Man, what a fantastic interview.

Good News: Someone famous is endorsing my theory that the Naderite leftist fringe and the Buchananite fascist fringe will unite for a super-intolerant-xenophobic monster of a third party in the next few election cycles.

Bad News: The endorser is windbag James Carville.

Note to the NYT: if you want to be seen as something other than the most often cited liberally biased media source in the Pew survey, you might want to step up, say, coverage of the frickin' survey itself! Right now, the only story they picked up was a self-serving AP story, the major point of which seems to be that journalists are worried that financial pressures are hurting news quality. Boo hoo. It doesn't mention media bias.

A decent ombudsman would be on this story STAT. But the Times has been acting like the proverbial ostrich for a while now. Maybe if we shove our heads far enough down in the sand, we can escape the slipping quality of our news coverage and decreasing distinction between editorial analysis and news.

If ever a survey needed to be updated! Pew has conducted a poll of the American Media, which were (gasp!) more liberal and far less conservative than the public at large. Maybe we can start hearing about how smart the media are, since certain self-congratulatory liberals so enjoy touting the intelligence of any group proved to be disproportionately liberal.

Now, few members of the media don't know about the theory of liberal media bias. I have a theory this makes them defensive about their own politics, and less likely to be open and honest about them. That explains why there was just as big a rise in the number of self-reporting moderate media members to the rest of the public (41% to 54%) as there was among liberals (20% to 34%). The telling sign, of course, is that while one-third of the American public describes themselves as conservative, only 7% of media members do.

But, again, what proof is there that self-reporting on political ideology might hide the truth about media bias, despite already significant increases for liberals and moderates?

Well it's always in the details, right?

For example, 58% of the public feels belief in God is necessary to be moral. Among the media? 6%

51% of the public feels homosexuality should be accepted by society (and good for the public!). 88% of the media feel that way.

More interesting is the way media members polled within groups. On both these questions (homosexuality and God), there was a far more significant gulf between the views of self-described conservatives and self-described moderates than there was between the moderates and liberals.

This pattern continues throughout the survey. While 53% of conservative media members feel the press has been too hard on President Bush, only 12% of moderate media members agree. This drops to 3% for liberals. Again, moderates seem closer to liberals than conservatives.

The only other interesting thing from the survey is that conservative media members seem more forthright about possible bias in either direction in the media in general. 68% of conservative members could think of a news organization that was especially conservative; the same could think of an organization that was especially liberal. Meanwhile, there was a 30-point gap for moderates (70% could think of an especially conservative organization, 40% for a liberal one) and a 55-point gap for liberals (79-24%).

Hobbes was one of the first to recognize that political liberty and atheism are fundamentally incapatible. For an atheist, all rights (except, perhaps, the right of self preservation) can only be positive -- that is, a right is a right if, and only if, it is recognized by the ruling power; there is no external justification for the right. If the government chooses not to recognize a right any longer, then the right disappears. Thomas Jefferson, though suspicious of public religion, was nevertheless wise enough to found the rights he lists in the Declaration of Independence on divine authority. What's amazing to me is that many of today's liberals, though often the most vociferous proponents of civil rights, are also the most skeptical of God's existence. On whose authority do they believe the rights they seek to defend and uphold rest? If merely the sovereign's, then they must admit as well that a sovereign which chooses to negate a purported right cannot be opposed. But perhaps this is why they are indeed so vociferous -- realizing that, on their view, the rights they cherish hang on a very slender thread indeed.

The Wall Street Journal ran an article yesterday on how thoroughly Fox News is trouncing CNN in the ratings. Among the metrics:

- Fox News attracted nearly twice as many viewers a day between March 29 and April 25 as CNN

- During an April 13 presidential news conference, Fox attracted 3 times as many viewers as CNN

- Fox's top rated show, The O'Reilly Factor, attracts 2.31M viewers per telecast; CNN's top rated show, Larry King Live, only draws in 1.31M viewers

Yet instead of acknowledging that people tune into Fox News because the mainstream media is boring and has a liberal bias, left-leaning pundits persist in demonizing Fox News. Supposedly Fox engages in sensationalistic coverage that cowtows to the lowest common denominator, while CNN maintains journalistic standards. According to this line of thought, the stupid American public is at fault for liking Fox News.

