AP doesn't like smoking: Yesterday a bill in the NC House to ban smoking in all restuarants got changed in the judiciary committee. The changes are going to be phased in, with a 50% minimum of seating being set aside for non-smoking. Here's the opening the AP story from Raleigh:

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) Letting go of North Carolina's tobacco history remains a painful process, as evidenced Thursday when legislators effortlessly cut the area covered by a proposed restaurant smoking ban in half.

Gee, you we just can't seem to live up to the standards of decent society. Why, those corrupt legislators, taking kickbacks from R.J. Reynolds, no doubt, actually allowed resturant owners to control what happens in 50% of their establishment. They don't seem to understand the shame they're supposed to feel for foisting this toxic substance on innocent American babies and the mentally deficient (certainly they can be the only ones smoking today, at least in polite society). Then we get these two paragraphs:

It's not only a known carcinogen but also triggers heart attacks in people suffering from coronary disease, he said. Secondhand smoke also is linked with asthma, bronchitis and ear infections in children, Plescia said.

All reliable scientific studies show that going smoke-free doesn't cost restaurants money, said Dr. Anne Butzen, who works on secondhand smoke research at the University of North Carolina. In some cases, business improved for restaurants that prohibited smoking, she said.

All right, this is picky of me, and I'm sure it's just an editing error, but as these are statements made by individuals, and not simple reportage by the AP, could you please put quotation marks around the parts of the sentence that are, in fact, quotes. Casual readers glancing at the article might miss the fact that it is Dr. Anne Butzen, not the AP, or God , who has decreed what scientific studies are considered reliable and which are clearly biased in favor of the corrupt tobacco planters and their co-conspirators in the N.C. Restuarant Association.

The whole article reads like an editorial instead of honest reporting, without a single quote from, say a restaurant owner who might have an interest in the bill, or a smoker, or a diner. No, it's about North Carolina's inability to grasp that their sinister lifestyle, that has prospered from murderous agricultural activities. We've only just gotten over slavery, don't you know.

An American in Paris: Another tough year for American men at the French, eh Razor? Question from a non-afficianado: is there anyone other than Agassi and Roddick in the American ranks? Agassi will soon be exiting the game, I would assume, and Roddick has underachieved the greatness his blazing serve presages. Who else have we got? Anyone? Bueller?

A Couple of Unrelated Thoughts: Closing went through on the house, so now I'm spending every spare moment (except this one) painting shit (all interior walls were a clay-brown), fixing shit (the dishwasher was never secured to the cabinetry, so it tended to walk out of its cubby), and buying shit (the AMEX card is on fire these days). Moving starts immediately. I'll be a basket case until mid-June -- roughly the time I start doing nightly performances of Julius Caesar for three weeks.

The branch of my bank that I like best is closing. Luckily, I'm moving, so I'll use another branch now. But this one had been really convienient, almost walking distance. Anyway, in order to close the branch, the bank had to petition the Massachusetts State Commissioner of Banks. Imagine if every business had to ask a commissioner before it could move (this above and beyond the standard building permit begging and bribing that has to take place). If you can't imagine it, vote for Democrats; they'll offer a demonstration program, likely concerning the health care industry.

I realized today, following a slow, elderly couple (driving a Florida-plated land yacht with the bug screen on the front grille), that I will drive that way when I'm old. Why? Because I'm a careful driver. This is not to say that I'm a slow driver. I've seen the north side of one and four bits, and I know how to overtake a knucklehead to the inside on a curving on-ramp like it's the Abbey turn at Silverstone.* But I know how I drive when I smoke marijuana. It's just like the old people.

Oh, I almost forgot: Ursus americanus has returned to my backyard. Last year it was a mother and cub. This year the cub looks pretty big, though still not fully grown. Mom's nowhere to be found so far.

*Note: Originally wrote "Silberstone." Yeah, that famous Jewish race track in England. Like I said, basket case.

Hogwash: So the president of PBS is a liberal, and the chairman of CPB is a conservative. One (guess who!) thinks there's bias in public broadcasting. The other thinks not. Sounds like a sitcom. Maybe they have to share an office! And a black, gay, conservative administrative assistant! Ahem. Anyhoo, just had to pick out a couple of howlers in the article.

While defending PBS against what she regards as unfounded attacks that it is politically partial, Mitchell said she was not questioning Tomlinson's motives.

No, certainly not. When he looks at PBS and sees a liberal tilt, he's just a victim of his own unconscious bias.

Mitchell said PBS presents political views as diverse as those of Moyers and Paul Gigot . . .

One of those two (guess who!) is an actual journalist with actual experience in putting out a newspaper, on both sides of the "chinese wall." The other is and always has been a partisan hack masquerading as a journalist (although PBS is increasingly the only broadcast source that buys his act) who more and more has become a mindless bombthrower.

"The facts do not support the case he makes" for political bias, Mitchell said of Tomlinson. Surveys show that the overwhelming majority of the public does not perceive bias in public broadcasting, she said.

Jesus, did she really say that? Hold on . . . Yeah, she did. There's no bias in public broadcasting because "surveys show . . ." Talk about your rock-solid evidence. I bet NPR listeners think that's pretty balanced, too. And most people who read Paul Krugman's column think that he's got a pretty solid grip on the facts. Let's face it: Public broadcasting, for obvious reasons, isn't likely to get a lot of repeat business from conservatives, which tends to leave them underrepresented when it comes time to survey PBS's viewership.

As a final, though not dispositive, point, I cite O'Sullivan's first law: "All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing." In my experience, this is true, doubly so for any organization that feeds from the public teat.

Best read on Slate right now: Edward Jay Epstein, an author who writes about two of my favorite topics (economics and movies), also pens (digitally) a column at Slate about the financing and other behind-the-marketing essentials of blockbuster movie-making. He's really, really good.

This week: Why certain directors have to direct a film while safely ensconced in a room apart from the live action, and why a certain actress' balky knee almost had her blacklisted from ever working again. Then go read his archive (only a few articles so far, but all worth a read).

Yay! We're back where we started...: Put the duct tape and clear plastic sheets away, the Senatorial crisis over judical nominees is over. In exchange for up-or-down votes on a handful of appellate court judges, the Democrats get to reserve the right to use the filibuster only in "extreme" situations. You have to ponder the merits of that qualification. Since the Dems get to define what is "extreme", isn't that like giving an obese person on a diet the power to decide what is "fattening" ("Yes, but they're low carb!!!")?

I mean this thing got so bad, you had otherwise well-spoken people like Arlen Specter sounding like a pundit lost in a metaphor factory, noting that the nominees are being "held hostage as pawns in a convoluted chess game that is spinning out of control." For those counting, he was one metaphor away from the world record for a sentence with fewer than 25 words.

Our buddy Erik is gathering the conservative blog reaction (which ranges from full-on hissy tantrums, to skeptical optimism), and the consensus seems to be that three judges will get floor votes, while Saad and Myers will not.

I never thought that the filibuster was in real danger - not even Frist and DeLay are that short-sighted to throw out the only real weapon the minority has - but at the same time, I'm happy this is over so the Senate can focus on some serious business. I hear there's a lame horse about to be put down somewhere in Kentucky that may need immediate legislative intervention.

Non-Star Wars post!: Rick Santorum appears to have stuck his head further up his ass than usual and Volokh call him on it. Santorum calls Democrat grousing about possible rules changes

...the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine."

Jonah Goldberg has been a fairly consistent critic of anyone playing politics with the Hitler accusation, usually liberals comparing Bush to a Nazi, so I'll be interested to see if he slaps Santorum for it. First post I saw on The Corner though was about Santorum in a different way. I hope that changes as fast as NR's position of the rules change did.

Audience/Effects: Lucas may have made the first three for children, but there's no doubt the success of the series in its second phase is due to fans of the original trilogy growing up and becoming, sometimes psychotically, attached to the story. I think Lucas had a responsibility to make the movies enjoyable for both children and the adult fan. He failed miserably on the first two. It's not like it's impossible to do that, you know. Every parent I know raves about how great movies like Toy Story, Shrek, Monsters Inc., and Finding Nemo are, precisely because they have enough laughs for the parents and keep the kids enthralled. Those are freakin' cartoons! Is it too much to hope for from an auteur like Lucas? Maybe it is (or he's not), but I had the feeling that parents felt similiarly towards Star Wars for at least the first couple flicks. If/when that got lost can be debated.

As for effects, I think they're largely overrated. I still think the effects in Star Wars hold up better than the ones in Episodes I, II, or III. The use of CG animation only expands your choices, it doesn't mean you'll make good ones. The earlier movies didn't rely on entire worlds being created in the background, so they were forced to focus on the characters. There were very few wide shots that weren't of something the average 1977 human could recognize* - Tatooine=Sahara Desert; Hoth=Alaska. No big whoop, I've seen that in pictures before. Now show me what the people are doing, how they're feeling. Since the technology's gotten better, it's become less about characters and more about cool planets and improbable aliens. Wonder why the performances by respected actors are so bad? Treakly dialogue is part of it, but filming every scene in front of a green screen makes it difficult for even good lines to be delivered well. There's no set, no scene, just a wharehouse and a bunch of computers to add everything later. The actors are uninvolved and so, mirabile dictu, is the audience.

