It looks as if new Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is going to push through .08 after all, despite the study referenced earlier on this page.

I'm highly suspsicious of the studies cited in the article, particularly those claiming that 70 of the states 239 annual drunk driving deaths could have been prevented with a .08 standard. But because the author doesn't cite what specific studies he's refereing to, it's hard to debunk the figure. My guess is that it's the Hingson study.

What's sadder is how the state's liquor, bar and restaurant industry has bought into the statistics, and ceased lobbying against .08. What are they going to do when MADD and its allies push for .05? .02? It's inevitable. MADD Canada is already calling for a nationwide .05 standard.

Minnesotans will have just a hair less freedom once Gov. Pawlenty gets his way. And it's not at all clear that they'll be any safer for it.

Hat tip: Right of Center.

I love the idea of "virtue funds" -- mutual funds that invest only in corporations that meet the moral standards of the investors, be it pro-life, pro-environment, pro-diversity, what have you.

While I'm generally not fond of the folks who regularly scold us about such alleged virtues, I do find it heartening when people reward corporations for behaving responsibly (or what they view to be responsibly) instead of calling on government to punish them when they don't (though I'd guess that most do both).

That said, I think I've found the mutual fund for me.

Hat tip: Megan McArdle.

Please tell me this is the only guy who didn't get the joke:

"Thanks for the reading, but I just heard my exit cue:

"We are all, however, members of the "Gene's Couch" crowd, a hip, hugely influential group..."

Do I need to start adding irony tags to posts like these?

I can't tell you how many times someone has called me in public and I've been embarassed at the lack of ring tone options pre-programmed into my cell phone.

Now that Virginia Postrel has instilled in all of us the importance of style, who wants to be publicly associated with Fur Elise when you could, for example, show everyone on the Metro your hipster status by setting your cell phone to Phil Collins and Phillip Bailey's "Easy Lover?"

Well now you can. I give you the cell phone Ring Tone Jukebox.

This is hilarious.

God bless Chris Robinson, perhaps the coolest man alive.

Instapundit links to this Tech Central piece about Chris Muir's comic strip, Day by Day, which has won raves across the blogosphere.

Yes, I agree that it'd be nice to see more comics in the paper that are topical, political, and don't toe the leftist Doonesbury line.

But here's my problem with Day by Day:

It isn't funny. It suffers from the same malady that afflicts the lefty strip Boondocks (see Jesse Walker's post here) -- it's not enough to be topical and edgy and of the correct kind of politics. You then have to do something with "topical" and "edgy."

A comic strip should amuse, before it does anything else. A good one will occasionally elicit an out-loud chuckle. Day by Day just restates the things its fans were already thinking. Granted, humor is subjective. But for all the plaudits Day by Day gets, they're most always for its politics, not its wit.

It just isn't funny. And so it's not a great comic strip.

Stuff like this blows my mind every time. It reminds me of the opening scene from the movie "Contact". Whenever I feel crappy about the petty things that go wrong in my life, somehow I'm able to get perspective by thinking about how small we really are.

Hello, Justin Logan.

Dennis Miller is gone. May he rest in peace. In his place, we get a politically ambitious, unprincipled White House waterboy. And he's not even funny.

Not only is Miller considering a GOP run for the U.S. Senate, he has allowed National Review to produce a talking action figure of his likeness.

Among the many "Millerisms" the doll spits out, I think this one best epitomizes Dennis' sellout:

"And quit bringing up our forefathers and saying they were Civil Libertarians . . . they were blowing people's heads off because they put a tax on their breakfast beverage -- and it wasn't even coffee."

The latest laughable line of crap from FreeVibe, ONDCP's happenin', jive-talkin', no-lies website that gives youth the lowdown on illicit drug use, yo':

Doing drugs is bad for the environment.

Bullshit check: The drug war, not drug use is causing environmental damage in the South American rain forest.

As it appears, they also can't let go, even when they should. Cheney has again been heaping praise on Haley Barbour. Good article for those unfamiliar with the CCC.

Howard Dean declared himself a "metrosexual," then admitted he has no idea what the term means.

I'm not sure if either of these facts makes me feel better or worse about him.

Incidentally, for those of you critical of me for even considering voting for Dean, I'm now leaning toward voting for him for two reasons:

1) Divided governments tend to spend less of our money.

2) Republicans seem to rediscover their small-government principles only when they're not in power. Put a Democrat in the White House, and maybe a GOP Congress grows a pair, and thinks twice about that prescription drug benefit.

Neither of these are reasons to vote for Dean the man, who grows less likeable by the day.

The only thing that's making me hold back a bit? Bush has vowed to make Social Security reform a high-priority in a second term, something that most certainly wouldn't happen in a Dean administration.

But Bush made that promise in 2000, too. Along with lots of others he seems to have forgotten about.

Tyler Cowen's "Marginal Revolution" is the most fascinating blog on the planet. I say that unequivocally, without reservation. I learn five new things each time I visit.

And how many economists, when posed the question "What works of art produced in the last 50 years will be around 200 years from now," would answer with My Bloody Valentine's Loveless CD?

Nicholas Kristof thinks it might be a good idea to turn 20% of the land in the lower 48 states into a wildlife refuge for buffalo and grizzlies and wolves.

This time on obesity.

Because we all know that nothing's really a serious problem until our government declares war on it.

See: Drugs, poverty, terrorism.

Alina has posted pictures of wee little Max.

Brooke Oberwetter and I are not dating. Nor were we making out at the blog party. Nor were she and Gene. Nor, for that matter, were Gene and I.

We are all, however, members of the "Gene's Couch" crowd, a hip, hugely influential group of libertarian opinion-makers who will likely sway the 2004 election through our love of Howard Dean, and our ability to intimidate neophyte conservative bloggers with vicious put-downs and witty one-liners.

All that said, I do seem to remember Matthew Yglesias attempting to give Jim Henley a hickey, but I might have dreamed it.

I realize this is a bit esoteric for most of you, but I feel compelled to call out my former colleague James Markels, who has moved on to law school, and today aspires to be a federal prosecutor (as a good libertarian, I'm guessing James will limit his caseload to prosecuting treason and piracy, as per the Constitution).

James is in a huff over the way I and some of you and a few others have treated AFF conservative blogger Emily Cochran (just a side note, my post on Emily being "a satirical conservative blogger" was itself a joke -- her site, her opinions and her posts are real.).

James apparently feels we have subjected Emily to ridicule both undeserved and excessive.

A few comments he's left over at her site:

"And, unfortunately, the kind of blogging they [and here, James means me] hail from is more towards the 'I'm smarter than you so suffer my witty quip' side of the blogosphere."

"When your only point to being here is to ridicule her or puff yourself up, don't bother. Go elsewhere."

"Let's steer clear of the kind of petty wars that has forced "The Agitator" blog to screen its comments sections for flames. Okay?"

For example:

"The Patriot Act's most vociferous critics have never even read the Act."

"The incessant chatter of the Chicken Littles, or little chickens, is nothing but incessant chatter. Name one single abuse of civil liberties by officials operating under the Patriot Act. There are not any."

"There is nothing in the unanimously-passed piece of legislation that is worth raising an eyebrow over."

"The Left and libertarians, which I would argue, are leftist, have no valid criticisms of Attorney General Ashcroft or President Bush. They have no facts to back up their arguments, just bloated catch phrases and empty rhetoric."

"But where do libertarians fit into this picture? They certainly do not support the nanny-state mommy-party policies of the Democrats, but in terms of foreign policy, are they 'mommies'? From the looks of the libertarian blogosphere, I'd say yes, they are mommies in denial about the world and the enemy we face."

"Ralph Peters has a fabulous piece in the New York Post about the President, intelligence and WMD.... Hope this silences the chatter asphyxiating the chicken littles -- or little chickens -- of the left."

Granted, I chose to criticize Emily's vapid posts in a slightly unconventional way -- through satire. But I never attacked, say, her looks, or her personal life, or her family (and I've never met her, so I have no reason to think any of those things are even worthy of criticism, nor would I if they were).

I poked at her argument and writing style, which I find intellecutally bankrupt to the point that it's comical. Most all of the critical comments I've read on Emily's site do the same. Are they direct and irreverent? Yes. But so is Emily.

The only real difference I can see between Emily and her detractors is that her detractors are simply (much) better at the game. And I say that in all humility.

Further, the fact that Emily's site is hosted by a real-life organization that's familiar to most young libertarians and conservatives in Washington -- as opposed, for example, to a site she set up on her own on Blogspot -- I think makes her even fairer game.

As for James' implication that I'm a hypocrite for attacking Emily while "screening comments for flames" on my own site, he's off-base. I've banned three IP addresses from this site. One was from a user posting the personal information of me and people I know. The other two were leaving threats, though I suspect they were ultimately harmless. I've deleted less than ten comments in this site's history -- out of about 13,000 left.

Even more comical, however, is James' alleged aversion to blogging in general.

Apparently, blogging is far too pedestrian a medium for the lofty intellect of this to-be lawyer.

And he'd like everyone who reads blogs to know it.

He writes on Cochran's site:

The only reason I read this blog and Gene's is because Brainwash publishes my articles, so I'm trying to support the site as a whole. I normally stick to the more informationally-based blogs (like "How Appealing" and the other bLAWgs that provide the latest inside legal information to practitioners) because I get so tired of the egoism inherent in the opinion-based blogs.

Bravo, James! Your chivalry is duly noted. I'm sure AFF is very appreciative of the "hits" your sacrifice adds to its traffic statistics.

James also obviously reads this site regularly, becuase he knows that I've recently had some problems in the comments section. He also reads Andrew Sullivan, though he notes that it's "one of the few blogs worth reading."

But again, please remember, James doesn't read blogs.

So James has fearlessly, brazenly ventured into a blogosphere he hates for the sole purpose, I guess, of letting all the world know how much he hates blogs. And he uses blogs as his medium to deliver his blog-hating message. So it can be read by bloggers. And by people who read blogs.

I'm not done.

On his own self-published website, James has a charming third-person penned "bio" page. There, he writes:

Why doesn’t he [James] blog? Because he doesn’t think it’s serious writing, and it’s more of an ego vehicle than is tasteful. He sticks to op-eds and longer pieces.

That he set up.

To promote himself.

And his op-eds.

And the political party he founded.

And his short fiction.

And his poetry.

But he doesn't blog, dammit. Because that would be egocentric.

Get over yourself, James.

UPDATE: Per James' comments below: No, I'm not angry. Not in the least. I suppose when I get on a rant, my writing can get aggressive, which can be misread as anger. In truth, I found the whole thing amusing. No, I don't hate James. No, I'm not declaring war on anyone. There's no "larger issue," here.

The post was what it was -- I thought it was pretentious and stuffy for a guy to denigrate blogs and blogging on websites that are actually quite blog-like (in fact, James once was part of a group blog).

I also found it comical that someone who would would criticize the egocentric nature of blogs would at the same time host a vanity site that publishes his own fiction and poetry -- and that he would link to that site from AFF, a site he writes for, which also publishes two blogs.

And so I decided to compose a little rant call him on it.

But nah, I'm not angry. And again, I don't hate James. I just think he's a bit full of himself. But then, Washington is full of people full of themselves. Me included.

I promise, I was smiling as I wrote the entire post.

Thanks to reader, "The Holmes," for pointing out that Cato's own Steven Milloy recently cast some serious doubt over the "Miracle of Helena" claims of smoking-ban defenders.

The Miracle is an alleged plunge in heart attack rates over the 6 month period Helena's smoking ban was in effect. No actual "study" has been released. All anyone has seen is a Power Point presentation which damns itself when on frame 2 it recognizes its support from, you guessed it, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Indeed the very day Milloy's Fox News piece ran, I spoke to Angela at smokefreedc.org, who brought up the Miracle of Helena as a beacon of hope in her crusade--the same study Milloy rather convincingly dismisses--in the manner for which he is well known--as "junk science."

