To be honest, I'm losing interest in The Daily Show. The "field reporting" is still outstanding -- Steve Carel, Mo Rocca and the gang might be the funniest thing on TV at present.

But the headlines round-up John Stewart does to kick-off the show are really getting snide lately, and increasingly agenda-driven. They can still be funny at times, but it seems that since Bush took office, the show really reeks of ideology. It was much, much better when it was an equal-opportunity offender.

That said, Stewart did have an amusing observation last night. Noting AOL/Time Warner's $98 billion loss, and Ted Turner's subsequent resignation, Stewart said that Turner planned to "spend more time working on his non-profit projects." Given that his company just lost $98 billion, wasn't he already working on a "non-profit project?"

I keep getting referrals from Andrew Sullivan. And while I'd like to think that I'm of sufficient blogosphere all-star material to merit a link from the great Sully, color me suspicious.

First, I've yet to see a link to my site from any spot on the "Daily Dish." And, second, the referrals I get are in the 6 or 8 or 10 range. I'd imagine a link from Sully would throw quite a few more IPs my way than that.

Still, it's weird that he keeps popping up in the logs. Neal Boortz, too, now that I think about it.

In disparaging the Bush tax cut plan, West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd has claimed tax cuts are irresponsible, considering the looming deficit, and that there isn't enough money to fund the new Homeland Security measure (which isn't such a bad thing, in your humble Agitator's opinion).

But we all know that Byrd's a sucker for pork, especially when it benefits him directly, or at least benefits a project he can slap his name on. The latest hunk of bacon: the "Office of Senate President Pro Tempore Emeritus." Now, the Senate President Pro Tempore is a constituionally-mandated position, given to the most senior Senator of the majority party. It too is largely ceremonial, but it is at least called for in our founding document.

But the "emeritus" position? It was a ceremonial post created (wastefully) to bestow some dignity on Sen. Strom Thurmond when the Democrats took over the body.

Now that the Republicans have taken over, Byrd thinks the American taxpayers ought to be sapped again so he can claim the office and it's dignified accoutrements (I'm sure I just butchered the spelling of that word, but I'm too lazy to run spellcheck). Byrd sponsored an amendment to continue the bogus office -- which he'd hold, of course -- and it passed without objection.

The cost? $150,000, plus $7,500 for office expenses.

Maybe Robert Byrd would like to explain to the people of West Virginia why he needs a third office on Capitol Hill that by itself costs about eight times what the average West Virginian makes in a year.

Frankly, I think this happened a quite a while ago.

There's some discussion in the comments section about the bogus stats being thrown out by ONDCP about marijuana and automobile accidents. NORML's on the case.

Interestingly enough, marijuana useres are actually less prone to risky behavior, so potheads tend to compensate for any impairment caused by the drug with extra caution. Alcohol, on the other hand, presents a double-whammy, in that it both impairs reaction time and coordination, and it encourages extraneous risk taking.

...well, we've seen a Heritage fellow claim Jesus was a warrior, not a man of peace.

But, yowza, this puts the Messiah in places I'd guess he's never been.

(I'll be kind and warn you, if you're Christian and easily offended, you'll want to pretend this post never happened. And you'll certainly wanted to avoid clicking on the link above. But then, you'd never catch the great pun I made in the headline.)

Link via ReasonBlog.

Here's the AP caption for this most outstanding picture:

Democratic presidential hopeful Rev. Al Sharpton responds to President Bush's State of the Union address during a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003.

The difference between front-page promotion and Views page promotion on FoxNews.com is really remarkable.

My column two weeks ago got front-page promo, and consequently sent about 2,700 people to this site, according to the referrer logs down and to your left. My column today was not promoted on the front page, apparently bumped to make way for this very important story about Ben Affleck's new Christmas movie. My column today sent just 29 people to this site. I'm no math major, but I think that's about 80 or 90 times more referrers as a result of front-page exposure.

I was also a little disappointed in the subhead the Fox folks wrote this week. It began with a phrase to the effect of "Even though tobacco and alcohol are bad for you..."

Tobacco, sure. But truth be told, alcohol is good for you.

Depending on your perspective.

The news is that my new roommate has a snazzy computer with superfast DSL. That means ridiculous access to the blog. That means my addiction will only grow. That means I could potentially be the first person to OD on Moveable Type (the interface that enables an HTML LD-student like me to blog, for you novices).

And when I do finally OD, you will all have been my enablers. The David Spades to my Chris Farley (the fat dead commedian, not the comments section regular), the Chevy Chases to my John Belushi.

Moving sucks. Yeah, you already knew that. But let me say it again. Moving sucks. Pretty sure my next move will be accompanied by a mortgage.

A few rules for the move:

1) Always, always make the stereo the last item packed, and the first item unpacked. Getting reacquainted with the CD collection makes the whole process much less painful.

2) Always make sure that the spot you're moving in to is actually vacant. I found out this afternoon that the fellow who's room I'm taking, well, he's in Scotland. But his stuff's still here. Bastard.

3) Sandals = Especially bad moving footwear. Sandals in January = Doubly especially bad moving footwear.

4) Don't decide that the day before your move would be a good time to work out the lower body a bit. You know, squats, calf raises and such.

5) Never underestimate how much crap you have. Even if you're one not inclinced to accumulate crap.

I'm done complaining now.

No bloggage tomorrow, as I undertake the splendid task of hauling my belongings from house to truck to house again. I shan't leave you empty-handed, however.

I encourage you to talk amongst yourselves.

I'll give you a topic:

My latest Fox column, which should appear on this page as of midnight.

George Will on the would-be Democratic nominee for president:

In his speech last week at a Roe v. Wade celebration—a pandering festival attended by all the aspirants—Dean said he is running because “I don’t like extremism.” Then he said that unless Bush is defeated, “Next thing, girls won’t be able to go to school in America. You watch.” Then he said that five Supreme Court justices “are so far to the right that we can’t see them anymore.” At breakfast he said, well, OK, only three—William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia. Thus were Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy rehabilitated.

Shortly after the attacks committed by mostly affluent agents of Osama bin Laden, a rich Saudi, Dean said: “What happened on September 11 ... is mostly a product of the enormous disparity between those who have everything and those who have nothing.” He says the tripling of the national debt between 1980 and 1992 caused interest rates to rise. But the basic rate was 13.35 in 1980 and 3.52 in 1992.

Here's a request for D.C.-area bloggers:

There's a small chance I may be able to get a Washington Post reporter to do a write-up of the festivities (Thursday, February 6, 7pm) for the Style section. But we need to give her a hook.

Does anyone who plans to attend happen to have a laptop with wireless (read: no hook-up required) Internet?

I think a blogger party with real-time blogging from the scene might be a nifty hook.

Yes. I'm a dork.

It just gets wierder and wierder.

In chastising pro-war Christian-righters, Alina writes:

And how can the modern American state get so powerful as to replace religion in the lives of purportedly-Christian Americans? Will you justify the killing of others as "OK with our Lord and Savior when Bush and the oil lobby says so"? Will you then turn to bash Osama bin Laden for his jihad? Will you open your eyes, look in the mirror, and just realize that Jesus NEVER justified killing others? Sorry guys, but when you decide to go for honor and glory in this world, you greatly decrease your chances of reaching the Christian heaven. Who am I to know? Well, let's just say the Bible told me so.

First, the U.S. is kicked off the Human Rights Commission to make way for....slave-trading Sudan.

Then Libya is given the Commission's chair.

Now this.

The coming war with Iraq is a bad idea. But W., if you're going to bomb, bomb. Don't give credence to the idea that this band of ignorant, west-bashing, progress-hating, utopian, parking-ticket fugitives should have any say whatsofuckingever in U.S. national security.

And, I'm repeating myself, but it's worth repeating. If there's evidence of an Iraqi threat, show us, dammit. Why does the UN get to see it before we do?

Stellar op-ed by David Boaz. And no, I'm not just sucking up. Excerpt:

Too many people these days think "choice" only refers to abortion. I'd like to hear a presidential candidate say, "I believe in a woman's right to choose. I believe in a woman's right to choose whether to have a child. I believe in a woman's right to choose any job someone will hire her for. I believe in a woman's right to choose to own a gun. I believe in a woman's right to choose the school she thinks is best for her child, public or private. I believe in a woman's right to choose what kinds of art she will spend her money on, even if she prefers Madonna or Randy Travis and Congress wants to give her money to Robert Mapplethorpe or Luciano Pavarotti. I believe in a woman's right to choose to drive a cab, even if she doesn't have a license. I believe in a woman's right to choose the employees she wants for her business, even if they don't fit some government quota. I believe in a woman's right to choose the drugs she prefers for recreation, whether she chooses Coors or cocaine. I believe in a woman's right to choose how to spend all of her hard-earned money, without giving half of it to the government."

...When a Republican president is holding U.S. citizens without a court hearing, implementing a Total Information Awareness program to compile information on all citizens, and spending more taxpayers' money on every nook and cranny of the federal government, it's great to hear leading Democrats talk about freedom, trusting people to make their own decisions, and limiting the power of the state. It would be even better if they applied those noble principles to more than one, and only one, issue.

By request from the comments section, a partial listing of McCain's soul-selling votes from the last Congress:

1) Not only did McCain not vote for the "Hatch Amendment" to the campaign finance bill -- wich would have required unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities -- he brought up a motion to kill it.

2) McCain then motionted to kill another amendment from Hatch, this time one that would have required unions to disclose how much of dues-payers' money they spend on political activities, and on what political activities they spend it on.

3) McCain voted against a plan to accelerate the elimination of the "marriage penalty," so that it would have been eliminated by the end of 2002.

4) McCain voted against a proposed amendment to the tax bill that would have cut the capital gains tax from 20% to 15%.

5) McCain voted against the final version of the Bush tax cut.

6) McCain voted against a "sense of the Senate" amendment to the Patients' Rights bill that would have said the Senate desires to eliminate federal restrictions on employers who wish to set up market-friendly medical savings accounts in lieu of health insurance.

7) McCain voted against a freedom of contract amendment to the Patients' Rights bill that would have allowed patients to waive the right to sue HMOs in exchange for lower premiums and copayments.

8) McCain threatened to vote against, or even fillibuster the Homeland Security bill. But not because he objected to the gargantuan new agency on principle. Rather, because he objected to the White House's insistence that it be able to hire and fire employees of the new agency without following union protocol. The White House felt that in matters of national security, it ought to be able to fire incompetent employeees with no questions asked. McCain apparently disagreed.

9) McCain supports the costly but inneffective proposed new "CAFE" standards on new automobiles.

10) The Incumbency Protection Act. Er...I mean..."campaign finance reform."

11) McCain has come to embrace Teddy Roosevelt as a political role model. TR was hardly a limited government cheerleader.

I'm sure there are more. These were the result of a quick Google search.

Now that I've praised Bush a bit, back to the war.

The dependably wrong Nicholas Kristof strikes pragmatic gold in yesterday's NYT column on the pending war with Iraq. The central question for him -- and one that rings oddly libertarian -- is: "Will an invasion of Iraq make us safer?" The key excerpt:

The real answer is that we don't know. But it's quite plausible that an invasion will increase the danger to us, not lessen it. As a C.I.A. assessment said last October: "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks [in the U.S.]. Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." It added that Saddam might order attacks with weapons of mass destruction as "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

Frankly, it seems a bad idea to sacrifice our troops' lives — along with billions of dollars — in a way that may add to our vulnerability.

1) Let me be the first to give Bush some credit. I've never felt more Republican than I did for the first fifteen minutes of the speech. His rhetoric on taxes was pure bliss. In fact, I was hugging every word until he got to health care.

2) Michael Gerson, Bush's chief speechwriter (and a Hoosier, I might add) is an extraordinary talent. I found myself growing goosebumps, even when I disagreed with what ol' W was saying.

3) Back to health care. The $415 billion in extra funding for Medicare is unfortunate, but expected. Same with the prescription drug benefit, which is a step in the opposite direction of a health care system run by "doctors, patients and hospitals" -- what W. claims to want.

What's inexplicable is the Democrats' response. Gov. Gary Locke of Washington described it as a move toward complete privatization. How is $415 billion in extra federal funding a move toward privatization?

4) Private Social Security accounts. Check. Nicely done.

5) Energy. Boondoggles and corporate welfare. Bush's energy bill last year was a joke. A behemoth amalgamation of political patronage and backslaps to Big Oil, and to nuclear energy, which will never, ever be profitable without government assistance. This time, Bush is giving an extra billion to the auto industry to create a hydrogen car. Sounds grand. Sounds visionary. But it's unnecessary. We'll get a hydrogen car when markets indicate to the auto industry that a hydrogen car is palatable to the public and, therefore, profitable. Tossing them a billion dollar bone won't get such a car on the market any sooner, because if the public's not ready for one yet, or the technology isn't quite right, no car company's going to mass-produce a net loser once that billion dries up.

6) $450 million for mentors. Cheesy, unproductive feel-goodism. Why does it cost money to be a mentor? I've mentored kids since college. Find a school in your area that has set up a program for at-risk youth. Or find a Boys and Girls Club. Tell them you want to mentor. Then, mentor. It's that easy. It's not a lot of money, but it's another program that's best left to civil society organizations. And it'll cost you and I about a buck-fifty each to implement it.

7) $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa. As I've written before, if we're going to spend money on foreign aid, this is probably the least worst way to do it. There's evidence that crisis-fighting aid outlays really do do some good. And of course there's no questioning the dire situation on the African continent. I still maintain that it'll be difficult to get this money past the kleptocratic, corrupt, dictatorial regimes (many of whom -- such as South Africa's Thabo Mbeki -- pretended for a criminally long period of time that the problem didn't exist) to the people who need it.

A great example of how better to fight the epidemic is Coca-Cola and its Africa Foundation. The soft drink giant is using its vast presence in Africa -- including its marketing teams, its bottling companies, and its supply routes -- to fight the disease on a local level.

8) "Drug Education Programs." He means ONDCP. He means he's proud of the fact that his administration is lying to you -- frequently -- and spending your money to do it. For shame.

9) Iraq. Again, Gerson impresses with lots of pomp, and some mighty turns of phrase. But I'm still not convinced. I find it odd that Bush has promised "hard evidence" when Colin Powell makes his case to the UN. Shouldn't that case be made to we, the people, first? Why does the UN get to see it before we do? Who do Powell and Bush serve, the United States or the United Nations?

10) I know, I'm going to be accused of being one of those "all or nothing" libertarians for this, but why gloat that you're "only increasing government spending by 4%?" That's still an increase. It's time to start going the other way. And, as Cato notes, while Bush did propose very few new programs, he made zero proposals to eliminate old ones. Isn't there some agency, task force or bureaucracy that's served its purpose, or outlived its mission?

With the creation of the Homeland Security (the mammoth bureaucracy that, paradoxically, is charged with streamlining the problem of bureaucracy amongst our vast milieu of intelligence agencies), the federal government is likely to grow more under this president than under any since Roosevelt. I'm not sure how he can make that work, and work in a tax cut, without making some hard, politically unpopular, Karl-Rove's-pissed-off decisions.

Overall? I got a few goosebumps, as I said. I rolled my eyes a few times, too. Aggravating as this guy can be, though, for some damned reason, I can't help but like him. And I can't help but think that sooner or later, he's going to make good on his campaign pledge to trust the people, not the government.

So I watched the State of the Union (more on that in a bit) from my health club. One of the things I love about D.C. -- even in my health club, located in northern Arlington, they put all of the televisions in the place on the SOTU, turned the volume up, and most everyone in the place gathered in the cardio room to watch. What other city does that?

Anyway, my health club has the closed-captioning turned on for all of the TVs in the building, so you can watch and follow along while you're burning calories, and trying to look good for the calorie burner of the opposite sex (or same, if that's your bag) on the treadmill next to you.

Closed-captioning I guess is still an inexact science. Two of my favorite closed-captioned moments from Bush's speech:

1) At one point, Bush referred to Saddam Hussein as "the Iraqi dictator." The transcript on the screen read: "the airport dick ate her."

2) "He's attempting to stockpile uranium" showed up as "he's attempting to stockpile your anium."

Let's make one thing clear. If Saddam Hussein puts his grubby paws anywhere my anium, or the aniums of my loved ones, not only will I shift and support the war, I'll be the first to enlist. My anium, my business.

...to Arthur Silber for the kind mention. Arthur's is the most eloquent pure-objectivist voice in the blogosphere, having worked with Rand herself on a number of occasions. He took a hiatus from blogging there for a bit, but it's good to see him back, and in good form.

Hitching off Scrappleface's (or Max Sawicky's, depending on your perspective) "Axis of Weasel" meme, I've been compiling a list of my own over the last several days:

Axis of Medieval -- either a) the big five record companies, for their luddite-ism, or, b) the Samuel L. Jackson fan club.

Axis of Boll Weevil -- Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and the Green Party -- all opponents of genetically modified crops, many of which are engineered to naturally repell the pesty weevil.

Axis of Knievel -- Bush and Blair, for unnecessary foreign policy risk-taking.

Axis of Steeple -- Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson.

Axis of Legal -- John Banzhaf, Senator Handsome.

Axis of Eric Siegel -- Al Gore, Tommy Lee Jones.

Axis of Emo -- Weezer, Dashboard Confessional, Bright Eyes.

Axis of Beatle -- Well, I guess it's just Paul and Ringo, now.

Axis of Weeble -- Bush's free-trade credentials.

Axis of Creole -- Sens. Landrieu, Breaux.

Axis of Oval -- Louie Anderson, Dom Deluise.

Axis of Ivy -- Harvard, Yale, Wrigley, Jamie Pressley.

Axis of Eagle -- Eddie Edwards, Philly, Boston College.

Axis of Sequel -- Rocky Balboa, Jason Vorhees.

Axis of Anvil -- Wile E. Coyote, Road Runner.

Axis of Easy -- Eric Wright, Christina Aguillera.

Axis of Treacle -- N'Sync, Hallmark.

Axis of Veil -- That Afghan woman from National Geographic, Jonny Cash.

Axis of Villa -- Poncho, Bob.

Axis of Viola -- Frank Bridge, York Bowen.

Axis of Avril -- Gene Healy, Julian Sanchez.

Axis of Ville -- Small, Pleasant.

Axis of Everly -- Little Suzy, Bye Bye Love.

OK. I'm tired. I encourage you to come up with your own.

To Helen Thomas, longtime "objective" White House correspondent.

Said she of George W. Bush,

"He is the worst president in all of American history."

Time for Shady Pines, Helen.

You go, girl.

Cato scholars offer a series of "prebuttals" (word invention credit: Brink Lindsey) to tonight's State of the Union.

As in the past, Cato will also monitor the speech and count the number of new federal programs Bush proposes. The all time record? President Clinton, 2000. He recommended a jaw-droppoing 104 new programs in a mere 89 minutes of speaking time, a feat in league with Dimaggio's 56-game hitting streak, Cy Young's 512 wins, and Secretariat's 31-length win at the Kentucky Derby.

Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy are back. Right now, it looks like an April 18 release (a fine gift for my birthday, the day after) for A Mighty Wind, the latest semi-improv comedy creation from the masters who brought us Best In Show, Waiting for Guffman and Spinal Tap.

This time, the spoof's on the aging folk music movement, and the coffeehouse/public radio/baby boomer culture it inspires. I'm very excited. All the regulars are back, including Guest, Levy, Parker Posey, Michael McKean, Harry Shearer, Bob Balaban, Ed Begley, Jr., and the incomparable Fred Willard.

The most ingriguing part of the project is that we can also expect a soundtrack of mock folk music to accompany the movie's release, something Guest and the gang haven't done since, of course, Spinal Tap. My guess? It'll out-folk folk, just as Spinal Tap out-metaled metal, and will send Boomers to the record stores with renewed interest in the Bleecker Street sound.