Lucas commits many of the same sins in ...Sith, but he manages to remember he's telling a story about people first, planets and politics second. It's far from perfect, but it's good enough to end with.

*Exception: wide shots of Death Stars. Very cool, but not exactly FX wonders.

The Empire Strikes Lame Poses: Piffle, sir. Piffle, I say. There were a few moments of joy in the first one, I'll admit. And that's why the original will always stand as the best. But Luke is: Such. A. Drag. Through the whole trilogy. Empire existed only to advance the plot with yak yak yakking about the force. Then Jedi came along and upped the ante on twee aliens, with Mark Hamill doing his brooding face in every scene. Oh dear god!

As for FX, look at Kubrick's 2001, released in 1968. Look at Star Wars, released nearly a decade later. It's a difference of degree, not kind.

Finally, to take up your genre point, I don't think Lucas so much created a new genre as transposed some old ones: westerns, samurai flicks, and Flash Gordon serials. Genres that had bad guys in black hats, a sword/gun slinging hero with a special code of ethics, a mercenary hired onto the side of righteousness who ridicules the morality of the hero but who ends up himself a partisan. Watch Kurasawa's "Hidden Fortress"; now imagine the fortress is . . . in space, and that the two bickering peasants are robotic. Hmmmm. Oh, and what was the Japanese word for the period samurai piece? Jidai, was it? That word sounds oddly familiar . . .

The Clones Keep Droning: You'll not get argument from me (or from most people) that Lucas is woefully inept at crafting dialogue, suspense and drama in his scripts. In fact, it's quite clear that were his scripts submitted today, by any other name, they would likely be sent back in a plain envelope, barely read.

But, what made the first three so great is that they were not only ground-breaking, they created a new genre of film - one in which the special effects not only didn't get in the way of the movie, they greatly enhanced it. Everything before this one was shlock (harken back to "The Incredible Shrinking Man" or even "War of the Worlds"). Those movies used special effects because the plot required them, not because they were particularly effective.

Lucas changed all that with his obsession with technology and his unique abilities to milk from that technology every last drop of awe.

Today, not to sound older than my 33 years, the kids's pulses barely quicken seeing all the pod racing, light-sabre dueling, and spaceship hurtling. Interestingly, most of the younger audience grew up on Star Wars as a videogame, not a movie. Sure, many if not all have seen the old movies, but dollars-to-donuts, those first three movies were not their first exposure to the saga.

Last, and where I will differ with you somewhat directly, is that the first three movies had some quality actors; there is no disputing that Harrison Ford's scenes were always the most entertaining, and that Carrie Fisher brought some believability to a female heroine who could occasionaly rescue herself, not to mention her cohorts. Sure, Mark Hamill was no great thespian, and the dialogue was often wooden, but it was all delivered with such joy and enthusiasm - the actors knew they were onto something new, and their own pleasure could not be hidden.

Today, while we get some good actors (Sam Jackson, Natalie, Ewan), they have no joy, no sense of being enthralled by the product. And of course, the dialogue, wooden pacing, and Jar Jar cannot help that predicament.

Still, while Star Wars is designed for kids, I'd argue the first three (or at least the first two) were plenty for adults to dig. Once merchandise tie-ins became de riguer, well, we got what we asked for.

Star Wars/Lucas/Crapola: I won't win many friends for this one, but I really ceased to give a shit about the bloated Star Wars franchise quite a few years ago. The first three were a part of my childhood/adolescence, so obviously I went to see Phantom Menace -- well after it came out, though. I also read through a lot of disappointed fan mewling, and I realized this: Lucas's work has always been juvenile, wooden, preachy, unsophisticated drivel. That's cool when you're a kid. As an adult, I really don't care for it any more. Was Jar-Jar Binks annoying? Sure. So were the Ewoks, Chewbacca, and various other Lucas creations.

No, I'm not trying to say that everyone who wants to see this movie needs to grow up. But they do need to face the diagnosis of acute nostalgia, and quit hoping that Lucas was just slumping for a while. The movies have always been crap aimed to wow kids and sell toys, poseur exegesis of Lucas's pseudo-profound space-Zen, recycled Kurasawa-isms, and derivative mythopoetics notwithstanding. Know why Phantom Menace sucked? Cause you're grown up now. Don't believe me? Take a ten year old to see it. Think Clones was boring? So was most of the talky dreck in Empire.

Point is, it's never going to mean as much/be as cool as it all seemed that summer in 1977. Remember? You heard it from another kid, maybe a couple years older than you: there's this movie about a guy with a kooky glowing sword; he has a spaceship, fights bad guys. But it's gone. And, honestly, who cares? That's life. It goes by, don't it? Now shut the f*ck up about it. It's not all about you, so quit bitching about how Lucas "sold out" or some such, because you're spoiling things for the intended audience, which, to be blunt, is not 40-year-old guys with a wife and a mortgage.

The Classics - for free: Ever wanted to read "Great Expectations" but just couldn't find it in the library? Well, fret no more. If you have a computer and a connection to the internet (which you must if you're reading these words), you can now download this and many other great works for free, as an "E-Book". Check it out.

Confession: I did it. Slogged along and went to see Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith last night. A stupid thing to do, go to a movie at midnight, no matter how good what's playing. But, the girlfirend had no interest in seeing it at all, so I may as well go with my geeky friends and be tired the next day.

I'm not a movie critic so I won't attempt a thorough analysis (Will Collier's done one at Vodkapundit that includes spoilers if you're interested, and there's some counterpoint to him in the comments section of his post that are worhtwhile) but I'll give a quick two cents.

This is far and away a better movie than the last two, and while that's not saying much, it's probably enough for those (like me) who lowered their expectations so much over the past six years that anything better than a three hour Jar Jar Binks soliloquy would have been acceptable. While the dialogue in Episode III has its moments of putresence ("Hold me like you did on Naboo"), they are fewer and mostly shorter. More importantly, those scenes have much more relevance to the story and are useful in explaining Anakin's seduction to the Dark Side. The acting performances are forgettable, which is a major step up from the wooden performances in Episodes I and II. Nobody who uses acting quality as reason to trash these past three installments can rightly be a fan of the first three (and if you were never a fan of the series, then why you even care is beyond me. You must get tired of flogging the same dead horse). Oh, and there's nary a peep out of the dreaded Binks.

Most of all, though, it is an action packed, sinister, at times disturbing movie that comes closer to evoking real emotion than, I think, any of the last three (I include Jedi as part of the Trilogy of Shite that Lucas made for the toy industry). Yes, much of that emotion is simply relief at having all this behind you. But Ian McDiarmid does a great job of making Chancellor/Emperor Palpatine believably evil and Obi Wan Kenobi, who was the most pathetic excuse for a Jedi in Attack of the Clones, finally shows he's got some guts at the end.

Lucas brought back some old gags, as well, mostly with the droids R2-D2 and C3PO. Early into the movie I found myself smiling and chuckling at R2 bouncing around a careening, out of control space ship and fiddling with computer systems to make elevators work for his human masters. Good stuff that reminded me comic relief, or lack thereof, was part of what made Star Wars work and was severely lacking in recent installments. For instance, in Jedi R2-D2 stopped being funny and turned into some kind of robot butt buddy for Ewoks. Awful. Still no character equal to Han Solo for wit, though.

Important scenes are allowed to play out in full this time, instead of being cut short by Lucas' heavy handed direction (though I'm really tired of the "screen wash" technique that is his staple - it stopped being dramatic or cool a long time ago). There are plenty of good lightsaber/force duels, a must to make a Star Wars movie, and even though you know ahead of time the win, lose, or draw of each, they are still fun. And finally, just about every geek trivia question you could possibly want answered gets addressed. So, hopefully, we can all move on from these very flawed movies that made for a very entertaining series.

I have little interest in discussing the politics of Lucas or how his movies are meant as metaphors for Vietnam/Iraq/Bush. Other than a few rather heavy handed attempts to scold Bush, there's little of what conservatives have been fetting about. I think Lucas is wrong and self-contradictory, but who cares. That's another dead horse not worth whipping.

America - The Middle Finger: President and CFO of PepsiCo, Indra Nooyi, recently made a speech at Columbia University in which she compared each continent to one of the five fingers - Africa's the pinky, Asia's the thumb, blah, blah, blah. She's catching some flack, though for her characterization of America (and not North America, but the U.S. in particular):

Finally, the US (not Canada mind you) - yes, you guessed it - the middle finger. She then launched into a diatribe about how the US is seen as the middle finger to the rest of the world. The rest of the world sees us as an overbearing, insensitive and disrespectful nation that gives the middle finger to the rest of the world. According to Ms. Nooyi, we cause the other finger nations to cower under our presence. But it is our responsibility, she continues, to change the current state of world opinion of the US. It is our responsibility to make the other fingers rise in unison with us as we move forward.