Maybe I should send her the link...

Three years ago, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and a slew of other neo-prohibitionist groups (including, yes, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) launched a national campaign to set a federal blood-alcohol concentration threshold of .08. Most states at the time were at .10.

The average BAC of a drunk driver involved in a fatal accident is .15. Two-thirds involve BACs of .18 or higher. You're more impaired using a cell phone, eating a sandwich, fumbling with a CD or talking to your kids than you are when your BAC is between .08 and .10.

But .08 passed, and was signed by President Clinton. Today, all but handful of states have adopted the standards. Those who haven't have forgone millions in federal highway dollars.

.08 was justified to Congress, to Clinton and to the states with lots of appeal to emotion, but also because of a study by a guy named Ralph Hingson, who alleged that lowering the BAC from .10 to .08 would save 500 to 600 lives per year. Hingson's 500 to 600 number was ridiculous for a couple of reasons.

First, it was just plain wrong. The General Accounting Office later looked at his research, and declared his prediction "unfounded."

Second, even if the number was accurate, it's not clear that 500 to 600 lives are worth the added law enforcement resources it will take to enforce .08 nationwide. The state of Minnesota conducted its own study, and determined .08 would cost the state an extra $60 million in law enforcement and criminal justice expenses -- more than what the state gets in federal highway money. So Minnesota kept its own .10 standard. If the costs to Minnesota alone amount to $60 million, it's hard to see how adding the costs of the other 49 states plus D.C. could justify even 500 to 600 lives -- a number that's probably not real, anyway.

Hingson's numbers are widely debunked by serious scholars, he's generally considered a shill for the temperance movement, yet he still gets cited with alarming regularity every time the subject of .08 comes up for debate in a state legislature.

I'm getting to a point, here:

Mothers Against Drunk Driving would like you to know that they've recently established "a new National President’s Award."

It's called the "Ralph W. Hingson Research in Practice" award.

Interested in fighting the DC Smoking Ban? Meeting tonight of Stop the DC Smoking Ban at Zoe Mitchell's house, 8pm.

Read related blog posts here, here, here, and here.

And read the bill.

I wrote a while back that Joe Henry's 2001 release Scar represented the full realization of his talent. It marked the end of a long migration from country troubador to singer-songwriter to Tom Waits-ish rogue lounge poet. On Scar, Henry set up a sort of intimate post-apocalyptic soundscape, and on that, he painted this wonderful mix of jazz, lounge, pop, poetry and improvization.

After Scar, Henry tried his hand at production, and merely turned out what I'd suggest was the best album of 2002, and probably the best soul album in ten years (if not longer) -- Solomon Burke's Don't Give Up On Me.

So where to go from there? Henry's last three albums, Trampoline to Fuse to Scar, grew ever more experimental, sonically hazy, and fused with complex instrumentation genre-bending. I sort of feared his next album would succumb to Radiohead Reducto, that it would strive too hard for profundity, take itself far too seriously, and end up rendering itself completely inaccessible. Given the progression of his last three albums, it seemed Henry's only option was that, or to plateau -- maybe make a "Volume 2" of Scar, or perhaps return to his simpler sounding, earlier years.

Tiny Voices I think is a plateau. It's not a significant creative departure from Scar. It's not an improvement, but it's hardly a disappointment. It's more of the same -- Henry's smoky, "close the bar" crooning, lazy but deceptively advanced orchestration, and brooding, cool production.

Over at All Music, they're giving Henry platitudes, and giving him credit for having invented a new genre -- they call it "pop noir" (I think Leonard Cohen and Tom Waits might have claims the title, too).

I like to write with Joe Henry in the background. Particularly creative writing. There's just something about his stuff that stokes the creative coals (see the first link in this post). All Music's Thom Jurek apparently feels the same way. He writes of Tiny Voices:

Cut mostly live from the floor, Tiny Voices is an aural montage seemingly shot in cibachrome with no discernible center except the rumpled, disillusioned but unbowed singer who imparts skewed observations, bold-faced lies, and sacred truths with stale, liquored breath, too much makeup, and wearing impeccable clothes...

...Tiny Voices is the sound of Hemingway contemplating the Cuban Revolution with William Gaddis, the sound of Buddy DeFranco and Jimmy Giuffre trying to talk to Miles Davis about electric guitars in an abandoned yet fully furnished Tiki bar in Raymond Chandler's Los Angeles.

Bottom line: I love it. If you liked Scar, I'm certain you'll like this, too. It's perhaps just a wee bit less accessible, but still by no means inaccessible. I miss Ornette Coleman on sax, but nearly everything else falls neatly into place.

Today's ESPN NFL pregame show featured a stupefyingly awful interview between Michael Irvin and Warren Sapp. From what I could gather (and frankly, it was difficult to follow what either of them were saying), Sapp believes that NFL -- which paid him $5.25 million last year -- is guilty of "slave-driving" because, get this, the league won't let him take his helmet off during the game.

Sapp believes this is an effort by white NFL higher-ups to keep America from recognizing the faces of black players, thus preventing them from "self-promoting and self-marketing," thus the analogy to slavery. The NFL, he said, is afraid of allowing its black players to become "household names." Oh yes, he's also upset that the league fined him for assaulting referees and taunting opponents before the game. That too, is slavery.

Now, Sapp is an idiot. I expect him to knock the vocabulary out of quarterbacks. I don't expect cogent analysis of labor law from him. He can blather all he likes, and look foolish, and still make lots of money doing what he does best -- playing defensive end.

It's that ESPN went out of its way to give him a platform that I find offensive. I can only guess it was the network's way of apologizing for the Rush Limbaugh incident -- giving back a little "equal time." That's too bad. Because if anything, it did a major disservice to the cause of black coaches and athletes by putting the spotlight on two of the most bumbling, caricatured and inarticulate black athletes in football, and allowing them to pontificate and play the victim on points that really made them look foolish. It was a painful, painful piece of television.

After the interview, in-studio analysts Steve Young (who's white) and Tom Jackson (who's black) attempted to argue some sense into Irvin, who generally agreed with Sapp that the NFL's attempt to market itself as a team game somehow undermines the ability of its multitude of black millionaire athletes to, I guess, make millions more. Irvin's main point? The NFL wouldn't let him sell a Cowboy's jersey with "Irvin" across the back. "I don't see any money from those jerseys," he said.

Jackson and Young had no effect. Irvin's a dunce. He sat there in front of the national television audience that he'd never in eons have had a crack at were it not for his career, in his $1,000 pinstriped suit, and argued that the NFL and the player's union did nothing for him.

Honestly? If I were black (and granted, I'm not, so what follows is probably useless), I'd be more offended that ESPN continues to employ Irvin than that it once employed Limbaugh. If ESPN must find a black in-studio analyst to feel good about itself, I'm certain there are skads of them far more articulate than Irvin.

By the way, getting back to Limbaugh for a moment -- Donovan McNabb still has the lowest passer rating of any quarterback in the NFL. And he's one of, if not the, league's highest paid players.

The weird thing in all of this is that Limbaugh's point was at least arguable. You can disagree with it, but it was at least somewhat insightful (and, I think, correct). The Irvin/Sapp contention that the NFL is guilty of slavery is completely farcical, borderline libelous, and not even remotely defensible.

The former cost Limbaugh his job (and let me throw in here that I thought hiring Limbaugh was a dumb move to begin with).

The latter I doubt will get much play this week at all.

One of the chief arguments against the war with Iraq was that a sustained U.S. presence a muslim country would inspire a resurgence of militant Islam in other countries in the region.

Apparently, it's starting to happen in Syria.

Jason Salavon is an artist with an interest in pop culture, evolutionary biology, demographics and mathematics. He combines his interests into really fascinating pieces where he takes large samples of data (two examples, the distribution of weath in the U.S. for 1994, and each one-second frame from the movie Deep Throat), simplifies them (for example, by applying mathematical formulas, or taking the mean colors of complex photographs), then rearranges the newly culled data in meaningful ways.

The picture above, as he describes it, is the movie Apocalypse Now, "generated by algorithmically abstracting the film in time."

Check out his work here.

Pretty cool. A website that tracks what every radio station in the country is playing, up to the minute.

I happened to have caught a bit of Bill O'Reilly last night and, as usual, he was scolding America's "trash culture," holding accountable the likes of Ludacris, Kill Bill, and Eminem for "what they're doing to America's children."

Funny, though. He didn't mention Howard Stern.

Oh, the fun I could have with this and this!

I'm taking off early today, because that's what Orrin Hatch wants me to do.

Forget the NY Times op-ed page, your humble Agitator has made it onto far more lucrative journalistic real estate.

This old post on the similarities between the 2000 presidential election map and the soda/pop/Coke map made it into -- are you ready for this? --

Uncle John's Ahh-Inspiring Bathroom Reader.

I have a law school chum who I'm guessing really will think this is a bigger hit than the NY Times.

I'm flattered and all, but I'm wondering, shouldn't someone have at least asked my permission first? Maybe have sent me a check? It's an awfully liberal excerpt to qualify for fair use.

And that's not all. Fraternity buddy Shawn Hanna writes to tell me that this post on the origins of the word "Hoosier" was cited (and heavily borrowed from) on the official website for the state of Indiana.

This means that if you had planned to research Indiana folklore today, and you happened to have eaten a bran muffin for breakfast, you could conceivably stumble across my name not once, but twice!

Now this is fishing.

The Senate voted Wednesday night in favor of anti-spam legislation that may soon result in a "Do Not E-Mail Registry."

It targets the most unsavory senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail by prohibiting messages that peddle financial scams, fraudulent body-enhancement products and pornography.

Additionally, about 7% of people who recieve unsolicited mail have reported having actually purchased a good or service being offered. The report points out that:

Herein lies the problem: While some have suggested that if people simply stopped responding the spam industry would dry up, some bulk emailers claim that even 0.001% positive response rate is a break-even point.

The solution is clear, and it avoids both unnecessary legislation and the unpleasantness we went through with Do Not Call: we simply must hunt down and eliminate that 7% who make spam profitable. Who's with me on this?

Hat tip to Slashdot.

In a speech to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Justice Scalia criticized the SCOTUS decision overturning sodomy laws, claiming that the court ignored the Constitution.

I must have missed class on the day we discussed the part of the Constitution that bans gay sex. I am, however, pretty clear on the fourth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments.

Reasonable people understand that bans on sodomy represent de facto bans on homosexuality, a lifestyle that is contrary to many people's religious values. Despite what most people accept as a fact, this country was not founded on Christian principles, but rather the principles of freedom and liberty. One only need look at the fundamental difference between the Bill of Rights and the Ten Commandments to realize that. Ever notice that one limits what you can't do, and the other limits what you can? But that's another post entirely.

My point is that the founders of this country were interested in securing liberty and preventing majorities from imposing their views on minorities. They wanted to make sure that citizens are free to live as they choose, as long as they don't prevent others from doing the same. When viewed in that light, it's pretty obvious that SCOTUS got it right.

UPDATE: In the interest of debate here is a link to the decision. Scalia's dissent is in there too. Personally, I think he actually undoes his own argument. See if you can find it. Hint: Fundamental Right.

Blogorama V, that is. Tonight. Rendevous Lounge at 18th and Kalorama. 7pm-ish.

I've been waiting for this moment for all my life. Hold on.

Huh.

To the Adam Smith Institute's blog for blogrolling your humble site for daily Agitation.

....heh.

Hat tip: Jesse Walker.

Rerun, R.I.P.

A while back, I wrote a Fox piece on Ashcroft's reluctant federalism that got nixed by Fox News. Well, the editor who nixed it has moved on, and I thought Haley Barbour's recent encounter with a...er..."states' rights" group might make for a good opportunity to resubmit a version of the column.

It's up.

Dana Milbank, in the Washington Post:

Since the end of the Vietnam War, presidents have worried that their military actions would lose support once the public glimpsed the remains of U.S. soldiers arriving at air bases in flag-draped caskets.