We see a similar phenomenon with American politics. The American people were fed up with the Democratic Congress in 1994 and threw them out, and to this very day Republicans dominate the House and the Senate. Yet the mainstream media didn't blame the Democratic Party for having stale policy ideas and being behind the times on welfare reform and health care reform. No, instead it was the "Angry White Male" whose irrational anger caused him to vote Republican. And it's not Republican popularity that has given Republicans control of the majority of state legislatures and governorships. Instead, it's a vast "Republican machine" that stirs up conservative voting blocs. Yet when a Democrat wins, such as when draft-dodging Bill Clinton defeated the war hero Bob Dole, the media creates a narrative of how people just liked Clinton so much more than Dole.

This leftist arrogance is the direct cause of the stagnation of the Democratic Party and the left-wing media. CNN needs to stop blaming the American people for its unpopularity, and instead adapt its coverage so that it is more interesting and balanced. And the Democratic Party must stop blaming Florida, Max Cleland, and vast right wing conspiracies for its utter repudiation by the American people, and instead adopt Joseph Lieberman's New Democrat agenda.

(1) The Redskins will go 16-0 and romp through the playoffs en route to a Superbowl rout over the Ravens.

(2) The Wizards will get the number 1 pick in the draft lottery, and Luol Deng and Emeka Okafer will promptly drop out of consideration. The Wizards will proceed to perpetually get the number 1 pick in the draft each and every year where there isn't a clearly dominant player, like LeBron or Yao. The Wizards will then add on another two year extension to Stackhouse's contract, trade Larry Hughes, and will never again have another winning season until Pollin sells the team. We will also trade Kwame, who will then average 20 and 10 for the next 2 decades.

(3) Brian will go to Texas Law School, fall in love with Texas, marry a hot Texas sweetheart, go to a big Houston law firm, and have eight kids. Four of these kids will proceed to become oil tycoons, and one will found the Scrivani political dynasty.

(4) Bush/Cheney will defeat Kerry/Rubin by 50 electoral votes in November. The Democratic Party will disavow themselves of the Angry Left in favor of the pragmatic, moderate New Democrats, and newly centrist Hillary Clinton will be elected president in '08 over Bill Frist. Universal health care will then be imposed.

(5) Scott will leave the GAO to go to Kellogg for his MBA, following which point he'll work in the private sector for 1.5 years, decide he doesn't like the hours, and head right back to the GAO. He will run the agency by 2024.

(6) Publius will become managing partner of a prominent law firm in 2021, and immediately following his election he will call a firm-wide assembly and reveal his secret wunderkinder identity. He will then promptly be deposed for his fascist politics.

(7) I will finagle my way into several billion dollars, either via entrepreneurship or marriage. I will then purchase a Manhattan-sized island in the Caribbean, sign a military alliance with the United States, impose a low income and corporate tax rate structure, and enact extraordinary poisen pill protections. Ellis Island will proceed to become a megopolis and a global headquarters for countless Fortune 500 firms, and I will use the proceeds to found both the Ellis Gazette and Ellis University. The Ellis Gazette will combine the NY Times' international coverage, the WSJ's business coverage, the Washington Post's political coverage, the Economist's wit, the LA Times' movie coverage, and Fox News' bravado. Ellis University will fuse Swarthmore's small classes and intellectualism, UVA's fun, Princeton's professional placement, Yale's tradition, and UCLA's sports prowess.

They're having their CD release party at the Black Cat. We first saw WSC at the Velvet Lounge last year. Since then, they've just been getting bigger and bigger. Now they're playing the Locals stage at the HFStival and the Warped Tour. Big stuff.

In any case, the show's gonna be rad. I highly suggest everyone come out - if not for the Social Club, for the faithful combination of Budweiser and Soco/Lime shots at the Black Cat. Chances of Wrightson falling out the door again? One million percent. That place wrecks me.

There is no link here. This is my own personal study, commissioned and performed between the hours of 8:30 AM and 10:00 AM.

