled "that guy". The 15 seconds of fame can't be worth it. Oh, and he's fired now.

World's Policeman: From the Washington Post online article about todays Middle East killfest:

Palestinian Cabinet minister Yasser Abed Rabbo called on the Americans to intervene to stop "this cycle of violence."

You know how we "intervene?" With cruise missles, Abrams tanks, and the 101st airborne. The PA didn't like our last intervention, in Iraq, and they ought to watch what they ask for now. But they don't really want intervention. Aid dollars and a tighter chokehold on Ariel Sharon will do.

Not a Sport: Razor, I won't argue the point. Golf is not a sport. Like sex, golf exists on a much higher plane. And they're the only two things you don't have to be good at to have fun. Or so I'm told.

Golf as s-s-s-...sorry, I just can't say it: I don't want to set Flyer off on a rampage, so I will say it kindly: Golf is the most difficult hobby out there. No seriously, I've tried golf a few times, and hell if I can figure it out -again, I'm not downplaying its difficulty, only that it is in any way, shape or form, a sport. If Golf is a sport, then so is target shooting. Hell, curling is a sport, but golf? A diversion; albeit one that can make you fabulously wealthy. Ducking now.

More VH-1: Aerosmith's "Don't Want to Miss a Thing" at No. 45!?! This is the best song they've done since 1978? "Losing My Religion" is the best song R.E.M. did??! Van Halen's "Jump" is their best song?? Fer Chrissakes. Even for V[ain]H[onkies]-1, this is bad. Set phasers on kill.

Walking the Plank: The folks at Atrios's site are in high media dudgeon lately. Seems there's a bunch of disloyal bastards in the ranks of the great media conspiracy. Let's see, who are the useful idiots and right-wing toadies this week? Judy Woodruff, for one. She unfairly refused to take sides in a debate on her show! Oh, and David Broder, too, gets hammered for suggesting arrogance among the elite media. (Note heavy use of this formulation: "X represents everything that is wrong with [the type of] journalism [that X purveys].") Maureen Dowd escapes a real beating, though, since she hasn't admitted to liberal media fallibility. Yet.

One of the few sure bits of evidence that there does exist a media bias (usually liberal, but not always so) is how loud the true believers screech "Bias!" when their ox is gored. As with the Judy Woodruff issue, the general attitude is, "How dare they not take our side." Atrios will get to the point where only he and Joe Conason (oh, and Sid Blumenthal -- who, come to think of it, is also famous for dealing harshly with inconvenient former allies) can be believed.

More, along the same lines: Atrios would have us believe that the right-wing media tried to paint liberal politicians as generally anti-war. He quotes a FAIR report:

Of a total of 840 U.S. sources who are current or former government or military officials, only four were identified as holding anti-war opinions--Sen. Robert Byrd (D.-W.V.), Rep. Pete Stark (D.-Calif.) and two appearances by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D.-Ohio).

Leaving aside that FAIR is about as left-leaning an organization as you can find (I mean, honestly -- take a look at their webpage; they make no bones about it), I don't recall anti-war liberals being the problem. To help inform the point, how many self-described pro-war liberals were there? Only a handful, and most of them were running for president. No, the problem (as the New Republic pointed out so well) was that most liberals, like John Kerry, wanted the issue both ways and, when cornered, wanted simply to take the bold stand on the war that they believed, um, something ... but they couldn't remember what just then and, by golly, isn't it running a bit late to be taking questions now, plus, dammit, I served my country and resent you questioning my patriotism!

An Easterbrook Daily Double: Here he is in TNR on Democrats' claims that Bush is anti-environment. On the contrary, Easterbrook makes the implicit case that Bush is more pro-environment than Clinton (in deeds, not words):

Taken together, Bush's three pro-environmental decisions will cause the next round of progress toward clean air. Have you heard of any of them? Of course not. The media (especially Howell Raines's truth-optional New York Times) resolutely pretend these decisions do not exist.

It's worth remembering, too, that Easterbrook is a one of the few green-issue journalists not entirely in thrall to junk science; in addition, he's not exactly a Bush-defender. We'd make a lot more common-sense progress on the environment if the watermelon left (green on the outside, red on the inside) didn't always rhetorically A-bomb anyone who weighed costs and benefits, proposed market-oriented solutions, or refused to buy into the ever-more-shrill environmental holocaust bit.

Dukes of Hazzard/Demographics: What kind of thinking was going on when they made "Dukes of Hazzard" anyway?

"Here's the pitch boss: A couple of big, aryan-type bo-hunk huckleberries drive around an all-white Southern locale in a car with a big Confederate flag painted on top. That's right, boss. D-U-K-E, as in David Duke. Oh, and if they venture outside their county, there's a sherriff -- a black sherriff -- who appears to do nothing but sit by the side of the road, waiting to bust their nuts if the Duke boys should venture by. Of course, the boys always outrun or outsmart him. Whaddya think?"

Well, it was a successful show in its time.

What Is Hip? USA Today tackles the age-old question, noting that the centripetal acceleration on the fashion curve is pulling more g-force than a Saturn rocket on liftoff. "Everything is so five minutes ago," declares one expert on the zen of cool. There's the requisite meditation on aping the modes of the lower classes (PBR, John Deere hats), the what's-hot/what's-not graphic, and the phoenix-like state of kitsch -- when something has descended so far along the Great Chain of Being Cool, is so defiantly unhip, that it is exhumed in a fit of hipster necrophilia. (Think of a multi-pierced, mohawk-sporting freak in a Hello Kitty t-shirt.) USA Today even gets off a funny crack at its own expense: If you're reading about it in USA Today, it's not hip anymore. This, I suppose, means irony is definitely unhip.