To this problem, the Bush administration has found a simple solution: It has ended the public dissemination of such images by banning news coverage and photography of dead soldiers' homecomings on all military bases.

This kind of thing isn't supposed to happen in free countries.

this is.

The very talented singer-songwriter apparently stabbed himself in the chest.

Awful.

Agitator co-blogger (perhaps soon to be leaving us, sadly) Kerry Howley has an excellent piece up at the American Spectator on Mayor Bloomberg's creepy management methods.

Kerry just got a gig with the Myanmar Times in Yangon. Be sure to get your shots, Kerry.

And a hearty congratulations.

Lawsuit Claims Liza Battered David

Its what you think, Liza Minnelli's estranged husband David Gest is suing her for $10 million on charges of domestic violence.

In the complaint, Gest depicts himself as a "world renown event and concert producer-promoter" who was henpecked--make that, henslammed--by an "alcoholic, overweight" has-been.

He alleges the onetime Cabaret pixie pummeled him in the head and body throughout their relationship, forcing him to seek neurological treatment and leaving him with vertigo, severe headaches, high-blood pressure and "scalp tenderness," among other maladies.

My favorite line from the complaint: "The alcohol gave her remarkable force and strength."

I'm no Hollywood insider, but I doubt it takes a remarkable an amount of force or strength to pummel David Gest.

Details are still sketchy, as mom is expectedly tired and left me but a brief voicemail message, but I can say that the libertarian brigade has added one to its ranks.

Max Stefanescu was brought into the world late last night.

I'm inclined to go off for paragraph after paragraph with gooey sentiment and tall compliments for Alina, but I'll spare her the embarassment -- and you the schlock.

I will say that it isn't often that we get the opportunity to step up and prove the courage of our convictions. Alina was, and did. In spades.

Wish mom well here. Wish baby well here.

From the New York Times last Sunday, Mark Burnett (creator and executive producer of 'Survivor') and Donald Trump are teaming up on a new reality tv show. 16 contestant will compete in various business tasks, such as running a hot dog stand or opening a store in a bad neighborhood. At the end of each episode, somebody will get fired.

"This is Donald Trump giving back," Mr. Burnett said. "What makes the world a safe place right now? I think it's American dollars, which come from taxes, which come because of Donald Trump. All these buildings. How many carpenters, steelworkers, construction guys, cleaners, bellboys and maids are working through the Trump entrepreneurial vision? And what Donald Trump is doing and what 'The Apprentice' is about is to show Americans that you have to be an entrepreneur."

Its a lousy line that Burnett has about the Donald "giving back." Trump's doing it because he thinks its a good business move. We'll ignore that misspeak though, because the rest of the quote is dead-on. Its nice to see that something is coming to television that recognizes the value of creating wealth. I'll avoid the rant about how most of Hollywood doesn't really understand where the money in this country comes from. I don't even know if the show, as planned, will actually convey how hard it is to start a business. Still, I do appreciate that a show is attempting to fully recognize the struggles of the American businessman.

I went to see the Strokes here in Chicago on Sunday. Actually, to be more precise, I went to see my favorite group of the moment, the Kings of Leon, and they happened to be opening for the Strokes.

I had seen the Kings a couple of weeks prior, and once again, they rocked. If you get a chance to check them out, I definitely recommend it. I guarantee you will entertained at the very least.

The surprise to me was how much I enjoyed the Strokes. I know, I know, they are suppose to be done. Strokes are the truckers hats of bands. They are the only band I can think of that became 'overrated' at the same time they became 'cool.' Still, from what I heard of the new album, its not bad. In fact, its good. On top of that, their old stuff rocked hard. Take it for what its worth. If you always were too cool for the Strokes, you probably still are. But if, like me, you always wanted to dislike them but they won you over in spite of yourself, they probably will again.

Sorry for the lack of posts yesterday. And a preemptive apology for the lack of them today. Not feeling so well, and I'm a bit preoccupied with other goings-on in the world of Radley.

I do have one comment though, before I sign off for the day. I've noticed that the comments section has gotten particularly nasty lately. Co-bloggers have mentioned the same thing. I don't mind criticism. I don't even mind ad hominem attacks, so long as they're made en route to some sort of actual point. But denigrating my love life (I do just fine, thank you), my virility (hasn't yet been put to the test), or posting the home addresses of members of my family (which one guy hs done three times now) I think crosses the line of civil debate.

I've taken the step of banning a few IP addresses from leaving comments over the last several days. Not something I do lightly. And something I feel a little dirty about, to be honest. But I do reserve the right to do it.

Disagreement is fine. Witty put-downs in the course of making an argument are fine, too. Pointless personal attacks, threats, or posts about what an asshole I or my co-bloggers are will test your posting priviliges.

Sorry for the lecture. This site has done fine with a comments section for well over a year now. I think it's just a few idiots. I have no plans of disabling comments -- it's one of the joys of blogging. I love the feedback rush. And I love the criticism. Y'all have changed my mind on an issue more than a few times. Your comments also work wonders when I test run a column idea on this page first. But frankly, I don't see the need to allow myself to be insulted and verbally assaulted on my own website, which has happened with increasing frequency over the last week or two.

So if you find yourself banned, you now know why.

Okay, back to bed.

Colby Cosh has a typically thoughtful post on Gregg Easterbrook's firing.

I'd comment, but I think Cosh nails pretty much every aspect of this thing dead-on.

Former Catoite Steve Slivinski emails:

Like most of his writing, this morning’s E.J. Dionne piece bothers me. He makes the silly comparison of Joe Lieberman to Robin Hood because Lieberman’s tax plan ostensibly “takes” money from the rich to “give” to the poor. Of course, most of the proposals Lieberman has supported in his career already do that, but his tax plan is simply the newest version.

Yet, the truth is that Robin Hood wasn’t stealing money from the rich to give to the poor. He was actually robbing the tax collector, the Sheriff of Nottingham, in protest of unjust taxes on the working poor in England. Robin Hood was, in fact, a libertarian hero.

The Free State project grows less loony every day. I think New Hampshire was an excellent selection, and lends new credibility to the idea. The American Spectator's all-star intern Shawn Macomber, a native New Hampshire-ite, thinks a libertarian immigration to the Granite State might actually be able to effect some change or, at the very least, counter the influx of Massachusetts lefties who are moving to New Hampshire to escape high taxes, then promtly turning around and voting for -- more social programs and higher taxes.

And as Gene Healy points out, adding five or ten thousand politically active libertarians to the small state that holds enormous influence over both parties' presidential primaries could have significant national rammifications as well. Imagine how much more attentive Howard Dean's campaign might be to libertarian flirtations with him if he knew that in a year where the Republican nominee was a given, he might be able to sway three or four or five thousand libertarian votes to his camp by actually touting his record of fiscal restraint as governor of Vermont instead of burrying it. He might rethink his position on Liberia, or on funding the nation buiding project in Iraq.

Sure, you might say, but that's New Hampshire. What about the rest of the Democrat primaries? Running to the right to win New Hampshire would kill the nominee down the road. Maybe. But remember that the next big primariy after New Hampshire is South Carolina, hardly a bastion of leftist extremism. Win both of those, and you're officially the frontrunner. You've got big mo.

And in a year when the Republican nomination is up for grabs, a strong libertoid presence in New Hampshire would prove even more influential.

This free state idea is starting to make some sense to me.

This picture was taken from the Council of Conservative Citizens "Black Hawk Barbecue and Political Rally" last July 19.

That pudgy fellow in the middle is Haley Barbour, former chairman of the Republican National Committee and current GOP frontrunner for the Mississippi governor's mansion.

Just in case you didn't pick up on it, this picture was taken on July 19.

Of 2003.

UPDATE: Hmm. Seems some of you aren't quite as ready as I to jump on Barbour for this incomprehnsibly stupid public appearance. I'm a little agahst at how anyone who follows politics couldn't know about the CCC, but if you need a little nudging about their intentions, take a gander at their website. As for Barbour's appearance at the "barbecue," no, it wasn't ol' Haley hangin' out with some buddies. It was a fundraiser, prominently sponsored by CCC, and Barbour's appearance is being used by the group on its website to tout its influence. The caption under the picture reads:

The election year Mississippi Black Hawk Barbecue and Political Rally held on July 19 drew dozens of political candidates and was attended by a crowd of over 500. The Black Hawk Barbecue is sponsored by the Council of Conservative Citizens to raise money for private academy school buses. (Pictured L-R: Chip Reynolds, State Senator Bucky Huggins, Ray Martin, GOP gubernatorial nominee Haley Barbour, John Thompson, and Black Hawk Rally emcee and C of CC Field Director Bill Lord.)

UPDATE II: Grrr. Okay, seems we have a communication problem. Or maybe just I do. I just assumed most people would be familiar with the CCC, despite the innocuous sounding name. There was quite a hullabaloo a few years back involving Trent Lott and a few other prominent Republicans chumming it up with the organization.

I forget, I suppose, that most people have more interesting things to worry about than whom Trent Lott pals around with.

So when three commenters in a row read the post that Barbour had attended a CCC event, and left a "so what?" response, I assumed they knew who the CCC was, and saw no problem with yet another prominent Republican associating with them. And if I have a readership that finds little about the CCC to quarrel with, yes, I would find that troubling.

So if you were one who left a "so what?" comment, and left it because you weren't familiar with the CCC, I didn't mean to insult your intelligence, reading habits, taste in music, or virility. Apologies.

Sometimes, when you've spent too much time in the Beltway, you just assume everyone is as obsessed with political goings-on as you are.

On the other hand, if you were one who left a "so what?" comment, and left it because you are familiar with the CCC, well, then I absolutely meant to insult you.

Instapundit slips into Coulter-esque hysterics in characterizing those U.S. senators who voted to make half of U.S. aid to Iraq available as loans, instead of grants, as "near treasonously stupid and destructive."

Geez. If advocating that half the $87 billion in aid a loan makes one a near-treasonist, I wonder what that makes those of us who think there should be no aid, grants, or loans, and that the U.S. should pull out of Iraq completely?

Do I need to call a lawyer? Or is this an "enemy combatant," military-tribunal kind of offense?

Blowhard diva Bill O'Reilly stormed out of an NPR interview with Terry Gross.

O'Reilly said he found Gross' questioning "objectionable and hostile," and accused her of interviewing him "in attack mode."

The interview, available here, was all of those things.

Welcome to the other side of the green room, Bill.

This is just silly.

ESPN has fired Gregg Easterbrook and terminated his Tuesday Morning Quarterback column because of the dumb comments he wrote about Jews, moviemaking and violence on his blog hosted at The New Republic. Worse, and weirder, ESPN has effectively erased Easterbrook from its website altogether.

This smells like it came straight from the top. Easterbrook, after all, was harshest on Disney big cheese Michael Eisner. Disney owns ESPN.

Easterbrook's post was regrettable. An otherwise brilliant guy bought in it a full value the tired line about how an R-rated movie might provoke more Columbines. Bringing the faiths of the moviemakers into the picture was a non-sequitor, a non-sequitor to an otherwise poorly thought-out post, and I suspect he tossed in the money-loving Jews angle while on an angry rant roll.

But it was one post, and he apologized (yes, I too thought the apology was weak, and didn't address the crappy parts of the post not related to Jew-baiting).

Still, TMQ is the best sports column going. Give the guy a break.

I also fear what this might do to Easterbrook's career. The man is one of the most versatile minds around -- in addition to TNR, he's written for Wired, Reason, The Atlantic Monthly, and just about everywhere else, on topics diverse as God and science, space, global warming, and energy.

We lose if we let hypersensitivity rob us of a considerable intellect like Easterbrook's.

I object!

Here come the nannies. The anti-smoking crusade has now firmly set its sites on Washington, D.C.