Here's a preview site. And here's the spare official site.

Since we've been talking a bit about ONDCP's despicable PSAs, perhaps we should take some time to look at ads more conducive to liberty.

To that end, the indispensable Institute for Humane Studies is sponsoring the Freedom Ads competition, looking to identify and reward print, audio and video commercials that best advocate freedom.

The official site is a fun browse, and a nice reminder that creative minds needn't always flock to the dark side of political philosophy.

One:

I'd certainly trust my teenage sister alone with your average pothead before I would leave her with a US Congressman. But Big Brother doesn't play fair.

Two:

At halftime, an engaging performance by Shania Twain's cleavage was unfortunately marred by the presence of Shania Twain's music. (If this woman is a country singer, how come those songs sounded like Loverboy?)

Michael Kinsley at his finest, disecting the McCain/Liberman mystery. Excerpt:

Both men are hooked on cheap iconoclasm. How many times can a politician be the rare member of his party who takes the position of the other party on some issue or other before this stops being such a wonderful surprise? McCain and Lieberman have stumbled (perhaps) on a brilliant formula. By being dissidents toward the center, rather than toward the extreme, they get to luxuriate in two of the press's most popular (and, you would have thought, mutually exclusive) categories simultaneously: courageous outsider and moderate voice of reason.

But moderation, far from courageous, can be too easy. Lieberman opposes President Bush's tax plan but "said he was intrigued" (the Washington Post) by the idea of tax-free dividends, which is the plan's centerpiece, even though it "doesn't do anything" to help get the economy "out of the rut." Under the nutty conventions of the media, this kind of talk gets you points for statesmanship and sophistication, rather than a penalty for having it every way and a general lack of any meaning whatsoever. McCain, during the Clinton years, used similar techniques to develop a reputation for statesmanship and foreign-policy expertise. His views on the use of American power are easier to admire than to parse.

I think Kinsley makes a couple of mistakes, though. First, there's a big difference between Lieberman and McCain. Lieberman throws out rhetoric about school choice, ending affirmative action and tax cuts. But come voting time, he's a reliable Daschle "aye." Yes, he excoriated Clinton on the floor of the U.S. Senate. But when it came time to vote for removal, where was Lieberman? Reliably defending the left flank. And how 'bout the 2000 election? I've never seen a politician weasel out of so many prior positions. Lieberman was hailed as a "brave" choice by Gore, as most thought his positions on the issues above would moderate the ticket. But Lieberman didn't moderate Gore, he carried water for him. Lieberman may talk a maverick's talk, but he's not about to sacrifice his current position or the chance at a power grab to show a little principle.

McCain on the other hand actually casts the votes to back up his mouth. Unfortunately, he almost always strays from the party on the wrong issues. I'd even argue that McCain's contrarian votes really aren't even all that politically risky, because while they may earn him scorn within the party, they earn him platitudes in the media. And when the New York Times showers you with kisses, it's hard to feel all that bad when Mitch McConnell won't show any love.

Kinsley's second mistake of course comes at the end of the column, when he says that either man would make a good president.

Jim O'Rourke and Jeff Tweedy collaborate again.

I'm intrigued.

Just a reminder...

February 6 at the Rendezvous Lounge, 18th and Kalorama, NW.

7pm or so.

According to an interview in the latest Newsweek (not yet available online), the aging wife-stabbling novelist Norman Mailer is upset that "the things I hate the most have thrived."

What does he hate the most?

Plastic, highways, and skyscrapers.

So yes, a fellow whose politics are today described as "progressive," hates three of last century's biggest triumphs of progress. "Progressive" = Hating "progress."

Downright Orwellian, ain't it?

Glen Whitman from the comments section:

Legacy preferences don't make me happy, either, but we should keep in mind why they exist. It's not just an irrational preference for keeping the same family names. It's because legacy families are considered among the most likely to contribute money to the university. As a result, admitting more legacies allows the university to have more scholarships, better facilities, and so on. Similar reasoning is behind the well-known practice of giving preferences to celebrities and VIP's (e.g., Claire Danes going to Yale), with the added benefit of getting greater media attention for the school.

Also on AA, George Will made an excellent point on the "a good education requires diversity" front in the Sunday WaPo. That is, these school may claim to value a diversity of skin colors, ethnic backgrounds and nationalities, but they're disingenuous when they say such disaparate backgrounds lead to a diversity of viewpoints. Elite schools don't value a diversity of viewpoints, unless by "diverse" you mean "left," "far left" and "Noam Chomsky."

Take a poll of the sociology, political science, journalism, history, and criminal justice departments at your Michigans, Princetons and Yales. They might have faculties that "look like America," but I doubt you'll find faculties that "think like America." I'd guess that the 2000 Democratic National Convention had more diverse viewpoints than your typical monoloithic COAS.

Everyone give a warm blogosphere welcome to the funniest man writing (and a libertarian), Dave Barry.

Yep. He's got a blog.

So do you remember that song "Flashdance, What a Feeling?" It starts out "First there was nothing...but a slow, glowing dream...."

When I was very young, that was one of my favorite songs (yes, I'm not sure how I turned out straight, either). So when one of my elementary school teachers said our class could put on a talent show, I decided I'd bring in my little red tape recorder, play the song at low volume, and sing along to it.

Here's where I got into some trouble:

There's a part in the song when Irene Cara sings "take your passion...and make it happen...."

Well, I guess I misheard the lyrics. I sang, "take your pants down...and make it happen...."

Needless to say, Mr. Taylor wasn't happy.

All of this is my way of introducing you the website KissThisGuy.com, a clearinghouse of popular misheard lyrics (the name of course comes from the refrain in "Purple Haze"). I suggest hitting the "random lyric" button.

Thankfully, I'm not alone. "Take your pants down" is already in the database.

I strongly encourage you to poke around the Free Vibe website. It's run by ONDCP, and I guess it's supposed to be an anti-drug message that is also "hip" and "trendy" and "down" with today's teens. The unintentional comedy is off the charts. There's nothing more comical than the product of prudish anti-drug warriors taking a swing at "cool."

Navigation links include happenin' slang like "heads-up," "lowdown," "shout out," and "hang time."

My favorite is "Summit High," a cartoon sitcom-ish like series that couldn't possibly appeal to anyone over the age of 8. The description:

Keep up with five friends navigating the classrooms, parties, cafeteria and of course, the hallways of Summit High. From classroom to bedroom, from party to band practice, you won't want to miss a detail. And be sure to read the journal entries, newspaper columns, horoscopes and music reviews for every little detail.

Typical "Summit High" dialogue:

"Dude, are you on something?"

"It's nothing. One of the guys on the soccer team gave me something to get through my studying last night."

"You're crazy! You could get addicted!"

"Relax. It was nothing. Just a one-time thing."

"Oh yeah? Well you look like crap. And you're still not ready for your chem test!"

The marijuana pages are filled with junk science and anectdotal evidence (three people with marijuana in their systems caused "a rash" highway fatalities last year, therefore "drugged driving" is an emerging national problem).

Also great are the "Your Stories" testimonials, most of which you'd swear were written by ONDCP staffers posing as 14 year olds.

That's really all you need to say.

Kentucky.

I just caught the latest ONCDP commercial, this time from Leo Burnett. It's the one where the stoned kid accidentally shoots his buddy.

Here's a nice takedown of the ad from a woman far too sensbile to be a junior in college. Here and here are my takes on previous anti-drug campaigns.

This latest campaign is an effort to demonize marijuana. ONDCP is apparently nervous about the movement toward decriminalization, which is working wonderfully well in the parts of London where it's being tried, and will likely soon be implemented in Canada.

I have a friend who once worked on this campaign with Fleishman-Hillard (Burnett's the creative force behind it, FH does the PR, and has been since the Clinton administration). Here's the funny thing: ONDCP asked FH researchers to find all the studies that conclusive proved that marijuana is worse for you than tobacco and alcohol. They dilligently and dutifully went to work. And guess what? They couldn't find any!. So you'll notice that the campaign steers clear of alcohol and tobacco comparisons. Intstead, it focuses on the few arguably detrimiental effects marijuana does have on regular users -- delayed reaction time and the possible impairmnet of judgment.

So yes, your government is lying to you again. Death from marijuana overdose is rare, if it's ever happened at all, while thousands die from alcohol poisoning every year. In fact, some studies say the greatest health risk associated with marijuana is arrest and imprisonment, a result not of the drug's effects on your body, but of society's asinine response to your using it.

But there's a larger issue here, too. Why should government be running (or forcing broadcasters to run) PSAs to begin with? Why are our tax dollars supporting state-run campaigns telling us to behave ourselves? And once we give government that option, should we really be surprised when it's used to dissememinate bad information, sometimes intentionally?

Things that have crossed my mind as the hullabaloo over the University of Michigan Supreme Court cases unfolds....

1) Affirmative action in private schools. It's fine, as far as I'm concerned. So are legacy preferences, preferences for left-handers (if only!), redheads (if only!), white people, and midgets...er...."little people." Actually, let me correct that. Preferences not based on merit aren't fine, but they ought not be illegal. Likewise, if Bob Jones University wants to prohibit blacks from stepping foot on campus, I don't think such a policy should be illegal, either. It's not acceptable or moral or desirable, in fact it's deplorable. But it shouldn't be illegal.

2) Affirmative action in public schools. Here, we libertarians tend to twist our arguments into knots. Seems we always feel obligated to begin by saying there's really no need for public universities. So I'll say it. There's no need for public universities. But if you're going to have them, and they insist on retaining an "elite" and "competitive" reputation, I'm sorry, but you just can't grant admission to one student and deny it to another for any reason other than merit. So long as everyone's supporting the school through taxes, it's simply unfair to grant preferences to any student for factors behind his/her control.

3) Legacy preferences. The pro affirmative-action crowd loves to bring up legacy preferences as a counter to the argument that admissions ought to be merit-based. That's because anti-affirmative action advocates tend to be from the class of folks who benefit from legacy preferences. My take? The pro-AA people have a point. Legacy preferences aren't meritorious. And in a perfect world, they ought not factor into admissions. But where are legacy preferences most prominent, in state schools or in private schools? Most every legacy argument I've seen made cites schools like Princeton, Yale and Harvard. Those are private schools. I've already said I think private schools ought to be able set their own admissions policies as they see fit. I may not happen to agree with them, but then, I don't have to support those schools, either. But I'll state plainly: state school should abolish legacy preferences.

That said, anti-AA forces have a point when they say "we didn't fight a war over legacy preferences." That is, yes, legacy preferences aren't based on merit. But as pro-AA forces will concede in almost any other context, race is special in America. It has a long and bloody and tragic and awful history here. To reward some and punish others on the basis of race -- even when done to reverse historical injustices -- prolongs race-consciousness, and the pain and resentment and anger that goes with it.

4) Diversity as an ends. The modern case for affirmative action states that the goal is diversity, that a well-rounded education should include exposure to and interaction with people from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences. True. But these are the same people who support keeping traditionally all-black schools all-black. They also support separate housing for minority students, and minority cultural centers, social organizations and academic departments. I grew up in an all-white town. But to be honest, I've never felt more separated and race-segregated than I did in my 4 1/2 years at Indiana University. Every activity you might imagine on campus came in white and black varieties -- the greek system, study/tutor programs, social life, housing -- even The Commons, the area in the Student Union where you might stop for lunch between classes, had de-facto "black" and "white" dining areas. Of course, that's just my experience. But I'd guess the situation's the same on a number of other campuses.

5) Athletes, Musicians, Etc. Probably the weakest argument coming from pro-AA advocates. This position says that schools grant preferences for such non-academic endeavors as, for example, proficiency on the xylophone, or finger-painting, or field hockey, or pass blocking. So why not for race? Easy. The former, while not necessarily academic, are still grounded in merit. The latter is not. It takes no practice, diligence or dedication to black or white. It takes all three to become a world class pianist, an all-American point guard, or a champion debater.

6) It takes character to overcome adversity. The strongest argument from pro-AA forces, at least on its face. This argument invokes all the statistics showing how a black man today faces a great number more obstacles on his way to an education than a white man does. He's more likely to be poor, from a broken family, from a dilapidated school, and overall from a more challenging background than his white counterpart. True, all. And I think that achievement in the face of such adversity certainly qualifies as "merit."

But why bring race into the picture? Why not give points for graduating with good grades from a bad school, for succeeding despite living below the poverty line, or for doing well with just one parent? I haven't seen any studies, but it seems apparent to me that the kids who most need affirmative action -- the inner city kids born into hopeless situations -- aren't the ones who get it. It's the middle-class black kid who had all the benefits and advantages the white kid across the street did.

And what if you're a poor white kid from Appalachia or, by chance, born into urban poverty? Why should a black kid from the cul-de-sac get bonus points for skin color?

This also is why I find AA in graduate, law and medical schools to be most unjust. By the time you're applying to grad schools, you've had four years of undergraduate studies to prove yourself. White and black alike have had access to the same professors, the same libraries, the same study aides, and the same campus activities. In fact, given the efforts modern universities have undertaken to retain minority students -- free tutoring, counseling, etc. -- you could argue that minority undergraduate students actually have had more opportunity to succeed than their white counterparts. So what's the justification in giving them preference when applying to grad school?

I guess that about exhausts my feelings on the subject. In sum: let private schools do what they want. Object, if you like, but private organizations should be free to associate with whom they please.

Public schools can reward students who've overcome adversity.

But it's time to nix race from the admissions process.

They'll show a man racing a giraffe, in an eatting contest with a bear, and they'll tempt committed couples to cheat on one another, but even Fox, apparently, has its limits.

And outside the boundaries of those limits I guess are lawn jockeys. Reader/blogger Guh? notes that in the last episode of Joe Millionaire, Fox blurred out the faces of lawn jockeys decorating the dance floor while Evan and one of his prospective paramours were taking tango lessons. Sara Rimensnyder picked up on the editing too, and handily links to handful of long jockey primers.

We noticed this where I was watching too.

But I don't think Fox was overly PC here. In fact, you might have noticed that they blurred out almost everything in the background, including the faces of nearly everyone not directly involved with the show. They also blurred out a lot of artwork that adorned the walls of the various Paris landmarks Joe and his dates visited. My only guess is that Fox wanted to avoid any claims to residuals that might arise from airing faces and artwork it doesn't have license to. But that's a from-whole-cloth guess.

One other thing, Guh? and at least one other emailer have in turn referred to me as "a big Joe Millionaire fan," and "a Joe Millionaire" expert. No! Please!

Definitely not the reputation we're striving for, here.

Child pornography and statutory rape charges be damned. A publisher is forging ahead with the planned March release of a children's book about the life of R. Kelly.

Seriously.

Lest the blogosphere's moral policeman Richard Bennett get the wrong idea, let me state unquivocally that R. Kelly is a sick, sick man.

I saw a documentary on him some months ago -- I think it was on E!. Friends of the R&B; star said that after shows, R. and the band would be backstage with rooms full of beautiful women, all starstruck of course, and all ready and willing to be bedded. Without fail, friends said, R. would b-line for the youngest-looking, awkwardest, most vulnerable girl in the room -- always the barely pubesescent one. Braces? Acne? All the better for R.

The fellow needs help.

A joke from Mark Kleiman:

Q: Mr. President, how many North Korean nuclear reactors does it take to change a lightbulb?

GWB: Saddam Hussein.

Julian's to Robert Nozick, a year after his death, is moving.

So I had planned to write a lengthy tome this Friday evening on the 30th anniversary of Roe, and to explain in depth how I've philosophically migrated to the position on abortion rights I now find myself taking. It was in part inspired by this fascinating and revealing discussion over at Slate about whether or not it's logical for pro-choice women to grieve after suffering miscarriages -- and if they do, what implications one might draw from such grief.

But then I figured, what the hell. It's Friday.

Instead, here's a classic from Glen Whitman:

Selma Hayek vs. Friedrich Hayek: Who's Better?

[OBLIGATORY DISCLAIMER: As most of you know, I work for the Cato Institute. Nothing on this blog, or that I write under my name, is in any way endorsed by, sanctioned by or otherwised encouraged by Cato or it's auspices.]

So the header above is how executive vice president David Boaz once described Cato's bi-annual "Handbook for Congress." What he meant is that it's chock full of stuff staffers would love to do if only they weren't so inhibited, tied up by Capitol Hill mores, and otherwise lacking in testicular fortitude.

The Washington Post calls it "...a soup-to-nuts agenda to reduce spending, kill programs, terminate whole agencies and dramatically restrict the power of the federal government."

I don't think the WaPo meant that as a complement, but I say Cato's right to interpret it as one.

One of the things I love about working where I do is that there's no kowtowing to political or corporate interests here. In the two years I've been in this building, the organization has on more than one occasion accepted a gift from a given corporation or industry, then turned 'round and published a study or paper or op-ed directly in conflict with said corporation/industry's stated interests. I've been here when the White House has been elated with Cato and furious with Cato -- sometimes in the same week.

The Handbook is as close as Cato comes to taking "official" positions on policy issues. It is libertarian principle on paper. And no matter who's in the White House, no matter who's leading Congress, and no matter what the political circumstances, you can pretty much set your watch by the positions outlined in the Handbook. They don't bend, be it to public opinion, fear of offending friends, or other factors unforeseen.

OK, I'll stop. I sound like a sycophant.

But check it out. It's broken down by chapter, and all of them are available online in PDF. Or you can buy a copy.

Damn, this thing is never wrong.

Guess the Dictator or Sitcom Character.

I thought I had the program stumped with Newhart's Utley. It got South Park's Mr. Garrison pretty quickly, though.

Don't get too excited about the recent dismissal of a a fat suit against McDonalds. The Center for Consumer Freedom points out that common sense won the early battles of the tobacco lawsuits, too. Trial lawyers have the funding to keep nipping and nipping and nipping until they find that first judge and jury willing to award that initial jackpot. It's gravy from there.

Indeed, even in this first case, King Tort John Banzhaf's listserv press release says the case wasn't even dismissed on its merit, but on amendable technicalities:

The decision dismissing a law suit seeking to hold McDonald's liable at least in part for the obesity of some children who ate there frequently may open doors to further fat suits, says law professor John Banzhaf, an advisor on the law suit, and the man behind the fat law suit which McDonald's settled.

"Judge Sweet didn't say that the legal theory was inherently flawed," says Banzhaf, "but only that plaintiffs have failed to make certain allegations."

"Ordinarily, plaintiffs' attorneys can submit an amended complaint in which the proper allegations are made, and the law suit can then continue."

Indeed, says Banzhaf, Judge Sweet seems to have gone out of his way to suggest how the complaint could be amended to meet his concerns.

So here is what Time Magazine apparently considers to be the "opposing" viewpoints on the growing rift between Europe and America.

On one side, big-government neoconservative Christopher Caldwell defends big government U.S. foreign policy.

And on the "other" side, big government left-winger and almost-rock-star Brian Eno defends big government European domestic policy.

I guess those are your only two options, folks.

Big government at home, or big government abroad. Which will it be?

Both of these essays, by the way, are in bad need of a Fisking. I suspect that Eno is wrong on almost all of his unsupported assertions.

So included in the "Best Essays..." book I mentioned below is William James' 1906 tome "The Moral Equivalent of War." James, brother to the brilliant novelist Henry James, Jr., was perhaps the most prominent American philosopher of his time. There's much about his pragmatic worldview I admire -- not to mention that he's a pacifist. So I read the essay eagerly, hoping to find some turn-of-the-century insight into the pending war with Iraq, maybe from a voice untainted by the bloody cluster of history that was the twentieth century.

I found nothing. In fact, what I found was the worst mix of neoconservative national greatness, paternalism and leftist public works advocacy.