Well, fashion eats its young, and always was it thus. And it's entertaining to see it happen, too -- like watching the spider eat its eggs on the Discovery Channel. I can remember walking (nervously) through Williamsburg, Brooklyn, in search of take-out tacos. Now its the hip, gentrified place to be. I remember my "Dukes of Hazzard" lunchbox, which is now -- via some thrift shop alchemy -- no doubt being carried by one of the fashion elite.

When I see him, I can tell him, "I was carrying that lunchbox before it was hip."

Easterbrook Returns: His quality slipped when he left Slate for ESPN The Website, but he's back with a vengeance:

If the NFL turned into the NBA, there would be no plays on offense; 11 guys would just run around doing whatever they felt like, calling for the ball. Each person who actually got the ball would immediately throw a 60-yard pass, then turn to the officials to scream for a foul. Players would refuse to speak to each other, and cover their ears when coaches spoke. Players would put tattoos on their helmets. Fans would start leaving while the game was still on the line, as the home fans did Sunday night in the Meadowlands.

It's funny, it's snarky, and even the kind of poor sap who reads ESPN The Website regularly can understand it. Provided he sounds out, in Electric Company fashion, the big words.

25 Long Years: Music video channel for aging honkies VH1 has another list out now -- the 100 Greatest Songs of the Past 25 Years. So, 25 years would mean since 1978, right? Lots of room to stretch out there. And at number one ... "Smells Like Teen Spirit"? A vaguely anti-inspirational message by the least of the "grunge" bands, succeeding only in establishing the "look" that would define mainstream by 1993. Kurt Cobain, the guy who sold out by writing self-flagellating songs about selling out? Ouch. If that's the best we can do in 25 years, let's scrap this shit and go back to Lawrence Welk.

Featured travesties: "London Calling" finally shows up at #38; "Heart of Glass" waits until #42; Talking Heads don't appear until #55 ("Once in a Lifetime"), after folks like Britney Spears, Alicia Keys, and Celine Dion have appeared. Whitney Houston's sappy mauling of Dolly's "I Will Always Love You" is apparently top ten material, while the Eurythmics barely crack the top 80. And -- most treacherous of all -- why is that gem of post-doo-wop, the snappy Hall and Oates classic "I Can't Go for That (No Can Do)," languishing at #74?

Okay, that one was just a joke.

Now? Is it time for one of Razor's golf-is-not-a-sport screeds?

Take the Field: Will Tiger win three in a row? The media is starting to buzz, and it will only get louder, that Tiger is ready to pounce. His rather un-Tigerlike play since March is an anomaly, like much of 1998-99 were for the exalted one. Bumps in the road between stretches of unparallelled greatness. They'll say "He always plays his best after a period of adversity," in order to drum up excitement about this week's U.S. Open. For who ever would watch the bloody thing if Tiger's an also ran. Well, geeks like me, for one. Of course, one golf channel is barely enough for me, so I'm probably not representative of the public at large.

Well, I'm going way out on a limb and saying it: Tiger won't win (Look at all the people down there. They look like ants.)

All right, no big deal, taking the field is easy. But all the pundits act as if you're crazy to say Tiger probably won't win, or even that the odds are against him. It's blasphemy, or at least a sign you've had one too many bowls of loudmouth soup. But the truth is, he shouldn't be the odds on favorite this week. His game is rusty from a lack of competition (other than emptying M.J.'s wallet during an Olympia Fields practice round), while his surgically repaired knee is sore from too much play. And the word's out that he hasn't been using a Nike driver for quite some time, although he still flies the swoosh headcover all over his clothing. Sounds to me like "I've been busy," "I've been hurt," and "My equipment stinks." Excuse making, in other words. Not the frame of mind needed to prevail on a tough track against an increasingly confident field.

So who will win, Mr. Bigshot. Three names:

Ernie Els - won it before, hand's had time to heal, can hit every shot

Rich Beem - starting to play well after playing in too many silly season events earlier this year, Olympia Fields is not that different from Hazeltine where he took the PGA last year

Stewart Cink - keeps popping up on major leaderboards, this dark horse could steal one from the private jet crowd

But I'd still rather take the field.

Kill Grandma: Iain Murray tackles a controversy deep in the bowels of beauracracy, how the federal government should value human life when doing cost-benefit analysis related to federal programs. Most B-schoolers go through some exercise to grapple with the idea risking a loss of life to save money, and they should. Would a shipping company ever put a tanker to sea, what with the chance of shipwreck and all.

Anyway, it reminded of how the sensitive and big-hearted P.J. O'Rourke put it in Parliament of Whores. "Would you kill your grandmother to pave I-95."

Quick summary: Grandma must pay taxes. If she doesn't the IRS may come to collect them. If she refuses to pay they will call the police. If she flees they will chase her. If she is caught and resists they will use force. If necessary they will shoot her. So every time the government spends tax dollars on a program, think: would I kill kindly, gray haired grandma to secure funding for this. So people who utter platitudes like

"To me it's almost an immoral exercise to place a dollar value on any human life."

ought to realize that at some level we do it every day. And we'd all be broke if we didn't.

Greed is good?: The precipitous rise, and dramatic fall of Sam Waksal. We're seeing this more and more. Brilliant innovators become power/money crazed lunatics who stop at nothing to make more money and accumulate more influence. They evade tax laws, overextend their personal finances, lie to their friends, employees and investors, break securities laws...on and on it goes. May I never get stock options.

Fight the Spammer!: Here's what the editor over at Arts & Letters is doing about spam. Worth checking out.

Those Mellow Fellows on the Bench: Supreme watchers are speculating that Rhenquist is trying to soften his image as he gets ready to take off the robe (*shudder*) and retire. In an attempt to avoid vilification after he leaves by that liberal media, he's throwing out bones to womens' groups, among others, in this opinion (sure Thomas wrote it, but we know who wrote it). He did the same in this opinion. What's next? Gay rights?