Now, there's a little disagreement about the context of her statements and New Criterion and Powerline are having some back and forth with Pepsi about releasing the entire speech. I could really care less what Ms. Nooyi thinks of America, I'm still gonna drink Coke (at least when faced with an either/or scenario and I'm really thirsty), but her analogy doesn't work. America is the thumb, no matter what Asia's "yearning" for. Without the thumb, you can do very, very little. Other than pick your nose. And she's right on that one. That's Europe.

The standard for "gentleman": Via Eugene Volokh

"He would never sue an uninsured woman who injured him during sex, and he would always pay back her deductible"?

Read the whole thing, though it makes for a wee bit of discomfort.

Not Getting It: Look, I'm as cheesed at Newsweak as the next guy, but this is really off the mark.

Pakistan dismissed on Tuesday as inadequate an apology and retraction by the Newsweek magazine of a report that U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had desecrated the Koran.

"The apology and retraction are not enough," Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told Reuters.

"They should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news which hurt feelings of Muslims."

Sorry, Rashid, but this is about the truth. If it's good, solid reporting and it still hurts your feelings, live with it. The fact that you are "Information Minister" in a country where people kill other people over a report that somebody stuck the Koran in a loo in Cuba says to me all that I need to know. It's really great to help you guys out, maybe get a legitimate goverment up and running. But I sure hope this isn't the best you can do.

Good Press: In reaction to a pretty entertaining story about one man's exposure to an Enron song-and-dance number in 1999, including multiple trips on one of Enron's corporate jets, I started looking at the corporate press releases of the company, and found them to be pretty entertaining as well (in the sense that you can't look away) . Reading the tone of the releases, the double-talk, the scripting, even the standard SEC required langauge, is amazingly telling. Here's a short walk through 2001:


January, 2001: Enron announces increased EPS (earnings per share) forecast of $1.70 to $1.75. Remember those numbers.

February, 2001: Enron named one of the country's most innovative companies, for the sixth year running. Who's doing the naming? Why, Fortune Magazine, a trusted name if there ever was one.


April, 2001: Enron announces an increase in DEPS (Diluted EPS) for the first quarter 2001 over 2000 of $.07/share. Not only that, it is once again increasing forecasted EPS for 2001 in the $1.75 to $1.80 range. Things are looking up!

May, 2001: Vice-Chairman, Cliff Baxter resigns, but will continue to work as a consultant. Hmmm, well, people do move on. Plus, as the press release reassuringly notes, consistently:

Enron is one of the world?s leading electricity, natural gas and communications companies. The company, with revenues of $101 billion in 2000, markets electricity and natural gas, delivers physical commodities and financial and risk management services to customers around the world, and has developed an intelligent network platform to facilitate online business. Fortune magazine has named Enron "America's Most Innovative Company" for six consecutive years.

June, 2001: Enron reassures the world that it will meet earnings expectations. And who wouldn't believe? After all, this comes from Jeffrey Skilling:

"Our business continues to be extremely strong. Interest in our energy delivery and energy management capabilities has never been higher," said Jeffrey K. Skilling, Enron president and CEO. ?Having reviewed the recent FERC action on price controls in the western U.S., we remain very confident that we will meet the market?s consensus recurring earnings estimates of $0.42 and $1.79 per share, respectively, for both the second quarter and full year 2001."

August, 2001: Oops, Skilling resigned.

October, 2001: Hmmm, the SEC is casually interested in Enron's earnings, etc. But, this is purely voluntary, says Ken Lay. Note the slight change to the tag description of the company at the end:

Enron is one of the world?s leading energy, commodities and services companies. The company markets electricity and natural gas, delivers energy and other physical commodities, and provides financial and risk management services to customers around the world.

No more "$101 billion" in revenues - hmmm, wonder why such engraved-in-stone numbers would be removed from the company description? And what about Fortune Magazine? Oh well, as long as my stock holdings keep going up...

October 31, 2001: HEY, WE GOT THIS NEW DIRECTOR ON BOARD! HE'S A LAW PROFESSOR AND EVERYTHING! WOOOOHOOOO! and the sec has changed its inquiry to a formal investigation.

November, 2001:
Okay, not that it means anything, but here's some explanation of all the off balance sheet transactions we've (well, really Skilling) been doing these past years. But, I mean, Andersen okayed it all, so no worries, really.

November 9, 2001: Big time merger announcement!! See, people want us; they love us. In your face, SEC!!!

November 28, 2001:
Whoops, the merger's off; and we're now a junk-rated credit risk. But umm, hey, have you seen our precious art collection?

December 2, 2001: Annnnd, we're in bankruptcy. Notice how pathetic the tag line is now:

Enron Corp. markets electricity and natural gas, delivers energy and other physical commodities, and provides financial and risk management services to customers around the world.

No leader of this, billion dollar that, Fortune magazine whatever.

December 14, 2001: Annnnd, your 401(k) is screwed. Merry Christmas from all of us at Enron!

2002 is just too depressing to recount...resignations, criminal proceedings, liquidations.

Stuff you always wanted to know: How does a lightsaber work.

Also, some very useful tips on alternative uses for your lightsaber.

Like Banning Levi's: Good piece in the Globe Ideas section about how intertwined smoking is with American culture, a partial explanation of why smoking bans run into so much trouble.

It seems more than a coincidence that the increasing blandness of the cultural landscape and the eradication of smoking have proceeded together. For while many of the producers of today's entertainments are still smokers themselves, that activity is disallowed in their creations. As sanitized versions of reality replace the investigations of a Godard or a Cassavetes, a cultural hole opens up to compete with the one in the ozone.

Incidentally, I have quit smoking, given that there are fewer and fewer places to enjoy it. Smoking is a habit of elegance, to be enjoyed seated, with a drink, not huddled against the wind, puffing between cupped hands. I refuse to be a smoker in that sort of situation. The inconvenience came on so slowly that at first I barely noticed it. In college, I simply had to put out my Camel (unfiltered, thanks) before entering the actual classroom. In my first job, I could only smoke in my own office. In grad school, a short-lived smokers' lounge gave way to the covered portico, which in turn gave way to the yard behind the quad. Now, 20 years after it began, my tobacco journey ends here, in this dismal town where the law forbids smoking in any public place.

More: Just got back in from smoking one outside. Wow! It's not so bad in the summer, you know. I can suffer through until late October, but then it's quits for good, and I mean it!

BRAC: I'm watching the coverage of the latest round of DoD's base realignment and closure. As usual, it's a wild pork toss. (Even Democrats love the military when it comes to bases in their districts; a base means guaranteed paychecks that don't suck on local taxes for infrastructure, and it means a boon to local businesses and services, since the DoD is big on outsourcing these days.) Every politician in the country is on TV this morning, claiming that the military station or base in his district is the lynchpin for national security.

I'm not a military analyst, so I can't say who has a valid point. My DoD experience tells me that this list was pretty carefully constructed. New England is bitching a lot about losing so many jobs, but there are so many DoD jobs in New England to begin with because of congressional "pull" in the past. A look at the closure list shows a certain amount of method: closing and consolidating reserve centers, depots, and finance and accounting units. Big closures like Ft. Monmouth and New London are firmly in the minority.

If nothing else, we're seeing an unusually transparent and public parade of parochial interests right now. Best guess: Some powerful senators may be able to grab some minor relief, but not much.

More: I don't mean to sound cavalier. The wrong BRAC policy could send my dumb ass back to editing publicity materials at a rinky-dink mid-Atlantic college. Gack! No, I feel for the folks who are getting hit by this. But the government owes nobody a job, least of all me.

This is a Hoot: Behold, Huffington's Toast. Read every word. The "Glenn Reynolds" entries alone are worth the visit. More fun here from the guy who played accordion for Mr. Weiss and actually knows how to make injera.

Link via the all-powerful Mox.

Cacophonus Cancellation Censors Coolness, Baby: Stated otherwise, Dennis Miller is off the air.

Before I expound on the fallen greatness of Dennis Miller, let's pause for a second and ask the un-asked question: Why would anyone want a show on CNBC? Is there anything on that channel that could possibly be labeled as "appointment t.v."? Can you fall any lower than accepting a slot on that cable wasteland? Well, I guess getting canceled would be just a notch below that, but still. The old Dennis Miller not only would have laughed at the mere notion of hosting a show on that channel (had the channel existed back when), but he would have come up with a 10-minute riff on the idiocy of the concept; somehow relating the idea to a Kalahari bushman's mating dance.