I don't smoke. I have a pipe at home, which I smoke about once every couple of months, alone, because I think pipes are far too pretentious to smoke in public. Nevertheless, I'll fight this ban tooth and nail. Foremost because of the principle of personal liberty. But also because, as Gene Healy said today, "I just think smoky bars look cooler, atmospherically."

At least two D.C. city council members are already on board. Mayor Williams looks as if he's ready to follow suit.

Wanna' know who's behind the effort to strip D.C. residents of their tobacco rights?

Say it with me, altogether now....

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

A $250,000 grant.

McSweeney's features hit and miss, but when they hit, it's usually a bone-rattler to the chops. This piece by Brian Bieber, called "Tales of Erotica: Chuck Norris and Me," is gold. To prime you, read the opening graphs, which explain the rest of the piece:

Everyone loves getting turned on. Everyone loves high-kicking martial arts action.

So I'm going to recount for you the very first heavy-petting session I engaged in with my first girlfriend when I was sixteen. But because I'm not sure that this girlfriend would appreciate me sharing these events, instead of using her real name, I'm going to refer to her as action star, Chuck Norris. Likewise, any personal details about my ex-girlfriend that might implicate her directly will be changed to indicate achievements earned by Mr. Norris.

For example, instead of referring to Madeline as a junior varsity basketball cheerleader, I will refer to her as an international karate champion. And when I say "star of TV's Walker: Texas Ranger" I'll really mean "supporting cast member in a 1996 high school production of Jesus Christ: Superstar."

Any references to sexual activities we engaged in will be disguised as martial arts maneuvers or maybe wrestling holds. I won't say Maddie was the first girl I ever French kissed, I'll say something to the effect of, "Chuck Norris kicked me so hard in the mouth I had to have my jaw wired shut."

Howard Stern fan calls ESPN pretending to be wayward Cub fan Steve Bartman (yes, I'll print his name, now that he's issued a statement).

Watch Dan Patrick's face.

If this doesn't make you want to smack a 12 year old upside the head, I don't know what will.

Link props to Boing Boing.

I hope I'm not the only one who'se sick unto death of the modern practice of arguing by asking yourself softball questions.

You know what I mean. It's when, for example, somebody argues as follows:

"Was our intelligence about WMDs not entirely accurate? Yes. Might there still be some anyway? We don't know. Is it a good thing the Iraqi people are no longer suffering under Saddam's tyranny? Yes."

And on, and on. This practice seems to have become much, much more common over the last ten years, and particularly over the last three or four. As with most bad rhetorical devices, it is most commonly used by government officials (the example that set me off today was by Lt. Col. Dominic Caraccilo, quoted in this Antiwar.com editorial). But I've seen it creep into editorials and even (gasp!) the occasional blog.

This tactic is pure evil, folks. It's evil because its central purpose is the creation of a false impression of candor. It allows the arguer to set up his strawmen all in a row, knock them down at leisure, and think himself a toppler of giants. It is dangerous to an open society, for it lets politicians interview themselves instead of actually being interviewed. It is a direct threat to one of the main purposes of journalistic investigation, namely getting people to answer questions they don't want to answer.

Eschew this beast. Shun it. Call foul on it when you see it. Oppose it for the health of the English language, for the memory of George Orwell, for the sake of true candor everywhere.

This rant comes courtesy of an article from the admittedly conservative CNS News. I haven't seen the series in question, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that CNS has accurately characterized it.

CBS is running a two-part news report on home schooling that's absolutely shameful. The series apparently looks at the "dark side" of home schooling. A preview segment teased the report thusly, ""Tomorrow, how children nationwide have been put in danger, even killed, while home schooling."

Of the 850,000 kids who are home schooled, the series then holds up Andrea Yates, the Houston mother who drowned her five kids, and two North Carolina boys killed by an older brother, as typical outcomes from home schooling's dark side.

The report then goes on to question why home schooling isn't more heavily regulated, and -- hold the friggin' phones on this one -- why home schooling parents aren't given criminal background checks.

Unbefuckinglievable.

If you're going to background-check home schoolers, shouldn't you background check all parents? And if Andrea Yates is indicative of the dangers of home schooling, might we say that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris embody the dangers of public schooling?

I think I'll stop there. The agenda-pushing, obliviousness to all measure of reason and hysterics are self-evident enough that a through debunking isn't necessary.

Interesting, witty discussion on economics, economists and the Nobel Prize at the National Post. A few excerpts:

That's something white-coated scientists always harp on when explaining to us social scientists why we aren't real scientists: The things they discover stay discovered. But we economists keep changing our minds. You know: If you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion. (Or as a friend of mine says: If you laid all the economists in the world end to end, you should leave them there.)

For instance, how in the space of five years could the Nobel Committee give prizes to both Milton Friedman (1976) and James Tobin (1981), monetary theorists with diametrically different views of how the U.S. Fed should conduct monetary policy? You wouldn't see that in physics or medicine, would you?

...Of course, economics is a mainly non-experimental science. We can't run the last quarter century over again a thousand times in the lab. So economists are doomed to disagree even on the extent of their own contribution to better economic performance. If only there were a Nobel Prize for irony.

Fascinating post on the Adam Smith Institute's blog about 18th-century watchmaking and protectionism, and how lessons from the two might apply to genetically modified foods.

Group Hug.

Calpundit has some thoughts on Social Security which have occasioned a multitude of comments. The original blogpost is not so noteworthy to me as the fact that a bunch of the commenters have argued thusly: young people today ought to accept higher taxes to pay for their elders' SS benefits, because previous generations have paid out benefits to their elders, and accepted periodic increases in the SS tax rate, without complaint; and now those previous generations only want for themselves what they were willing to give to others.

Now, there are many bad justifications for state-sponsored mass theft schemes, and there may even be a few less bad ones, but this strikes me as among the worst. It is, after all, precisely the argument of the school bully: I have a right to beat you up now because, back when I was smaller and weaker, I suffered beatings from others and did not think it wrong-- for I knew I would one day have a chance to do some beatings of my own in turn.

Shock. Disbelief. Stunned. I don't know how best to convey my thoughts about last nights Cubs game. None of those words do it justice. Admittedly, I have only lived in Chicago for a short time. I don't have the history of the city down like most here do. I am certainly not a Cubs fan. But man. Man oh man. I saw a trainwreck last night and I'm still not over it.

Like most, the most griping part to me is that fan. The fan who on this site shall remain nameless. That poor, poor guy. I can't overstate enough how badly I feel for him. His life is forever changed.

If your not from Chicago, or haven't lived here, I'm not sure you can completely understand. I certainly didn't before this season started and I've been an avid baseball fan all my life. The loveable losers mantra. That's how I always pictured the Cubs and I assumed that their fans kinda liked it that way. That they maybe took some pleasure in having their hearts ripped out year after year. I thought epic losses was the Cubs angle and everyone liked it that way.

I was wrong.

At the point where they were up 2-0 last night, I said to my friend, "This city is about to explode." And it was. I had never heard such loud cheers for each and every out. Every strike. This city wanted its team to win so badly it hurt. Problem is, there is that curse.

In case you don't know, the curse of the goat was placed on the Cubs in 1945. The owner of the BillyGoat Tavern, Bill Sianis (and the real life basis for John Beluhi's "chezeburger, chezeburger" SNL skit) brought a goat to Wrigley for Game Four of the Cubs series against the Detroit Tigers. Sianis had brought the goat before and got it into his box seats, but Wrigley officials told him the goat couldn't stay this time. Sianis got so upset, he cursed the Cubs saying there would never be another World Series game at Wrigley Field.

Cut to a 2-week run by the 1969 Miracle Mets. Cut to a ground ball to dribbling through Leon Durham's legs in Game 5 of the 1984 NLCS. Cut to a fan in the stands last night. As soon as Alou cursed at him, banging his glove down in anger, everyone in Chicago thought the same thing: The Curse. It was so obvious what the storyline was. It was so obvious what would do the Cubbies in. And the Marlins hadn't even scored a run that inning. Its the stuff around here that will be talked about forever.

If the Cubs don't win tonight, that fan will need to move. Not that he's going to be killed or beaten up even. Its just not the kind of story that people around here forget. Even when people don't know who he is, it will be brought up. If the Cubs are doing well, it will be brought up. If the Cubs are doing badly, it will be brought up. He will not be able to escape it. It will be with him in Chicago daily. Or at least from April to October. Oh, who am I kidding. It will be with him daily.

It really is a shame too. The guy thought he had front row tickets to Game 6. The game where the Cubs would clinch. He didn't know that his life was going to change forever. He didn't do anything 75% of the fans out there would not have done. Problem is, the Cubs are cursed. Maybe by writing this I'm helping to break the curse (See, the thing about it is, it only works just when you think you have it beat. That 8 run inning, that fan's play, it came right after the Cubs third run. At the bar I was at, more than one Cub fan I heard let their guard down. "Its over" I heard them say. That's just what it wants you to think.)

If the Cubs win tonight, I'll be happy. And its not because of the massive party that will go on, although I am looking forward to that. I'll be happy because that 26 year old kid (same age as me) will have been let of the hook for a mistake that he made with the most innocent of intentions. He never wanted his life changed in the manner that it might be. If the Cubs win, it'll be laughed about. If they lose, he'll have to live with it.

I like the Smoking Gun and most of what they do.

But publishing the name and biographical information of the Cubs fan last night who snatched the foul ball from Moises Alou was really poor judgment. The poor guy had to be escorted out of Wrigely to shouts of "kill him!" last night.

If the Cubs lose tonight and the guy gets whacked, just remember, "The Smoking Gun was there."

Not linking to the piece.

The Department of Homeland Security's chief officer in Miami has found himself some plush digs at taxpayer expense.

Coast Guard Rear Admiral Harvey Johnson (a name and rank that would make any gay porn star jealous) has found himself "a 6200-square-foot, four-bedroom, four-bath home that costs taxpayers $111,600 per year in lease payments. Utilities, maintenance, and other upkeep (such as the cleaning service for the back yard swimming pool) are extra."

Oh yeah, it's also right on the water.

While Johnson declined to be interviewed about his palatial abode, his Miami support staff insists the new flag quarters are a wise use of funds. "The events of 9/11 and the transition into the Department of Homeland Security have greatly increased the visibility of the Coast Guard," explains Capt. Richard Murphy, commanding officer of the Coast Guard's civil engineering unit in Miami. He argues that "senior executives" like Johnson need a large and luxurious residence, "given the order of magnitude of the job and the fact that he must represent the interests of the United States."

Hat tip: Hot Liberty

From CBS News:

The person responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Colin Powell says the Secretary of State misinformed Americans during his speech at the U.N. last winter.

Greg Thielmann tells Correspondent Scott Pelley that at the time of Powell’s speech, Iraq didn’t pose an imminent threat to anyone – not even its own neighbors. “…I think my conclusion [about Powell’s speech] now is that it’s probably one of the low points in his long distinguished service to the nation,” says Thielmann...

...Thielmann also tells Pelley that he believes the decision to go to war was made first and then the intelligence was interpreted to fit that conclusion. “…The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I call faith-based intelligence,” says Thielmann.

“They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the intelligence community would produce. I would assign some blame to the intelligence community and most of the blame to the senior administration officials.”

I'm a little late picking this up, but Bill McClellan of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has an interesting take on the Rush story. His column Monday was done in the style of Rush, if Clinton had been the one admitting an addiction to pain killers.

Radley's been gushing about Emily Cochran, but Bill does a pretty good job himself of impersonating the conservative media. Are Republicans getting that predictable?

My own take is that Bill's column is pretty close to the truth. Maybe that's why it generated large amounts of hate mail from Rush fans trying to explain how the situation would be different.

There's something odd going on at The New Republic. The magazine took some fire last month for agreeing to run propaganda ads bought by Saudi Arabia. Okay. They have the right to run what advertising they please. And their critics are free to...well...criticize.

Then, however, comes this story. Apparently TNR sponsored a forum on the Middle East in which Saudi critic Stephen Schwartz was disinvited after protests from the Saudis, who apparently co-sponsored the forum, although slightly covertly.