That Crazy, Right-wing Rehnquist Court! The Supremes hand down a unanimous decision worthy of the Warren Court in an employment gender bias case:

Under the law, a plaintiff need only present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that sex was a motivating factor, he said. The plaintiff may use direct or circumstantial evidence. [Emphasis added.]

In English, this means, essentially, that as long as there is the appearance of a bias (hence the nod to circumstantial evidence) there need not be any actual bias. Who knows how far lower courts will go in applying this principle, but there are a lot of them loonier than the Supreme Court.

Insult to injury: Clarence Thomas, reputedly the closet libertarian on the bench, wrote for the court. Granted, employment law is his bag, particularly the discrimination stuff from his EEOC days. Still, we might as well pack the Supreme Court with the editorial board of the Nation, a couple of EEOC bureaucrats, and a lobbyist for the Trial Lawyers.

The low down on Worldcom: I confess to not having yet finished it, but this report by the court-appointed Examiner on the shady dealings at Worldcom in the years leading up to its implosion is downright scary. Examples of the company snapping up other companies for $2-6 billion based on a couple hours' worth (or less) of due diligence; mis-using borrowed capital; lying to investors about liquidity...it goes on and on. The worst is saved for Ebbers and Sullivan who clearly were on major head trips about what they could do in their respective positions. This is why transparency is so vitally needed in corporations, and the SEC remains a reactive, passive insitution that can only close the gate after the cows have left. If people want real market-driven economies, then the little engines that push the economy must remain accessible for inspection and fine-tuning as we go along.

Spam: Politicians need issues. Spam is just the latest one to be their meat. And since politicians are in the business of making laws, they tend to assume that making a law solves a problem. Chris Caldwell has a funny opinion on the flurry of solutions -- which seem to increase proportionally to the amount of spam. But as Caldwell admits, it's still a new problem:

As the size of the problem changes, so does its nature. Two years ago spam was a joke. A year ago it was an annoyance. And a few weeks ago, Earthlink executive David Baker told a reporter that spam "has the potential to render the Net virtually unusable."

So let's give the market some time, okay? Let's be willing to pay a little more to our ISPs to improve the situation. And let's not bitch about all spam; a lot of what looks like spam is stuff that you get from shopping online, getting "free" newsletters, or performing some other transaction that requires you to opt out of future e-mails from a company and all its friends. Most of the unwanted mail can be cut off with a few minutes of opt-out requests.

The spam thing reminds me of a conversation with my grandfather. He had been receiving what he thought were porn spams, and he was utterly offended. After asking him to recall what they said, I realized that they were advertisements for a concert in a nearby city: Barenaked Ladies.

Partial Birth Debate: Sullivan posts two emails from opposite sides of the PBA camp. One intelligent, reasoned argument and one rant of emotional blackmail:

Ever see a heart pumping outside of the chest cavity, Andrew?

Egads, that's a lot to take on a Monday. But I think most reasonable people (and I'm pretty sure Sullivan) recognize that there are times when an abortion is less horrible than the alternative, the mother's health being the most often raised, but not only, example. Because the writer's obviously tragic description of Trisomy 13 hasn't been discussed, Sullivan must be a cold, heartless, hateful man amused by the suffering of pregnant women. Please, a little intellectual honesty here. Will there need to language in any PBA legislation allowing abortions past the cutoff date for every conceivable circumstance, from a club foot to demonic possession? It's a shame we can't trust doctors to make the judgement calls that most every situation requires. But as long as the debate continues, spare me the "until you've been in "x" position arguments.

More Movies: Anybody see this gosh-darned "Citizen Kane" thingy? I suppose it's been out for a while but, never having been as big Orson Welles fan, can't say I followed it much. Good, hey?

One quibble: I don't think we should "blame" the source material for Peter Whatsizface's attempt to make it happen on screen. Did you see the "Pride and Prejudice" mini-series? Wonderful. So glad they didn't try to stick it down our throats in two hours like "Sense and Sensibility." As for all the costs for effects and makeup and all that crap in Tolkien that TV won't pay for, do what the Japanese do. Animate the goddamn thing. Get those fellers what did "Star Blazers" way back when. Hell, we could even pay them to animate it for English and make the Japanese watch the funny, out-of-sync dubbing for a change.

All that said, "Fellowship" was lovely to look at, wasn't it?

TNR's Primary: New Republic's Clay Risen says that John Kerry's defense and security speech at the Take Back America gathering "was a bold stand in a season that has, as of late, been somewhat of a pander-fest to the party's left wing." I'm sure it took some boldness to make his most hawkish speech to an anti-war group -- although you never know with Kerry. His foreign policy statements have been so bizarre and so poorly timed, this might have been just another gaffe. The problem here is that while Kerry's speech may have seemed "a crystal-clear elucidation of the senator's foreign-policy vision," it was also a rather eloquent summation of the Bush Doctrine. When Kerry tacks left, Howard Dean accuses Kerry of me-too-ism. When Kerry tacks right, he professes the principles that he formerly criticized Bush for professing (e.g., accusing Bush of unilateralism and failed diplomacy, then smacking those "who place a higher value on achieving multilateral consensus" than on security).

It's a shame Garry Trudeau already used a waffle as the personification of Bill Clinton; Kerry's making Clinton look positively JV.