James believed societies needed war because societies needed armies. The military, he thought, satisfied social longing for a) the masculine traits of regimentation, hierarchy, and order, and, b) the honor, selflessness and sense of purpose one feels in being "married to your country."

James thought both of these needs could be satisfied without the blood and conflict that comes with war. His solution? Conscription.

But not military conscription. Rather, community service conscription. He writes:

If now — and this is my idea — there were, instead of military conscription, a conscription of the whole youthful population to form for a certain number of years a part of the army enlisted against Nature, the injustice would tend to be evened out, and numerous other goods to the commonwealth would remain blind as the luxurious classes now are blind, to man's relations to the globe he lives on, and to the permanently sour and hard foundations of his higher life. To coal and iron mines, to freight trains, to fishing fleets in December, to dishwashing, clotheswashing, and windowwashing, to road-building and tunnel-making, to foundries and stoke-holes, and to the frames of skyscrapers, would our gilded youths be drafted off, according to their choice, to get the childishness knocked out of them, and to come back into society with healthier sympathies and soberer ideas. They would have paid their blood-tax, done their own part in the immemorial human warfare against nature; they would tread the earth more proudly, the women would value them more highly, they would be better fathers and teachers of the following generation.

The only thing needed henceforward is to inflame the civic temper as part history has inflamed the military temper. H. G. Wells, as usual, sees the centre of the situation. "In many ways," he says, "military organization is the most peaceful of activities. When the contemporary man steps from the street, of clamorous insincere advertisement, push, adulteration, underselling and intermittent employment into the barrack-yard, he steps on to a higher social plane, into an atmosphere of service and cooperation and of infinitely more honorable emulations. Here at least men are not flung out of employment to degenerate because there is no immediate work for them to do. They are fed a drilled and training for better services. Here at least a man is supposed to win promotion by self-forgetfulness and not by self-seeking. And beside the feeble and irregular endowment of research by commercialism, its little shortsighted snatches at profit by innovation and scientific economy, see how remarkable is the steady and rapid development of method and appliances in naval and military affairs! Nothing is more striking than to compare the progress of civil conveniences which has been left almost entirely to the trader, to the progress in military apparatus during the last few decades. The house-appliances of today, for example, are little better than they were fifty years ago. A house of today is still almost as ill-ventilated, badly heated by wasteful fires, clumsily arranged and furnished as the house of 1858. Houses a couple of hundred years old are still satisfactory places of residence, so little have our standards risen. But the rifle or battleship of fifty years ago was beyond all comparison inferior to those we now possess; in power, in speed, in convenience alike. No one has a use now for such superannuated things."

Here's what's on my nightstand at the moment:

Forever, by Pete Hamill

Bountiful Harvest, by Thomas R. DeGregori

Best American Essays of the Century, edited by Joyce Carol Oates and Robert Atwan.

Reader Andrew Tabar passes along this letter to the editor of the Detroit News:

The Jan. 4 editorial, "Congress Bullies States, Though in a Good Cause," called the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) agenda one of the "most effective public education campaigns in recent years." It's been an effective miseducation campaign.

MADD wants us to believe drunk drivers cause 41 percent of fatal accidents. It does this by quoting the number of "alcohol-related" fatalities reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). But no one seems to wonder what "alcohol-related" means. According to NHTSA:

If a sober driver hits a pedestrian or bicyclist who shows some level of alcohol, that driver will be listed as a drunk driver.

If a sober driver collides with another sober driver and someone gets killed, the designated driver will show up as a drunk driver because his passengers had been drinking.

Of the 17,000-plus "alcohol-related" fatalities listed by NHTSA in 2001, more than 15,000 of them have no evidence to show that any driver of any vehicle had any alcohol in his or her system.

MADD wants to continue to lower the legal blood alcohol content limit because 1.6 million people arrested yearly pay a lot in fines and fees. Lowering the legal BAC limit increases the potential income pool for police, courts, lawyers, insurance companies, MADD for required Victim Impact Panel fees and alcohol treatment centers from required fees for "alcohol training" classes.

This misinformation is propagated, and it's we the people of the United States who get hurt by the vicious penalties.

The bulk of the problem is with drivers who have blood alcohol contents over .14, which used to be the rational legal definition of drunk. Michigan needs to tell Washington to stuff the extortion tactics. The legal line should be returned to .14.

Jeanne Pruett
Westland

They work like this: MADD has successfully lobbied many state legislatures into passing laws requiring drunk driving offenders to attend these panels, where they're forced to come faces to face with the families of people killed by drunk drivers. In some cases, the families of someone they themselves killed. The convicted drunk drivers pay for the sessions (which can be very expensive) and, yes, you guessed it, in most states, MADD gets a cut of the take.

The problem is that studies have shown these panels don't work. That is, they don't stop drunk drivers from recidivism. And, in cases where the drunk driver has already hurt or killed someone, the panels inevitably push him further into alcoholism.

But hey, at least MADD's making some money off of them, right?

Cross-posted at Stand Down:

Via blogger Joshua Claybourn, here is the text of U.S. Rep. John Hostettler's speech to Congress last October, in opposition to the war.

I don't agree with Hostettler on much, but he is principled, if nothing else. And he was one of just a smattering of Republicans to defy the White House.

My favorite excerpt:

As I was preparing these remarks I was reminded of the entry on my desk calendar of April 19. It is an excerpt of the Boston Globe, Bicentennial Edition, March 9, 1975. It reads,

At dawn on this morning [April 19,] 1775, some seventy Minutemen were assembled on Lexington's green. .... All eyes kept returning to where the road from Boston opened onto the green; all ears strained to hear the drums and double-march of the approaching British Grenadiers. Waving to the [drummer] boy to cease his beat, [the Minuteman] captain, John Parker, gave his fateful command: ‘Don't fire unless fired upon. But if they want to have a war, let it begin here!’

‘Don't fire unless fired upon.’ It is a notion that is at least as old as St. Augustine’s “Just War” thesis and it finds agreement with the Minutemen and Framers of the Constitution.

We should not turn our back today on millennia of wisdom by proposing to send America’s beautiful sons and daughters into harm’s way for what might be.

We are told that Saddam Hussein might have a nuclear weapon; he might use a weapon of mass destruction against the United States or our interests overseas; or he might give such weapons to Al-Qaeda or another terrorist organization.

But based on the best of our intelligence information, none of these things have happened. The evidence supporting what ‘might’ be is tenuous at best.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I must conclude that Iraq indeed poses a threat, but it does not pose an imminent threat that justifies a preemptive military strike at this time.

Voting for this Resolution not only would set an ominous precedent for using the Administration’s parameters to justify war against the remaining partners in the ‘Axis of Evil,’ but such a vote for preemption would also set a standard which the rest of the world would seek to hold America to, and which the rest of the world could justifiably follow.

Reader Sean Coyle writes:

Thought you might want an update from the old Alma Mater. Bloomington PD are going batty this year with public intox tickets (don't know if you heard). They're giving them out to people who are SIMPLY WALKING HOME (well, drunk of course)!! There's been quite a bit in the IDS this year about the crack down, and some angry letters to the editor. The most common complaint is obvious: since everybody's going to get drunk, and the police are handing out tickets to students who are walking home from the bars, it's become safer (ticket-wise) to drive! I've been thinking all year that the crack-down is bogus, but it's never really affected me personally. I'm a law student, so I'm a little older and my friends are a little less roudy.

But last night, one of my friends (also a law student) was given a public intox litereally across the street from our house. He was walking home by himself, drunk (naturally, he's in law school!) and not bothering anyone. From what he told me, he was probably staggering a little (the humanity!!), so they pulled him over. He volunteered that he was walking home from the bars (isn't that what we're supposed to do?) but that he lived across the street and wouldn't be bothering anyone. No dice. They arrested him and kept him in the drunk tank until 4:30 today. Now he has to explain to the character folks at his state bar why he got a public intox in law school. I'm thinking that there's no way they'll believe the circumstances surrounding his arrest, which may cause him some problems. No word yet on whetehr he'll fight the probable cause fight.

I just CAN'T understand the public policy behind this crack-down. They're not going to stop people from going to the bars and getting drunk. All they can hope to accomplish is convincing more people to drive drunk. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Ah, the great state of Indiana. A truly enlightened place. No doubt, this is in response to the #1 party school ranking (which, ironically enough, is at least partially based on the number of public intox tickets handed out by local police).

Lt. Minger pointed out what he sees as the larger problem -- alcohol consumption.

"Alcohol abuse is the problem, not the issue of whether or not you are going to drive," he said. "Students should not be drinking to this excess."

A campaign staffer apparently covered up the "Made in China" language on a stack of boxes that served as Bush's backdrop for a speech on the economy at a warehouse in St. Louis.

I think there's more to this than just a goofy PR gaffe, though. It says a lot about this administration that an aide would go to so much effort hide a backdrop that advertised a shipment of imports. A true free trade president might have taken the occasion to explain why imports are good for the economy -- every bit as desirable as exports -- and how world markets offer us more choices, provide more competition, and generally provide for a exchange tide that lifts the boats of consumers, manufacturers and businesses alike.

Instead, just as it did with steel tarriffs, just as it did with farm subsidies, just as it continues to do by leaving a huge swath of other protectionist policies untouched, this administration chose the easy political points over making a true case for trade. A gaffe, yes. But pretty darned symbolic.

....drug war casualties.

The militarization of law enforcement and border patrol -- just two more bad ideas effected by the war without end.

Think about it: four Marines died this morning. Not defending freedom. Not protecting our safety. They died because your government insists on dictating what you what you can and can't put into your body.

Ridiculous, isn't it?

Posts will be a bit thinner over the next week or so, as I'm in the process of moving from my God-forsaken house to my new digs. I'll still post, of course. Just not quite as frequently.

Thanks, incidentally, to all who wrote with suggestions to get me out of my landlord jam. I found a place just about a mile from where I live now, and the rent is actually cheaper. It's like getting a raise. Also, my new roommate's a gourmet chef. That's fun.

At the behest of RIAA, a federal court has ordered Verizon's ISP to provide the name of a customer who used Verizon's service to download 600 pirated songs in a 24-hr. period.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. When you've no choice but to resort to persecuting your customer base (and it doesn't matter if you're in the right or not), your industry's in heap big trouble.

A distrubing story coming from Africa -- an emerging fungus could potentially wipe out African -- or even all -- bananas in ten years. That would add an Irish potato famine-intensity crisis to an already fledgling continent.

There's an answer, of course: Biotech. It wouldn't be hard to engineer a fungus-resistant strain of banana similar to what's already been done with the potato.

So what's the hold-up?

Europe. Specifically, European elites and their chicken little fears of "frankenfoods," and Africa's "if Europe doesn't want it, we don't want it either" approach to technology.

African leaders have put the kabosh on genetically-modified crops because of European fears of cross-contamination (which can be controlled farily easily with "terminator genes"). In other words, African countries won't let technology stave off a potential famine because they're afraid that, down the road, the EU won't allow imports from countries suspected of poorly segregating genetically-engineered crops from organics.

So while France gnoshes on organic apples, Ghana risks losing a dietary staple, and slipping into famine.

Go here.

Type in the URL of your favorite website. Shizzolate.

Link props to Steve Slivininski, who should post more often.

This time, it's the tobacco Nazis.

The Lott saga takes a Richard Bennett-esque turn.

Julian has the details.

I, apparently am "pro-Saddam." That, according to the intellectually lazy Richard Bennet, who would rather speak in generalizations than actually take the time to look up what I've written on war and Iraq.

I'm also lumped in with, of all people, Atrios, a blogger with whom I share very little other than opposition to the war (and perhaps opposition to drug prohibition, I'd imagine).

Bennett reaches his conclusion because I'm a contributor to Stand Down. Of course, if he'd read anything I've posted at SD, he'd realize that about half my posts have been efforts to distance myself from the more radical lefties over there.

But that's not really even the point. The point is that for every anti-war idiot, there's an equally thick-headed pro-war idiot, eager to duck debate in favor of childish labels and generalizations.

For that, I guess I should thank him. Because now, any time a pro-war advocate points to all the hysterical numbskulls I'm forced to share a platform with, I now have a rejoinder. I can now point to Richard Bennett.

UPDATE: Patrick Nielson Hayden says Bennett's got a history of numbskullery. Google can be a bitch sometimes.

Gene Healy found an item of interest that ought to generate some ripples throughout the blogosphere.

Regular readers know what I think of National Review's John Derbyshire, an Anglo-bigot who trumpets his intolerance as virtuous principle. And NRO's editors have never had much probem when "Derb'" bashes gays, blacks, and brown-skinned immigrants.

But over the weekend, he crossed into hostile territory. Andrew Sullivan pointed his readers to a crack Derb made about Irish Catholics on NRO's "The Corner" group blog. Mysteriously, the post disappeared shortly thereafter.

Seems that Derb' finally found the one brand of intolerance NRO won't tolerate.

While I'm against the war with Iraq, I don't have the slightest qualims about so-called "unilateralism" when we do indeed face a threat to our security.

Why? Because when people say "multilateralism," they mean "UN-approval." And, frankly, I'm not comfortable entrusting my security and well-being to an organization that regularly does things like this.

As Andrew Sullivan wrote, you can't even parody this.

Went CD shopping over the weekend. My new pickups:

George Harrison, Brainwashed

Posthumous release from my favorite Beatle (by about twelve miles). The album is surprisingly upbeat and optimistic, considering that Harrison recorded it knowing his days were numbered. But then, when you're deep into Eastern mysticism, death isn't such a bad thing, is it? It's more a doorway than a dead-end. And if you're fortunate enough to have been a Beatle in this life, nirvana can't be too awfully far away.

The cuts are mellow and poppy and warm. It really sounds like a modern-day Beatles album. Harrison peppers in lyrics about ends of roads and new beginnings, but the songs mostly are happy-days tunes filled with surreal, cartoonish images much like the Fab Four's animated series -- "stuck inside a cloud," "Pisces fish," "when you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there."

Recommended, but only "highly recommended" if you're a fan of Harrison's other solo stuff.

Solomun Burke, Don't Give Up on Me

King Soul resuscitates the genre with this achy collection of unreleased songs written by some masters of the industry. Burke's a sometimes-forgotten rock n' roll Hall-of-Famer, a true soul icon, too often unmentioned in the Sam Cooke/Otis Redding/Wilson Pickett/Jackie Wilson soul-legends loop. On this CD, he wails on ballads penned by Van Morrison, Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello and Nick Lowe. Don't Give Up also happens to have been released on Fat Possum, one of the hottest labels in the country right now (thanks largely to the success of bluesman R.L. Burnside), and it's produced by the ubiquitous Agitator.com favorite, Joe Henry.

Jeff Buckley, The Grace EPs

A collection of five singles, B-sides, live performances and promos released in conjunctions with Buckley's only completed album. Worth the $30 if you're a serious Buckley fan. Highlights: covers of Hank Williams' "Lost Highway," Van Morrison's "The Way Young Lovers Do," and Alex Chilton's "Kanga-roo."

The gem of the collection, however, is a stunning live version of "Hallelujah" performed in Paris' famed Bataclan theater. There's a spot or two late in the cut where Buckley stops singing, and lets the crowd take over the beautiful Leonard Cohen song's chorus. It's amazing.

The EP collection is the latest effort from the late Buckley's mother Mary Guibert to preserve his legacy, following Sketches (For My Sweetheart, the Drunk), Mystery White Boy, Live at L'Olympia, and Songs to No One.

It also brings me to an idea I've had for awhile. Wouldn't it be great to if Guibert could arrange a tribute album from artists who are often compared to or were influenced by Buckley? Actually, I'm not even thinking of a traditional tribute so much as giving each artist a crack at creating a finished product from one of the skeleton cuts from Sketches, which is basically a double album of songs in various stages of completion.

I'd love hear, for example, Julian Coryell try "Morning Theft," Hawksley Workman do "Your Flesh Is Nice," or Joseph Arthur sing "Nightmares by the Sea." Other suggested artists: Shudder to Think, Coldplay and Travis.

Obviously, none of them could capture what Buckley envisioned for Sketches, but it would be fascinating to let them try.

Classical pianist, author, political columnist, activist, Hungarian immigrant, stalwart patriot and capitalist -- he died last week of cancer.

Vazsonyi's story is an intriguing one. He was an instructor at Indiana-University-Bloomington's outstanding music school until the early 1990s, when local Republicans recruited him to run for mayor. That mayoral bid garnered national attention to his biography. He spent the last ten years of his life, then, as a writer and commentator.

Vazsonyi's cultural politics were a bit moralistic for my taste, but he presented an adamant and articulate argument for liberty, and against the specter of communism.

Found this message in my Cato inbox this morning:

I was just wondering if you can answer a few questions for me on the article THE EMPIRE STRIKES OUT,THE NEW IMPERIALISM AND ITS FATAL FLAWS.

1. What is the topic of the article?
2. What is the basis/point of the authors argument?
3. What logic/evidence does the author use to support his position on the issue?
4. What are the counter-perspectives addressed by the author.
5. what is your position on the issue at hand? Do you agree or disagree with the author and why?

Can you please answer my questions and send them back to me asap.

Thank you very much I am a high school students just wondering .

Sincerelly

DeeDee from Michigan

Colby Cosh on a funny passage from, egad!, Rosie magazine.

Max Sawicky with a preview of the new post-Bush cut tax forms.

Brian Doherty on Pete Townshend.

NORML administers a brutal Fisking to this letter issued by the Office of National Drug Control Policy that Nick Gillespie rightly calls "devastating."

Furniture pornography. I really don't know that to say to this. It's a work-safe click. I think.

Julian, with some comforting news in the Lott controversy.

So when Steve Sailer, Taki, John Derbyshire and like paleos bash immigrants to this country, they often cite Canada's immigration policy as one we ought to model. The idea is that we should take more immigrants from "good stock" countries -- which usually means Northern, whiter Europe -- and less from "bad stock" -- Mexico, and the Carribean, for example. The theory: we should only allow people into our country who will contribute to our society, not belabor it.

There are about a thousand things wrong with that. But let's just focus on the face of the argument for a moment.

Here's the skill assessment test Canada gives to its prospective immigrants. You need to score a 70 out of 100 to get in.

I scored a 65. And I'd wager to guess most of you will fail to hit the magic threshold, too.

Granted, I'm not going to win any Nobel Prizes in the short-term. But does Canada's immigration service and its cheerleaders really think that I'd be a drain on the Canadian economy if I were let in?

ESPN attempts to quantify all sorts of subjective criteria into an ultimate measure of each professional team's value to its respective community. An interesting undertaking that should inspire some debate.

The results seem pretty respectable as far as I can tell. Packers are at the top, Bengals at the bottom. My Pacers are 12th, my Colts 50th. That seems about right, when I consider the pleasure/pain each team has brought me over the years.

Are you colorblind?

This test says it can tell you.

Spell words with naked people.

Jonathan Adler calls out mega-babe gawker, New Republic senior editor, NFL afficianado, Atlantic Monthly editor, and TheAgitator.com favorite Gregg Easterbrook over his simplistic rage at SUV owners.

I find myself siding a little with Adler on this one, and a little with Easterbrook. On the one hand, I would never, ever, ever, ever own an SUV. I find them obnoxious, and when I find myself swearing at someone on the road for remedial driving, that person is almost always behind the wheel of an SUV. My mind's eye picture of the typical SUV owner is the dick villain in every cheesy '80s movie -- the blowdried trust fund kid with a pink sweater tied over his shoulders. He's probably named "Biff" or "Ralph" and he's always dating the girl Anthony Michael Hall is pining for.

That said, I just can't bring myself to align with the Arianna Huffingtons of the world. Yes, I know, what Arianna's doing is mere consumer activism -- an integral part of a market economy. But I can't help but question Arianna's motivations, and where those motivations will take her next. Methinks it's only a matter of time before she drops the benign tools she's using at the moment (guilt, ridicule) and grasps for more binding ones (legislation, regulation).