A TNR spokesperson actually admitted that Schewartz was disinvited at the behest of Saudi interests.

Finally -- and I'm sure it's in now way related to the above items, but it's disturbing nonetheless -- comes this column from (former?) Agitator.com favorite Gregg Easterbrook on Hollywood, which, frankly, reeks. You probably saw it on Instapundit, but the concluding graphs are worth excerpting:

Corporate sidelight: Kill Bill is distributed by Miramax, a Disney studio. Disney seeks profit by wallowing in gore--Kill Bill opens with an entire family being graphically slaughtered for the personal amusement of the killers--and by depicting violence and murder as pleasurable sport. Disney's Miramax has been behind a significant share of Hollywood's recent violence-glorifying junk, including Scream, whose thesis was that murdering your friends and teachers is a fun way for high-school kids to get back at anyone who teases them. Scream was the favorite movie of the Columbine killers.

Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself.

I have a hard time believing Easterbrook even wrote this. It's too rife with ignorance and argument resting on flimsy premises. Scream, for example, was satire. And not even subtle satire. It was "beat you over the head" satire. It didn't glorify killing. It ridiculed movies that glorify killing.

And do we really need to go over the "killer(s) liked pop culture exhibit X, so pop culture exhibit X is evil" shit again? Gregg Easterbrook, meet J.D. Salinger.

The Jewish stuff is too depressing to even attempt to refute.

Geez. What a letdown.

This report describes how US soldiers in Iraq have been destroying farmers' date palm trees. Not to punish them for attacking the soldiers, not even for harboring attackers, but for knowing who is in the resistance and not telling.

Iraqi blogger Riverbend has a long, lyrical description of what this means to ordinary Iraqis. With all the things I wanted to say about this, I can find nothing that improves on the farmer's scream she quotes:

"Is this freedom? Is this democracy?!"

Jefferson Kiely will get you started...

Eat your heart out, Andy Kauffman. Emily Cochran continues her brilliant charade donning the clothes of the clueless, ditzy, Republican parrot, this time with a missive about the PATRIOT Act:

DOJ, FBI and CIA are not carrying out a witch hunt nor are they abusing the civil liberties of innocent people. Dean, NYT, et al would have you believe that thousands of people were losing their rights or were being violated in some manner. This is not the case.

The Patriot Act's most vociferous critics have never even read the Act. There is nothing in the unanimously-passed piece of legislation that is worth raising an eyebrow over. The Act simply brings law enforcement and intelligence surveillance into the 21st century.

The incessant chatter of the Chicken Littles, or little chickens, is nothing but incessant chatter. Name one single abuse of civil liberties by officials operating under the Patriot Act. There are not any.

The Left and libertarians, which I would argue, are leftist, have no valid criticisms of Attorney General Ashcroft or President Bush. They have no facts to back up their arguments, just bloated catch phrases and empty rhetoric.

Still, I suppose satire is meant to be outrageous, no?

If there were a market for impersonating personnas from the political chattering class, Emily Cochran would be Rich Little.

Or at least Fred Travalena.

I wonder if she takes requests? How 'bout "old-school politicos who lament that nobody cares about statesmanship anymore, eat at The Palm, and still think Mark Russel is funny?"

...but that's not all, tell her what she's won!

This is the most ridiculous concept since Sweetest Day. Not only does it hold the implication that a woman giving birth to a child is merely serving her husband, but it also seems to suggest that creating life isn't special enough in itself. I've always hated the idea of peer pressured gift giving and displays of affection, because it strips away the intrinsic significance of any celebrated event.

Headline:

"Women Who Drink Wine More Likely to Become Pregnant."

From the Washington Post: Monkeys Control Robotic Arm With Brain Implants

Scientists in North Carolina have built a brain implant that lets monkeys control a robotic arm with their thoughts. The Scientist are predicting the technology could someday allow paralyzed people to operate machines or even move their own arms or legs again.

I think you know what I'm thinking.

Fun.

I didn't do so well.

In a just world, Emily Cochran would get Lileks-like props in the blogosphere. For those of you not familiar with her, Emily's blog is hosted over at the America's Future Foundation website, opposite Gene Healy.

While Gene aptly plays the role of the slightly curmudgeonly but insightful and provocative libertarian, I'm afraid he's terribly overshadowed by Cochran's ingenious satire.

Cochran for weeks now has been playing the role of the dim-witted country-club conservative. We all know the type -- the ditzy gal who dips her ankles deep enough into the political pool to know all the White House talking points, but not quite deep enough to do any actual thinking of her own.

Cochran, whom I suspect is a libertarian beneath the satire, plays the role like Olivier.

Oh sure, she occasionally goes over the top -- I can't imagine any of the Republican women she's mimicking ever actually suggesting that Hillary Clinton's refusal to badmouth herself in her own biography is akin to Chinese censorship, for example. And even the most gushing lady Capitol Hill Clubber would probably stop short of the creepy, Electra-complex labeling of "strong, cocky" Republicans as "the Daddy party."

But the best satirists know that it's necessary to occasonally throw out hints, tipping off the dim-witted to the fact that yes, what you're reading really is satire. When Cochran's posts get particularly incredulous, I suspect it's merely her way of winking at us, the readers, to let us in on the fix.

I've been reading Emily for a few weeks now, and can safely conclude that she's nothing short of brilliant. She's able to climb into the mind of your typical Ann Coulter groupie like no one I've ever read. Her blog is a kind of satirical intellectual gumbo, well-stocked with meaty fish, though all of them harvested from shallow waters. As thorough a dismantling of conservative thinking as you'll find.

Welcome to the blogroll, Emily!

Under "humor," of course.

The Chicago Sun Times this weekend published this editorial. In case you haven't heard, Bono, the lead singer for the rock band U2, said in his Golden Globe acceptance speech, ""fucking brilliant.'' (Sorry Mom and Dad.)
The Federal Communications Commission has decided that the word "may be crude and offensive, but in the context presented here, did not describe sexual or excretory organs or activities.'' The Chicago Sun Times has a problem with that. Their problem, however, is not because the word itself is offensive. Rather, they have a problem because obscenity belongs in context.

According to the Sun Times "profanity and obscenity, like any cultural product, are devalued if the market is flooded. First it annoys, then it desensitizes people to the word, and it becomes just another verb. With obscenities tossed freely about for no reason on broadcast television, what is left to a person to say when he hits his thumb with a hammer?"

As I read it, what the Sun Times is really saying is that we need, nay want, words that shock and appall. But why? Why should we have a set of sounds that we can't say for fear of offending someone? Why should we have words that we can't print for fear of delicate eyes reading them? Why protect curse words?

That we already have such words is not my concern. But why save their impact? I can completely see why a mother would not want her child to hear curse words now. But when the Sun Times recognizes that usage of the cuss word will diminish its value to the point that it loses all meaning, and they come out against that, I don't see the point. If we get rid of the stigma, what have we lost? A word to say when we hit ourselves with a hammer. A word that makes us feel a little naughty because its a word we maybe shouldn't say. That seems a little lame to me.

I'll stop short of encouraging ya'all to go out an cuss up a storm. My only point is, perhaps we should consider what we are protecting. When we keep cuss words off network television, are we protecting virgin ears from being offended, or are we protecting our ability to offend virgin ears? According to the Sun Times, it seems we want to be able to offend when we feel the time is right. If the words become common, we can't do that. I disagree with that goal.

I'll add my torch to this fire.

Joanne points to LewRockwell.com, where they're urging bloodthirsty 19 year-old neocon and (mis)syndicated columnist Ben Shapiro to join the military. If you're going to agitate for policies that send your generational brethren off to conquer Muslimdom, why not have the courage to spill a little blood yourself, Ben?

Ah, but see the Lew Rockwell crowd misjudges the precocious virtuouso violinist and UCLA senior's motives. He doesn't aspire to actually be a soldier, mind you. He merely wants to be the guy -- like William Kristol -- who gets to send them off to battle. And who asks for a check from you and I to buy the bullets.

So c'mon, Ben. Put up or shut up. Put down your pen. Pick up a gun. If the policies you advocate are worth the lives of your fellow millenials, surely they're worth your dying for, too. Aren't they?

A high school in Indiana cancelled plans for a school production of To Kill a Mockingbird because the play's script includes the word "nigger."

That's bad enough.

But then the Indianapolis Star comes out with perhaps the most cowardly editorial I've ever seen from a newspaper with respect to First Amendment issues -- the newspaper endorsed the decision, citing the potential sensitivity of a racially-mixed cast, audience and student body.

And proving once again that it has all the relevance of the Betamax repairman, the NAACP led the charge in favor of nixing the play, which of course at its core is about....

....tolerance.

Shame on all of them.

Gregg Easterbrook proposes a sensible solution to the problem that, as he puts it, "Maybe half the sex in world history has followed an initial "no," or more than one 'no.'"

His proposal makes perfect sense to me. "No" continues to mean what it's always meant. But if a woman feels her "no" isn't being taken seriously, she says, "this is rape."

Yikes. Traditionally, a girl says "no" once, and you back off -- for the time being -- then perhaps alter your approach a little.

A girl says "this is rape," and any guy not already intending to commit rape jumps up, apologizes profusely, probably breaks into sobs, and is likely rendered impotent for the next six months.

So it's week six of the NFL season. My beloved Colts are undefeated, and today play the Carolina Panthers, also undefeated. Two undefeated teams. Head to head. A full six weeks into the season.

And what game does the Washington, D.C. CBS affilliate decide to show us? Oakland at Cleveland. Two teams with a combined record of 9-0 square off today. And we get 2-3 Oakland at 2-3 Cleveland.

I'm telling Gregg Easterbrook.

Enobarbus at FauxPolitik has a fun John Hiatt story.

The man is a masterful live act. See him twice.

Clem Snide -- Ghost of Fashion

Think of a slightly more somber They Might Be Giants. Wry, surreal lyrics laid over deceptively simple-sounding arrangements. You'll discover new complexities in these songs each time you hear them. Fans of the TV show Ed will recognize the show's theme song "Moment in the Sun." Other favorites, "Long Lost Twin," ""Let's Explode," "Ice Cube," and "Don't Be Afraid of Your Anger." On that last cut, lead singer Eef Barzelay sings "Don't be afraid of your anger/I'll eat it, with mustard and wine."

Lucinda Wiliams -- World Without Tears

This album gets better with each listen. Williams' voice feels a little trashy to me, like something you might hear coming out of bar in a suburban strip mall. That's not a bad thing. What it does is set you up for some wonderful surprises when that voice then delivers lyrics poigniant, thoughtful and, sometimes, arresting. On the sultry, groove-driven "Righteously," she sings "Flirt with me don't keep hurtin' me/Don't cause me pain/Be my lover don't play no game/Just play me John Coltrane.

A verse from the painful heatbreaker "Those Three Days:"

You say there's always gonna be this thing/Between us days are filled with dreams/Scorpions crawl across my screen/Make their home beneath my skin/Underneath my dress/stick their tongues/Bite through the flesh down to the bone/And I have been so fuckin' alone/You built a nest inside my soul/You rest your head on leaves of gold/You managed to crawl inside my brain/You found a hole and in you came/You sleep like a baby breathing/Comfortably between truth and pain/But the truth is nothing's been the same/Since those three days.

Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, Take Them On, On Your Own

A fine follow to their debut, BRMC. Mix the detached, aloof, noise-rock of The Jesus and Mary Chain with the brash and cocky swagger of the Strokes, and you'll get a sound pretty close to that of the BRMC. Bonus points for the anarchist-themed "U.S. Government." Negative points for changing the name -- it was originally called "Kill the U.S. Government."