Tolkien: Wheew. You just got in under the wire to see that one. Just so you know, if you move fast, you can rent "Hudson Hawk" on video, or own it, today! As for your (belated) complaint, the fact that Jackson (the director) was able to fit the story into only three hours was quite an achievement. I think you have to blame the source material. Yes, there was a lot of introduction, but ye gods, Tolkien has a ton of characters, plus all the different races, kingdoms and back stories. Interestingly, the "love interest", Steven Tyler's daughter, was essentially created whole cloth in a vain effort to bring some women into more prominent roles, and one suspects, put women's behinds into some movie theatre seats. This theme of forbidden love is continued even more uselessly in the second installment. I will say, however, that it helps break up the gloom of other scenes. Go see the second one. You may find a copy or two left on your movie rental store's shelves. Tell me if Gollum isn't perfectly realized.

Mrs. Clinton: Of course I didn't see it either, but I did see endless promos. Typically, they show you the most choice questions, without revealing the answers, in order to draw you in. Based on that sampling, the best I can remember was whether Hillary could trust Bill again. Again!?!? Let's try ever, for starters. In any event, you're spot on that she's only going to talk about her feelings as the victim, not her ice lady role behind the scenes (or, god forbid, why she killed Vince Foster). Really, who cares?

Movie Minute: I saw "Fellowship of the Ring" last night. I liked it. I'm not a Tolkien fan or anything, so there was nothing to be spoiled, really. One question though: Three hours for what amounts to an introduction? In the mythopoetic view (which this stuff cries for), we spend three hours on the call to adventure. At the end of the film, the hero stands at the threshhold to Mordor (death, the underworld, the enemy's lair, whatever). Sure, there was plenty of action, and some smaller story arcs and resolutions, but I felt like I was watching a sleeping bag being stuffed into a sock. A lot of details (albeit beautiful details) seemed perfunctory; it seemed absolutely packed with visual storytelling, but not to any particular effect other than confusion. I'm being too hard on it, I know. I liked it a lot, in fact. But it left me short of breath -- War and Peace crammed into an infomercial.

More Corkage: The story is that Sosa practices with a corked bat so that he can show the early crowd some dingers. (Of course, with a friendly pitcher, a major league hitter should be able to ding 'em all day long, with or without cork.) But news cycles change, and Sosa will be off the hot seat as soon as Clemens wins his 300th.

Uh, Roger...?

Corkage Fee: As it was pointed out in the Philadelphia Inquirer yesterday, why in the world would Sosa use a lighter bat for practice? Don't all hitters make their bats heavier so that when they get up to the plate, it seems lighter? Check Sosa's brain for a cork.

Shout out: Here's some mad props to Flyer for his more than admirable fill-in whilst yours truly was hanging with the Betties, drinking the Cris, and basking in the reflection of my bling bling. I'm happy for him, really. I'm not threatened. Nope.

More 2008: I'd like to revise and extend my remarks of May 7th, regarding the decision to keep Cheney on the ticket. (I'll link back when Blogspot resumes archiving capabilities -- i.e., don't hold your breath.) I said that it was a mistake to go into 2008 without an heir apparent. Further, I said that perhaps the implied heir apparent in the case of a will-not-run Cheney would be Jeb Bush. There is a possibility that I didn't mention -- a possibility I even considered silly: the notorious vice-presidential curse. You hear it mentioned whenever a sitting vice president runs for the big dog-catcher job and the fancy white house (happens so rarely, only three times, running against history, etc.). Nevertheless, the conventional wisdom is still that the VP position is the pole position. Is it possible that the GOP means to bring in a dark horse, either from within the administration or from without? (This would, of course, require one of our two major parties to display common sense, critical thinking skills, and a willingness to bypass the easy choice. Talk about a low-odds trend.)

Obviously this scenario doesn't exclude the Jeb in 2008 conspiracy theory. But it is possible for the administration to quietly groom someone inside for a couple of years, have a coming out party in about 2005 with lots of leaks to the press about how so and so has been "someone the president turns to," a source of candid advice, an invaluable asset. Again, Condi Rice comes to mind, though god knows if she'd even want the job. Tommy Thompson has executive experience and is, I think, ambitious enough -- after all, what is a cabinet office other than a resume booster for someone seeking a national reputation? And Tom Ridge, shortlisted for VP in 2000, has plans beyond Der Homeland, I presume. Say what you want about the various colors and flavors of terrorism alerts; if we don't get hit again before 2008, Ridge will have the street cred to run as a national security guru. Drawback: If we don't get hit again before '08, we'd better see some evil plans foiled in grand style (including a Scooby-doo-style unmasking of Osama at the end of each episode) or the nation won't want to hear about security -- particularly if we're all still waiting to board at O'Hare.

Martha Squawks: Christopher Byron, the author of the book upon which the Cybil Sheppard tv movie, "Martha, Inc." was based, was interviewed on the Motley Fool radio show this weekend. Among other things, he was asked about the future of Martha's company going forward. His point was well taken: when you are selling non-essential, non-unique commodities (i.e. sheets, towels, pans), the premium comes from the aura surrounding the manufacturer, or in this case, the endorser. If the endorser is sliding downward, ever downward, then there is no hope, in the long run, for the company to keep coming up with good numbers. Interestingly, Martha Stewart Living - Omni Media or "MSO" is up about 60% over the past 8 months. Byron attributed this to the fact that the value has slowly crept up as the lack of indictments continued. In any event, if your figurehead is an indicted shyster, then who wants her 800-count sheets?

I'm baa-aack: Reading through your as-usual excellent job whilst I was away. I'll comment as I see fit. First up, mankind as animal. Your last point on man merely being the last (so far) evolution on the food chain is right on. Whether you're an atheist, agnostic or died-in-the-wool conservative Catholic/Jew/Hindu, we're here for a reason. Whether it's the same reason as a tree frog, or whether it's for some higher purpose, it doesn't matter. We have to eat, drink, sleep and expel waste, just like the aforementioned tree frog. We're the only species to question as to how. Because we do so question, I think it would be beneath us as the highest order to merely do it like cows ("it" being not the pentultimate "it"), again regardless of why you believe we exist. We should strive to make the world better only if for the self-serving interest of passing it along to our offspring. Of course, this begs the question of what the impact is NOW from what we're doing. As for animals, I think they're below us and we can eat them. My issue is more along the lines, again, of how we eat them, and how we use them in our lives. Because we can ask these questions, we should strive for enlightened answers, not the easy way out. One read of "Fast Food Nation" and you'll see that we have a long way to go.