So, what is up with the "new" Dennis Miller? I always thought Bill Mahrer was the unfunny version of DM, but now, sadly, it appears that Maher has the upper hand (he's on HBO for chrissakes!). Now, sure, there is a man for all seasons, and everything must turn, turn, turn, but how can someone stop being funny? I mean, it's not like you're a running back in the NFL, where you get, if you're incredibly lucky, 8-9 years of productivity (average is less than 3 yrs), because your leg injuries start to add up.

There isn't any funny muscle or ligament is there (no funnybone jokes, puh-leeze)? Maybe it started when he cut his hair...or grew the beard. Maybe it was when he tried to get acting gigs in Hollywood, and thus was co-opted by the System. I don't know, but even his stand-up gig is stale. I watched something he did for HBO recently, and it was just...sad. And it's not that he's become conservative, and therefore less funny. DM was always an equal-opportunity ball-buster, it's just when he rose to prominence he had Reagan, and then 41, to use as a foil. I don't think he would have been any less funny during the Clinton years, would those have constituted his prime.

Anyway, when the worst possible cable channel (and I mean this; I'd rather work on Spice [well, duh] or Animal Planet, than CNBC [not that anyone's calling]) decides you're not relevant enough, it's time to put on the blue blazer and hit the Blue Plate at the Friar's Club. I hear Youngman's got some killer one-liners.

Oh, Blah: Frank Deford sucks off Andy Roddick for giving away a point.

After [Fernando Verdasco] hit deep on the second serve, the line judge called the ball out and Roddick had the match.

Only, Roddick refused to accept the point. Verdasco's serve had nicked the line, he said. Stunned, the umpire let Roddick overrule him. Verdasco then fought back, held serve, won the set and then the match.

Whatta guy! I have written on this blog about witnessing Sebastien Grosjean and Pat Rafter do the same thing (Rafter on a number of occasions). Nobody from Sprouts Illustrated fawned over them, since it wasn't an American. In fact, nothing in the sports world really matters until a Yank does it.

We're talking, after all, about the so-called premier sports magazine that hasn't run a serious word on Grand Prix racing in thirty years. Plenty on NASCAR, though. Folks, that's like pushing aside coverage of professional hockey in favor of curling.

By the by, I will have more to say about Roland Garros after the draws are announced. The actual tournament overlaps with the closing on my new house, so Razor may have to pick up my regular beats: wooden racquets, Ashley Harkleroad, and which multi-vowelled name will go on the men's trophy this year.

A Conundrum: Where do you stand on prayer in schools? I personally have no problem with religious students praying voluntarily, even if it is within earshot of my son. I don't believe he will be contaminated. But kids being told they must pray with the class -- before lunch, for example, as I was forced to do in the South as a kid -- is over the line. Just one of the many areas where I hew pretty close to the liberal line, right?

Maybe not.

My son has recited for me the words that he and his fellow students are told to say before their lunch. Bear in mind that he goes to school in the most liberal town (ok, maybe the People's Republic of Cambridge beats us) in the great liberal Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And in this enlightened situation one finds compulsory prayer in school? Yep. But here's the escape hatch: It's a prayer of thanksgiving to the Earth.

Memo to the progressive left, in orbit somewhere out near S/2005 S1: Talking to the Earth is either religion or plain looniness. They are certainly not mutually exclusive, but there is no third option.

Clay Feet: Yes it's that time again: French Open, baby -- catch the esprit!

Early faves, according to some in the know, Justine and this new whiz kid, Nadal, are the ones to watch. Certainly they both have the big Mo, and the Roland Garros surface no doubt plays to their strengths (placement, footwork, half-volleys) and does the most to disguise their weaknesses (power serve, power groundstrokes). Okay, it's hardly surprising that two Europeans are favored to win the most European of all tournies, much less the Slams, but still, these two are really tearing it up.

Roddick, still the Great Yankee Hope, was playing well until he touched European clay. He won the U.S. clay tournament (which, admittedly is like winning the U.S. Cricket Invitational), and then succumbs in Round 1 in Hamburg, a French tune-up.

Me? I'm rooting for Federer. He lost to Safin in a great, great match Down Under, but Safin won't stand a chance in Paris (if he's even playing). Then throw in Coria and all the other Spaniards/South Americans - they all can win it (the French being the tourney that everyone wins once and is never heard from again, see Chang, Michael).

Serena has proven she can win there, but is her dedication there to put together another 2003? I think she's moving on to films and fashion. Kim Clijsters has been rounding back into form, and I wouldn't bet against her either. Davenport amazingly keeps sticking around, but I never can believe in her staying power or health.

The Russian women are sucking wind right now, and can't seem to keep out of their own way. But, given that Anastasia Myskina won it last year (beating another Russian in the process), they should be given due deference.

Oh, shoot me now: I guess Hollywood Democrats are so pissed off at losing presidential elections they just keep creating alternative realities to alleviate their pain.

Is America ready for Ms. President!?!

The new fall schedule will not be announced until later this month, but the DRUDGE REPORT has learned that ABC has picked up COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, a drama following the challenges facing the first female President of the United States.


ABC suits are are prepared to give the project a timeslot and series commitment, sources said.

Actress Geena Davis, a Democrat political activist, will play the president.

ABC executives "adored" the two-hour pilot of CHIEF.

On a positive note, though, Geena Davis is looking positivlely buxom, which I never thought possible. She always gave me the chills, but whatever she's been eating or birthing or whatever, keep it up.

Hat tip Vilmar.

Who's Who? There's been quite a bit of smack talked on the blogs lately about who is or is not a libertarian (or Libertarian, your cherce). Here's a sample, bearing the now-infamous "neo" prefix. (Although they seem to be embracing it.) Seems to me that any political philosophy that gets to excommunicating folks based on policy disagreements is a little overly concerned with ideological discipline. It's always been the Achilles' heel of libertarianism to split hairs over dogma. Any wonder, then, that the movement goes nowhere at a national (or, hell, even local) level? I have nothing but respect for libertarians with a principled opposition to our overseas military adventures. Unfortunately, a lot of them seem to be the ones pointing fingers and saying, in essence, you can't be in the club anymore if you're pro-WOT. (A lot of liberals I know have done the same thing. Any disagreement makes you one of the Bushbot Drones.)

Principled folks whose libertarian bona fides are beyond question have sided with the Bush WOT view. And Stephen Green, mentioned in the linked post above, is one of those with nothing to prove. Add in folks like Randy Barnett, whose classical liberal street cred is . . . er, was impeccable. Ronald Bailey and Michael Young, both of Reason, have also been appreciably more pro-intervention than most of their colleagues (and have likewise been tagged a "libertarian imperialists").

The point is, you can excommunicate over just about any issue -- including, for example, abortion, a subject that classical liberal godfather Nat Hentoff dissents on. I don't mean to say that, next thing you know, you're airbrushing them out of the class photo, but you get the idea. We can all get together on the free markets stuff, but some of us think terrorism is a clear and present danger. Can we proceed from there?

Huffing and Puffing: Quick glance over at Huffingblog^TM leads me to believe I'm missing little. First thing I noticed? This. When the terms of use of your blog have to look like this, you're a fox in the henhouse.

Congrats to Stephen: Little has been heard from the Vodkaman of late, and from the sound of things I'm not surprised. The man is down in the dumps. Let's hope the good news in his house brings him back to his formerly high spirits and verbose blogging style. All the best Stephen. Be sure to hide the Vodka, at least the expensive stuff, until the little ankle-biter's old enough to appreciate it.

Talk Pretty: Sorry, Razor. I plead not guilty by temporary insanity. Now that you are deriding me about being late to the party, I do seem to recall you mentioning this. Should have googled it. Anyhoo, on top of work, childcare, extensive blogging (riiiight), the play, and the whole family being sick with a crappy, lingering cough, we chose this lovely time to drop a bid on a house -- with an eye toward closing within two weeks if bid is accepted. Fun-o.

Wouldn't you be brain dead too?

Hey, W wins a second term!: This will be Eno's next post, as he's johnny-on-the-spot for timely news. Well, at least he's posting, Razor...shut up...no you shut up!

Re: Audioslave: Who is our Little Steven? Who will lead today's artists in taking the pledge? Sing it with me now.

[Havana]-[Havana]
I, I, I ain't gonna play [Havana] - I, I, I ain't gonna play [Havana]
I, I, I ain't gonna play [Havana] - I, I, I ain't gonna play[Havana]

If Tom Morello came out and said he was playing for the sheer fact that he's a professional musician who's playing a gig 'cause they offered him big bucks, I'd be thrilled. Make this a statement about capitalism and the free exchange of dollars and ideas breaking down the leftist dreck that should have been put up with mothballs 30 years ago, but o'l fuzzy whiskers clings to with his very soul.

But, of course, that ain't what this is about.

Personally, I think Cuba should pay us to keep the embargo in place, if only to spare them visits by the likes of Audioslave.