John Hiatt, Walk On

One from the archives. This is great autumn driving music. Reminds me a lot of Indiana. "Cry Love" was the single, and it's a great tune with a catchy accoustic riff. But pretty much every song on here could hold its own with Hiatt's greatest hits. "You Must Go" and "Walk On" are vintage Hiatt -- coyntryside hymns, full of reflection and back-porch crooning. "Native Son" is a hook-heavy anti-war anthem. "Ethylene" is a rock n' roll ode to teen love. "Shredding the Document" is a satiric commentary on tabloid culture. My favorite cut might be "Your Love Is My Rest," a slow-rolling, bluesy ballad that winds the album down. This is my favorite CD from John Hiatt. And I like almost everything he's done.

....from Joanne, go show your support for the anti-anti-smoking movement in D.C.

When I talk to friends about smoking bans, I hear a disturbing amount of talk about how they like going to bars and coming home with smoke-free clothing. Or they tend to smoke when they drink, so the ban effectively prevents them from smoking themselves, which they like.

The latter reasoning is nanny state-ism at its worst. The former is a somewhat more compelling proposition -- if we were talking about personal freedom.

But remember, this debate isn't really about secondhand smoke. It's about property rights. It's about your right to run your business as you please.

Zoe Mitchell's heading up the effort.

Joanne McNeil finds more fun bashing Fritz Hollings. To see just how despised he is in tech circles, try a search of his name at Slashdot. Or of his prefered cyberspace moniker, "Senator Disney."

Isn't there something a little untoward about PETA's shameless efforts to get the NAACP in line with its Kentucky Fried Chicken boycott?

September traffic stats are up. We're closing in on 3,000 visitors per day during the week.

Also, Blogstreet says you're reading the 139th most important blog in the world. Sweet. Everybody knows that once you crack the top 140, you get invited to Andy Dick's parties. Also, you're officially important enough that you can stop returning David Blaine's phone calls.

Seriously, dude. Go call Leo. I just don't have time anymore.

Needed discussion over at FauxPolitik about Howard Dean's creepy "Success by Six" program, which brings state workers into the homes of new parents.

Funny.

My Fox column is up.

It's a loving tribute to retiring Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings.

I wonder, do you think he got the nickname "Fritz" because no one could call him "Ernest" with a straight face?

Kuwait: Dynastic billiards powerhouse.

Hat tip: Liberty & Power

From Reuters

"When asked how much of his victory Schwarzenegger owed to his celebrity status, state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, who played Zelda on the 1950s TV series 'Dobie Gillis,' said: 'One-hundred percent. If this guy was not a movie star he would not be governor.'"

Just so I am clear, this is coming from the woman who played Zelda on 'Dobie Gillis.' And she gets to be a State Senator? People in glass houses Sheila. People in glass houses.

Recall exit polls point to a comfortable "yes" margin, and a comfortable win for Der Arnold. A few thoughts:

California's conservatives are completely fucking clueless. For about a decade now, they've been sacking moderate Republicans who could actually win in the primaries in favor of wing nuts who then get trounced in the general election. Along comes the only feasible scenario in which they could put one of their own into office, and the state Republican party lines up behind the squishy movie actor, all starry-eyed like.

This is a guy, let's not forget, whose previous forays into politics involved overseeing federally-funded intitiatves to get America in shape, and a ballot measure promising taxpayer-funded after school activities. Both touted, I might add, in this interest of the children.

This is the guy who's going to put the state budget in order?

Ramesh Ponnuru made a great point over at NRO yesterday. Moving left to get 51% of the vote is strategy. Moving left to get 38% of the vote is selling your soul.

And let's not forget how Davis got elected to begin with. The state's conservatives blackballed Richard Riordan in the primaries in favor of the atrocious Bill Simon. Well, congratulations. You now have a guy every bit as liberal as Dick Riordan, but without the executive experience, smarts or political savvy. You also have a guy with huge potential to both embarass your party and hurt your president in 2004, and you made yourselves look like complete hypocrites by standing behind a lecherous womanizer after ragging on Clinton for the last ten years over similar offenses.

So what of the serial groping charges? Come on. Does anyone really believe they aren't true? Okay, perhaps a few of them are digging for gold. But there's no question the guy's a creep.

Many years ago I read an interview of Arnold and his wife shortly after they were married. Shriver was desribing how they met. I don't remember the exact details, but I do remember her saying their first encounter involved him patting her on the backside and telling her, straight-up, "You have a great ass."

Think you're the only one he met that way, Maria?

The most laughable aspect of this has been how conservatives have railed against the media for such "dirty politics." Give me a break. If Arnold had actually been a Kennedy instead of merely married to one, conservatives would be lapping this stuff up, and calling for his head.

All of this matters little to me, of course. I suppose Tom McClintock was the most attractive candidate of the three highest pollers, and I think the California GOP would have done well to get behind him. But even he has proven disappointing, rambling on about singing hymns ,and employing a chief of staff too eager to mix his baby Jesus with his public policy for my taste.

Also, what's up with McClintock's eyeballs? Every time he was on TV, he had the crazy eyes going, like he'd just seen Bustamante naked. Only both eyes were never looking the same way at the same time.

If Arnold wins, keep an eye on the White House and keep an eye on the polls (if you're McClintock, you can do both at the same time!). My guess is that Bush will continue to steer far clear of Arnold unless and until either a) the budget gets turned around, or, b) the budget stays in crisis mode, but California voters remain starstruck, and continue to blame Davis for it.

If Arnold can hold on to his popularity, however, California falls into play for Bush, and he'll do everything he can to latch on to him. That includes lots of campaign appearances together and, unfortunately for the very soul of humanity, lots more lame puns from Arnold's movies -- all the way through Election Day, 2004.

I have a piece at Tech Central on Ward Connerly's Racial Privacy Initiative, which is on the ballot in California today, but has been largely buried in the recall mess.

Noah Schactman has a piece in the American Prospect that quotes Alina Stefanescu, Gene Healy, Jim Henley, David Boaz and yours truly.

Shit. Shit. Shit.

Pardon my French. But I just checked ESPN.

Last night, I went to bed with my beloved Colts trailing 35-14 with 4 minutes left in the game. Most of you probably know now what happened.

Just discovered another gem from Steven Landsburg, who wrote the item below, who writes the "Everyday Economics" feature for Slate (and if memory serves, is also a libertarian).

It's called "Why Do Gays Smoke So Much?"

It opens like this:

I've just learned from NPR's All Things Considered that in California, gay men and lesbians are 70 percent more likely to smoke than the general population. In a sterling example of why I try not to listen to too much NPR, reporter Sarah Varney immediately segued into the perceived need for more anti-smoking ads targeted specifically at gays.

In other words, Varney implicitly assumes that gays are either too stupid to have gotten the message that smoking is bad for you or too irrational to have modified their behavior accordingly. A more inquisitive reporter might instead have raised the obvious question: What good reasons might gays have to smoke more than other people?

In four minutes of air time, the closest Varney came to addressing that question was to suggest that for gays, stepping outside for a cigarette can be a good way to meet people—as if the desire to meet people somehow differentiates gays from straights.

Meanwhile, I'll try to figure out what an anti-smoking message targeted at gays might look/sound like. I'm guessing perhaps a close-up, hi-rez, flaws-enhancing, two-page magazine spread/photo ad of John Derbyshire sucking on a pipe. Perhaps, with one of his eloquent NRO posts scripted off to the right.

That would get me to quit.

An interesting segment on 60 Minutes last night looked at the dowry problem in India. Custom there demands that the parents of girls offer a dowry to propsective grooms. In a country hobbled by poverty, a dowry can break most families, yet most won't suffer the dishonor of not offering one. So began the practice of killing infant girls shortly after birth. The result? In some villages, men outnumber women in a given generation 10 or 20 to 1. Ironically, this makes the women who were lucky enough not to have been slain at birth a commodity -- so much so that they're especially vulnerable to kidnapping and rape.

A similar piece in Slate today looks beyond societies still holding on to the dowry, and finds that first world to third, from culture to culture, families still seem to desire little boys over little girls.

"Hogging" sweeps Cleveland.

Too bad that my favorite scandal of the recall comes so near the end. But fortunately "Remarkable Women for Arnold" are here to keep the laughs rolling in.

Defense # 1: Groping women is A-okay.

In Modesto on Saturday afternoon, three young women admired Shriver's prominent cheekbones and declared afterward that they needed to diet. "Then maybe I'll get someone like Arnold," said Tiffany Lopez, 21, who "definitely, definitely" planned to vote for Schwarzenegger -- her first vote, ever. The women issue? "Not an issue at all," she said. "I'd let him grope me any time!"

[One woman] said that she had seen Schwarzenegger on two occasions in Orange County many years ago, when he was Mr. Universe and her ex-husband, a body builder, had taken her to competitions. "The women were all over him," she said. "He didn't care about them; they wanted him."

Robin Tamas, 35, a registered nurse in Pleasanton, where she attended a Saturday afternoon rally for Schwarzenegger, said that her experience with women has taught her that they often flirt with men and then accuse them of misbehaving. "The allegations don't sway me at all," said Tamas, a registered Republican. "I'm very pro-woman. But unfortunately, because I work with women, I know how silly they can act."

"It's been hard to figure it all out," [one] said. "This has been such a confusing, fast election. Now, we're almost at election day and we get this dirt. Look at what President Clinton did, and everybody still loves him." She paused a moment. "Arnold didn't kill anybody. We're in a financial crisis, and he sounds like he could fix it."

"Maria Shriver is no pushover," [another] said. "Arnold's wife is not the kind of woman who would just sit back and let her husband behave that way."

Well, I'm sold: groping women is fine as long as the women who were groped were asking for it and as long as the groper in question is in a position to help the economy and his wife is a no-nonsense kind of broad. Problem solved.

"You Are Wesley Crusher: A brilliant learner with a knack for almost everything, you choose to spend your efforts in the pursuit of travels that extend your own potential.

Maybe I am sick of following rules and regulations!

Wesley is a character in the Star Trek universe."

Is this good? I don't know.

1) A defense attorney who I'm guessing specializes in drug cases.

2) Provincetown's #1 realtor.

Ramesh Ponnuru writes in response to my prison rape piece to say that the editors of National Review commended the Prison Rape Elimination Act for calling attention to the problem, but stopped short of endorsing it on federalism principles.

Duly noted. And applauded. At least someone did.

Rx Disaster is a much-needed site devoted to (the lost of cause of) thwarting the dreaded prescription drug benefit.

Points for effort. Alas, this albatross is a near-certainty.

A friend of mine has started a blog devoted to pursuing the cause of freedom in Florida. Good luck.

You should visit his site often because a) it's pretty darned good, b) the design, and, c) the guy is hugely entertaining, in a hard-drinking, sometimes-embarassing, Benny Hill-meets-Charles Bukowski kind of way. A mutual friend once described him as "a small-stakes Nietzche." That's funny, and fair.

A few items he found:

1) First, this item, from the ATF's "Kids' Page." I actually found this about a week ago while researching an upcoming column, but Jefferson beat me to blogging it, so full credit where credit is due.

2) More on the Department of Homeland Security's curious case of mission creep. Want to know which federal department most increased its drug war budget last year? Yep. DHS. Because the best way to hunt down al-Qaeda sleeper cells, apparently, is to round up dime bag dealers.

3) This needed-to-be-said post on the state of modern anarchism.

4) Two parasites getting rich off the expanding regulatory state.

A stunning new poll from PIPA and Knowledge Networks lays out just how widespread misperceptions about the war with Iraq have been, and how likely those misperceptions were to have shaped public support for the war.

After the State of the Union, 68% of Americans believed there to be a connection between Iraq and September 11. 22% still believe this, and 57% (wrongly) believe the U.S. has found clear evidence of an Iraq/al-Qaeda connection. These numbers are down from the Washington Post poll last month showing 59% belieiving it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that Iraq had a role in September 11. I'd imagine the negative attention that poll got changed a few minds.

1 in 5 Americans still believe Iraq used chemical weapons in the most recent war, and 22% believe we have found conclusive evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Here's the kicker, and why the Bush administration's misdirection on the Iraq-September 11 connection is important.