Puff Pieces: No, of course I didn't see any of the Hillary interviews. But I'm surprised anyway by the comments, by everyone to the right of Tom Shales, that Barbara Walters pitched softballs to Hillary. Why on Earth do you think Walters got the premiere? Fearless prediction: Hillary will go all the way to the 2008 nomination without ever having to face a tough interview. She doesn't have to, thanks to her name recognition. Also thanks to the fact that her popularity is tied to her invisibility. Her handlers know that a combative appearance (more accurately, a shrill, shreiking appearance) with, say, Tony Snow would be a ticket to nowhere. She'll be the Oprah candidate, going on shows that focus on how she "feels" about things. Her policy statements will increasingly become exercises in put-on innocence and subtle snarkiness: "I just happen to think that working Americans shouldn't have to starve, after all." And the Oprahs and Barbaras will nod gravely as though a) working Americans starve, and b) if they did, Hillary's straw man du jour (like her 2008 opponent) would get a great chuckle out of it.

Welcome to the Strong Language Portion of Our Show: Hitchens on the Dixie Chicks:

Each day they dig up dead bodies in personal death camps run by a Caligula dictator, and I'm being asked to worry about these fucking fat slags -- do me a favour!

You'll think I'm lying, but I got this link from the cuss-words-and-dirty-habits folk over at the Corner.

The Headline Says What? "Sen. Clinton Rules Out 2008 Presidential Bid." Uh-uh. Read the story.

"I don't have any intentions or plans of running," Clinton said, according to a transcript of the ABC interview. She said she was flattered by speculation that she might throw her hat in the ring ...

When was the last time the press bought the "I have no intentions at this time" line? The conventional wisdom is that anyone who uses that formulation clearly intends to run. Otherwise, they'd just quote William Tecumseh Sherman.

Update: They changed the headline to read "Sen. Clinton Says Has No Plans for W.House Run."

Abu Mazen and Hamas: Only in the ranks of the PA can a holocaust denier who has argued that the peace process is bad for Zionism be considered a sellout. I think we're going to quickly reach Point Arafat with Mazen: If you aren't able to control your people, then why are we negotiating with you? Further, if you can't keep people from hiking around in bomb-belts in the postage-stamp sized bit of land Israel let's you "govern," how the hell are you going to run a Palestinian state? Let's negotiate with someone who has a record of bringing civil order to Palestine, has actually stopped the suicide bombings, and isn't beholden to Yasser Arafat.

Bibi Netanyahu comes to mind.

Checking In: Limited by time and technology to much real posting today, folks, and with Enobarbus punching out for weekend it'll be pretty slow. Time for a few notes, though:

Page 3 news today regarding the Family Time Flexibility Act. Seems there wasn't enough support to pass this critical bill that would let workers take time off in lieu of overtime pay. Who opposed it? Labor unions of course, since it's something employers and employees might agree to without six months of union negotiation and strike threats. What I don't know is, why are United States Senators, exalted individuals that they are, needed to debate this. Talk about a "nanny state." Probably 1,400 pages worth of dreck so that Bill in Accounting can duck out 3:00 to catch the Little Leauge Game. National security at stake here.

Hammas says they won't promise to refrain from activities in cooperation with the "road map." I can't link to it right now but I'm sure someone at NRO is telling us why this isn't a surprise. And it isn't. And the peace process will go on for the cameras and important people will sit around big tables negotiating over plots of land the size of my futon and about as arable the way cheetahs negotiate over a freshly killed gazelle. And then something will blow up and we'll go back to square one. All Bush's fault, of course.

And finally, props to girls who take no shit. My friend Adrian was attacked yesterday afternoon by a vagrant behind the mall where she works. Grabbed by the arm and slung up against the dumpster, she Van Dammed the guy in the knee and kicked him in a very sensitive place that will go unsaid. He had to be taken to the hospital since his leg was bent like Joe Theisman's. And of course.....he's pressing charges.

Good weekend to everyone.

Speed Trap: Soon Charlotte, NC police won't have to rely on actual officers actually seeing you speed. Why should they, when cameras can do the job for them. All 22 Republican senators opposed this bill, but that wasn't enough to stop it. I'm particularly disgusted by this quote, from Democrat Dan Clodfelter:

Are we for effective law enforcement as long as it's not too effective?

Right, well wouldn't it be effective to install sensors in my home to detect marijuana smoke? Sure, but we don't allow that. And why should police have to specify what they intend to find in a search warrant? Makes it awfully hard to be effective. I don't think a slippery slope argument is necessary, folks. This is far enough down the slope for me. And did Clodfelter slip up here, or what:

What this process doesn't do is allow a driver to talk her way out of a ticket.

(Emphasis mine) He couldn't be suggesting that police officers selectively enforce the law by letting ladies to charm their way out of ticket. The whole thing ticks me off.

Oxygen Necessary For Human Life: Did we really need a survey to tell us this? Yes, clean drinking water is one of those things we sacrifice our money and liberty for and let the government provide. But "Clean and safe water is considered a right, not a privilege" is baloney. Clean water is a product or service we buy with our money (via taxes and the monthly water bill). But who cares, right? Nobody's against clean water. Maybe the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies is gearing up for some serious lobbying. "Clean water for the children will be next" as the justification for bigger budgets gets polished. Please, bartender, get me drink. And hold the water. (link via Taranto).