Gentlemen, We Excel: Er, I mean . . . dudes, we rock! Did you see this? This must've come up during my last frustrated hiatus from Blogger. Anyhoo, when it comes to using multisyllabic words that we don't actually know the meaning of, FauxPolitik ranks fourth (well, tied for third) in the ol' blogosphere.

Now back to my ice cream. Marge! Where's that . . . uh . . . metal dealie you . . .uh . . . dig with? (You mean a spoon, Homer?)

Hitchens on North Korea: This is a must read today. Sample:

Concealed in that pitch-black night is an imploding state where the only things that work are the police and the armed forces. The situation is actually slightly worse than indentured servitude. The slave owner historically promises, in effect, at least to keep his slaves fed. In North Korea, this compact has been broken. It is a famine state as well as a slave state . . . Even on a tightly controlled tour of the place—North Korea is almost as hard to visit as it is to leave—my robotic guides couldn't prevent me from seeing people drinking from sewers and picking up individual grains of food from barren fields.

His proposal -- a Western-backed and subsidized "underground railroad" to help people escape from NK -- is worth a thought. The idea of invasion, Iraq-style, bothers me. The Iraqi army basically dropped its guns and fled. I fear, though, that the North Koreans would fight bravely and bitterly for a regime that has given them nothing but pain. The country is so tightly closed that I think they would actually believe the regime's claims that the West is bent on their destruction. So many instances of thriving samizdat knowledge in other totalitarian states prove nothing. We're talking about a country that, aside from its weaponry, is technologically living a hundred years in the past.

Children of the Revolution, Rock On: Audioslave will give a concert in Havana. The band is making the standard noises:

"Music can transcend politics and this trip is proof of that," said the band's singer, Chris Cornell, at a news conference in Havana on Thursday. "It is all about music, period."

Whatever. Audioslave's singer Tom Morello is a red-diaper baby, son of the effectively pro-Castro activist Mary Morello, and what passes for a "critic of American capitalism" these days. In other words, Castro isn't getting all that open minded after all. I'm going back to sleep. Wake me up when Ted Nugent is playing "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang" in Havana -- preferably while standing on Castro's dead body. Then we'll know things have changed.

"Time is made of yellow.": Oh this is funny. Low budget, but funny. Yes, I am a geek.

Look out: Scrappleface:

While he was campaigning for president, Sen. John F. Kerry, D-MA, often noted that he had a plan to save Social Security.

Today, in his boldest move yet, he threatened to unveil his plan unless President Bush backs away from his proposal to reform the taxpayer-funded retirement system.

Mr. Kerry, during his 2004 White House bid, suggested he would not "privatize" the money that Americans put into the government-run system, and he would not cut benefits.

However, America's failure to elect him to the White House seemed to ensure that his Social Security plan would remain cloaked in mystery, since as a mere Senator he can do little more than introduce bills and lead his colleagues to turn them into laws.

"As you'll recall, my plan is better than the president's," said Mr. Kerry at today's news conference. "It saves our beloved Social Security without any changes to benefits, taxes, or any other element of the system. If the president persists in attacking the co-dependent relationship between America's seniors and the Democrat party, I will unleash my plan in all its magnificent glory."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, wondered aloud if the Kerry plan might be the hoped for "miracle" that would catapult the Democrat party back to majority status in the Senate in 2006.

Party insiders said that Mr. Kerry's revived suggestion of a plan also helped to cement his position as "the visionary leader" among Democrats and the frontrunner for the party's 2008 presidential nomination.

Chuckle.

Re: Purpose Driven Life: I think most of us would agree with you on that topic, Razor. As always, a P.J. line comes to mind:

If God had wanted us to spend more time in church, he'd have given us bigger butts to sit on and smaller brains to think with.

Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with attending services that feed one's spirituality and sense of community, but if all it took to have a fulfilling religious experience and endeavour to know thy God was reading a book, going to mass and saying "I believe" then it would be easy. Too easy, as you said.

Are We Jesus-Blogging Now? Just kidding. Most people who know my beliefs think that nothing could be greater hell for me than sitting around listening to people talk about their "faith." To the contrary, since I don't understand it, I am all the more interested in it. I once left a brace of Mormons quite nonplussed when I invited them in, served them drinks (club soda for them, Old Grand Dad for me), and listened to their spiel. (They fumbled my questions on race and Mormonism, and at the time I was living with a black guy who had gone to BYU, so I just had to hoist them.) I've listened to testimony from Jews for Jesus, folks who dig crystals, Ayurvedic practicioners, Taoists, Sikhs, and trustifarian Sufis (who typically know as little about actual Islam as Elijah Mohammed's spaceship-Islam followers).

That said, I start collecting the glasses and waving folks toward the door when it becomes a sales pitch. I'm glad to hear about your beliefs, Winter Morning Wolf Breath, but when you start hitting me up for the cause, I'll dangle. Anyone who says he knows the answer, but won't part with it without a little do-re-mi, doesn't really know the answer. Think Deepak Chopra and other "life" salesmen. And this "Goal Driven Life" (shouldn't that be hyphenated?) thingummy sounds, as you said, sales driven. Discussion groups are a nice innovation, too: Used to be, if you dug the book you passed it to a friend. Instead, let's get lots of people to buy copies so that they can talk about it!

More: I'm the same way with mysteries. I love conspiracy theories, hoaxes, puzzles -- the odder the better. I've confessed before on this blog to my brief flings with the likes of the Kennedy assassination and the Apollo hoax. I also had a brief if torrid Black Dahlia phase. I hasten to add that I am a proud subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer, and a skeptic in all these matters. But SI, while a valuable debunker in the cases of scams, cheats, and for-profit gurus, does tend to suck all the fun out of harmless cranks, like the moon landing skeptics, and fun hoaxes, such as the Kensington Stone.

The Sales Driven Life: So, my church (a very open-minded Presbyterian place [if that's not too oxymoronic]), bought into the mania surrounding the "Purpose Driven Life" (no hotlink for reasons explained below). This is the book written by this self-ordained guy from California that has some huge following at a church-cum-ampitheatre where he preaches.

Anyway, the concept is that you read a chapter a day for 40 days. Every Friday, you get together in small groups with other people from your church to discuss seven chapters. The Sunday sermons also relate to the book.

I'll read anything, and in fact, usually do. I've been known to read t.v. manuals when there's nothing else around to pass the time. Anyway, this read is a serious chore; the author a major bore.

His shtick is that God has a purpose for you, and it's to please God. Everything you do is about God, and for you to think otherwise, is folly. Now, this is not so freaking new as I belive this other book...called "The Bible" has a similar message (although it's much more entertainingly told). But this guy is just so black-and-white about the whole thing, that it really turns me off. I'm someone who believes faith is very personal (hmmm, I sound like W last night) and that it's okay to take the Bible as merely a grouping of parables, rather than the ummm, Gospel truth (too many people are living for like 400 years in the Old Testament for me to start taking the thing literally - and yes, I know, that example is only the tip of the iceberg in plausibility issues). Still, there are some good lessons in the Bible which will, if followed, make one less of a reprobate then if you used, say "American Psycho" as your spiritual guide.

So, my fear was that I was going to be running screaming from these Friday night meetings, as each person around me stood up to thump their copies of "The Purpose Driven Life" over my head. Fortunately, my fears were entirely unfounded. Instead, I discovered a group of couples that are healthy skeptics. Who challenge dogma, instead of blindly accepting it. They're all "good Christians" who are loving spouses, parents and friends, but they realize that any book that attempts to change your way of living has to first address the realities of life. Just as we don't go around washing our guests' feet with scented oil anymore, so too must the lessons from religion adapt to the times.

It's easy to just write a book saying "follow God's will" - in fact it's too easy. Each chapter is just a variation of that theme; be friends with God, love God, obey God, praise God, fulfill God's purpose -- on and on it goes, with selected excerpts from various versions of the Good Book.

But what about my job, my interests, my relationship with my wife, my kids?? Am I supposed to just put on the hair shirt and start babbling in tongues? Do I tell my boss that God wants me to leave early so he better let me or eternal damnation is his?

No, thanks. I'll stick to the original source, taking from it what I want and need. If that makes me too secular, then so be it. I can't believe in any God that would make me read this simple-minded claptrap. I've gotten much more from the meetings with some new friends, as I hear of their own personal challenges, and their unique tests of faith. As I learned in high school, you learn and grow much more from interacting with people than you do in standing before an altar. And if you tell me that maybe "The Purpose Driven Life" has impacted me after all, I'll give you a running start before I throw my copy at your head ... it would be the Christian thing to do.

Then I Bravely Ordered a Tuna on White, with Extra Mayo: Here's Al Gore's story of the 2000 election:

I couldn't have possibly disagreed more strongly with the [Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore] opinion . . . But I knew what course of action best served our republic.

Even though many of my supporters said they were unwilling to accept a ruling which they suspected was brazenly partisan in its motivation and simply not entitled to their respect, less than 24 hours later, I went before the American people to reaffirm the bedrock principle that we are a nation of laws, not men. "There is a higher duty than the one we owe to a political party," I said. "This is America and we put country before party."