This Jim Henley post chastising blogosphere untouchable James Lileks touches on a regular connundrum I find myself in when faced with the celebrity shenanigans of, say, George Clooney.

When the latest celebrity mouths off about some issue s/he knows nothing about, my first inclination is always to administer the rhetorical bitch-slap. Stupid Babs Streisand. You know nothing of which you speak. You're a schmaltzy singer and medicore actress, dammit. Shut up.

But then I get to thinking. Who the hell am I? I'm certainly no expert on the many things I spout off about. At least the likes of Brink Lindsey, or Mark Kleiman or Eugene Volokh are well-educated and trained in the fields on which they opine. I, on the other hand, have merely been blessed with the ability to string words together in fairly interesting ways. Other than that, I am Babs without the fame, the voice, and the carnal knowledge of Elliott Gould (the latter of which I consider a blessing).

That of course doesn't mean I should quit writing or opining or attempting to convince people. And I won't.

And so that's also why I've decided to stop chastising celebrities for political activism. It's still okay to ridicule them for what they believe, of course, because it's almost always wrong. And it's still fair game to point out their unabashed hypocrisy when, for example, they lecture middle America about SUVs, but at the same time keep 21-car garages for themselves.

Dave Barry's taking heat for denigrating the word "Hoosier."

Barry's bullet-point list of possible origins of the word is right on. Current thinking seems to be migrating toward the "Rev. Harry Hoosier" theory. Rev. Hoosier was a black evengelical who roamed the southern Indiana countryside looking for converts.

Funny, I was just talking to a friend the other night about where the word comes from. The truth is, no one really knows. Doctoral theses have been written on the subject, and each time an Indiana University sports team makes a splash on the national stage, requests pour in to the alumni association asking for a definition.

While I was living in St. Louis, I found that "Hoosier" has an entirely different connotation there. It's just about the worst damn thing you can call someone -- it's pretty much the equivalent of the n-word for white people.

What follows is a lengthy piece I wrote while living in St. Louis, hoping to sell it to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The paper passed, mainly because it's so long. But since it's already written, I'm thinking Barry's column this week presents a nice opportunity for me to share it with you.

Redeeming 'Hoosier'

I spent a good deal of last year in St. Louis. On the whole, I found the city charming. I dug the gritty blues bars on Broadway. I was romanced by the history and tradition of the Cardinals (I’m now a fan for life). I let my dog loose on the grassy meadows of Forest Park. In short, St. Louis is a fine town and St. Louisans are right to take pride in it.

But one nasty habit of St. Louisans gnawed at me in my time there and still does. It’s the way St. Louisans sully the word “Hoosier.” As a native Indianan and a graduate of Indiana University I find the disparaging, often hostile invective with which St. Louisans use “Hoosier” troubling.

Allow me to give all of St. Louis a primer on “Hoosier” and its roots.

The truth is, Indianans don’t exactly know where the word came from. But we have lots of fun guessing. It’s been the subject of talk shows, thesis papers and the source of many a query to the Indiana University PR department when our basketball team makes national news. An article on the word in the Indiana University alumni association’s magazine has become the most requested article in the magazine’s history.

The word has been around since at least the 19th century, probably earlier.

The most colorful but least likely explanation of its origin comes from James Whitcomb Riley, the 19th century “Hoosier poet,” who wrote “Little Orphan Annie” and “The Ol’ Swimmin’ Hole.” Riley wrote, “...early (Indiana) settlers were very vicious fighters, and not only gouged and scratched, but frequently bit off noses and ears. This was so ordinary an affair that a settler coming into a barroom on a morning after a fight and seeing an ear on the floor would merely push it aside with his foot and carelessly ask, ‘Whose ear?’”

The Indiana Historical Society offers other explanations, most similarly steeped in folklore. One says that Hoosier pioneers, when calling on one another at dinnertime, would sit at the table and call out “who’s ere?” at a knock on the door. Another story stems from the proficiency southern Indiana rivermen possessed in quieting barroom ruffians who ridiculed them for their lack of sophistication. Because they quickly quieted detractors with their fists, they were called “hushers,” which some suggest eventually bled into “Hoosiers.”

Jacob Piatt Dunn, Jr., the Indiana Historical Society’s longtime historian, traces the word to England’s Columbian dialect. There, “Hoozer” meant anything large, but its geographic connotation referred specifically to hills. Likely, the word came to apply to the rolling hills of southern Indiana and the western foothills of Appalachia where émigrés from that part of England tended to settle.

The most recent theory comes from the June 1995 issue of the Indiana Magazine of History, and cites the Reverend Harry Hoosier, a nomadic “Negro Methodist” evangelist who roamed the state’s countryside early in the 19th century. Such roving preachers were common at the time, and because the Rev. Hoosier was the most prominent of them, his name may have become a generic term for all of his ilk, and eventually a catch-all for settlers just north of the Ohio River.

Professor James Madison, chairman of the Indiana University department of history likes the last theory best. “I like the possibility that a state which was at one time among the most fertile places for the Ku Klux Klan derives its venerable nickname from a black preacher,” Madison says.

“Hoosier” likely gained momentum as regional pride flourished throughout the Civil War and state battalions often razzed one another with nicknames, most of them disparaging. “Hoosiers” quickly stuck to soldiers from Indiana, but others were just as colorful. Texans, for instance, were “Beetheads,” Alabamans were “Lizards, Nebraskans were “Bug-eaters,” and South Carolinians were “Weasels.” Missourians, you may be curious to know, were called “Pukes,” a name that makes “Hoosiers” downright flattering.

Indianans and North Carolinians (Tarheels) were among the few states to embrace the pejorative nicknames given them by neighbors, and make them endearing.

Today, we Indianans relish the word. To some it symbolizes little more than baskeball -- packed field houses, tiny Milan high school’s march to the state basketball championship, and the underdog-aura of the Gene Hackman/Dennis Hopper/Barbara Hershey “Hoosiers,” movie. To others, it evokes small towns, limestone courthouses and the slow, lazy pace of small town living. It is wasting afternoons on the front porch, neighborhood pitch-ins and, to borrow from native Hoosier John Mellencamp, “suckin’ on a chili dog outside the Tastee Freeze.”

When Indiana University played Syracuse for the 1987 NCAA basketball championship, “Hoosier” even entered the Congressional Record. Sen. Alfonse D’Amato of New York, in supporting the Orangemen, disparaged both “Hoosier” and the state of Indiana by reading an unfortunate Webster’s definition on the floor of the US Senate. The dictionary defined “Hoosiers” as both “native Indianans” and, alternately, “ignorant rustics.”

Indiana’s own Senator Dan Quayle responded in kind, offering his own more flattering definition of Hoosier as “smart, resourceful, skillful, a winner, and brilliant.” Webster’s declined Senator Quayle’s alternate definition, but we Hoosiers take comfort in the fact the cream n’ crimson settled the dispute in our favor on the basketball floor.

I won’t comment on what affect Senator Quayle’s later political career had on the esteem of “Hoosier.”

But the question persists: why do St. Louisans hold such peculiar animosity toward the word?

According to St. Louis University’s Father William Barnaby Faherty, author of numerous books on Missouri history, it may stem from the fact that St. Louisans have always held their noses up at their more agrarian neighbors.

From the time Pierre Laclede and Auguste Chouteau stepped off their river raft in 1764, establishing St. Louis as a fur trading post, the city as had an aversion to agriculture and the farming life. Because St. Louis quickly took interest in mercantile, the city never established itself as an agricultural post as Chicago, Denver and Minneapolis did. Consequently, St. Louis area farms were smaller and their proprietors poorer than their counterparts in other parts of the Midwest. A farmer venturing into St. Louis to sell his product was traditionally frowned upon, shunned as “uncouth” and generally outcast as a “mere laborer.”

Similarly, Father Faherty suggests that the word “Pikers” might be “Hoosier’s” historical antecedent – at least in St. Louis. “Pikers” was a depreciatory term St. Louisans had for migrants who followed low-paying jobs up and down the National Pike, which at the time ended in St. Louis. The term eventually referred to backward folks in general, not just those without a permanent homestead.

According to Father Faherty, the athletic teams from the venerable Washington University were once called the “Pikers,” until prestige compelled the school to switch to the less interesting but less denigrating “Bears.”

Such history jives well with St. Louisans’ current use of “Hoosier,” which I understand to mean “countrified people who hang out at the mall and cause city-livers great eyesore.” Or, as one Post Dispatch reporter wrote in a 1993 article, “the demeaning phrase of choice among white St. Louisans for whites with rural roots.”

With the exception of the few of us who have happened to live in both places, most Indianans are blissfully ignorant of the nastiness with which St. Louisans have come to besmirch our cherished moniker. We Indianans -- we “Hoosiers,” -- wear our label like a frilly blue ribbon.

As Professor Madison points out, “The popularity of the moniker is due to the fact that Hoosiers really believe they are different, a distinctive culture and place, and that they are proud of that culture and place. I like that -- that we have not yet reached the point where everyone and every place is the same, all vanilla under golden arches. That there is difference in this country.”

In the age of the Gap, Starbucks and Borders dotting every suburb with uniformity, I’d say Professor Madison is on to something. A little regional pride is a healthy thing.

Given the rich history of the Mississippi River, of the Louisiana Purchase, of Bob Costas and toasted ravioli, St. Louisans too have much to be proud of, even without the great nickname we Indianans have.

We just ask that you St. Louisans come up with a new term of denigration for the more pastoral, less sophisticated people around you.

In Indiana we call them “Kentuckians.”

Message to Mike Bloomberg:

I dare you to challenge the Rolling Stones. Go ahead. Ban Ron Wood and Keith Richards from the Big Apple. In fact, I'm begging you. Call a press conference.

Announce to the world: "I, Michael Bloomberg am hereby declaring that Ron Wood and Keith Richards -- parties to the biggest act in the history of rock n' roll -- are banned from New York City until they answer a summons for the crime of smoking a cigarette while performing on stage. Yes I, Michael Bloomberg, possessing enormous fortune and -- judging by my behavior -- miniscule manhood, think that I and my anti-tobacco crusade are bigger and ballsier and more important than the Rolling effing Stones."

Would that be great? After all the rock n' roll arrests: lewdness, public indecency, obscenity, inciting a riot -- Bloomberg arrests the Rolling Stones for smoking a cigarette.

Hey New York! Wake up and smell the lox! Your mayor? He's a fucking fascist!

OK. This Tacitus fellow offers a challenge. I'll accept.

I oppose war with Iraq. And I without reservation disavow A.N.S.W.E.R.

I think they're idiots. They're a big reason (the only reason, really) why I had no interest in the weekend's anti-war rally, and why I can't get into the anti-war movement in general. Their endorsees are a who's who of every movement I find revolting. The speakers they've lined up this weekend would for me be hell's welcoming committee. And I resent the fact that in order to be anti-war, I have to put up with a panoply of bullshit propaganda telling me why white men, the Gap and America are responsible for third world plight, the injustice done to Mumia, date rape, acne and the inexplicable success of Fred Durst.

But you know what? This one time, on this one issue, at this one point in history....they're right.

I reiterate my motto:

Drop Gaps, Not Bombs!

Last spring, the White House put on a little ceremony in honor ofMilton Friedman's 90th birthday. In his remarks, Friedman said the following, which seems to me to be as tidy a summary of why we advocate limited government as any:

My views on government spending can be summarized by the following parable: If you spend your own money on yourself, you are very concerned about how much is spent and how it is spent. If you spend your own money on someone else, you are still very much concerned about how much is spent, but somewhat less concerned about how it is spent. If you spend someone else's money on yourself, you are not too concerned about how much is spent, but you are very concerned about how it is spent. However, if you spend someone else's money on someone else, you are not very concerned about how much is spent, or how it is spent.

Comment to the editor of Capitalism Magazine, which picked up my TCS column on Sweden, socialism and rock n' roll:

Radley Balko's commentary on Sweden's socialist history on Jan. 6th was fascinating, but I wish he would have included some information on Sweden' s now decade-old school financing reforms, which are decidedly pro-capitalist. Since 1992, all approved independent schools must be financed on par with municipal (government-run) schools. The results: a quadrupling of the number of all kinds of independent schools and a quintupling of enrollment in these; improvement of municipal schools due to competition; and, no evidence at all that these reforms benefit the wealthy over the poor. In fact, less wealthy families choose high-performing independent schools at a higher rate than do wealthy Swedes.

All of this is reported in a publication recently released by the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation: "School Choice Works! The Case of Sweden." You can see it on-line, at www.friedmanfoundation.org

Sincerely,

Laura J. Swartley
Communications Director
The Milton & Rose D. Friedman Foundation
One American Sq., Suite 1750
Indianapolis, Indiana 46282
(317) 229-2128
laura@friedmanfoundation.org
www.friedmanfoundation.org

Jesse Walker snags the post-Eldred interview everyone's been after. How's it feel to get scooped, Barbara Walters?

Reminds me of my favorite Mickey Mouse joke:

Mickey was in divorce court seeking a divorce from Minnie. The judge looked over Mickey's complaint and said,

"I'm sorry, Mickey. You married Minnie 'for better or for worse, in sickness and in health.' I can't grant you a divorce just because you believe Minnie is mentally ill."

Mickey gets angry, and slams his gloved fist down on the table.

"I didn't say she was mentally ill," Mickey says, "I SAID SHE'S FUCKING GOOFY!"

Apologies.

The big anti-war calvacade descends upon D.C. this weekend. Me, I won't be there, unless I'm armed with a sign to distinguish myself from the other idiots, something like "Drop Starbucks Franchises on Iraq, Not Bombs." Something tells me that wouldn't go over real well with my fellow peaceniks.

What I did find while driving through D.C. this morning is that lefty anti-war women have an amazing ability to work dirty, usually paisly sundresses into their wardrobes -- even when it's 12 degrees outside. I saw one on 14th Street this morning wearing one of those army-issue dark-green heavy coats with the big fury hood (fake, I'm sure), multiple layers of sweatpants, gloves, scarf, the whole winter works -- but she'd still managed to stretch a sundress over the top of all of it.

Jim Henley will be representing the capitalist, no-war contingent. And he's invented a drinking game to stave off the frostbite.

The Washington Post "Joe Millionaire" story (essentially about a group of friends and myself gathering around a TV to watch the show) was picked up by MSNBC.

And D.C.'s Fox 5 News has asked us to gather the same group to watch again this Monday with a TV camera.

This is getting weird.

This is a year old, but very clever.

Several people wrote to say they couldn't find my assertion that the richest 1% of Americans give disproportionately to Democrats. I'd read it in the Washington Times, so I did a search of their site. Nothing came up. So I did a Google search. Nothing came up. So now I'm panicking. Did I dream it? Will I need to run two embarassing corrections next week? No.

Problem is, it's more than two weeks old, which means you have to pay to access it. I bought it, just to ease the concerns of those who questioned the veracity of the column. I'm reprinting it here (probably in violation of copyright law). The numbers actually come from Open Secrets, a nifty little site that allows you, among other things, to find out who your neighbor's giving political contributions to. Here's the editorial:

So much for Republicans being the party of the wealthy. According to a new study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, that moniker more appropriately belongs to the Democrats.

"Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle," the report notes, "but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers." Among donors who gave more than $200 but less than $1,000, Republicans enjoyed a substantial $68 million to $44 million edge over Democrats. The margin was closer among those individuals who gave $1,000 or more: The GOP took in $317 million, compared to the Democrats' $307 million. But among the fabulously wealthy, the Democrats cleaned house. Donors of $10,000 or more gave $140 million to Democrats, while only $111 million went to Republicans. Among those individuals who gave $100,000 or more, the Democrats raised $72 million compared to the Republicans' $34 million. And when it comes to the millionaires' club - those kicking in $1 million or more - the Democratic Party skunked the GOP, $36 million to $3 million. Needless to say, despite the near-parity in overall amounts - $384 million to the Republicans vs. $350 million to the Democrats - the number of individual donors to the GOP exceeded those to the Democratic Party by more than 40 percent.

In other words, in 2002 a select group of bigwigs dumped big money into Democratic causes, while a broad base of folks donated respectable [but not overwhelming] amounts to Republican candidates. That goes a long way toward explaining the Democrats' shallow support in the midterm elections, and should give an indication of which party's agenda has been hijacked by the big money-men.

But it also sheds light on the president's first round of tax cuts - arguably the highest-profile domestic referendum in the midterm elections. We can't help but notice that only those who are so stinking rich that money doesn't matter supported the Democrats' opposition to tax cuts. Meanwhile, the many more who form the backbone of America's economy supported the Republicans. As the White House and congressional Republicans prepare a new tax package, we hope they bear that in mind. And just to show that there are no hard feelings, we'll still support tax cuts for the limousine liberals. With all that extra change in their pockets, maybe they'll put it to more productive uses than propping up the rejected policies of the Democratic Party.

UPDATE: I realize I didn't give the date the editorial ran: December 18, 2002.

It's been brought to my attention that a long-time reader of this site (well, "long-time" in context, anyway) and frequent commenter has a direct connection to the previously-linked "chimp haven" project recently granted a ridiculous $25 million from NIH.

I won't reveal her identity, I'll let her do that herself. But get this: her father is on the Chimp Haven's "Leadership Council!"

She sends this link to the official Chimp Haven website.

I encourage you to browse this website. The unintentional humor is off the charts. I particularly like the fact that the site sells a CD by a guy named "hmura" (lowercase, all), part of which was influenced by a deceased chimp named "Sparky."

I know that dissing Paul Krugman in the blogosphere is almost cliche, but does anyone else think that today's column was an especially cheap cheap shot, even for him?

See, Paul's being clever here, drawing a sutble allusion to the president's condition as a recovering alcoholic. Except that it isn't subtle.

Alcoholics are funny. People with addictions are funny. Let's laugh at them.

Ha, ha.

"No one has inspired more blacks for hope in America than I have."

--Jesse Jackson, on MSNBC's "Donnahue."

Ted Barlow's blogging lightbulb jokes. As an afficianado of peurile humor, let me say I enthusiastically support this endeavor (though my personal favorites are "....walks into a bar..." jokes).

In the spirit of Ted's grand experiment, I'll offer my two favorites:

Q: How many mice does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Two. But don't ask me how they get in there.

Q: How many Vietnam veterans does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: YOU WOULDN'T KNOW, MAN! YOU WEREN'T THERE!!!!

And here are a few favorites from Ted's site:

Q: How many Ann Coulters does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: She doesn't need to. Sweet, sweet Ann can light up a room with her smile.
[For the love of humanity, I hope this is sarcasm.]

Q: How many John Edwards [Senator Handsomes] does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Just one. The same as regular people.

Q: How many Mickey Kauses does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Has Howell Raines lightbulb obsession begun to take its toll on New York Times' reporting staff?

Q: How many Jane Galts does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Gather around, my darlings, while I explain something about the lightbulb industry. I worked in a lightbulb factory in lower Manhattan when I was a wee lass…

(1000 words later)

…round and round until the handle breaks off. My liberal Democratic friends all agree.

Q: How many Al Gores does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Actually, Tipper likes it in the dark. Rowr.

Q: How many Maureen Dowds does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: One to do it, and one to compare the old, unpopular bulb to Carmella Soprano or some bullshit.

Q: How many Wall Street Journal editorial page writers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: All of them together can't do it. In order to remove the old bulb, they'd have to turn left, and no one's willing to consider it.

Q: How many Joe Liebermans does it take to change a light bulb?
A: We must move beyond narrow partisanship. I am not afraid to replace a light bulb that is working or leave a burned out bulb in place.