The most recent poll report also includes a poll taken in February of this year, before we went to war. In that poll 58% of Americans said they supported war with Iraq if it could be shown that Saddam Hussein had a part in the September 11 attacks. When asked if they'd support a war if it could be proven that Iraq had given substantial support to al-Qaeda, but wasn't involved in September 11, that number dropped to 37%.

A separate poll by Investors Business Daily and the "Christian Science Monitor asked the 70% of Americans who supported the war to name their top reasons. 80% of them cited "Iraq's connections with groups like al-Qaeda."

More:

Among those who mistakenly believe we've found WMDs, support for the war remains high -- 74%. Among those who know we haven't, support drops to 42%. Among those who believe we've found evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaeda, support for the war currently stands at 67%. Among those who know we haven't, support drops to 29%.

The poll's sponsors then pull off a nifty trick. They measure support for the war among those who have one, two, or three or more misperceptions about WMDs, September 11 or al-Qaeda connections, or world support for the war.

Not surprisingly, those who know all of the facts still support the Iraq war at only a 23% clip. Those with one misperception support it at 52%. Two at 78%. And three or more at 86%.

There's also some data about what networks those with the most misperceptions get their news from, but I'll leave that alone, due to....er....conflict of interest concerns. I'd encourage you to check it out, though. Some fascinating findings on how we seek out news outlets that confirm our biases.

What this data shows, of course, is that misdirection, misleading -- aw hell, let's just call it what it is, lying -- pays.

There's a reason why we heard "Saddam Hussein" and "September 11" in such close proximity to one another in the months leading up to the war. The Bush administration never explicitly linked the two, of course, because they had no evidence. But they did know that Joe Lunchbucket listens to soundbites, he doesn't read intelligence reports.

Just put the two in the same neighborhood, then, and most Americans will make the connection themselves.

There report is here.

Tony Blair's foreign Foreign Ministers says Blair told him on March 5 that he didn't believe Iraq had useable WMDs and didn't present an imminent threat.

This, despite Blair's repeated claim that Saddam had bio and chemical weapons he could launch "within 45 minutes."

I was doing some web surfing on the ONDCP homepage and I came upon this. It's the "Drug Facts Page" for marijuana, and it has just about the funniest thing I've ever seen on it. Under the "Consequences" heading is the following:

Marijuana abuse is associated with many detrimental health effects. These effects can include frequent respiratory infections, impaired memory and learning, increased heart rate, anxiety, panic attacks and tolerance.

The NY Times reports that the White House and Pentagon set up a secret task force to assess Iraq's oil-production capabilities before the war. That task force concluded that Iraq's oil capacity was severely damaged, wrecked by twenty years of economic sanctions.

So why, then, did Paul Wolfowitz tell Congress last March that "we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon?"

Read more:

Shortly after the war began in March, the administration's budget office provided Congress and reporters with a background paper on Iraq. It said that Iraq would "not require sustained aid" because of its abundant resources, including oil and natural gas.

On March 27, Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, told the House Appropriations Committee that his "rough recollection" was that "The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years."

Testifying in the Senate that same day, Mr. Rumsfeld emphasized that "when it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayers we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government." He noted that the war's costs were not knowable, but he also said an important source of money for reconstruction would flow after the United States worked "with the Iraqi interim authority that will be established to tap Iraq's oil revenues."

At the outset of the war, the administration had asked Congress for $62 billion for Iraq, which included $1.7 billion for reconstruction and $489 million for oil-related repairs.

In a televised interview in late April, Andrew S. Natsios, head of the United States Agency for International Development, the group overseeing Iraq's reconstruction, said that amount was "it for the U.S." He said any other reconstruction money would come from elsewhere, including other countries and future "Iraqi oil revenues," which he predicted at "$20 billion a year."

In an interview this week, Mr. Natsios said he had based those comments on "the discussion in the interagency process at the time," adding, "That's what the Office of Management and Budget was telling us."

1) The Bush administration deliberately ignored the conclusions of its own commissioned task force and misled Congress about Iraq's post-war production capacity. Why? Because it'd be much easier to sell a war if they could low-ball the cost of reconstruction. This war would have been a much tougher sell if Congress had known we'd be looking at $1 billion a week for the foreseeable future.

Once the war was over, and the real story about Iraq's oil program made known, the White House would then rely upon conservatives who would vote to see the Iraqi project to its completion, and on liberals who would feel a sense of moral duty to rebuild what we tore down.

2) The highest levels of the Bush administration didn't know about the task force's findings due to mismanagement or bureaucratic error, or because the task force (despite being secret and commissioned by the Pentagon) was too low-level to pass over the desks of guys like Wolfowitz or the White House budget office. Consequently, the findings -- which proved correct -- were, like Ambassador Wilson's report, never seen by the right people before the case was made to Congress and to the America people.

I'm guessing the White House goes with explanation #2.

I don't find that any more comforting. It's become more and more apparent that this administration was at best extremely selective in deciding what intelligence it would rely upon in making the case for war. At worst, it actively withheld intelligence that could have proved damaging to the war effort.

My highest recommendation.

The best movie I've seen in a theater in a long, long time. Funny, hammy, smarmy and wry as Bill Murray has been over the years, I think this might be the role of his career, all the more remarkable in that it's a role notable for its very lack of Oscar-calliber acting fodder.

He isn't mentally deficient. This isn't an epic. He experiences no death, birth, illness or major life milestones over the course of the film. He is an aging action film star. He's in Tokyo for a series of ad shoots promoting a Japanese whiskey. And he befriends a woman in her early twenties while he's there. That's about the extent of the plot.

Sophia Coppola does a marvelous job, directing Murray and Scarlett Johansson in a movie that I 'd have stayed and watched all night, had it gone that long.

She brilliantly moves along a plot that's bathed in nuance and subtlety against the harsh, sensory-overload backdrop of crazy Tokyo. Even the grating urban debauchery scenes are beautifully shot, and oddly comforting, despite the neon, the concrete, the weirdity, and the mayhem. Coppola also wrote the film, and thankfully steers far clear of all the cliches and predictable Hollywood twists you dread are coming as you're watching.

Murray is remarkably reserved, and you find yourself marveling at the way he extracts superb morsels of acting out of such mundanities as riding in an elevator, swimming laps in the hotel pool, or flipping through the channels of Japanese television.

Johansson is very good, but plays a role very similar to her role in Ghost World. Come to think of it, the two movies share some common themes.

Both, with Coppola's flim work, do a fantastic job of conveying just how easy it is to feel alone, even when (or especially when) you're in an urban jungle, where you're stacked with dozens of your fellow man-beings, one on top of the other.

There are plenty of funny moments (Murray singing Roxy Music's "More Than This" on a karaoke machine is a riot), but plenty more that are poigniant (your stomach sinks when he calls his inattentive wife from Tokyo, she blows him off, and he says to himself after hanging up, "Well, I guess that wasn't a very good idea). I suppose the movie is techincally a comedy, but it certainly isn't feel-good.

The true achievement here is how Coppola took a far-from-real-life character in an aging movie star, paired him with a budding starlet in Johannsson, put them both in another world -- in this case Tokyo -- and came up with one of the most accurate portrayals of real life Hollywood's produced in some time.

So I just noticed that ONDCP is now running ads in the "Views" section of FoxNews.com.

I'm intrigued. Given that at least three of the five or so regular columnists for "Views" favor decriminalization (myself, Wendy McElroy, and -- I'm pretty sure -- Steve Milloy), I'm curious to see if this will have any effect on the site's editorial policy.

It also makes me wonder if ONDCP bought the ads because it thought Fox readers were a friendly audience, or if the motivation was a growing uncomfortableness with the voices on the Fox News website who are delivering an insufficiently anti-drug message to that audience.

I do know that current Drug Czar John Walters is a crony of Mel and Betty Sembler. I also know that Mel and Betty aren't so fond of me, and at least once attempted to persuade Fox to terminate my column.

I'm almost inclined to write piece critical of ONDCP just for the sheer joy of seeing it wrap around an ONDCP "Anti-Drug" ad splashed smack in the middle of it.

Reflectoporn fetishists take pictures of themselves nude in the reflections of shiny objects, then attempt to sell those objects online.

Ebay -- ever the buzzkill lately -- has cracked down on this kind of exhibitionism for the shy, but here's a site for enthusiasts.

For more, check the Mirror Project.

Tampa Tantrum's Robyn (no last name, please), who designed the site you're looking at, is hosting the second annual "Blogger Boobie Thon."

Take a gander at the slightly-covered gallery of gazoobas, then pony up for those dirty pillows you'd like to see in the flesh.

All the proceeds go to breast cancer research.

If you're wondering, no, I'm not one of the participants. I probably won't go topless until later on in my career, when I'll probably do a nude scene or two to prove I still have sex appeal.

I took a vacation day today to tend to some personal business. I caught the first hour of Rush's show.

He was decidedly coy about the drug accusations, referring to them as "that situation in Florida," and promising only to address the situation "once I have all the facts."

That's certainly his prerogative. But it strikes me as the kind of response someone like Rush Limbaugh would clearly jump on had it come from another political figure accused of illicit drug use. If there's nothing at all to the charges, why not issue a blanket denial? Seems to me the only reason you'd hold back "until you have all the details" is for fear you might say something that could come back to haunt you should the case go to trial.

It's still early in this, of course. And we're looking at a story first published by the National Enquirer. As someone who advocates not only the end to drug prohibition, but also an end to the requirement that certain drugs be available only by prescription, I'd generally have nothing to say about the matter. Particularly when dealing with painkillers, which are notoriously addictive.

But given Limbaugh's rabid anti-drug position, given his propensity to judge other public officials by their initial reactions to charges like these rather than waiting for all the facts to come out, I think he's fair game for similar treatment.

And his reluctance to issue a blanket denial early on I think portends bad things to come.

Allen Barra provides as thorough a defense of Limbaugh one can imagine, particuarly since Barra is an esteemed sportswriter, and that the piece appears in Slate. Most telling statistic: McNabb's career passer rating is five points lower than that of....Brad Johnson?

While on the the topic, allow me a mea culpa or two.

In my previous post I made two glaring errors -- I mistook (actually, misremembered) Jeff Blake for Shaun King, and more embarassing, Michael Bishop for, all of all people, Byron Leftwich.

Doubly embarassing when you're making a point about race, because you're then subject to the old "oh, I'll bet you think they all look like, don't you?"

In truth, it's what I'll call a "blogging error" -- a hastily composed post, done over my lunch hour, done on memory, and not on research.

I think my point still holds, in spite of the errors. That is, in its search for a superstar black quarterback, the media still subscribes to old stereotypes -- this quarterback must be athletic, mobile and a run threat, not your traditional drop-back, "smart," defense-reading slinger. And in doing so, they set lots of these guys up for failure.

Maybe the best example is that of Akili Smith. When Smith came out in 1998, he originally wasn't even amoung the top five quarterbacks in the draft. He'd had lackluster workouts, and was projected a third to fifth round pick at best. Then he signed on with agent Leigh Steinberg. Playing off the black quarterback hype that year, Steinberg started an aggressive PR campaign, and moved Smith into a projected first-rounder, eventually all the way up to the #3 overall pick. Smith, who might have been a solid quarterback had he been taken by a better team, had he been able to take time to learn the league, promptly sat out training camp, demanding more money. He flopped.

I was also troubled that the commens to my previous post degenerated into a black-quarterback bashing frenzy. Let's remember something: The reason why it appears there have been lots of failed black quarterbacks is because over the last ten years or so, the media has unfairly built too many of them up on circumspect evidence.

The fact is, most quarterbacks fail. We were spoiled over the last twenty years or so to have several very good quarterbacks stay good over a long period of time -- Marino, Elway, Young, Aikman, etc.