Earth to Al: It was the f*cking Supreme Court, baby. Short of armed insurrection, you were pretty much played out. Please don't try to paint it as a noble sacrifice.

Link via Viking Pundit.

Homeless redux: Another Morristown NJ case, eh.

To The Supremes! Houston bans B.O. But does one's personal stench send a clear and unambiguous message? Could be a first amendment case!

No Nukes: Admirable post, Flyer. This is not an easy issue, I think, since one can feel that the Democrats are being unprincipled bastards even without any sympathy for Bush's picks for the court. One thing worth remembering, as I've mentioned before, is that the Dems are only interested in railroading Bush on judges as a prelude to a Supreme Court nomination fight. In other words, this is just spring training.

It seems to be in the interest of both parties to declare some sort of crisis. For the GOP, it is the crisis of "democracy": the Dems are spoiling against the will of the people, which went clearly to the GOP last November. For the Dems, it is the crisis of "extremism": Bush is attempting to ram through a slate of non-mainstream judges without allowing the Senate enough say in the matter. There is little merit to either position, unless one defines mainstream as "Pat Leahy" and democracy as "we should always get our way." True, Bush has nominated some conservatives; this is life in the two-party system, though. And true, the minority (by quietly using it's own nuclear option) has effectively stymied the majority in the Senate. Again, life in the two-party system. I'm unconvinced that this rather petty stalemate requires any change to Senate rules.

In fact, I see no evidence of any kind of crisis. (The GOP claim that "nobody's ever used the filibuster this way before" is possibly the most ridiculous. Nobody ever used the filibuster any way, until they did. The filibuster tactic is a famous example of a bug that became a feature.) I would think that the GOP has seen enough gains in the past 3 elections that they would be wise to go to the people one more time, in 2006, before entertaining other options that might show them appearing to over-reach.

Meanwhile, I advised the Dems against their tactics beginning in 2003, after 2002 handed them bupkus for their efforts. Another disastrous election later, I'd advise them to start listening to me. Yes, there is a chance that the GOP might self-destruct on this issue; on the other hand, there is a track record that says a hard line on nominations has brought them only a steeper minority in the Senate. Both parties need to back off pretty quickly, I think. The Dems have already been stupid, and the GOP is about to be even more so.

As for the filibuster itself, I do think it has become rather diluted in value. Strom Thurmond filibustering for 24 hours against Civil Rights is a dramatic picture, for both sides, that draws the public into the debate. Nowadays, they just close up debate prior to any actual filibustering, and move on to issues of agreement, like smothering the market with idiotic subsidies, tax breaks, and other varieties of corporate welfare. Nevertheless, I like the filibuster in theory as a brake on the powers of the majority, and I'd like it to remain -- just in case we ever do muster 40 senators to the side of righteousness. Besides, anything that shuts down the workings of the government, even temporarily, can't be that bad.

Filibuster blues: I've totally avoided any discussion of the "nuclear option" re: filibusters in the Senate. If you ask me, there's only one nuclear option when it comes to the Senate and I say Hiroshima their ass tomorrow (ba-dump). But Gene Healy got me thinking about it a little this morning. His premise is that the filibuster is hisotrically a conservative tool, used to prevent increased government activity and losing the filibuster would be like opening the floodgates for legislation by expansionist liberals (Gene makes the case that there's no principled difference between regular filibusters and ones in the case of judicial nominations. I say what do principles have to do with anything and why can't they be different, but that's another argument).

[the death of the filibuster] would be disastrous. The theory underlying the Constitution is that, in political life as opposed to economic, transaction costs are good. As James Madison explained in Federalist 62, the Senate itself was designed in part to curb "the facility and excess of lawmaking." The filibuster isn't part of the Constitution, but it helps augment some of the Constitution's checks on promiscuous legislating. Since many of the constitutional checks on legislative overreach have eroded over the years, the filibuster is even more important today.

I was inclined to disagree, for the reason that if all the other checks on governemnt overreach have eroded, who cares at this point. I mean, it's not like it's worked very well the past thirty years or so. That has me wondering, though, who is the "conservative" party. The belief that government must naturally and continuously expand pervades the hearts and minds of both parties, with few exceptions. Expansion is the rule and it's a rare thing when Republicans can muster the collective will to pass any government-limiting legislation. To the extent that there is a small government coalition in the Senate, they are definitely a minority wing of the Republican party. Right now they don't have the numbers to hold a filibuster under any set of rules. I don't see any point when the majority or super-majority of Senators are "smallgovs" but it's conceivable that there could one day be enough to hold a 40 person coalition together (and it's conceivable that simians may aviate from my anus, but I'm looking way into the future).

I don't expect the current crop of Republicans to make any use of the filibuster, no more so, anyway, than Bush has made use of the veto. The only thing they're interested in conserving is their own vice-like grip on the thinnest of majorities, just so they can make Teddy Kennedy sit in the wobbly chair. But a filibuster will be the first tool within reach if there ever is a "Conservative" party.

If Healy is right, and there can be no distinction between regular filibusters and nomination blocking filibusters, then I would say it's not worth giving up just because it helps the other guy this time.

Life imitates art: Anybody remember "Gangsta Bitch Barbie," an SNL creation from about ten years ago? Today's Bleat reminded me that particular spoof commercial.

I froze. The Bratz are now Baby Mommaz. Yes, the hooker-in-training dolls have children.

Bratz are the main reason I do not keep a supply of bricks around the house, because everytime the commercials come on I wish to pitch something kiln-fired through the screen so hard it beans the toy exec who greenlighted these hootchie toys. The Baby Bratz are as bad as you can imagine: “Bottles with Bling.” Judas on a stick, why not just refit the Bratz so they have Real Oozing Gonorreal Flow Action?

“They know how to flaunt it, and they’re keeping it real in the crib.”

Gangsta Bitch Barbie, she's down for the poop!

Back from the abyss: Whooo, you don't pay attention for a few days and all of a sudden, Flyer is acting like he runs the joint. Well, good for him, a few hundred more posts and he can make up for his November - March sabattical.

Eno: love to hear a running diary on your rehearsals and the production. However, I resent you calling me "honest". I have a career to think about...come on!

Can you imagine Cronkite sitting down for the first day of blog lessons? Heaven forbid he should use Blogger - the poor man would have a stroke from the aggravation. "Okay, now, press "Publish Post" .... hmmm.....*whistling old theme to CBS News*.... "404 Error" .... that wasn't part of the tutorial. Okay, just press 'back'....what the? Mother f*cking piece of sh*t....this thing...aahhahahaghghhghgh...!"

The only bicyclists you can respect are the messengers. They neither give nor expect any courtesy and fully assume all risks of squirting between a parked car and a city bus about to take on passengers. In essence, they do not cause any real inconvenience, except for their disdain for traffic signals, which again, is a risk more likely to cause them harm than I. So, I applaud their kamikaze spirit, but will still laugh when one takes a spill.

Yet More Suckage: One of Arianna's "big names" for her celeb-blog, Maggie Gyllenhaal, gives us a preview of the kind of deep thinking we can expect:

Maggie Gyllenhaal has waded into sensitive political waters by raising questions about Sept. 11 and American foreign policy. The 27-year-old actress, who stars in a new film about the 2001 terror attacks on the World Trade Center, said in an interview last week that the United States "is responsible in some way" for the attacks.

Oh, Maggie! That opinion is so, like, 2002. Sounds to me like something you cribbed from Uncle Eric.

We Should See More of This: Bush has proposed sending Amtrak exactly $0 next year:

Several senators on Thursday criticized President Bush's proposal to give Amtrak no money next year, while the railroad submitted a request to Congress for $1.82 billion.

A majority of senators on the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee were critical of Bush's plan and sympathetic to Amtrak, favoring giving the railroad money next year. No specific amount was mentioned.

"How did the administration come up with such a ridiculous proposal?" asked Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., subcommittee chairman. "I was extremely stunned and disappointed that such a proposal was made."

No, I don't mean that we should see more of this in order to get Trent Lott "stunned and disappointed," though that's always a bonus. Rather, I like this part:

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, in a statement issued after the committee hearing, said Amtrak itself has now acknowledged "its current business model is unsustainable and in need of serious reform." . . . The Transportation Department's general counsel, Jeffrey Rosen, said changes need to be made in Amtrak "before we spend one more taxpayer dollar to prop up a fundamentally broken system."

The prez and I disagree on the future of Amtrak. (I think it should be pulled off taxpayer life support and have its assets auctioned off -- which will bring in about tuppence.) But bully for the administration for taking this position.

More to the point, every single federal spending program should be subject to the very same requirement: reform, or go off the teat. And reform could start quite simply with the requirement of a clean audit opinion every fiscal year before another cent is appropriated for the next fiscal year. That should shake some of the federal Enrons out of the system. No fair laying shit like Sarbanes-Oxley on the private sector when the public sector couldn't get its fat ass through 5% of the hoops corporations jump through every year.