Beards: They're like the Berlin Wall to coffee.

That's essentially what the House Minority Leader charged today:

"[Bush] has on his shoulders the deaths of many more troops, because he would not heed the advice of his own State Department of what to expect after May 1 when he ... declared that major combat is over. The shallowness that he has brought to the office has not changed since he got there."

Far be it from me to correct the esteemed -- and unshallow -- gentlewoman from San Francisco, but shouldn't the people on whose shoulders the deaths of American troops ought to rest be our enemies in Iraq?

NBC's Dick Ebersol ruined the Summer Olympics by focusing on women. He figured that men were going to watch regardless of what he chose to show, so he decided to focus on the "swing voting" women and the sports that they favored - namely gymnastics, swimming, and running. The result is that the Olympics are the only major sporting event watched by more women than men. Only the Olympics aren't really a sporting event anymore - instead it's a collection of insipid stories and vignettes occasionally interrupted by a bunch of guys swimming laps. Sometimes we get to see prepubescent girls doing backflips, but this is at least more entertaining than watching a group of men running around. If I wanted to see people running I could just go to Central Park! The Olympics has abandoned the core sports-watching audience in order to cater to sentimentalists, and the end result is plummeting ratings.

I'd actually watch the Summer Olympics if they showed real sports, like intrepid sailors battling the high seas in epic races. Or marvelous racquet sports like ping pong and badminton that feature the world's top players. Or furiously fought team sports like water polo and handball. Or age old competitions like archery and javelin. But to get these we have to tune into CNBC at 4AM.

Yet the Summer Olympics has had its moments over the years. In 1936 Jesse Owens disproved Hitler's aryan superiority theories right in front of the Fuhrer himself, and then befriended German long jumper Lutz Long. In 1956 the pool was soaked with blood after the USSR and Hungary's water polo match that took place amidst the Soviet invasion of Budapest. In 1984 America dominated the medal count, and in 1992 the greatest basketball team ever awed the world with dazzling skills. But today we have no racist, maniachal dictator bent on world domination. There is no Cold War. We can't dominate the medal counts anymore because the Eastern bloc is boycotting. And instead of Magic, Bird, and MJ, today's top NBA players like Shaq, Kobe, and Kidd are refusing to play due to a myriad of excuses.

It's no fun to nationalistically root for a bunch of anonymous athletes without the context of an epic struggle for the hearts and minds of the world. The Olympics used to be captivating because they served as a proxy for profound ideological Cold War forces that couldn't fight real wars, so they fought fake ones like the Olympics and the space race. But no one cares anymore if our drug-filled athletes defeats China's, or vice versa. If China's swimmers win, good for them. They probably used better steroids than our guys. America's lack of interest in the Olympics and space exploration reflects a certain maturation of our society and a recognition that there are more important metrics of national honor than medal counts.

As for Athens itself, it's a dirty, putrid city whose main raison d'etre is to serve as a port for the fantastic Greek islands. Its only redeeming feature is the Acropolis, which you can thoroughly see in about an hour. For history's sake I'd at least understand if the Olympics were held in Olympia, where they took place throughout antiquity. Granted Olympia's facilities are a little old, but they can't be much worse than Athens', with its unfinished Olympic Village and a swimming stadium where they didn't put on the roof because they ran out of time. In ancient times conflict was at least suspended throughout the Greek world, but that's not going to happen today. In fact the Olympics will probably be interrupted by terrorism this time. And even if they're not, the best case scenario is we'll be subjected to two weeks of gymnastics, swimming, running, rampant commercialism, and boring character portrayals. Count me out.

I finally saw it last night, and it blew me away. It was a perfectly made homage to the old marriage of Kung-Fu/Samurai/American Western movies. However, I can also see how if you weren't a moviephile, it could seem like the biggest bunch of crap on screen. For example, one of my roommates asked why O-Ren Ishii wouldn't fight The Bride one-on-one. Why did The Bride have to fight like 100 bodyguards first?

See, I have no answer for that. It seems ridiculous, doesn't it? But if you're a fan of the genre, you respect the form - the hero must go through the henchmen in order to get to the boss. It's a rule, really. And the bigger the boss, the more henchmen. It's like the Seven Samurai, or Double Dragon. Tarantino would be selling out the genre if he didn't make The Bride fight the henchmen.