Q: How many Fiskers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A:
How
You know, it’s funny. Right after a huge media storm about how racist the bad ol’ Republican party was, Q here starts his question with a salutation straight from Injun Joe in an old Lone Ranger serial. I guess that’s why Strom Thurmond was a DEMOCRAT for all those years. You got that? DEM-O-CRAT.

many
Boy, this just gets better and better, doesn’t it? Q, old boy, you’re batting 1.000 so far.

Isn't it strange to hear an idiotarian like Q-bert here lecturing us about “many”? After all, if his economy-ruining policies were put into effect, the only people who would have “many” of anything would be the trial lawyers. By the way, “Q”, James Bond called. He wants his former gadget-man’s name back.

Fiskers
Now we’re getting somewhere.

does it take
You know what it “does… take”? It takes honor, and determination, and hard work. Something that your type will never understand. (You probably think that “it takes a village”, right?) But of course, Qwybaby here isn’t content with just one verb in a sentence. No, he’s got to have two. And an infinitive, to boot:

to change
Change? Regime change, time change, climate change, the times they are a'changin'... what? Here’s a usage I suspect you're intimately familiar with- “Spare change?”

a lightbulb?
Thank you, Citizen Q. Don't call us, we'll call you.

Q: How many Washington Times writers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: One. (Unless that one is Andrew Sullivan, in which case they employ an extra one to discreetly disinfect everything he touches.)

Q: How many warbloggers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Today's Mark Steyn column is a must read!
[Note: This is a classic from Jim Henley]

Q: How many PBS executives does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Sixteen: one to do it, and fifteen to make a sepia-toned mini-series about the old bulb.

Q: How many Fox News panelists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Four - one from the Washington Times, one from the Heritage Foundation, one from the Light Bulb Industry Advocacy Council, and Mort Kondracke to provide the liberal point of view.

Q. How many liberal bloggers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: One to do it, and one to point out that Atrios did it first.

NIH earmarks $24 million for a chimpanzee sanctuary.

I made a rather serious factual error in today's Fox column. I wrote:

In most cases, employees of the federal government are required to join the union that represents federal employees, and pay dues. Your taxes fund it all.

I apologize for the error, and I'll run a correction in my next column.

Our bi-weekly acid roundup.

your are such an ass; the piece you wrote on the fox website is so blatently one sided it almost sounds ridiculous. Your a fool.

Sir,
What is the weather like up your rectum?
Perhaps that would be a more deserving editorial
topic than the drivel you in today's www.foxnews.com.

Truly,
Richard W. Williams
(Human Being)

why is it ok to give to the "holier than thou" right wing pinko republicans
but not ok to give to the democrats? that's just like a typical
repub....it's ok for me to do it but if you do it, you are going straight to
hell....always a double standard with the right wing!

your site,
it sucks!!!

How much money were you paid to write this crap?

How can you sleep?

There's NOBODY donating to the left who can come anywhere near the donations by Scaife and Kenny Boy.

Such lies. Your momma ought to slap you.

I just read you rmost ridiculous article where you reply to the writer about the supposed "left wing conspiracy"... all I can say after reading it is that your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance.

God Bless Barbra Streisand.

Chris Sullivan

the link right next to yours -- the gasbegone. This product seems to be made with the Fox gasbags in mind.

Morris E. Schorr

All tell who gives to Democrats I do! And Damn Proud of it! I'd rather give my money to them then a bunch of people who shit on my race and culture.

Many people pointed out the error I made, and I thank them for it.

The latest from the Center for Consumer Freedom. BTW, if you're not getting their daily email update, you ought to be -- go here to sign up. The stuff they find will in turn shock, amuse and scare the shit out of you:

Return of the Jackbooted Teetotalers

Earlier this month we told you about police in Northern Virginia bursting into bars and arresting patrons for the crime of being tipsy. Under fire from citizens and legislators, authorities are now trying to defend their tactics -- and their story reconfirms our worst fears.

It will probably surprise you to learn that “you can’t be drunk in a bar.” So says Fairfax County (VA) Police Chief J. Thomas Manger. According to police, public intoxication is an offense worthy of arrest, and a tavern is a public place.

Here’s The Washington Post with one woman’s story: “As the designated driver in her dinner party, Pat Habib was careful to consume no more than one alcoholic drink and follow it up with two sodas. So she was shocked when a police officer singled her out of the crowd at Jimmy’s Old Town Tavern in Herndon and asked her to step outside to prove her sobriety.”

That’s right. The police forced her to prove she was sober -- in a bar. Among the tactics they used to tell who might be drunk: “frequent trips to the bathroom.” You’d think the police would have something better to do than play hall monitor.

The Fairfax County Council agrees that “the police overstepped their bounds and overreacted.” But the county constables insist that their policy of harassing social drinkers is “proactive,” and claim to be targeting “the root causes of alcohol-related deaths.”

In other words, they’re subjecting people to arrest for what they might do. Memo to the powers that be: the Department of Precrime in the Tom Cruise film Minority Report was supposed to be fictional.

Ace Ventura, 'Companion Animal' Detective?

If you live in San Francisco and have a dog or a cat, you may be surprised to learn that you are no longer that animal’s “owner.” This week the city finalized a new provision of law that no longer considers pets as personal property. Instead, humans are legally considered “animal guardians.”

Similar changes of law, proposed and lobbied by animal rights organizations including “In Defense Of Animals,” have recently occurred in Boulder, Colorado; in both Berkeley and West Hollywood, California; and in the entire state of Rhode Island. They typically seek to ban the terms “pet” and “owner,” replacing them with “companion animal” and “guardian.” Los Angeles lawmakers recently turned down a like-minded proposal.

This effort parallels the so-called “Sentient Beings” campaign, run by the national animal-rights group Farm Sanctuary and its misguided celebrity spokesperson Mary Tyler Moore. The campaign is going from town to town in at least 12 states, asking city councils to adopt resolutions declaring livestock exempt from “inhumane” treatment (including, of course, the act of being eaten). So far, cities in California, Florida, New Jersey, and Ohio have signed on.

Duane Flemming, president of the American Veterinary Medical Law Association, told the Los Angeles Times last year that these trends are setting a “dangerous precedent… This is a slippery slope. It is a very dangerous situation. The real, true, underlying sub-goal is to ultimately change people’s perceptions, all the time heading toward the concept of getting legal standing. Once you can do that, the animal-rights people can change the fabric of our nation.”

So I managed to stay with Gene all the way through this post on materialism, determinism and free will. Well-written, provocative, massaged my brain a bit. I also made it through this post by Will Wilkinson that inspired Gene's post. Same attributes as Gene's, only I'd "intriguingly personal."

Then I opened Gene's comments box on the post. There, Glen Whitman and Will had an exchange that left me gasping for air.

By the time Julian weighed in, I was drowning. And by the time I got through Julian's post, I was about twelve feet over my head, submerged in a sea of hypotheticals, elusive premises and flying rodents. The kid's name is going to be an adjective someday.

And it seems like every time I venture over to Julian's site when he's posted something incredibly academic and thick (which almost always begins with a phrase like "Imagine your brain is in a vat...", or, "Pretend you've just made Xerox copies of everything you know..."), I return to my site and find that my latest post is something like...

"Here's a funny joke about boobs..."

Oh well. Check out Julian's investigative work on the John Lott affair, as well as an interesting discovery about the son of the late John Rawls.

I guess that's the implication once you're mentioned on Media Whores Online. Here's the full post. Here's the relevant excerpt:

Pissant Radley Balko, who I'd wager long odds has never seen one of his own squad engulfed in flames, mocks Rangel's draft plan. Yet another patriot who's too good to actually join up himself.

Do I believe in the American idea, as set out by the founding fathers? Yer' damn skippy, I do.

Do I subscribe to jingoistic, Lee Greenwood-ish coerced flag-worshipping? No, not really.

But I'm guessing MWO's use of "patriot" was more a facetious reference to neoconservative "American Greatness" adherents, the kinds of folks who believe American should invade and conquer all the world's heathens, and refuse to leave until they're all collecting baseball cards, eating apple pie, and loving the baby Jesus. They just assumed that because I mocked Charlie Rangel's stupid idea to reinstitute slavery in an effort to make sure more white people die on the battlefield, I must also be Kipling-esque imperialist -- a cowardly pax-Americanist too chickenshit to do the fighting myself.

Well, I hate to disappoint MWO and its off-the-rack label-makers, but you got the wrong guy, dipshits. I'm against the war with Iraq. And, in fact, I'm against war, period -- something you'd think avowed leftists like MWO would appreciate.

Am I too good to join the military? No. Most of the guys doing the fighting -- especially the first guys in -- are likely a helluva' lot smarter than I am. I didn't join because the army's not my bag. And I'm not joining now because I don't feel like dying in a stupid grudge-war that I find unjustified.

I wonder how many at MWO have service records?

As for "pissant," well, I guess that's fairly subjective.

Tech Central's excerpting a chapter from Cato's new book about space and free enterprise that was co-authored by astronaut legend Buzz Aldrin.

Yeah, I had a little something to do with this.

A nice piece on Glenn Reynolds (the Instapundit) in the New York Times.

And it seems the Instaman's gone corporate: He's now blogging officially for MSNBC, and he's dropping his Fox column. Mickey Kaus has the details.

Personally, I think this is wonderful news. We're still a long, long way from blogs making any money independently (unless your name is Andrew Sullivan, in which case you can bring in $80K/week), so the Kaus/Reynolds model (latch on to an corporate institution -- in both cases, Bill Gates) seems to be a best bet. Of course, with about a half million blogs running these days, I'd advise my fellow bloggers to put off that anticipatory house down payment until a deal's in writing.

Here's the Washington Post write-up from our "Joe Millionaire" viewing the other night.

Sometimes, you do.

My new Fox column is up.

Sea sponges may help cure cancer.

I've been looking for a copy of the Mysteries of Life's first CD "Keep a Secret" for a long time now. MoL's a Bloomington-native band that signed with a national label while I was in college and ignited a short-lived stint for the town as an indy music hub (OK, so we weren't Athens, but Billboard did do a feature).

I finally found the out of print CD through Amazon's used section. Cost? 50 cents, plus shipping. Rock on.

Since it's no longer in print, I'm guessing Hillary Rosen would have no problem with me sharing a cut or three with you, right?

Enjoy:

Hesitate
Feel My Way
Going Through the Motions

USA Today reports that despite all the talk about fiscal crises in statehouses across the country, and demands for a federal bailout, states are still spending money and hiring new personnel hand over fist.

A bold president would address the next Governors' Association meeting thusly:

"You want a federal bailout? Stop spending money."

Even when he's wrong, Ramesh Ponnuru's a damn smart scribe. This time, he's right. Here he is on Sen. Hatch's dumb new "hate crimes" bill:

It says a lot about the contemporary "civil-rights movement" that federal hate-crimes legislation is at the top of its agenda. The bill proposes a double redundancy. To kill someone because of his race is already illegal everywhere; and in all but a handful of states, it already has the extra-special "hate-crime" designation. Perhaps it's possible to get the annual number of such cases down from 19 to 10, but would that really solve any of America's real racial problems?

Does the bill then make sense as a political gesture? If the idea is to show to all the world that the GOP is sensitive to blacks' concerns, then opponents of the bill will have to be cast as insensitive. But that there will be many Republican opponents is guaranteed. It's hard to see a Hatch-like bill passing the House. In 2000, President Bush expressed skepticism about hate-crimes laws. Liberals will seize on any Republican opposition as evidence of Republican racial backwardness, and Hatch will have given them the opportunity. The perception he seeks to dispel he will have instead reinforced.

Saddam + Pete Townshend = ?

(And no, the answer isn't "sodomy.")

President Bush on North Korea....

So I just took the religion/logic test Alina linked to on her site.

I answered the questions in a manner I thought best reflected Deism, the closest I come to religion.

Smooth sailing, all the way through. I had to neither dodge nor bite any bullets. And I won the medal of intellectual honor.

Just goes to prove, any moral code that claims Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill as adherrents probably has something to it.

Gene Healy on Senatorial mundanities and a brush with mediocrity.

Jim Henley on John Lott (here and here), and on a revised pledge of allegiance.

Eve Tushnet announces the winners of her drag queen name contest.

Alina Stefanescu on marriage, modern Northeastern leftism and a cool game that tests the logic of religion. Start at the top. Scroll down.

Geitner Simmons on the hypocrisy of Fritz Hollings, the Senator who must be admired for his persistent efforts to be 100% dead wrong, all the time.

Julian Sanchez, also on Lott.

From a charming, articulate fellow named William Anthony:

Mr. Balko,

I'm a rather conservative guy, but after reading your spoof about "Affirmative Casualties" that you, conservatively speaking, are an idiot.

But if you're going to call me an idiot, I think it's only fair to ask that you do so using complete sentences.

Thank you.

Classic, classic report from National Public Radio, caught and captured in Cato's "To Be Governed..." feature:

Research shows the average 20-year-old is more likely to sign up as a community volunteer than show up at the voting booth. MORNING EDITION is running a series of stories about how young people learn about citizenship. Today, a report on how they're taught to deal with problems in their communities. Schools use a range of programs, and many require community service. NPR's Nancy Solomon reports some experts worry these programs send an incomplete message about what it means to be a citizen....

She and many of her peers continue to volunteer throughout high school, they say, because it gives them a sense of accomplishment. But when Robertson and other students talk about community service, something is curiously absent. They never suggest the experiences have made them want to get involved in creating government solutions to poverty.

--NPR, January 7, 2003

...to accusations of racial disparities on the battlefield.

Conservatives are predictably lashing out against Illinois Gov. George Ryan for commuting all of his states' death-penalty condemned.

I'll agree that Gov. Ryan is no altruist. He's trying to fashion a legacy for himself from the ashes of a corrupt and inept administration (and funny, isn't it, how quiet conservatives were when Gov. Ryan's administration was taking bribes and payoffs, but how loudly they condemn him for showing mercy in the face of an obviously flawed system).

But just because his motivations were wrong doesn't mean his decision was. Let's take a look at a few of the pro-death penatly positions being bandied about over at NRO:

From Jonah Goldberg:

If you think the cost of a single innocent life is too high to justify capital punishment, in other words if you think it must be perfect in every respect, then you might as well come out against the death penalty because otherwise you'll have to argue for a perfect government program and that is an untenable position.

But keep in mind government finds acceptable rates of accidental deaths in all sorts of areas. From friendly fire in the military to deaths on our highways to extremely rare and fatal drug side effects. Surely even one child's death is a tragedy, but we know for a fact that roughly 50 young children die every year from drowning in 5 gallon buckets, mostly in their back yards. But we don't ban buckets. And that's roughly the same number as the number of cases of accidental gun deaths among small children, and we do not require child-safe bucket locks (Note to parents: You can childproof your bucket by putting a hole in the bottom).

More from Jonah:

It would be tragic if we executed an innocent man -- hasn't happened yet -- but I would still take a mend it don't end it approach in response (unless I was the one executed). There's nothing wrong with working very hard to keep that level as low as conceivably possible, but the only way to guarantee no errors is to abolish capital punishment entirely.

And, lamest of all, a final piece from Jonah:

In 1995, Fedell Caffey shot Debra Evans in her home and stabbed her 10 year old daughter. He then cut the full term baby from her womb and, along with her 7 year old son, kidnapped them. The 7-year-old’s body was later found. The child had been tortured. Departing Illinois Governor George Ryan let Caffey off Death Row, because he believes to do otherwise would be, "playing God."

Lenard Johnson, raped two girls, aged 11 and 13 and sexually assaulted a third, aged 7 while he was baby-sitting them. And, he murdered an 11 year old boy with a knife. He was caught holding the knife to one of the girl’s throats. Johnson never made any claim to being innocent of his crimes. George Ryan felt it was impossible to keep Johnson on death row because the "demon of error" made it impossible to tell who deserved to stay on death row and who didn't.

From Ramesh Ponnuru:

Assuming that the death penalty should be abolished, isn't it an abuse of the pardon power to effect that policy by executive fiat? You said that Gov. Ryan "did the right thing." It's hard to see how that could be true on any conventional understanding of the separation of powers.

Remember the Hitler Rule? It states that there are some topics about which you just aren't permitted to take any position other than the most rigid of hard lines. You aren't permitted to say, for example, that "for all his evilness, I think Hitler had nice shoulders."

I'd guess that for most people, child pornography falls well within the Hitler rule. Who's going to make the case that it should be legal? Or that it's not so bad? Well, I'm about to break the Hitler rule.

I don't think it should be illegal to access (read: download) child pornography.

Should creating it be illegal? Hell yes. Distributing it? Of course. And I could even be persuaded -- though it would take more of an effort -- that paying for it ought to be illegal.

Here's my point: what if Pete Townshend's telling the truth? It's true in fact that he has an upcoming book on the subject, that he's been an outspoken critic of child pornography, and that he even once published a paper relating to the topic.

The Internet and filesharing services are fraught with wrong-turns and porn perils. As Perry de Havilland has noted, you can literally be arrested for one misclick of the mouse. Yes, you're free to pass judgjment on those who surf the web for conventional pornography. But do you really think someone should be arrested for accidentally wandering into the wrong Internet neighborhood? Should a journalist be arrested for researching the availability of child porn?

Look, for all I know, Pete Townshend may indeed be a sick, sick man. I haven't seen all that the authorities have compiled against him. If he's been making kiddie porn, or selling or trading it, lock him up. I'm fine with that. But if all he's done is download it, I don't like the precedent. Especially when the guy's got a ton of evidence suggesting he had benign uses for what he'd found.

And sometimes, Nicholas Kristoff makes sense. From today's fine column on North Korea:

The North Korean regime reacted typically to the 1990's famine, which killed some two million North Koreans, by putting propaganda into overdrive. A campaign urged the health benefits of dieting, and the national slogan became "Let's Eat Just Two Meals a Day!" There was even a television documentary focusing on a man who ate too much rice — and then supposedly exploded.

So how can we undermine North Korean propaganda and totalitarianism? By imposing sanctions and increasing its isolation? Or by engaging it and tying it to the global economy?

The answer should be obvious, for there is no greater subversive in a Communist country than an American factory manager. People will hear stories from his housemaid's third cousin's neighbor's friend about how he has five pairs of blue jeans (!), a beer belly (!), blows his nose on tissues that he then throws away (!), and reads a Bible (!) and Playboy magazine (!!). Many a Communist will immediately begin dreaming of capitalism.

From Drezner, and TalkLeft.

The "MADD is irrelevant" meme's spreading like plantars warts in a dormitory.

This is a very good thing. MADD's irrelevance, I mean. Plantar's warts aren't a very good thing.

But this time, justice was served.

So I got a call from a Washington Post reporter today. She was intrigued, I guess, by this post, and by your compelling and brilliant obervations in the comments section thereto.

She'll be joining me and some friends to watch Joe Millionaire tonight in Dupont Circle. She's then writing up an article on our reactions and such for the Style section of the paper. I'm going to direct her to this post. So if any of you have more pithy ponderances that you think she'd find interesting, please, post away.

I have a piece of satire running on Tech Central this morning.

It's a shot at Charlie Rangel and his moronic draft proposal.

More fun from the WaPo's weekly humor contest. This week: describe how a coroporation might be different if they made a different product than they do. My favorites:

If Johnson & Johnson made wedding cakes, there'd be no more tiers.

If E! Entertainment TV designed swimming pools, there would be no deep end.

If Chevrolet made boats, it would change the "Like a Rock" campaign.

If the Washington Blade made mints, they'd be "bi-curiously strong."

If Jim Beam made Viagra, a fella could simply pour himself a stiff one.

If Amtrak made diaphragms, a lot of women would be late.

If General Dynamics or some other Pentagon contractor ran Starbucks, a grande skim latte would cost, well, about what it costs now. Maybe a little less.

Not that I object, but I wonder, how in the world did I get link props on this site?

(Not a work-safe click.)