Re: Suckage: Cronkite's quote is telling:

This gives me a chance to sound off with a few words or a long editorial. It’s a medium that is new and interesting, and I thought I’d have some fun.

I can't wait for the first time a couple thousand bloggers come storming down on Cronkite for a making a factual error, intentional or not. The term "Fisking" may get replaced (although Cronkite's name doesn't lend itself to the phrase quite as well...perhaps "taking a Cronkite" will catch on as a euphamism for a particular bodily function).

Anyway, pundits from both sides who thought the blogosphere was powerless, or a place to have some fun, have learned otherwise. Bill O'Reilly, white courtesy phone. Dan Rather, check with your lawyer. Paul Krugman, we have a few questions for you.

And each of them is more capable of engaging in the debate than Warren Beatty and Nora Ephron.

Suckage Redefined: Via Tim Blair comes the dreadful news that someone just isn't taking the hint.

Arianna Huffington, the columnist and onetime candidate for governor of California, is about to move blogging from the realm of the anonymous individual to the realm of the celebrity collective.

She has lined up more than 250 of what she calls "the most creative minds" in the country to write a group blog that will range over topics from politics and entertainment to sports and religion . . .

Having prominent people join the blogosphere, Ms. Huffington said in an interview, "is an affirmation of its success and will only enrich and strengthen its impact on the national conversation." Among those signed up to contribute are Walter Cronkite, David Mamet, Nora Ephron, Warren Beatty, James Fallows, Vernon E. Jordan Jr., Maggie Gyllenhaal, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Diane Keaton, Norman Mailer and Mortimer B. Zuckerman.

Oh, goody. Hey, I gotta idear! Why don't you call it "Blog America"? I mean, that paradigm just knocked 'em dead in radio! But Al Franken's busy, so call in the B-team liberals. Er, C-team?

One of Tim's commenters sums it up quite well: "Most blog readers fled to blogs in relief, from these people. I don’t know if they realize that."

Notice to Cyclists: You bore me. Take your f*cking bike to a park and ride the goddamn thing there. Particularly you "recumbent" cyclists. Do you have any idea how you look? Like some whacked out boob of an inventor straight out of the 70's, set to appear on "That's Incredible" with your latest invention, the Barco-Cycle. (Did you know that there is a "Recumbent Cyclist" magazine? How much is there to write about this borderline psychotic activity? If you're sitting in that posture without chips and the remote, you need guidance.)

Oh, and another thing: Ditch the moronic "Share the Road" accessories. I have yet to see a single cyclist in this town follow an applicable traffic law. You want me to share the road? Then that means you quit zipping through the intersection around the line of cars waiting for the light. That means that when I yield to pedestrians, you don't whip around me, cut between crosswalk traffic, and then block my ass when you stop at the next crosswalk to chat with some buddy of yours. And when I come past on a narrow road, that's your cue to get your two silly wheels over to the curb, not to stand up in the stirrups and hump the bike from side to side, taking up the whole lane, like you're doing some kind of Pyrenees climb.

I'll put the bottom line bluntly: I have a two-ton car . . . and limited patience.

No Big Surprise: Rehearsals are well under way for the Roman play, and it's going to be interesting. I've never been the type who judges people by their political affiliations or sympathies. (After all, everyone's a little nuts in some way. Witness my dear, dear friend Razor: standup guy, quality friend, loyal, honest, and a pinko right down to his untertrousen.) Nevertheless, it is clear from cast and crew meetings so far that we have unanimity, with the silent exception of yours truly, on the the proposition that this tragedy is crying out to be played as a commentary on the current administration

Let me be clear: Everyone in the show is great -- it's a very talented cast, very friendly and helpful -- and I'm happily biting my tongue for the sake of a good production. But on closing night, look out: I'm wearing my "I'm the NRA" shirt.

Politics and rice, both dirty: New Orleans "political operative" and advertising bigwig Ray Reggie has pled guilty to bank fraud charges, which was no shock to those who knew about the case. The FBI had "the nuts" as they say, and Reggie wasn't getting out of it easily. But now it comes out that he agreed to play Linda Tripp for the feds to get the dirt on David Rosen, former aide to Sen. Hillary Clinton. Reggie, by the way, is Sen. Ted Kennedy's brother-in-law.

I confess to a certain enjoyment in watching this one go down because I knew Reggie when I lived in New Orleans. A relative worked for his firm, Media Direct, and they happened to be a large client of mine (so, I suppose, I was a beneficiary of his misdealings..mea culpa). On a personal level I liked Ray. Bill Clinton was legendary for the way he charmed those he met and made you feel a personal connection. Well, Ray did the same but without the "I feel your pain" schmaltziness. He could be in a room of 200 for an hour and buy everyone a drink, make them laugh, promise them a favor and, probably, peak under every female skirt. You couldn't dislike him face to face, because there was no time.

Unfortunately, when I left Clear Channel Radio Ray and his firm owed my station many thousands of dollars and our sister stations in the city (6 of them) tens of thousands more (we're talking invoices almost a year old in some cases). And I was on the hook for a large chunk of change in commissions earned. I got a lot of it collected but he was a jerk about it in the end. And it surprised me not at all when it came out that he was, essentially, full of shit.

Howard Dean, undignified: I'm not saying it, he is.

Between a speech he delivered without notes and a question-answer session, Dean regaled an appreciative audience for nearly 90 minutes without once raising his voice, as he did after last year's Iowa primary election. But he did draw howls of laughter by mimicking a drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh.

"I'm not very dignified," he said. "But I'm not running for president anymore." In fact, as part of his commitment to lead the party for the next four years, he has sworn not to seek any office until after 2008.

I really couldn't care less if he makes fun of Rush, funnier people than him already have. We do it all the time in this country, poke fun at those who topple from the highest horses. Rush doesn't need special treatment - he's a big boy (not a fat joke, there, by the way) with 15 hours a week to defend himself and make fun of others of he chooses. But I find it interesting that Dean admits that the undignified part of himself is his true character and he was playing nice during the primary campaign. That scream, I guess, was a glimpse at the inner Howard. But doesn't he think that "leader of the Democratic party" is a job that requires dignity? I guess not.

Of course, we had 8 years of a Clinton presidency to show us that the "no shirt, no shoes" rule was pretty much out the window as far a the left was concerned.

Via Viking Pundit.

News Flash -- Pot, Kettle Both Black: I criticized Andrew Sullivan for his fair-weather commitment to his blog. Now I'll open myself up for the same criticism.

I will be performing in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar this summer, cast as Decius Brutus (one of the conspirators, naturally), and the rehearsal and performance schedule will take a bite out of my always-trenchant, on-the-spot news analysis, art criticism, and general buffoonery. Flyer's mini-comeback today leads me to hope that he might be ready to ramp up as I step back. I may be mistaken, since he still has not offered us any analysis of Tiger's recent win, his first major in three years. (For that matter, neither has Razor favored us with an insightful deconstruction of last month's DFW article from the Atlantic. He is perhaps ashamed to admit that it was, oh, how to phrase this . . . a piece of crap?)

Anyhow, as regards Sullivan, let it be known that I am offering a full refund to anyone who donated money to me for my contribution to this site. Cancelled check or Paypal receipt should suffice for evidential matter. Send by prepaid mail a photo of yourself, two dead creeping charlies, and a self addressed stamped envelope to the Tropicana Motor Hotel, Hollywood, California . . .

Cliff Claven, Pope?: Man, John Ratzenberger's come a long way. What's that? Ratzinger? Oh, sorry. Move along.

I made that joke to a friend yesterday and without taking time to get it and laugh he launched right into the hours old conventional wisdom that the Catholic Church is going backwards, they've elected a Nazi, what the Hail Mary could they be thinking! This, mind you, from a non-practicing Jew who pays about as much attention to Catholic dogma as I do to American Idol. I mean, I know the election of a pope is a pretty big deal politically, so there's interest beyond the church, but since when did every American take the iPod off shuffle and start obsessing over who's going to bless the tourists in St. Peter's square (I don't mean people who were listening to this on their iPods, of course. They were probably already interested). Is this really MTV material? Well, since many people disagree with Catholic doctrine vis a vis what people do with their private parts and who they do it around, and MTV and its viewers are fixated on people's private parts, I guess it's understandable. But I can't understand their surprise at the choice. Even the folks in The Corner were freaking out, though in a different way than, say, Andrew Sullivan. I'm with James Lileks on this one:

I’m still astonished that some can see a conservative elevated to the papacy and think: a man of tradition? As Pope? How could this be? As if there this was some golden moment that would usher in the age of married priests who shuttle between blessing third-trimester abortions and giving last rites to someone who’s about to have the chemical pillow put over his face. At the risk of sounding sacreligious: it’s the Catholic Church, for Christ’s sake! You’re not going to get someone who wants to strip off all the Baroque ornamentation of St. Peter’s and replace them with IKEA wine racks, okay?