But if you don't get that, you're probably not going to like the movie.

Secret Favorite Part: Giving the shoutout to Ennio Morricone in the soundtrack. Who doesn't love Ennio Morricone? Morricone and Elfman are the two composers whose style is instantly recognizable.

Don't stop with a study about widening I-66 inside the Beltway. Everyone knows it needs to be widened. Just frickin' widen it already.

It's absolutely ludicrous that the main highway to some of the most densely populated parts of Northern Virginia is only 2 lanes wide for 6 miles heading out of the city. It's trafficky for about 2 1/2 hours a night, and it has to be kept HOV during peak hours to avoid total gridlock. Now only would a third lane add needed capacity, it would also perhaps let us keep the far right lanes open to all traffic and only keep the left lane HOV. This draconian total-HOV system has choked us for far too long.

I don't think this column by Fritz Hollings is anti-Semitic, but it sure is asinine.

Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

Even anti-war Democrats have to acknowledge that Hussein was funding Palestinian suicide bombers; harboring known terrorists (including al Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al-Islam); building terrorist training camps; and filling mass graves with nearly 300,000 Iraqis. But Hollings could care less about Iraq's connection to terrorism in the larger sense. Unless one can prove a specific connection to 9/11, he isn't interested.

In 1993, President Clinton responded to Saddam's attempt on the life of President George H.W. Bush by putting a missile down on Saddam's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. Not a big kill, but Saddam got the message.

Yeah, Saddam got the message. So did al Qaeda, when President Clinton put some more missiles into a pharmaceutical factory and an empty desert. The message: kill us with impunity.

Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Maybe Hollings is so old, he just forgot about this.

Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel.

Let me get this straight: Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and therefore wasn't a threat to Israel. But we invaded Iraq because it was a threat to Israel. Got that?

Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area.

Ah yes, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Krauthammer. Interesting that he mentions only these three. I wonder if there is anyone else who is an advocate of spreading democracy in the Middle East? Someone, say, non-Jewish?

[Bush] came to office imbued with one thought -- re-election.

Gasp! A linguistic aside: how is one "imbued" with a "thought"?

Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq.

Well, there you have it. We invaded Iraq to appease Israel and American Jews. And here, stupid me, I was thinking all along it had something to do with enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dangerous dictator, halting human rights abuses, preventing an enemy nation from developing WMD and aiding terrorists. How silly.

With President Bush's domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he keeps shouting, "Terrorism War."

I don't think I've heard the President once shout "Terrorism War." Yes, "war on terror"; sometimes even, "war on terrorism" or "against the evildoers." But "Terrorism War"? It just sounds funny.

Terrorism is a method, not a war. We don't call the Crimean War with the Charge of the Light Brigade the Cavalry War. Or World War II the Blitzkrieg War.

Yes, but wasn't there something a little different about those wars? Maybe, for instance, that they were between two or more nations? Perhaps Fritz would prefer if we called this the "war against al Qaeda" -- but then that would exclude, wouldn't it, a whole bunch of other terrorist organizations with whom we're also at war. Maybe, the "war against terrorist organizations"? Kind of a mouthful.

There is terrorism in Northern Ireland against the Brits.

Um, isn't there also terrorism in Northern Ireland against the Catholics? Just asking. And is it not a certain kind of terrorism with which we are at war -- that is, extremist Muslim terrorism -- not terrorism of every stripe? Maybe Fritz is just concerned about the syntax again -- he wants to call this the "war against extremist Muslim terrorist organizations," and he won't rest until all of us do, too.

In the Mideast, terrorism is a separate problem to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily. Here, might does not make right -- right makes might. Acting militarily, we have created more terrorism than we have eliminated.

Is this a contest to see how many cliches and empty bromides can be fit into a single column? Besides, Fritz has this precisely wrong -- it is negotiation and diplomacy which have failed in the Middle East for more than fifty years, while terrorism has strengthened. And when did Dominique de Villepin become a Democratic Senator from South Carolina, anyway?