Ninety percent of you should probably just skip this entry, lest you get the wrong impression about this site.

The Rules of Emerging Island Monkey Fighting as Laid Out by Bryan in the Comments Section:

1) Each monkey will have his own unique weapon.

2) When one monkey kills another monkey, the victorious monkey recieves the defeated monkey's unique weapon, along with any other unique weapons the defeated monkey might have collected from past matches.

3) When a monkey wins 7 matches, he must retire and give up rights to all unique weapons he has collected. (This rule is to prevent any monkey from obtaining too many unique weapons and over-powering the humans, either by himself or by suppling large numbers of unique weapons to his monkey butler friends.)

4) When the monkey is forced into retirement, he is no longer required to serve as a butler or wear a tuxedo jacket. He also has the right to have his own monkey butler. (The purpose of this rule is two-fold: a) it provides an incentive for the monkey to fight, besides simply living; b) it keeps a class system amongst the monkeys which will prevent them from ever joining together to defeat the humans.)

I'll come up with a way to make money off of this soon, but I thought that we should all know the ground rules.

Also, shouldn't we start brainstorming names for the emerging island nation?

This is very cool.

For the love of all that is rockish and rollish, I hope this isn't true.

So in keeping with my New Year's resolutions, I ventured out to U-Street last night -- an area you might call D.C.'s little piece of Harlem. We decided to hit a bar called Bohemian Caverns, a joint rich with D.C. jazz history (Cab Calloway once owned it) and that's played hose to most every jazz icon you might imagine.

I'm kicking myself now for not having gone to this place a long, long time ago -- and many times since. I think I have a new favorite bar.

The stage is tucked deep into a basement, which is mocked up with cave decor (hence, "cavern"). No windows. Really no more than about 100 people. So you really lose all sense of time and perspective. It's perfect. You're thinking, mabye it really is 1951, and maybe we really are waiting for, say, Lenny Bruce to come out and warm up the crowd, and mabye Coltrane really will take the stage at about one a-m.

Last night's act was saxist Jacque Johnson and vocalist Lil' Margie. I really can't think of an appropriate word in English to describe how wonderful they were. So I'll make one up:

Absofuckingtacular.

Jacque's a big black guy with a buttery voice and a smooth, smooth demeanor. Laid back almost to the point of comatose. I don't think his lips ever moved as he sang. But Jesus can he wail on the sax, be it a warm, trilly soprano or hunky, clunky tenor. The guy's friggin' good.

But the star is Lil' Margie. The gal's got spunk, rasp, raunch, scat, sex, groove and soul -- lots and lots of soul.

And holy hell could she work the crowd. During a cover of "My Girl" she took the mic around the crowd and embarassed about ten people into taking a swing at singing the first verse. If you're wondering, yes, your humble Agitator was one of them. And, if I do say so myself, I didn't do half bad. I was a little shocked, really. I still hold on to a lot of dreams (I'm still hoping for "NBA all-star," for example), but "star vocalist" went out the window the first time I ever stepped up to a karaoke machine.

The set was half originals, half covers. Covers were a nice mix too, from Sam Cooke to Lena Horne to Gershwin to "Mustang Sally," perhaps yours truly's second-favorite song of all time (favorite -- by far -- is Jackie Wilson's "Your Love").

Jacque and Margie play the Caverns once a month. Yer' positively missing out if you live in D.C. and don't catch them sooner or later.

InstaMan on D.C. DMV ineptitude.

A friend of mine likes to tell of the long, torturous process he faced while trying to get a personalized license plate. A red tape nightmare. Hours of line-standing, some work-missing, and much bureaucrat-browbeating. Here's the kicker: wanna' know what license plate all this trouble was for?

"LIBERTY."

Oh well. When D.C. residents stop getting water service, we'll talk about who's got it worse.

I'm a big proponent of the "keep your own house in order" philosophy. That is, when people who tend to see things the way I do stumble, I think it's important to acknowledge those mistakes -- not to mask them.

That's why I really hope the likes of smart 2nd Amendment scholars like Glenn Reynolds, Randy Barnett and Eugene Volokh take a long, hard look at the brewing controversy over Dr. John Lott, Jr.

If it turns out that he did in fact manufacture data, he ought to be raked over the coals just as Michael Bellesiles (rightfully) was.

Lott's More Guns, Less Crime was groundbreaking. It was widely cited, studied and debated. Gun-rights groups reveled in its findings.

I still happen to agree with his conclusions. And, as Julian notes, culpability here wouldn't undermine his thesis. But that doesn't matter. If he lied, he has no credibility in the debate anymore. All of his scholarship is tainted.

And Second Amendment proponents ought to run like hell from him.

Anti-smoking law prevents ban on smoking.

If only all laws worked like this.

TheAgitator.com's crack team of fact checkers have discovered an error.

As it turns out, a key component of this post is incorrect. Dividend payments into 401(k)s will still be taxed once those retirement plans are cashed out. Because, as Jane Galt notes, dividends are merely reinvested into the plan -- they aren't kept separate -- so there's really no way of knowing what portions of the 401(k) were earned from dividend payments, and what were earned from regular contributions.

Two thoughts:

1) Wouldn't it at least be possible to keep track of dividend payments to retirement plans? Surely if the Bush tax cut called for dividends paid to retirement plans to be tax free, investment companies could devise a way to track them. Doesn't seem all that difficult a thing to do. Then when you cash out, you pay taxes on the capital gains, sale of stock, interest, etc. -- but the principal you've accumulated from dividends would be tax-free.

2) Why isn't Bush doing this? Seems to me that nixing taxes on dividends people take now, but continuing to tax those that are later taken out of a 401(k) punishes folks for choosing the latter -- exactly the opposite of what 401(k)s are supposed to encourage. Worse, it adds fuel to the Democrats class warfare fire. Far more people own stock as part of a retirement plan than own stock independent of one.

I realize that the motivation here is to stimulate the economy, and it's certainly true that making dividend 401(k) contributions tax-free won't contribute much to that end.

But, still, it doesn't make much sense say dividends will henceforth be tax-free -- unless the person who's getting them has his stock in an IRA.

We may soon need to add one to this list.

I just sent this email to all my D.C.-area acquaintances. Then I thought, "Hey! I've got a blog!"

So here goes:

1 male, 27. One sweet, laid-back dog, 40 lbs.

Both in desperate need of shelter.

I was was thrown out by my landlord today. Short version of the story: my basement (which includes my roommate's bedroom, a bathroom, storage, and our laundry facilities) has been flooded for the last two weeks -- and off/on for the last year. Thanks to a spotty furnace, we've also gone without heat a time or two. I asked for a rent abatement. She said "no."

I then said it would be "difficult" to rent out a flooded bedroom, as she's asked me to do once my roommate moves out in February. She said "deal with it." The conversation escalated. Various combinations of four-letter words were tossed about. I think I mentioned her mother once or twice -- and it wasn't to flatter her.

I was asked to move out by the end of the month.

So I'm looking for a 1-BR type set-up. Rent around $1000, though less would be wonderful, and I could go as high as, say, $1300.

If you know/hear of anything, please do let me know.

They got me right. Barely. Just over 50% confidence.

Take the test yourself.

TalkLeft reports that Illinois Governor George Ryan has pardoned four death row inmates who were tortured into confessions by Chicago police. There's a chance he may commute the sentences of all remaining death row inmates to life in prison. Two damning passages:

“What I can’t understand is why the courts can’t find a way to implement justice,” Ryan told a classroom of law students. “So here we have four more men, who were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to die by the state for crimes the courts should have seen they did not commit.”

“They are perfect examples of what is so terribly broken about our system,” Ryan said. “They have repeatedly cried out for justice, and their cries have fallen on deaf ears.”

The four prisoners pardoned today were among more than 60 suspects — including nearly a dozen on Death Row — who have claimed former Chicago police Cmdr. Jon Burge or his detectives at the Burnside Area Violent Crimes headquarters on the South Side tortured them to confess.

Three of the cases — those of Patterson, Hobley and Howard — were the subject of Tribune investigations in 1998 and in the November 1999 series, “The Failure of the Death Penalty in Illinois.”...

...Ryan cited a 1999 Chicago Tribune investigation into abuses in the state’s criminal justice system that led to innocent people being sentenced to die.

“Three years ago, I was faced with some startling information we had exonerated not one, not two, but 13 men from Death Row,” the governor said, one more than all those executed in Illinois since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977.

Fifty percent of Death Row convictions in recent years had been remanded, Ryan said. One-third of those sentenced to die had been represented at trial by attorneys later disbarred or who had their law licenses suspended. Thirty-five African American defendants were convicted to die by all-white juries. A disproportionate number, nearly two-thirds of those on Death Row, were African Americans.

“I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think you need to be one to be appalled by those statistics,” Ryan said. “It was a shameful scorecard, truly shameful … Innocent people were convicted to die for a crime they didn’t commit. We nearly killed innocent people. We nearly injected them with a cocktail of deadly poisons so they could die in front of witnesses in the state’s death chamber.”

I have a hard time understanding how proponents of the death penalty can look at numbers like these and make any sort of case at all. The smug reaction to the cold hard facts invariably goes something like: "Well, see? We caught it in time. The system works."

Several things wrong with that:

1) It wasn't the criminal justice system that uncovered these travesties. It was a newspaper. And in several other cases, a Northwestern University journalism class. Other injustices across the country have been exposed by Barry Scheck's Innocence Project.

2) In most states, prosecutors consider a captial murder case infinitely closed once the convicted killer is executed. The punishment can't be undone, so many times, files are destroyed. Evidence is tossed. It's not all that surprising, then, that enterprising journalists or investigators have yet to find a case of an innocent man put to death.

3) While the propoganda value of such a discovery would be invaluable, groups like Scheck's won't waste resources on a man already dead that could better be spent saving a man still alive.

I think the case study in Illinois is about as convincing an anti-death penalty argument as can be made. That we haven't yet discovered (that I know of) a modern example where an innocent was actually executed doesn't much matter.

Two cool posters from The Objectivist Center:

Morality Made Visible

and...

One Man.

A heartening and fascinating piece on that evil global hegemonist McDonald's at A World Connected, by Paul Feine.

Lengthy, but worthwhile excerpt:

Golden Arches East, a recent book edited by James Watson, seeks to gain a better grasp on how McDonald’s is affecting Asian culture. The results of this inquiry are in many ways surprising. For instance, one essay tells the story of an unintended and unanticipated consequence of McDonald’s invasion of Hong Kong—the rest rooms in the city became cleaner.

Before the first McDonald’s opened up in the mid-1970s, restaurant restrooms in Hong Kong were notoriously dirty. Over time, the cleanliness standards of McDonald’s were replicated by other restaurants eager to out-compete the increasingly popular restaurant.

In Korea, McDonald’s established the practice of lining up in an orderly fashion to order food - the traditional custom, it seems, was to mob the counter.

When the first McDonald’s was opened in Moscow, it was necessary for an employee to stand outside the McDonald’s with a blow horn in order to explain to those in the queue that the smiling employees were not laughing at them but, rather, were pleased to serve them.

Moreover, and in contradistinction to the widespread assumption that McDonald’s is having an implacably homogenizing effect on global culture, Golden Arches East is filled with examples of the pains McDonald’s takes to appeal to the unique local tastes and customs of people around the world. My own experience with the decidedly leisurely attitude of McDonald’s employees in southern Spain further attests to McDonald’s ability to adapt to the local culture.

Ramesh Ponnuru makes an excellent point about the stink Democrats are raising over Bush's plan to phase out taxes on dividends.

Here, very generally, is how dividend taxes work:

Company A makes $1 in profit over the course of the year. That dollar is taxed at about 30% under corporate income tax laws. Company A now has 70 cents. Company A can chose to either a) invest that 70 cents in new ventures, executive salaries, equiment up grades, etc. -- all of which are tax-deductible, or, b) distribute that 70 cents to shareholders, where it will be taxed a second time. As it stands today, most companies choose option A.

Ramesh's point is this: remember last year at the height of the corporate scandals, when Democrats claimed to be the party of the common investor, the pensioner, the guy who lost his 401(k) in Enron stock?

Where are they now? Kicking the dividend tax would cause most companies to rethink what they do with profits. Shareholders might even push a little for a return to the days when everybody paid dividends. So not only would investors get a tax break on the dividends they do get, a tax break would encourage more companies to begin paying dividends again, another bonus for investors.

And here's yet another way investors would benefit: back when everyone paid dividends, you could fairly accurately measure a company's stability and performance based on how big its dividend checks were. A return to those days would mean investors would have another tool at their disposal with which to make sounder, more educated investments. As it is, since hardly anyone pays dividends, investors are forced to look at more complex indicators, and given recent headlines, even the savvy stockholder who can sift through all the numbers can't be sure they're accurate.

Finally, the poor guy who got screwed on his 401(k) during the dot-com, Enron, Worldcom boom who's now looking at retirement could at least get a small lift from the Bush plan -- he'd get tax-relief from the portion of his retirement plan that comes from dividends. Provided the plan passes, and he cashes out after the corporations he's been investing in begin to take advantage of it.

So what's the investor-friendly Democrat Party's reaction to dividend tax relief? They adamantly oppose it, of course -- and in typical class warfare rhetoric. "It'll all go to the rich," we're told. "Mostly to eople with incomes over $200,000."

That's largely correct. But consider that many of those people will be those cashing out 401(k)s, people who've been saving for a lifetime. It's those people who will get immediate relief. $200K really isn't all that much when you consider that it's a lifetime of accumulated, interest-bearing savings.

The Republicans know this, and they've already begun countering the Democrat class warfare gripes with rejoinders about how most of the dividend relief will benefit "elderly Americans." Keep this in mind.

You can bet the GOP will have the argument handy when the Democrats start scaring old people about Social Security again come 2004.

Good for them.

Spending time in my CD player lately:

Rhett Miller, The Instigator
-- Old '97s lead man goes solo. Well-written straight-ahead pop songs.

Gay Dad, Transmission
-- Three excellent tracks. Otherwise expendable. Nowhere near the quality of the space rock band's debut, Leisure Noise.

Neko Case, Furnace Room Lullabye
-- See here.

James, Greatest Hits
-- Early 90's Britpop kings. "Laid," "Sit Down," "Say Something."

Shelby Lynne, I Am Shelby Lynne
-- Mmmm. Shhhhelllllby.

John Hiattt, Crossing Muddy Waters
-- The pride of Broad Ripple, Indiana. A full album of backporch acoustic jams.

Gram Parsons Tribute, Return of the Grievous Angel
-- Maybe the best tribute album I've ever heard. Whiskeytown, Wilco, Elvis Costello, Evan Dando, Beck, Steve Earle, Lucinda Williams, Marc Olsen, Gilian Welch, Emmylou Harris, and the Cowboy Junkies cover the alt-country legend's best and forgotten tunes. Spectacular.

Link goes to video.

Senator Handsome be damned. In all honesty, I think this could be George W. Bush's biggest threat come 2004.

W's numbers right now are almost solely post 9/11 bounce. People still worry about national security, and Americans tend to trust a Republican in the White House in times of crisis.

Clark takes that issue off the table. Keep an eye on him.

Aaron Lukas with an excellent observation in the comments section:

I think you left out one other benefit of free trade: the relative ease of economic change over time.

I've always contended that the massaive lay-off, death-of-an-industry scenarios that people associate with free trade are really more accurately laid at the feet of protectionism. In a free trade world, such massive economic shifts are rare.

Consider that if the Carolina textile industry had never been protected, it would have either shrunk slowly or adapted in response to increasing international competition. Years of protectionism led to the build up of thousands of uncompetitive jobs. Young people entering the labor force were artificially induced into taking jobs in a sector whose sickly condition was masked by tariffs. New technologies and R&D; were foregone because inflated profits did not signal market changes that were taking place in the rest of the world.

When the barriers come down, as eventually they must, the change in wrenchingly painful. It's as if protectionist politicians built a cheap, structually flawed dam and then encouranged people to build their homes beneath it. When the dam breaks, do we blame the water or the irresponsible politician?

So when 10,000 people lose their textile jobs in a year, don't blame free trade. Blame Fritz Hollings and his ilk for decades of lies.

http://www.nice-tits.org/

The bearded tits scare me.

....Conseco Fieldhouse:

Best venue in sports.

Sorry, but this guy strikes me as profoundly more irrational, dangerous, and unsubject to deterrence than Hussein. So why aren't we "prevantatively defending" ourselves from North Korea?

Slate answers the unspoken questions. But if you haven't time for the entire article, the answers can be neatly summed in this pithy sentence:

We're going to war against Iraq because we can; we're not going to war against North Korea because we can't.

That's why we climb mountains. It's not why we kill foreigners.

A World Connected links to this piece in The Charlotte Oberver on free trade's drastically different effects on communities in the Carolinas, some just miles apart.

It's true, opening markets across borders will inevitably yield winners and losers. And as this article points out, now that we're about shin-deep into total globalization immersion, the winners thus far have been American farmers. The world needs food. We've got it. That makes sense.

Who will the losers be? Well, in the Carolinas, it will most certainly be textiles workers. Long shielded by protectionist tariffs, the U.S. textiles industry will be hit hard if the Bush plan to erradicate all tariffs by 2015 comes to fruition (and it likely won't). Other likely losers: steel workers and sugar workers.

But here's the question: why should politicans designate who wins and who loses? Why should we prop up one industry at the expense of others? Why not let merit and markets decide winners and losers?

Here's the difference:

With protectionism -- be it environmental, special interest or labor -- some industries win, some lose. Likewise, with free trade, some industries win, some lose. But when government artificially props up one industry at the expense of another (Big Steel at the expense of manufacturers who use steel, for example), you net far more losers than winners. That's because consumers also lose -- we no longer get goods at market value. International competitors are excluded from bidding. Overseas workers also lose. And in the case of textiles (and sugar, and farm subsidies), those losers usually happen to reside in the world's poorest, most destitute countries.

Times change, and markets change. Demand changes. Yes, it'll be unfortunate when Carolina textiles workers lose their jobs to foreign competitors. But just down the road, a better trained, better prepared new economy laborer will get a job with a booming biotech firm.

Why? Because textiles produced in African countries will finally have access to US markets. That means new wealth and income in those African countries. That means there will be new people with enough wealth to by food in those countries, where it's needed. That means an increased demand for grains and beef and chicken and pork. And it's US biotech firms that are finding new ways to yield more grain on less land, to breed meatier, healthier-for-you chickens, and maybe they find a way to enigneer a pig that makes porkchops loaded with the antibiotics necessary to stave of cholera or dengue fever.

But instill tariffs or subsidies or like protectionist policies anywhere in the process, and the whole system gets thrown out of whack. Protect US textiles, for example, and nobody buys from those African countries, so those African countries never get the influx of wealth, and there's no business for US biotech firms. Africa keeps starving. Biotech never gets off the ground. Humanity stays stuck in the present. Everybody loses.

Well, almost everybody. That North Carolina textiles worker doesn't lose. He doesn't win, exactly. But he doesn't lose. He gets to keep his job. And maybe collective bargaining gets him a cost of living adjustment every few years.

And oh yeah -- one more winner: the North Carolina senator who protected that textiles worker's job.

Stole this from NRO's The Corner.

Somewhere down yonder in Mississippi, there's a junior high that goes by the name "Trent Lott Middle School."

Here is the website.

Look at the mascot. It's a black panther.

You can't make this up.

From Lloyd Grove:

For the past couple of weeks, those wags at Kramerbooks & Afterwords Cafe in Dupont Circle have been marketing a beverage called the "Trent Lotte." The menu describes the $3.25 item as "separate but equal parts of coffee and milk" – a not too veiled reference to Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott's career-damaging 100th-birthday praise of fellow Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond's segregationist 1948 presidential campaign. Yesterday bartender Mark Kutcher told us that the coffee and steamed milk are served in two different containers, and it's up to customers to integrate them.