I'm sure a lot of people wanted to see a more liberal pope, at least many in the West. Better luck next time I guess. But to those, like Sullivan, who insist the Church must come to them on their particular issues, I'd say you may want to start shopping around for other religions. Sorry.

Nostalgia: Harken back to the days of yore; circa 1987. What car would a young growing man want over any other? Well yes, a Lambo Countach was always fun to play on our IBM 386 computers with 16-colors (!), but it was hardly attainable. No, for the aspiring man of mystery, it was the VW Scirocco. It had the "fast back" allure, quasi-Italian styling and name, plus it didn't sound like a lawnmower, like the Beetle, or even the Karmann Ghia (although it was a toss-up over which was harder to spell).

Deep down, I was always more partial to the Audi GTs, but you didn't see many of those, plus the price was a bit steep. No, it was the Scirocco, or "southeastern Mediterranean wind" for the Euro-poser in all of us.

Sadly, I never got around to owning one. The best I got was a used Audi 4000 that could barely make it up a hill, but I seem to recall a certain white one being driven by a particularly foppish friend of mine.

They're heee-eeere: I don't...have much time...getting hard ... to breathe. I just saw...a couple today. Actually...I heard them. Coming up...behind me. I ran. I ran.

I thought...they were gone. But...they're back. I'm losing strength. For god's sake, somebody....stop them. STOP THEM!!

Where I've Been: Blogging malaise is epidemic, it seems. Well, I managed to get through the weekend without even thinking about posting. Instead, I spent a decent part of Sunday afternoon rolling through the byways of Rockland County in a yellow Ferrari 550 Maranello. If you have the means, I highly recommend it.

The meaning of "bespoke": Excellent site I found which is operated by a Saville Row tailor of impeccable heritage. Very informative read, with some excellent advice and thoughts on bespoke tailoring for today's world.

Euthanos, Re-revisited: Noam Scheiber has a remarkably clear-eyed view of the Terri Schiavo debacle from the other side of the looking glass:

Much of the press coverage of the Schiavo case focused on a now-familiar split within the Republican Party between social conservatives--who insisted nothing mattered more than prolonging Terri Schiavo's life--and anti-government libertarians, who tut-tutted about the Republican leadership's encroachment on local autonomy. Some in the media, citing apocalyptic predictions from activists on both sides, went so far as to call Schiavo the beginning of a GOP schism.

In truth, the GOP has been finessing the uneasy alliance between libertarians and social conservatives for at least as long as pundits have been pointing it out. I suspect the party will pull through this time, too. Far more interesting--and politically more consequential--is an emerging Democratic split between social libertarians, who emphasize privacy, and what I'll call communitarians, for lack of a better word. Like social conservatives, the communitarians believe the government has a role to play in Schiavo-like dilemmas. If they prevail, it could help the Democratic Party reclaim its popular majority.

I doubt that, but at least Scheiber is right in criticizing the Dems for being unable to cobble together a set of positive values. Instead, professing only negatives, they always come off looking like vultures. (E.g., "How dare you suggest there's anything morally suspect about abortion!") As an example, Scheiber notes Bill Clinton's winning motto on abortion: "Safe, legal, and rare." Does it matter that Clinton cared not a whit about one-third of this formulation? It was a winner because it reached out -- not to the pro-life side, but to the majority of Americans in the middle. Likewise, on the Schiavo case, most Democrats seemed to be saying that, since there was no living will, the burden of proof landed squarely on those who opposed pulling the tube, and only religious fanatics could hold that position. As I said, the case was certainly more complex than that, but someone in the party has to look out for this kind of stuff. Again, the vital center of America felt enormous ambivalence on the issue. Why have most of the party pull a Howard Dean and start insulting those people?

Put simply, and with realpolitik hat squarely on the noggin, if you want to move the center toward your party, speak with respect when you speak about those who disagree with you, even if you really do think they're a bunch of nuts and zealots.

Radley Hammers Choice Fatigue: Our dear Agitator's latest Fox column shows that the command-and-control left will always have yet another stalking horse for the effort to make our decisions for us. This time it's "choice fatigue":

"Sometimes, critics argue, government should limit people's choices," [Times essayist Eduardo] Porter writes. "That is, choose for them." Porter used the concept of "choice fatigue" to argue against private Social Security accounts. Some people can be overwhelmed by choice, the thinking goes, and sometimes, some people will choose poorly.

Therefore, at least in this case, it's better that government make all choices for all people.

Obviously, Radley doesn't have the space here to take on the whole tangled mess, but it's worth noting that the "choices" government would seek to limit for us always seem to be the biggies, usually related to economic freedom. Notice that progressive think tankers aren't saying, "Golly, we really ought to do something about all the choices people have for cell phone ring tones." Rather, they can leave such choices up to us, and they'll offer to take the load off somewhere else. Like deciding how to invest in our retirements. Now, the progressive mind would say, "Ring tones are fluff; but your retirement is too important to be left up to you." To the contrary, it is far too important to be left up to the government's mentality of one size (or one tiny rate of return, to be precise) fits all.

Beyond that, the explicit message of the left is that some folks are unfit (who and how many are left unsaid) to make these decisions. But note that many people make retirement decisions anyway, managing a portfolio independent of Social Security, making decisions on IRAs, 401 (k) funds, bond funds, DRIP investments, CDs, commodities, and real estate. Some add another layer of complexity by whirling futures into the mix, which makes the no doubt terribly difficult task of selecting a one of three or four funds for some small part of your payroll taxes (about all the reform we can hope for in our wildest dreams) seem like a game of pin the tail on Adam Smith.

In other words, if the progressive argument's there for relieving you of the choices with your payroll taxes, why should we be allowed to diddle in the market with our discretionary funds? We'll probably just blow it anyway, right? But if the overabundance of choices is really the problem, then keeping everyone chained to the slow death of Social Security is no solution, since anyone who wants to live on more than Tender Vittles in the golden years will need to go out and make those same damn choices anyway, with his or her discretionary income.

The Guv? I finally checked out Bret Schundler's campaign website -- he's running for governor of New Jersey this year. Schundler was mayor of Jersey City when I was working there. He was popular, extremely talented, and a promising young moderate who got elected by consistently returning to parochial issues and avoiding the tropes of the national parties' agendas. There was a brief press swoon over him in the 90s, and he ran for governor in 2001, only to lose to Jim "Give the Briefing to My Gay Israeli Lover" McGreevey, mainly because the GOP would not support him.

Schundler's a bit of a question mark on abortion, having tried to downplay the issue previously. (New Jersey does have a lot of Catholics, but the mayor of Jersey City has little power to influence abortion rights, so he was able to kick the issue down the road; now he's caught up to it.) He may or may not have some sexual skeletons in his closet (though, post-McGreevey, what the hell could surprise the Garden State?). On top of that, the New Jersey GOP is a total shambles. And New Jersey (unlike Massachusetts) is a liberal state that has shown no serious willingness to elect conservatives to statewide offices. (Former governor Christie Whitman, a nominal Republican, at best, is case in point.)

Anyhow, in 1994-ish, my boss (a Hudson/Bergen county real estate developer) and I were walking around Jersey City and saw Schundler. My boss introduced me (briefly) to him and, after we walked away, said to me, "Keep your eye on Schundler. That guy is going to be a star." I've been watching with curiosity ever since.

Marty Peretz, Scourge of the Ostriches: TNR's senior lib hawk slaps down those in his party who are blind enough or giddy enough with partisanship (or just plain churlish, as Peretz calls them) to not see or acknowledge Bush's great strides in the Middle East.

It has been heartening, in recent months, to watch some Democratic senators searching for ways out of the politics of churlishness. Some liberals appear to have understood that history is moving swiftly and in a good direction, and that history has no time for their old and mistaken suspicion of American power in the service of American values. One does not have to admire a lot about George W. Bush to admire what he has so far wrought. One need only be a thoughtful American with an interest in proliferating liberalism around the world. And, if liberals are unwilling to proliferate liberalism, then conservatives will. Rarely has there been a sweeter irony.

Ding. Give that man a cigar.

More: Even the frankly anti-war Reason magazine published this its April issue:

In fact, [Operation Iraqi Freedom] has fared much better than any reasonable person with a suitable respect for the chaos, madness, and unpredictability of war had any right to expect. What we are seeing right now in Iraq is the best possible outcome of the liberal hawks' grand vision. If they don't like the results, they need to reassess their expectations.

Ideology: Good debate going on here.

I'll Have a Berger, Well Done: Look, Mommy, it's another member of the most ethical administration in history!

The Pope is Dead? Reports swirl. No doubt we'll see some major traffic on the Fatima websites this weekend. According to the prophecy, the next pope is supposed to be something like the "great apostate." Or maybe it's the one after that. Never can remember.