Odd Basis for Hope: Charles Paul Freund, in Reason Magazine, on Arab music videos, some of which would shock Americans. Not because the sensuality and raciness is unheard of here, but because, in our minds, it's unheard of there. Still:

One of the more interesting music videos released last year features an attractive brunette who, according to the video's narrative, is involved in a liaison taking place in a Paris hotel room ... For example, in one imagined sequence she isn't wearing much more than a skimpy bustier; in another she's lying suggestively prone, apparently thinking about the mysterious smiling man (who is seen in the background but not really present). Several times the camera invites the viewer to assume the role of the man, with the woman gazing at us with all the erotic intensity she can muster. As is usual in music videos, many shots feature the same woman in the role of singer, appearing onstage and performing the song we are hearing. But there are shots where she is both the singer and the character, including a curious shadowy sequence where several makeup women are busily applying powder to her exposed cleavage.

This may seem an odd foundation on which to build hope for Arab liberalization, but Freund is compelling in his optimism:

If the audience for these videos uses them to foment a long-term cultural revolution, it would hardly be the first time that "vulgar" forms were at the center of significant social change. In fact, "low" culture has almost certainly done more to transform the modern world than has "high" culture. That is because, as communications professor Joli Jensen argues in the recent Is Art Good For Us?, it is the low, "expressive" forms of art that people use to engage with and understand the world around them, and not the high, "instrumental" cultural forms that are collected in museums because they are supposed to be good for a public in need of uplifting ... For nearly a century, a series of utopian political systems has been advanced in the region to attempt to break this cycle of conflict and stagnation: Pan-Arabism, Ba'athism, Nasserism, Islamism, etc. These have all failed, sometimes disastrously. What may yet work in the region is what has worked elsewhere for centuries: commercialism that does not transmit a regime’s utopian dreams but addresses the personal dreams of the audience ... The Arab world will eventually achieve its long-delayed goal of liberalized modernity; it might just as well dance itself there.

Worth reading the whole. I think he's right. Free media combined with a free market makes the most potent liberalizing force there is.

Victory?: The latest issue of National Review calls the tax cut the "most pro-growth tax cut since 1981." They may be right, but that's not exactly the kind of thing to get me to put the lampshade on my head. As NR points out, it's less than half Bush's original proposal, so conservatives lost the negotiating game. More troubling is the bailout to the states that had to be included. Any more money sent to the states is only going to encourage this type of economic mismangement, and a GOP governor in Alabama ought to know better. And, on NRO Financial, Brian Riedl shows that the economic pickle the states are in isn't the fault of federal mandates. It ought to be belt tightening time, but the election cycle looms ever nearer. Guess it wasn't the right time for W. to tell the governors to try a salad.

Sorry. Here's the link to Riedl's column.

A Win for Sully: Howell Raines steps down at the Times. Take a bow, Andrew.

More: Tim Blair posts on the Raines story at 2:03 AM, Kangaroo Standard Time. Now what could Tim have been doing awake at that hour ...?

The A-Word: We rarely have anything to say about this hot-button issue here, but now that the House has again passed a "partial-birth abortion" ban, it's news again. But what can one say about it? The federalists, I think, are on the strongest legal ground, as you can see in this article by Dave Kopel and some other dude. The crux, for the Republicans pushing the ban, is consistency:

But generally speaking, it is hardly consistent for legislators to proclaim their affection for the doctrine of enumerated powers in general, and Lopez in particular, and then to turn around and push legislation which violates the spirit and the letter of both. Such behavior certainly undermines Republicans' claim that they are serious about restoring the federal government to its constitutional role ... In Conan Doyle's famous story, it was the fact that the dog didn't bark that allowed Sherlock Holmes to solve the mystery. The dog that hasn't barked in the debate over the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is the limited power of the federal government to pass legislation based primarily on one group's moral views. What mystery does this silence solve? Alas, in our case it is no mystery at all. The dog has not barked because the political classes, on both the left and the right, have no interest in limiting the power of the federal government when limitations might constrain their own actions.

I think partial-birth is barbaric, but I also think this law, if it passes the Senate, will and should be struck down.

Jerusalem as Belfast: David Frum offers a metaphoric role for Abu Mazen -- be Palestine's Michael Collins, the Irish rebel (and, don't kid yourself, terrorist) who was willing to fight England for freedom and to fight Ireland for peace. The parallels are actually excellent. Collins was a fiercely nationalistic, and as anti-British, as any of his fellows, but accepted the imperfect peace of partition. Could the ol' holocaust denier Abu see the same kind of opportunity?

Of course, Collins was assassinated shortly after the partition ...

Court of Public Opinion: Charged with obstruction, Martha begins her PR battle with an open letter to her "friends":

I simply returned a call from my stockbroker. Based in large part on prior discussions with my broker about price, I authorized a sale of my remaining shares in a biotech company called ImClone. I later denied any wrongdoing in public statements and in voluntary interviews with prosecutors. The government's attempt to criminalize these actions makes no sense to me.

This is even more transparent than the Hillary book leak! Stewart worked on Wall Street, so she knows exactly why she's been charged. But it wouldn't do much for her image for her to be anything other than a victim, though, so she'll play the dumb blonde act for now. It's a good defense, if a little far-fetched coming from a media/finance empress, and she may be able to beat this if she can hold that story together. She must only be wondering what the broker is telling the SEC.

Media Blitz for Hillary Clinton Book Spoiled by Leak That's the WaPo headline, at any rate. Do you buy that? I think this was all part of the rollout plan. A little controversy, leak the "juicy" Monica part of the book, have the publisher threaten a lawsuit. Guess who gets to be the victim again. I mean, who else would leak the excerpt where Bill confesses to Hill, other than the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy^TM? If anything, that headline should read: Media Blitz for Hillary Clinton Book Kicks Off with "Leak."