Seems the Times was just a bit too eager to pile on Lady Thatcher. Viking Pundit finds this gem:

A week ago Sunday, the paper wrote:

When the Sex Pistols' Johnny Rotten, draped on his microphone, intoned, 'No future,' it was the cry of youth coming out of school to discover that there were no jobs in Margaret Thatcher's Britain and refusing to accept that as reality.

An article last Sunday about the legacy of the Clash and other punk rock bands in the 1970's referred incorrectly to the social climate from which the Sex Pistols emerged. It was not the Britain of Margaret Thatcher: she became prime minister in 1979, and the Sex Pistols disbanded in 1978.

The Times regrets the error.

Here's an excerpted transcript of Charlie Rangel's radio interview with Sean Hannity. Rangel's attempting to weasel out of Hannity's inquiry as to why he didn't support a draft when President Clinton was bombing Kosovo and Haiti.

As you might expect, Rangel's explanations come up limp.

Jill Savoie, wife of the tastefully named Radley Savoie, sends along this item. Even Louisiana's getting into the prohibition spirit (pardon the pun).

I oppose open container laws, but it's hard for me to get too upset about them. In an idea world, we wouldn't have them. But as Gene Healy might say, they aren't tyranny.

Funny thing is, like many states Louisiana bars open containers for drivers, but allows them for everyone else in the car. My very funny undergrad criminal justice professor called these "here, hold this" laws.

I think the larger point here is that when even Louisiana -- home to New Orleans -- home to the French Quarter, the best thirty-some blocks of city on the planet -- -- takes baby steps toward stricter alcohol control, we can officially declare that "a movement" is afoot.

Check out the spiffy new stuff over at CafePress.

We've got bibs and hoodies for the wee-est Agitators in your life. We've got D.C. "no taxation" bumper stickers and postcards. And, keeping with the season, we've got an Agitator.com pullover fleece and ski cap.

My pops sends an email clip from the Europe Intelligence Wire, via NewsEdge Corporation:

When scientists reviewed the results of a crop trial of genetically modified oilseed rape on a farm in Oxfordshire, they were alarmed by the result. Pollen from the crop had contaminated conventional crops over a far wider area than they could have expected from previous experiments. The results were gleefully seized upon by environmental campaigners, who claimed it proved that GM and ordinary crops could not both be grown in the UK. But the scientists knew there had to be an explanation - and they have come up with the most likely cause. The farm had been invaded by those same environmental campaigners who comprehensively trashed the crop, waving the stalks about their heads in celebration. Unfortunately, these bright sparks, who keep telling us how much they know about nature, had chosen a time when the oilseed rape was in flower - and, of course, full of pollen. By destroying the crop, these sanctimonious greens had managed to spread the GM pollen over a far wider area. In other words, they had caused the very contamination they were protesting about.

Seems that Bab Barr reads TheAgitator.com.

Compare:

Me yesterday.

Bob Barr today.

I was watching an old SNL rerun last night while eating dinner and almost laughed up a lung. The moneky meme rolls on (takes a while to load, but it's well worth it).

DC Blows takes on this Raul Damas article in the AFF publication "Brainwash."

Uh-oh. I know Raul. So maybe I shouldn't comment.

But Jesus. This might be the funniest blog post I've read in months -- especially if you've spent any time in D.C.

It's a masterpiece.

It's also dead-on. I do enjoy Old Town. But I avoid Georgetown like genital warts. And every Capitol Hill bar is inevitably stocked with the same people -- different faces, but the same people.

There's "blue blazer w/ khakis guy." There's "aging but still single because he's devoted to his career chief-of-staff" guy. There's "greasy lawyer-lobbyist, tries to work into every conversation that he's a lawyer/lobbyist" guy, and there's "slightly effeminate leftist who works for an environmental non-profit" guy, who's inevitably schlepping a backpack.

And don't even get me started on the women you meet at Cap Hill bars.

Give me Adam's Morgan's Madam's Organ (clever, isn't it?), Clarendon's Dr. Dremo's, or U-Street's Velvet Lounge over any of them. The darker, smokier and bluesier, the better.

See? I told you I shouldn't comment.

Ronald Bailey finds the Washington Post's "moderate" labeling of the Center for Science in the Public Interest laughable.

He's right. They're luddite wackos. Worse, they're usually wrong.

Welcome to education policy analyst Marie Gryphon.

To be blogrolled soon.

Cato's Pat Michaels will debate Arianna Huffington on SUVs tonight at 9:10pm ET on CNBC, and tomorrow morning at 8:30am on CNN.

Pat's a wily sumbitch. I'd wager he'll have her for breakfast. Or dinner, as it were.

For those (Bryan) who left comments below about how what Arianna's doing is consumer activism and should be applauded as part of an efficient free market, yadda, yadda, yadda....I agree.

Except she's wrong.

Follow me.

Arianna says people who buy SUVs are supportint terrorists.

About 20% of US petroleum comes from the Middle East. And SUVs consume about 2% of domestic petroleum. So you can blame SUVs for 20% of 2% of the oil we get from the Middle East. Or to put it another way, four tenths of a penny of every dollar SUV owners spend on gas goes to the Middle East.

But you can't stop there. The argument says: "SUV owners support terrorists." So you then have to figure out what percentage of that four tenths of a penny for every dollar goes to those Middle Eastern countries who are known to support terrorists. Then you have to look at what percentage of that money those countries actually spend on terrorism.

We're looking at a really small number here. Small enough, I think, that you could just as easily make the case that patronizing or investing in any U.S. business with operations in terrorist-supporting countries holds just about the same potential of your dollar falling into the pocket of a suicide bomber.

And I hate to tell you, gang, but there are lots of U.S. businesses with operations in the Middle East.

Remember Minority Report? When precogs forecasted crimes, and arrested almost-criminals before they got the chance to act?

Here's the Washington Post story on the Fairfax, VA cops pulling drunks out of bars. This paragraph in particular caught my attention:

Police consider the operation a success and said they would consider doing it again. Lt. Tor Bennett, assistant commander of the Reston District station, described it as a "low-key" operation designed to stop drunks before they got behind the wheel.

Your humble Agitator came into possession of a MADD fundraising letter from November of last year. Here's an interesting quote:

We need to change the culture in this country. It's not okay to put the keys in the car when you've been drinking, forget BAC. It's just not acceptable to drink and drive. Period.

The immediate past president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, William B. Berger, says that if a driver stopped at a sobriety checkpoint has had even one drink, he or she will be taken to jail. "We will not allow a man or woman to leave a roadblock knowing they consumed alcohol," Berger said.

If MADD gets its way, 1 in 2 Americans can expect to be stopped at a sobriety checkpoint every two years. That's 70 million Americans stopped and searched every year for any trace of alcohol -- most all done at hours most conducive to social drinking. That's a hell of a lot of arrests. A hell of strain on the justice system. And all to catch people who aren't enough of a public threat -- who weren't driving erratically enough -- to be otherwise pulled over by cops.

Catch 'em before they commit the crime.

Who needs precogs? We've got MADD.

An interesting item I came across last weekend while doing research for a ghost-writing project:

According to an LA Times investigation, MADD and NHTSA estimate that we lose about 17,000 people each year to drunk driving. Actually, to "alcohol-related" accidents. I've written before why that term is bogus. But consider: of that 17,000...

...about 3,000 involved accidents where alcohol was detected on the driver, but investigators determined was probably not a contributing factor,

...1,770 involved drunk pedestrians who walked in front of -- and were killed by -- sober drivers.

...8,000 involved accidents in which the only driver killed was the drunk one.

That leaves about 4,000 deaths. The study I saw didn't look for them, but I'd guess that a significant number of those remaining 4,000 involve an accident in which at least one driver was drunk, but wasn't at fault -- i.e. a sober driver runs a red light and kills a driver who's later found to have been drunk.

Even putting that number at a very conservative 500, that leaves 3,500 innocent, sober people killed each year by drunk drivers.

If you yourself don't drive while drunk, that means your odds of being killed by a drunk driver are about 1 in 80,000, or .0000125 percent.

According to the National Safety Council, you're more likely to die by....

-- Drowning (1 in 77,000).

-- Other suffocation (1 in 49,000).

-- Accidental poisoning (1 in 22,000).

-- Intentional self-hanging, strangulation (1 in 56,000), self-poisioning (1 in 56,000), or self-inflicted gun shot (1 in 16,400).

(My personal favorites on this list are "occupant of streetcar" (1 in 273 million) and "ignition of melting of nightwear" (1 in 46 million).)

Now, ask yourself: How many of your rights are you willing to give up for 1 in 80,000? And what if it's questionable if giving up those rights will even better the odds?

God bless those Republicans. The 108th Congress is barely out of the womb and they've already passed a law giving us all a bit more liberty. In this case, Americans have been regiven the right to give steak, lobster and caviar to hungry, hard-working Congressmen!

It's a great day for freedom.

Now, about that tax code....

This is a bit much.

Of course, if it had happened to the Colts, I'd have already filled Paul Tagliabue's desk drawers with monkey dung by now.

While reading the many monkey-butler comments, I remembered this old post, which newer readers might enjoy. It's a true story.

This too, in case any of you were thinking of taking your own monkey butler.

More attacks on Bjorn Lomborg.

More soul-selling from John McCain.

And the following email from the John McCain of punditry (only without the redeeming war record) Arianna Huffington:

Dear Friends,

The anti-SUV ad campaign you helped create, which we have named The Detroit Project, is unveiling our two 30-second ads (entirely funded by your contributions) at a press conference in Los Angeles at 10am this morning. The ads are available at www.detroitproject.com. Also on our website will be a letter you can send to Detroit's automakers, a form to fill out for those dumping their SUVs, and a paypal link so that we can raise more money and buy additional air time. The ads will start running on the political talk shows this Sunday in major markets around the country.

All the best,
Arianna

Reader and IU alum Michael Marchese sends this item. Seems Indiana state legislator and notorious prude Woody Burton (brother to Rep. Dan Burton) wants the IU students who took part in the "Campus Invasion" porno flick to be expelled. And if that doesn't happen? You guessed it. He's gonna' pass a law.

This isn't the first time Woody's gone to war with IU over sex stuff. He threatened to withhold state funding for the University's Kinsey Institute, home to the world's largest pornography collection. He also threatened to cut the purse strings when student government wanted to appropriate mandatory student activities fees for a Gay/Lesbian/Bisesual/Transexual Cultural Center.

I was an IU student for that latter hullabaloo. I too opposed the GLBT center, but only because I resented the whole idea of mandatory student activies fees in the first place. It's really just a way to extort money from the student body, then use it to fund lefty student groups whose aim was to make me feel guilty for being white, male, straight, and -- most evil of all -- living in a fraternity.

But ol' Woody, he seems to pop up (sorry) every time there's a sex battle to be fought at IU. He had no problem with the student fees extortion scam until the money started funding those darned sodomites. It's not state-funded schools he opposes, it's state-funded schools with porno collections.

By all outward appearances, Woody's is a missionary-only, long-skirts, every sperm is sacred, no towel-snapping, purefied, sanitized world, where "gay" still means "happy," and nobody masturbates.

Of course, it's usually guys like Woody who secretly don the ladies' undergarments.

Joe Sims offers a recommendation for our island home.

No monkey butlers. No bikini team. But those can come later.

Once we have the island, I'll expect all of you to buy black hi-top sneakers, shave your heads, and save your toenail clippings for future cloning projects. Also, you might want to start reading Dianetics.

And you get to screw the music industry, to boot!

If you bought any pre-recorded music product between 1995-2000 (i.e. CDs), you're eligible for a $5 to $20 cut of a massive class-action price-fixing settlement.

Normally, I'd discourage such anti-corporate shenanigans, but c'mon, this is the recording industry we're talking about.

Here's the article. Go here to fill out your claim.

Thanks to Joanne for the tip.

The Shakespearean Insult Generator.

Courtesy of Eve Tushnet.

UPDATE: Another favorite: "Your virginity breeds mites, much like a cheese." I haven't the slightest idea what that means. But it sounds really, really evil.

Zero tolerance = zero sense.

This one's pretty good, too. But I'm not sure I buy it. A little too convenient a "discovery," methinks. Besides, if Jesus was a stoner, wouldn't he have created a feast of cupcakes and Doritos instead of loaves and fishes?

...on Joe Millionaire.

Intentional comedy dressed up as unintentional comedy. Unreality TV. It's brilliant. And Joe is the absolute perfect man for the part. Neanderthal good looks, but dumb as a burlap bag of hammers -- the exact sort of guy these women wouldn't dream of dating if he didn't come with the $20 million checkbook. It's a riot to watch them in the confessionals, as they gaze into the camera with bedroom eyes, and drone on about the "instant connection" they felt with him, and how, when they first met him, "he looked right into my soul."

My only gripe: why didn't they tell the 8 women dismissed last night that Joe wasn't really a millionaire? Half the fun of the show is the anticipation of what these women will do when they're confronted with just how shallow they really are. I'd like to see that happen twenty times -- all twenty women. Looks like we're only going to see it once, when Joe pickes his sweetheart.

Talk Left posts a lengthy but well-researched entry on a possible military draft. Most interesting, a bill introduced last March by Rep. Ron Paul -- perhaps the most stalwart libertarian in Congress -- and co-sponsored by several liberal Democrats:

First, take a look at H.CON.RES.368, introduced on March 20, 2002 by Rep. Ron Paul (R) and co-sponsored by Rep John Conyers, Jr. (D), Rep John J. Duncan, J (R), Jr. , Rep Cynthia McKinney (D), Rep George Miller (D), Rep Patsy Mink (D), and Rep Pete Fornay Stark (D). [All references to this bill and the one that follows are available on Thomas, the Federal Legislation Service, just type in the bill numbers.]

The title of the bill states "Expressing the sense of Congress that reinstating the military draft or implementing any other form of compulsory military service in the United States would be detrimental to the long-term military interests of the United States, violative of individual liberties protected by the Constitution, and inconsistent with the values underlying a free society as expressed in the Declaration of Independence."

For more on conscription, take a look at the work Doug Bandow and others have done for the Cato Institute.

Lest the Weekly Standard crowd get too excited about the left's newfound affection for a military draft, Alina has found quotes from conservative icons Ronald Reagan and Russel Kirk, respectively, that leave little room for doubt as to where either stood on conscription. Alina doesn't use permalinks (for shame), so I'll just steal her excerpts directly. First, from Reagan:

"...it [conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state -- not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers -- to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea."

--From Human Events (1979)

Some people are declaring that we need conscription to make young men the pure and lovely creatures their ancestors "are alleged to have been - to teach them, among other things, to brush their teeth, scrub their faces, and cook their suppers. Abstract humanitarianism has come to regard servitude – so long as it be to the state - as a privilege. Greater self-love has no government than this: that all men must wear khaki so that some men may be taught to brush their teeth. Apologists for Negro slavery claimed for their peculiar institution, the virtue which humanitarians now ascribe to the draft: that it instilled a healthful discipline. A humanitarianism which believes that boys can be filled with sweetness and light, strength and joy, through living communally under military force in training camps or work camps is very abstract indeed. Few will deny that the humanitarianism of Fascism was nothing if not abstract; such were the premises upon which Fascist youth organizations were established. Most interesting is the ignorance of the motives and desires of the common man displayed by academic psychologists, and William James was no exception. When a man can maintain that the basis of morality lies in the satisfaction of desire and remark, according to Hutchins Hapgood, "So long as one poor cockroach feels the pangs of unrequited love, this world is not a moral world," it is not surprising that he can think the nation requires conscription to satisfy its soul. Only under a thoroughly muddled system of ethics could the drafting of young people be called a moral measure.

--From The South Atlantic Quarterly (XLV, 3 July 1946).

Sasha Castel reports that thug cops in Fairfax, Virginia are forging into bars and taverns, finding drunken patrons, taking them outside for a breathalyzer, then arresting them for public intoxication.

And you think I'm exaggerating when I say we're headed for a second prohibition. Let's put it this way, if Chicago -- with its history of mafioso violence - can't learn the lessons of prohibition, why would we expect better from Fairfax?

Bruce Bartlett on blogs for the Washington Times. And here's a snippet from PBS' upcoming special on the blogosphere. Look for on-camera appearances by TheAgitator.com blogrollees Instapundit and Megan McArdle.

If you watched the thrilling 49ers-Giants game last night, you'll likely remember the bizarre ending -- an "illegal man downfield" call, coupled with a mysterious no-call pass interference penalty on the 49ers. The NFL now admits that its referees made a mistake. They missed the pass interference call. Since no game can end on offsetting penalties, technically, you might say the game is still going on. The Giants are still owed one untimed down -- another attempt at a game-winning field goal.

In case you missed them last week, you can still catch them tonight on Comedy Central at 7pm ET. Comedy Central now replays Conan each weeknight.

Newer readers might be wondering, "what the hell is a 'Trachtenburg Family Slideshow Player?'"

Well, to quote from Pitchfork Media, "You are correct in assuming that this is the greatest thing ever."

Here is their website. Here is a chart from Spin magazine comparing TFSP 8 year-old drummer Rachel Trachtenburg to White Stripes drummer Meg White. Here is an article about TFSP from the venerable New Yorker. Here is an article from the somewhat less venerable New York Post.

PETA's boycotting KFC.

Just on the hunch that most PETA-files are already vegetarian -- if not vegan -- will this really do much good?

Cute.

Am I the only one who chuckles silently each time he hears a reference to "Bush's stimulus package?"

Steven Colbert, genius.

Watch this Daily Show video, "So You're Living in a Police State."

Tim Lynch with an interesting opinion piece on the costs corporations bear to comply with law enforcement requests for information.

A problem I'd never really considered before.

A Kansas City judge has (finally) ruled that cops must show just-cause to get a "no-knock" warrant for a drug raid (similar those carried out in this piece). You'd think that a cop would need "just cause" any time he wants to raid a civilians home with guns blazin'. But under the modified Constitution that guides drug war jurisdprudence, "just cause" was among the first casualties.

Meanwhile, in another jurisdiction, a San Antonio SWAT team operating under a "no-knock" raided the apartment of a Hispanic family. Following a tear gas bomb, cops screamed obscenities, beat the occupants, handcuffed them, and tore the place to shreds.

You know where this is going. Wrong address. The cops said "sorry." Here's a question: what if said Hispanic family had guns on hand and, rightly fearing for their safety, defended themselves when armed intruders wrongly invaded their home?

Answer: We'd have one more name to add to this list.

Also, I wonder: what would happen if, during a mistaken no-knock raid, you believe you're being attacked, you grab your bedside gun, you kill a cop, and you manage not to be killed yourself. What do they charge you with? If cops wrongly break into your house at 3 am and point assault rifles at you, are you obligated to roll over for them, or can you defend yourself?

I know the answer. But what should the answer be?

Nick Schulz offers the nearly-anachronistic phone booth.

Iain Murray performs some debunkery at Tech Central.

Very cool.

The Washington Post's weekly humor competition was particularly good this week. The challenge: write a funny obit headline for a famous person. Made for some really distasteful, off-color entries (and wonderfully so). My favorites:

Mike Myers, 'Wayne's World' Star, Survives Cancer Scare -- Not!

Melvil Dewey Biography Moved from 025.3 (Libraries; Organization) to 973.9 (History: United States: 1901-2000)

Colin Montgomerie Lost by a Stroke

George W. Bush Deceasifies

Peter Mark Roget Dies, Expires, Succumbs, Departs, Perishes, Passes

Woody Allen Dies; Soon Yi Too Shall Pass

Sophia Loren Dropped Dead Gorgeous

Autopsy Confirms Death of Keith Richards

Martha Stewart Pushes Up Tasteful Arrangement of Daisies

Bill Clinton Is Not Is

Kevin Bacon Mourned by Widow's Brother's Co-worker's Neighbor's Friend's Son

Oprah Winfrey: She Went, Girl!

Wouldn't 'Dave Barry Is Toast' Be a Great Name for a Rock Band?

I was only in high school at the time, but I remember reading a particularly ridiculous column (sorry, who wrote it and where it appeared escape me) at the height of the Jeffrey Dahmer trial. The column compared Dahmer to Milwaukee-area police investigators. The gist of the column was that the cops intentionally botched the invesgitation because most of Dahmer's victims were black or Asian. OK, we can have that debate. But the columnist then lost it, and wrote that, while Dahmer was a cannibalistic serical killer, he at least wasn't a racist, as the cops were -- the implication being that bigotry is somehow worse than cannibalistic serial killing.

Here's an almost comical letter to the editor of the Washington Post Magazine that's rather similar to the Dahmer column:

In the November 24 Side Streets ["After the Van"], Kevin Merida may have unknowingly given us a lesson about our assumptions concerning race.

Merida wrote that the sniper task force was originally seeking out a white "mastermind." Merida almost gave this criminal a compliment when he used the term "sickly brilliant." With the arrest of "a 41-year-old black drifter and his 17-year-old black protege," Merida incredulously asks, "These are the guys suspected of stumping some of the nation's best law enforcement minds?"

I am not defending the snipers; as an African American woman, I am defending my race. The media must stop perpetuating the myth that whites are superior, even in their most heinous acts.

Sharon R. Crestwell
Landover

OK -- I'll state baldly: Blacks are every bit as capable of being evil genius murdering barbarric shithead bastards as whites are.

I hope that makes Ms. Crestwell feel better.

Law school chum Eric Robben sends this article from Reason's Jacob Sullum. Seems that "binge drinking" is on the rise. But by "binge," we mean "five or more alcoholic drinks at one occasion." Not exactly the picture of a Bukowski-esque bender, is it?

Still, look for MADD and like nanny groups to jump all over the study.

Via Jesse Walker at ReasonBlog, here's a sad little tale about how the noble post 9/11 firefighter has pretty much resumed his pre-9/11 social role as luggish blue-collar laborer -- at least in the eyes of fickle Manhattanites. Excerpt:

Rebecca Liss, an attractive New York television producer, was quite taken with a fireman in her neighborhood. After tearfully recalling his Sept. 11 experiences, he worked up the courage to ask her out. For their first date they went to a hip local restaurant, not the sort of homey place he was used to. He ordered the mozzarella appetizer. But when the cheese turned out to be smoked, he seemed taken aback: "It tastes like fire," he told Liss. Then, after a meal he clearly didn't enjoy, he asked if she wanted to go for pizza.

"I realized we had nothing in common," Liss says. "He was so cute and sweet, and I was so moved by him and his tears. I did want to reach out and take care of him. I couldn't say no when he asked me out. But our worlds were so different."

Now she's back to dating lawyers.

There's a small chance -- but a chance nonetheless -- that the Americans with Disabilities Act could postpone this year's Super Bowl. Seems that San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium isn't sufficiently ADA compliant for some disabled activists.

I think it would be wonderful if this happened. Postponing or forcing the Super Bowl to move would focus much-needed attention on just how fascist ADA advocates have become. I'm a firm believer in the theory that liberty is lost gradually, but it's regained in big chunks --usually after the collected effects of its gradual erosions cause some outrageous event that finally enlightens the masses to just how much liberty they've let slip away.

Postponing the Super Bowl would be such an event. I also think the nannyish efforts to ban smoking and (increasingly) drinking in public and (increasingly) private spaces will soon spark a backlash.

Penn Jillette, the "louder, taller half" of Penn and Teller, pens (sorry) a tale of airport security woe.

Incidentally, Penn and Teller are both libertarians. Teller's a Mencken fellow at the Cato Institute, and Penn regularly writes the back page feature for Regulation Magazine, also published by Cato.

Check his Regulation contributions here, here and here.

Here's what ESPN Page 2's Sportsguy wrote about yesterday's Colts-Jets game:

[Colts' coach Tony] Dungy has proven to be a coach competent enough that he can get the car going to about 80 mph before it careens into a tree. And Manning has proven that he can drive that same car into the same tree with the best of them -- it's never like the accident is his fault, but every time you look at the wreckage, you always wonder if the driver could have done something to prevent what happened.

At the beginning of this year, I said that we'd see whether Tony Dungy was the defensive guru everyone claimed he as, or whether he was merely the beneficiary of some stellar personnel while at Tampa Bay. Clearly, it's the latter scenario. Yes, the Colts jumped from bottom of the back to upper-middle of the pack in most defensive categories this year. But that's two be expected of a schedule that includes the Texans (twice), the Jaguars (twice), Cincinnati, Cleveland, and even Tennessee (twice) -- a good team, but by no means an offensive juggernaut. This team gave up 1100+ yards of passing offense in three weeks to the Titans, Giants, Jaguars and Jets.

If I were GM, I'd do the following:

1) Trade Edgerrin James. He's being paid far too much for a featured back who skips mini-camp, put up maybe five solid games in two seasons, and who averaged less than two yards per carry in a playoff game. Dominic Rhodes will be back next year. He put up 1,000 yards in 3/4 of a season last year. James Mungro has proven himself more than capable. Trade James, get two solid linebackers, and maybe a draft pick.

Edge is also liable to be mighty unhappy anyway, given that the Colts pulled in in the third quarter of the last game of the season -- while he was just 10 yards away from a $1.5 million incentive bonus. They did the same thing to Marshall Faulk several years ago. Faulk was so pissed, they had to trade him, too.

2) Fire OC Tom Moore. I've never seen worse play calling than I saw this year. On every single short yardage situation, it was a run up the middle. Everyone in the damn stadium knew what was coming. And this on a team with an all-pro quarterback, a near all-pro tight-end, and a Hall of Fame receiver. Two words for Moore: play action. This offense was far, far too conservative. Only when they dropped behind by two touchdowns or more did they fire up the no-huddle, and start employing some vertical pass-routes. Low and behold -- it worked! So why not venture some riskier play-calling before falling behind? Also, I don't believe the Colts pulled one fake kick this year. They did nothing to keep defenses guessing.

3) Don't be afraid to fire Dungy. There's no excuse for this team playing so damned lackadasical at the start of every game. It's a coach's job to get his team ready -- strategically and emotionally -- for the game. Dungy didn't do that. I'm sure they'll give him at least another two years. I wouldn't. Marked improvement by game five of next year -- if he's not at least 3-2, maybe 4-1, he's gone.

4) Defense, defense, defense. This teams' defense has been woefull the past four seasons. Yet they've done almost nothing to beef it up over the offseason. Each time, the mantra has been to "let them mature." Last season it was "let them learn Dungy's scheme." Time's up. Schemes won't save this defense. It needs new personnel.

OK, I'm done with the Colts. No more posts 'til preaseason, 2003.

UPDATE: This isn't a new post, so I didn't lie. Indy Star columnist Bob Kravitz says Colts owner Jim Irsay should look at firing GM Bill Polian, too. I agree.

A regrettable debate on a military draft has broken out at Stand Down. Check here and here.

Again, I'm pretty amazed at how quickly leftists abandon any notion of civil liberty when the civil liberties in question belong to people they don't like (i.e. rich, white, Republicans).

What's worse, they don't seem to have much problem at all with another sort of conscription -- forced national service. If I've read the posts correctly, these people seem to be advocating forcing every American at, say, age 18 into coerced national service, where they'd be "inculcuated with community values" -- read: leftist values -- and required to carry out various hummanitarian, earth beautification projects.

In other words, they want every one at 18 to be brainwashed, then forced into laboring for a panoply of leftist causes.

When I objected, one post told me, flatly, "if you don't like it, you can leave the country."

This is scary stuff. Leftists are sounding more like neocons every day. If the two can ever find common ground on this issue -- a draft with an "opt out" for four years of Americorps, for example -- we may not be that far at all from a return to conscription.

UPDATE: I should add that Talk Left has, predictably, eloquently voiced its opposition to the draft. I knew there was a reason I liked those guys.

Love my readers.

I posted on the new Pete Hamill book yesterday and, like magic, a reader who works at Warner Book Group offers to send one my way. Superb!

Hmm...let's just try something here:

I'd also like a two-week vacation to Italy, a boxer's physique, this guy's intellect, a seven-figure publishing contract, and a brunette -- about 5'5", preferably gorgeous, witty, smart, and sophisticated. She should also be down to earth, of libertarian politics, and she should dig live rock n' roll.

Too much? Okay.

The girl could be blonde, too.

Just send them to the email address at left.

Thanks.

Best albums of last year, continued.

This time from the reliable critics at All Music Guide.

Check out the cool search function on the right. Now you can instantly locate old Agitator.com posts in just a few keystrokes. For example, perhaps you're interested in what I've had to say about Senator Handsome over the past several months. Voila! Perfect for all you PhD candidates out there who will need to site me in your theses.

Cool toy number two can be found at the bottom of the left hand side, under the blogroll. It's a referrer log, listing every site that's sent at least two people to this one in the last 24 hours. It's not a perfect system just yet, but it's still pretty cool. Now I know whose butt I need to kiss.

Thanks to the benevolent and talented PJ Doland, who installed both of these for me.

Thursday, February 6. 7 pm.

Rendezvous Lounge on 18th and Kalorama.

Washington, D.C.

Sorry about this.

The goal: breed rabits. Male/female combinations only. Don't let them electrocute themselves. Watch out for falling bombs. Drive yourself nuts.

The Center for Consumer Freedom fact-checks PETA's ass.

On Tuesday People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) attracted the media’s attention by dredging up a 25-year-old animal cruelty claim against incoming Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN). But curiously enough, no one seems to be talking about PETA’s own history of killing defenseless animals...

...In a July 2000 Associated Press story, reporter Matthew Barakat described government reports showing that PETA itself killed 1,325 -- or 63 percent -- of the dogs and cats entrusted to it in 1999. The state of Virginia expected those animals to be placed in adoptive homes. Only 386 of them ever were.

It’s unknown whether PETA continues its “angel of death” role in killing defenseless animals, but the group’s most recent IRS tax filing -- only a few weeks old -- shows that it spent $9,370 in May 2002 for a new walk-in freezer at its Norfolk headquarters. According to industry sources, that kind of money can buy a 10-by-15-foot freezer with 8-foot ceilings. And knowing PETA, it’s safe to presume that this huge appliance isn’t being used to store steaks or ice cream.

PETA’s Mary Beth Sweetland should also answer for her own personal hypocrisy. Like more than ten million Americans, she’s diabetic. Sweetland injects herself daily with insulin that was tested on animals; she has conceded that her medicine “still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it…. I don’t see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.”

PETA's new motto: "Making the World Safe for Tom Cruise."

I'll post a long-winded treatise on why I oppose the death penalty soon. But if you're concerned at all about "supporting convicted killers" note this post from Talk Left, which provides numbers for the anti-CP argument that killing people does indeed cost more than locking them up. The meaty graphs:

Most defendants facing a capital trial are indigent and must have court appointed counsel. A study done by the Sacramento Bee argued that California would save $90 million per year if it were to abolish the death penalty. The average cost of a capital trial in Texas is $2.3 million--three times the cost to incarcerate an individual for 40 years. The average cost of a capital trial in Florida is $3.2 million. (same source as above)

"Various state governments estimate that a single death penalty case from arrest to execution ranges from $1 million up to $7 million. Cases resulting in life imprisonment average around $500,000 each, including incarceration cost."

Michigan Rep. John Conyers joins Charlie Rangel in calling for a military draft, citing disproven charges about minorities and the poor being disproportionately injured and killed in battle. Conyers wants rich, white people to have to die, too.

That's two members of the Congressional Black Caucus now who've come out in support of a draft, solely because of what they see as disparities in who serves and who dies. Which begs the question: will consription now become a litmus-test issue for support of "civil rights?" And why weren't they making this case when Clinton was sending troops into harm's way?

The scary passage comes later in the article -- Reps. Nick Smith and Curt Weldon plan to reintroduce legislation of their own mandating military training for all Americans aged 18 to 22. Rangel and Conyers are coy right now. That's because they don't expect a new draft to pass. But consider this scenario: all the CBC comes around, conscription gets framed as a civil rights issue, neo-cons and hawkish Republicans jump on board -- how far, really, is this thing away from passing?

Probably just one more major terrorist attack away.

So I've owned Neko's "Furnace Room Lullaby" CD for about a year, and have yet to give it a thorough listen. My mistake. I actually finally put it in while driving back from Philadelphia after Christmas. It was actually pretty fitting, as I took Route 1 South instead of I-95 -- the scenic route. Neko's alt-country ballads were the perfect mood music for the wintry pastoral landscape of rural Pennsylvania and Maryland.

It's funny I think that Neko and her sisters in alt-country -- Shelby Lynne, Emmylou Harris and the (unrelated) sisters Williams (Lucinda and Victoria) are forced to burden the "alt" in front of the "country." Traditional country has always been about heart, about blue-eyed soul, about passion. And I'd say there's more Tammy Wynette in Neko or Shelby Lynne by themselves than in Shania Twain, Faith Hill and Trisha Yearwood combined.

And Lucinda Williams' 1998 "Car Wheels on a Gravel Road," for example, might be the best country album recorded by a woman since Emmylou's "Pieces of the Sky," way back in the 70s.

The funny thing is, despite Neko's country credentials, she's also got edge. She's lead vocals on about half the tracks from the superb 2001 album "Mass Romantic" by the New Pornographers, a band plum buzzing with energy, complexity, sophistication, and rockabilly fire.

At any rate, I very much recommend "Furnace Room Lullaby." She has a newer album out, too, though I haven't yet heard it.

Joanne McNeil finds a morbidly fascinating list -- the "last meal" requests of every inmate executed in the state of Texas.

Trent Lott? Nope.

It's Dick Gephardt!

At the end of each year, the Media Research Center puts out its list of "Notable Quotables," what it considers to be the most striking examples of leftist media bias. I think MRC on the whole provides a valuable service (just as FAIR does from the left), even though I think its founder Brent Bozell is about seven beers short of a six pack.

Two items of note from this year's list. The first is the striking stupidity in MRC's "quote of the year." It's from Barbara Walters, and it comes from her October interview with Fidel Castro:

“For Castro, freedom starts with education. And if literacy alone were the yardstick, Cuba would rank as one of the freest nations on Earth. The literacy rate is 96 percent.”

But count on the hard-righters at MRC to stain their studious documentation of liberal bias by getting completely duped by Time Magazine's humor columnist, the very, very funny Joel Stein. Here's the quote MRC takes from Stein as one of its runners-up for "Media Hero Award." The quote comes from a hillarious column Stein wrote about attending Janet Reno's self-parodying "dance party" fundraiser.

“I leave my friends behind and rush the stage to try to dance with [former Attorney General Janet] Reno, only to find myself in a small crowd of men living the same fantasy. When I finally push my way past them, she is gone.”

MRC lists Stein as Time's "staff writer." Not really. He's the staff comic relief, as most any regular reader of the magazine can attest.

And they say conservatives don't have a sense of humor.

Hard-drinkin', hard-livin' journalist and Gothamite Pete Hamill has a new book out, called Forever. It's the story of an 18th century Irish immigrant who's granted the gift of immortality -- so long as he never leaves Manhattan. The novel then doubles as a 200+ year city history of New York. Hamil was on Imus this morning and, interestingly, explained that he'd finished the book on September 10, 2001, and was set to run off copies for his editor the next day. We all know what happened the following morning.

So Hamill took a full a year to update the novel so that it would reflect the attacks on the World Trade Center. Protagonist Cormac O'Connor -- also a reporter -- interracts Forrest Gump-like with all the major players in New York and US History, from George Washington to Willie Mays.

Should be an interesting read.

My Wash U. first year friends might want to browse the Instapundit site. Lots of email about in-class web browsing. I seem to remember some solitaire -- and Minesweeper -- but no Internet. The most blatant example came in Con Law. Our prof would sit in the back row while our issue groups would debate at the front of the class -- but to no avail. Even those sitting directly in front of her would still be playing solitaire!

Not me, of course.

Charlie Rangel has flipped his lid. His bill to institute conscription isn't just asinine and dangerous, it's rather flippant. He doesn't really believe in conscription. Instead, Rangel's making draft noise to get back at conservatives for waging a war he doesn't believe in, under the mistaken impression that the sons of Congressmen will somehow be drafted into the frontlines. It's tongue-in-cheek legislation. It might be amusing, if we weren't talking about human lives.

Rangel's still chomping at the myth (discredited here) that the poor and dark-skinned do more than their fair share of the dying when America goes to war. So his remedy is to coerce even more young people into battle in the hope of bettering the averages, or bittering the American appetite for battle.

Not surprisingly, the two political factions most favoring some sort of forced national and/or military service since September 11 are the two factions most adoring of big government: New Deal liberals and neoconservatives. The lefties envision a brigade of Americorps volunteers a generation deep, dutifully rolling up their sleeves to plant trees, pick up litter from highways, read to prison inmates and babysit for unwed mothers forced back to work by draconian welfare reform. Neocons, meanwhile, envision a massive army of go-getters, able to fight wars on six fronts, dutifully implementing the American ideal -- at gunpoint, if necessary -- to heathen third-worlders and Islamofascists.

Both are despicable. Conscription -- be it forced military service, or some sort of forced "volunteerism" -- isn't "the price we pay for freedom." It has nothing to do with freedom. It's slavery. It's right and honorable to die for one's country. But if one is forced to die for one's country, you have to wonder if it's really a country worth dying for.

BTW, I also like the idea -- first mentioned on Instapundit if memory serves -- that we take Rangel's idea to the next level. If pro-war Congressmen must send their kids into battle, then perhaps pro-teacher's union legislators should be forced to send their kids to public schools. In fact, why don't we make Congress abide by all the laws it passes? As it is, they're almost always exempt.

Nick Schulz does some Chicken Little debunking in today's Wall Street Journal.

Link is only for those of you with a WSJ online subscription. Sorry.

Alert reader Michael Buckner notes two interesting stories on FoxNews.com this morning:

The first is this one, Senator Handsome's announcement that he's running for president.

The second is an article about how West Virginia surgeons are on strike because of ridiculously high malpractice premiums -- all the effect, of course, of malpractice suits similar to those that made Senator Handsome a multimillionaire.

At risk of gloating (as if that's ever stopped me before), your humble Agitator was ahead of the curve on this one, too. By about six months.

We jumped about 15% from November. Not bad. December's typically the slowest month of the year.

The hard numbers are here.

Nix those intriguing suspicions about Mick Jagger's possible libertarian bent.

The Stones are giving a free concert to "raise awareness about global warming."

Ahead of the curve, I am.

By about a month.

....judging from what I saw on New Year's Eve this year, the same could be said for drunken, lonely Beltway singles.

And all you have to do is sit back and let them.

Headline: Tom Cruise Is Allergic to Cats.

We're doomed, says the Guardian. My favorite paragraph:

Capitalism is a millenarian cult, raised to the status of a world religion. Like communism, it is built upon the myth of endless exploitation. Just as Christians imagine that their God will deliver them from death, capitalists believe that theirs will deliver them from finity. The world's resources, they assert, have been granted eternal life.

So, just for posterity, here's a second opinion.

And a third.

...made it official this morning.

For a glimpse of what life might be like under a Senator Handsome presidency, check here.

Alexander Cockburn slimes Bill Frist. As far as the "experimenting on cats" charges go, my take is that 1) It's an old story. Frist has already apologized, expressed his deepest regrets, and 2) for the love of Pete, they were cats. Something tells me that Cockburn's column won't make much hay, especially in light of this story.