Dear Leader (and Readers): I apologize for the faux pas of jumping directly to commentary without any introduction. I'm sure it was quite a shock to the system for many of you, but it's a result of my clumsiness as a new blogger. Frankly, I was just getting settled in and before I knew it, I was posting, baby.

Thanks to Enobarbus and the Razor for inviting me to sit at the adult's table for a while. Hopefully we'll keep things as lively as always and readers won't wind up drooling on their keyboards while they sleep.

Shout Out: Let's have a big Fauxpolitik welcome to our guest blogger, Flyer, who will sit in while the Razor is in his undisclosed location -- and perhaps beyond.

History of the Internet: Check it out here.

Corkage Fee: Yesterday Chicago Cub slugger Sammy Sosa broke his bat on an RBI groundout to second revealing that the bat had been corked. For a player who has capitalized as much on his image as on his ability, this is a major no-no. He says it was a mistake, that his batting practice lumber got mixed with his game equipment. Many are skeptical.

Even if Sosa uses a corked bat for practice (which I'm not sure of, since players are so often seen using heavier bats for warm ups and a corked bat is significantly lighter) how could he be so careless. After all, bats break from time to time and a revelation like this hurts Sammy in a way it didn't affect Graig Nettles or Albert Belle. They weren't raking it in from endorsements and memorabilia. Why take the chance? Maybe because an injury plagued start to the season combined with a 2-15 slump had Sosa looking for a little help.

I hope for Sosa's sake and for baseball's sake that every bat they cut open is cork free. But even if they are, the shadow of doubt has been raised and Sammy's gonna pay a price. Time for a little of that "Baseball has been berry, berry good to me" PR work.

It's Not the Economy: An excellent analysis of trends, numbers, and speculation in yesterday's WSJ (here, for subscribers) by Edmund Phelps. He says something that I've said before:

The most mindless optimism speaks ritually of "recession" from which we can expect "recovery" -- in labor, product and capital markets. But what recession? Standard interpretations of the usual charts estimate that in 1995-96 the economy was at or close to its long-run normal state -- with monetary disturbances in abeyance and no big nonmonetary disturbances either. (The core inflation rate was steady, averaging the same rate as in 1993-94.) Of course, what is normal is always evolving. Yet, impressively, the period's unemployment rate (5.5%), the share of GDP going to labor (65.8%), and stock-market wealth relative to the GDP (about 115%), were on the whole not far from their levels in two other pretty normal periods, 1987-88 and 1971. In the next four years the economy boomed, posting records in all these respects and others. Since 2000 it has fallen back: labor's share to its 1995-96 level, the stock market to its 1997 level and the unemployment rate -- at 6.1% -- to its 1994 level. So we're more or less back to normalcy. It was the boom that was abnormal.

Even if you can't stomach a "natural" unemployment rate, one can fairly posit a "normal" one; and the one we had during the late-90s boom was not normal. Was it entirely overinvestment driven? I agree with Phelps that this is still unknown, though I get the feeling that I he would be less inclined than I to think so.

Keep this in mind when you listen to the Democratic candidates crank about "the economy." What about it? Inflation? Not a problem. Deflation? Certainly not yet, and probably not the disaster it's thought to be. Which of the candidates has even begun to address what they think is currently "wrong" with the economy?

Animal Crackers: I'm sympathetic to animal rights causes, not because I'm a vegetarian, but because I think unnecessary suffering is just that: unneccessary. I find a lot of animal farming methods needlessly cruel; others appear cruel but are necessary. I think the market can, and will, bring about a number of changes (along the lines of dolphin-safe tuna movement), and I'm willing to pay higher costs for meat to see some suffering ameliorated. (Others won't; that's fine, since I can't make it my responsibility to rid the world of all suffering.)

That said, I think Matthew Scully's Dominion, something of a conservative argument for moral treatment of animals, is a silly, silly book. It scooped up a lot of praise when it was published -- though few of the reviews resisted a whack at Scully's former boss, George W. Bush (for whom Scully was a speechwriter) -- mainly because it conceded a lot of ground to the activists. (Conservatives are always thought of in the media as pillars of integrity and "bipartisanship" when they concede to the left.) I have had to grapple with some issues as a result of reading his book -- a good thing, indubitably -- but the book itself is often shrill, consistently self-righteous, and oddly lacking in authority to the same extent it teems with conviction. It's a bit like reading a transcript of a parental scolding: a little too much screechy self-evidence, not enough controlled argument.

Scully begins by saying that he will argue a reasonable, logical cause without resorting to the emotional warfare that is so often present in animal causes. He promptly ignores this pledge and argues entirely from a Judeo-Christian moral viewpoint, which -- compelling as that case may be -- is based very little on reason. And he certainly does bring emotionalism into the mix by citing cat and dog farming in China. (This is, for obvious reasons, akin to citing cattle ranching and slaughter in Hindu India: It plays upon a cultural tradition, not a point of logic, to create a desired emotional response. Far from being morally evenhanded, it is morally obtuse. One might just as well ask Scully if he spares every mosquito that lights upon him. "Every thing that creepeth," after all.)

Along those religious lines, for example, Scully takes to task the hunters who scorn a new age-y, paganistic sentimentality toward animals while mythologizing their own hunt and instilling it with bogus spirituality. Fair point, but Scully indicts himself just the same, since so much of his core argument derives from Judeo-Christian scripture, itself essentially a mythology. Yes, believing the spiritual tropes about hunting that Scully cites (particularly inane are those of the otherwise staid Roger Scruton) is an exercise in idiotic fatuousness; but how is it so different to believe that the god of Abraham gave us a (benevolent, according to Scully) dominion over all animals. This kind of "reasoning," attempting to govern a world of resources with theology, might have flown in pre-Scopes days, but now it seems pseudoscientific.

Further, Scully never attempts to address the diversity of thought among hunters, some of whom don't trophy hunt, many of whom eat or share their harvest. Scully's section on hunting hammers the themes of brutality, killing for the "fun" of it, and coldness toward animal life. On the contrary, it is the majority of Americans, buying meat from the grocery store, who are cold to the lives of animals, allowed to purchase "beef" instead of a cow. An indictment of your target audience, though, doesn't sell many books, so Scully picks some scapegoats in those who hunt, ranch, and butcher.

Finally, Scully's arguments require an anthropocentric view of the Earth -- a view full of responsibilities for healthy ecosystems, endangered species, and the widening circles of morality of Singer (though Scully does distinguish his views from some of Singer's more extreme ones). I'm more inclined to see mankind as simply another species on the planet, to whom the resources of the Earth are not denied. We wouldn't think of hoping to talk cheetahs out of "cruelly" killing gazelles, would we? To the contrary, though, Scully's brand of morality seeks to deter a species designed for the hunt (raptor's eyes) and meat eating (canine teeth) from both because of what, despite Scully's protestations, is emotionalism.

More Media: Jesse Walker has the unconventional wisdom on the FCC's decision on Reason's blog:

With all the apocalyptic rhetoric around the FCC's "deregulation" decision today, you might expect the new rules to say something really radical, like "We will no longer regulate how many media outlets you can own." Instead, you'll find gems like this one: "In markets with five or more TV stations, a company may own two stations, but only one of these stations can be among the top four in ratings." A reader calling himself Uncle Brian comments: "So if I own two of the five stations in my market, one of them always has to be last in the ratings? Does that mean I have to make it intentionally suck? Do I forfeit ownership if I can't keep people from watching?"

This is far from deregulation. Follow his links, too.

Media Ownership: Here it is. Let the whining begin. Until the day comes when people are nailed to chairs and forced to watch certain channels, I just can't see this as a bad thing. In fact, how is there an argument that the industry trend is a bad one? When I was young, my media choices were controlled, basically, by an oligopoly: NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS, plus a couple of UHF channels that came in fuzzy, and only if you made your little brother stand facing North holding the rabbit ears. Yes, the local network affiliates had some say in what they programmed in the off-hours -- I remember it usually being test patterns. My point is that we have choices now; we can watch nearly anything, anytime. How, exactly, is this the "threat to democracy" that the paint-your-face Davos types want it so badly to be?

This reminds me of the people who complain that Clear Channel owns too many radio stations. Try to cut to the root with them: It's not that they begrudge Clear Channel the profits, per se; it's that Clear Channel's programming is so bad, so flavorless, so mass marketed. So now it's the Taste Police against consolidation, eh? Seems that lots of people are perfectly happy with Clear Channel's programming, though. What gives? Ah, that's the problem: See, the Taste Police don't think you are capable of deciding what's good programming, and they had better step in before we're all listening to shit like Bachman-Turner Overdrive's "Takin' Care of Business" on every radio station simultaneously. Get it? You're too stupid to know what music should be on the radio, and companies like Clear Channel are getting rich off your lowbrow, easily programmed tastes, dumbass. And pretty soon, Viacom will be doing the same thing. Before you know it, people all across the country will tune in to the same network, at the same time, to watch the same show. (Oh, and it'll be a dumb show, mind you -- pure pap aimed at the lowest common denominator. A show about, say, a bunch of lunkheads in a bar in Boston, or worse, a show about nothing at all!)

Now, the pop quiz portion of our program: Who is the actual "threat to democracy" here?

A. Conolidated media outlets like Clear Channel

B. The Taste Police

More Deficits: Donald Luskin, who is usually pretty out front on these matters, takes up the FT article I linked to below:

The most cursory scan of these documents reveals instantly that this study is actually about nothing more than a new method to account for the present value of Social Security and Medicare liabilities.

This is pretty obvious, though, and I said as much. The lack of political will to effect entitlement reform is what this boils down to. Further, Luskin says:

It pains me to see President Bush getting beaten up over this, because he has done more than any other president to try to address the problems of Social Security and Medicare head on. He's dared to grasp the third rail of American politics, and to propose that Social Security be radically restructured to incorporate elements of personal choice.

But Bush cut and run on Social Security reform pretty quickly, didn't he? Sort of the way he sold out the vouchers plank of his "No Child Left Behind" proposal to kiss Ted Kennedy's ring. There's always a segment of fiscal conservatism, and perhaps Luskin is part of it, that keeps thinking that the GOP won't break their hearts this time. So Bush "grasped the third rail." So what? If it didn't kill him, it at least killed the issue. I'll bet Luskin a steak dinner (actual restaurant may vary) that any Social Security reform by 2008 will be anemic, at best -- a couple of points in strictly controlled funds.

Look, I'm with Bush on the terror thing, the Iraq thing, whatever. I agree that it's time to be hawkish when we move through the world. But back at home, Bush is a dove. Yes, he cut taxes, but not much, really, after his party walked away from him. You want my vote next year George?

1. Vouchers. Whenever my money is back in my hands, we all benefit.

2. Fiscal discipline: Let's see the budget start to shrink. Start with the farm bill, which carves out a special class of business that never has to lose, no matter the business cycle, weather, etc.

3. Entitlements: We're digging a hole. I'm willing to cut some second term slack on this, since getting re-elected is obviously more imporatant to you than doing the right thing. Don't cut and run on Social Security again.

4. Taxes. Flat.

Got it. Now we're friends again.