But think about it, how many quarterbacks have been consistently good over the last 5 to 7 years? Probably only Jeff Garcia and Peyton Manning, though Manning has yet to win a playoff game, and Garcia is struggling so far this year. Perhaps Mark Brunnell, though Jacksonville hasn't been competitive in several years, and even in his prime, Brunnel never made it to the Super Bowl.

It's easy to remember the failed black quarterbacks because the media made such a big deal about them before they went bust. But let's not forget these names from the last ten years: Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf, Jeff George, Rick Mirer, Heath Schuler, David Klingler, Cade McNown, Chuck Long, Todd Marinovich and Jim Druckenmiller. All were first round picks, all were white, all were busts.

Cato's Bob Levy weighs in:

No-call may be a great idea — but only if the arrangements are controlled by private contract and not by government regulation. A phone customer does not own the lines coming into his home, so he may not restrict their use. Once a call enters his house, the customer has a remedy: Hang up. That's not much different than radio or TV. If you don't want to see a commercial, turn off the TV or switch channels. Your ownership of the television doesn't give you the right to prevent advertisers from broadcasting into your living room. Similarly, your ownership of a phone doesn't mean you can suppress usage of incoming lines. If you would rather eat dinner uninterrupted, just turn off the ringer. You can even use caller ID or record your messages and return them selectively.

The lines coming into a home are either owned by a private carrier (like Cox or Comcast or Time Warner) or by a common carrier (like BellSouth, Verizon, Quest or SBC). If the lines are owned by a private carrier, the user's contract will control whether and how calls are screened. Almost all private carriers have call-blocking technology. Naturally, carriers would be liable for breach of contract. But if the lines are owned by a common carrier, then government dictates the rules. Indeed, government has placed limits on the ability of common carriers to police their own networks, which must be available to serve all comers. Longer term, the solution is to get rid of the common carrier model and substitute private carriers so the market, rather than government, regulates access.

Ronald Bailey at Reason has some good ideas for anti-tax, pro-market health care reform. I'd earlier criticized Bailey for advocating libertarian acceptance of a forced insurance-buying plan, but this time I think he's on the right track.

I have little hope, however, that the proposals he describes will ever be adopted. Why? Because both parties have strong reasons not to take them up: they're too anti-socialist for the Democrats and too anti-corporate for the Republicans.

The former is perhaps obvious; the latter requires a bit of explanation. The current system, under which employers can pay for their workers' health benefits with pretax dollars but individuals can't buy their own insurance pretax, biases the labor market in favor of large corporations. If you're a middle-aged man or woman with kids looking for a job, getting good, cheap, stable health insurance for your family is really important, and working for a large company is the easiest way to get it. If you've already got a job, the prospect of losing your insurance (or having to pay enormous COBRA premiums) when you quit is a significant deterrent to quitting.

Anything that makes it easier for individuals to pay for their own health care, then, makes large corporations less competitive as employers. So those corporations have an incentive to use their political clout-- with both parties, but probably with the Republicans especially-- to block measures like those Bailey advocates.

P.S. Yeah, yeah, I know, it's been forever since I posted. I've been snared by that crazy, mind-eating distraction called "work". Coming soon, however, is a review of James Bovard's new book Terrorism and Tyranny.

Disjointed though they may be.

1) He was right. Sort of. McNabb had two great seasons, and one so-far regrettable one. You're free to quarrel with Rush about the individual merits of McNabb. We'll see. It's still very early in his career.

But Rush's larger point was correct. There is intense media fawning over black quarterbacks, to the point that it's embarassing. How many times did we hear how Kordell Stewart was bound for the Hall of Fame? About how he would revoluitionize the quarterback position? How many times have we heard what a wonderful athlete Aaron Brooks is? Shaun King had two decent games (not great, decent) a couple of years ago, and he was heralded as the future of the Buccaneers. He's since flamed out.

The media has almost single-handedly set most of these guys up to disappoint.

It's true that there's a dirty history behind blacks and the quarterback position. It was long assumed that blacks weren't smart enough to take snaps. A black high school quarterback with athletic gifts was almost always converted to wide receiver or defensive back -- if not in college, certainly by the time he made it to the pros.

But listen closely to the way the media praises today's black quarterbacks. They're almost always showered with plaudits about their athleticism or their mobility, they're desribed in terms of how they'll change the way the position is played, about how they'll force offensive coordinators to rewrite the playbook. Rarely does the media acknowledget that a black quarterback has the skills to dominate the position as-is.

Rarely does the media describe a black quarterback as "smart," as a good reader of defenses, or as a student of the game -- they way they describe guys like Peyton Manning, Chad Pennington or Jeff Garcia.

The truth is, the black quarterbacks who have been most succesful aren't the athletic, mobile, "revolutionary" guys, they're the guys who have strong, accurate arms, who pass out of the pocket, but who can, when needed, scramble for a first down. They're guys like Warren Moon and Randal Cunningham. McNabb was at his best when he was throwing, not running. Daunte Culpepper struggled last year not because he couldn't run the ball, but because his passing accuracy dipped, because he was throwing interceptions every other possession. Now that his arm is back, he's running less, his rating is up, and his team is undefeated. Steve McNair is certainly mobile, but Tennessee wins when he stays in the pocket, like a traditional quarterback. Every team that has attempted to incorporate a quarterback-as-run-threat type of offense has at best found only mediocrity.

What's odd is that in an effort to correct for the racism of football coaches past, the media subscribes to every one of the old prejudices. The media has decided that the successful "black quarterback" will be a runner, a dodger -- an athlete first, a survey-the-field, learn-the-offense quarteback second. They've predetermined that a real black quarterback must display all the attributes of "blackness." That's why we heard so much about the dreadful Kordell Stewart several years ago, while guys like Cunningham and Moon were racking up yards and TD passes.

Michael Vick is certainly exciting to watch. But there's no possible way he can live up to the hype that's been built for him. He's a running back with a strong, but wildly inaccurate arm. He completed 177 passes in his entire college career -- about the number a good quarterback heading up a pass-oriented offense completes in half a season. My prediction? Unless he improves his accuracy, he'll make a Pro Bowl or two, then he'll flame out in five years. Meanwhile, I'll predict that Michael Bishop -- a smart, drop-back passer with great field vision -- will soon be a superstar. And yes, he's black.

Just a hunch.

2) The free speech issue. For this, Limbaugh's a coward. If his comments weren't motivated by racism (I don't think they were -- he'd praised the league's black coaches the week before -- which I'd submit is every bit the racial generalization his Mcnabb comments were), why resign?

ESPN knew it was courting controversy when it hired Limbaugh (BTW, I thought it was a lame move from the get-go. Rush's knowledge of the game is no more insightful than your average Sunday Ticket subscriber. His contributions to Sunday Countdown were usually weak attempts to score political points, and he somehow managed to add even less to the discussion than Michael Irvin -- quite an accomplishment. Note to ESPN: Keep it simple. Boomer and Tom Jackson are all you need).

Rush should have stuck around and forced ESPN's hand -- make the network either stand by the initial decision to hire him, or bend over for the race-baiters. Rush ducked when it got just a little warm, and his listeners ought to give him hell for it.

3) The drugs. This is the real issue. If the Oxycontin/painkiller story is true, Rush will prove to be the raving hypocrite I've always thought him to be.

I wonder if he'll change his position on mandatory minimums?

UPDATE: Over at NRO, Rich Lowry finds this very interesting CBS Sportsline column, dated September 18. He also checks the ESPN transcript and finds that after Rush's comments, Michael Irvin -- who's black -- said, "Rush has a point."

Hmm...

In case you haven't heard, Rush Limbaugh got into a little bit of trouble in his position as a Sunday morning analyst. On ESPN's NFL Sunday Countdown, Limbaugh said that Donovan McNabb is overrated as a quarterback because the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed. He resigned over the comment.

My own personal opinion is: 1) he's wrong. Donovan McNabb is not overrated. And Donovan McNabb is definitely not overrated because he's black. The era of black quarterbacks being an abnormality is long gone. It left not long after Doug Williams won the M.V.P. in Super Bowl XXII. That's in 1987 for you non-Romans. With stars such as Michael Vick and Donte Culpepper in the huddle and on our X-Boxs, the media has no interest in hyping a 'lesser quality' black quarterback simply because he is black. There are plenty of great black quarterbacks to hype. Limbaugh's premise is absurd.

Still, 2) he should not have been forced (or allowed) to resign over the comments. And I'm not going to hold up some flimsy 1st Amendment argument on this one either. Its not censorship, its just stupid. All Limbaugh did was talk about race. The fact is, there are a growing number of white people who feel that anything a black man does that's positive, is only acknowledged because the bar is lowered for minorities. Those white people are wrong, but its their perception and it must be dealt with. Those that disagree are much better off pointing out how its wrong, rather than seeking to silence the white man on charges of racism or insensitivity. A reaction like that only serves to strengthen the speaker's resolve that he's right. And it solidifies and expands the audience to boot.

I don't think Rush Limbaugh is a racist. He is a white guy who doesn't know how to respond to the era of affirmative action where the many qualified black men and women walk amongst the products of diversity engineering. Limbaugh needs to be told he is an idiot. He needs McNabb's statistic put in front of his face for him to contradict. He does not need to be silenced. The issue should not be ignored as if it was never brought up. Doing that only provides it with legitimacy.

Another reason I've been known to waver on my Texas pride: it's hard to get a drink sometimes. You wouldn't think so, would you? But as the NY Times covers today in bizarre detail, Texas' mish-mash of old liquor laws makes Connecticut blue laws seem positively sensible. For example:

-State records list 51 of Texas' 254 counties as entirely dry. Until 1972, you could not legally buy mixed drinks anywhere in Texas.

-The difference between wet or dry in [Dallas suburb] Plano can come down to feet, or inches. A Hooters restaurant that went up here several years ago turned out to be too close to a church to sell alcohol. It reconfigured its front door — and came into compliance.

-At a popular restaurant, Love and War in Texas, patrons who wish to order beer or wine or a mixed drink are carded and given an "Application for Preliminary Membership." Signing it enrolls one, free, in the ad hoc club. If several patrons share a table, the first who signs is presumed to be the "member" and can order drinks for the others, who need not sign. But the host remains technically responsible for the check.

Having once applied for a "membership" at one of these places, I can recall wondering what my name and address had to do with my wish for a beer. Invasive? You bet. And given that I was only nineteen anyway, creating a scene about my privacy was certainly more dignified than subjecting my poorly constructed fake ID to restaurant management scrutiny.

Another example of bizarre and confusing liquor rules: at a restaurant where I used to work in Dallas, we couldn't serve alcohol before 10am on Sundays and between 10am and 12pm, you couldn't serve alcohol unless there was food on the table. So if you wanted to enjoy a famous Ozona bloody mary and read the paper, you'd have to have a side of toast or something on the table as well. That's crazy--you're not even hungry! I say if a restaurant wants to be known as a place where drunks hang out on Sunday morning, more power to 'em.

It sounds from the NYT article that there's momentum for change, but it seems as poorly organized and held together as the alcohol codes themselves (which currently amount to 251 pages). One Dallas Morning News columnist pointed out a few weeks ago that the rules are so bizarre and random that even the state of Texas doesn't maintain a current map of which areas fall where on the super-confusing 10 level spectrum of wet to dry. As quoted in the Times article, Lou Bright, general counsel of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said Texas law was "as complicated as we could make it." Having spent a couple of minutes on the TABC regulatory page, I can almost picture him having smirked when he said it in a manner reminiscent of a certain Texan I know in the White House.

(As an aside, when I was 18 I took my TABC certification class in a strip club called The Fare. It was the law.)

But there's a glimmer of hope that businesses, the most obvious victims of such asinine and archaic regulations, will work together to change the conditions that confuse locals and confound 19 year olds trying to enjoy a damn beer. Right now in Plano they're working towards "standardization" of the rules with a possible vote in February, but I personally would just as soon see them all done away with. But absent that, recently passed legislation, at least, makes it easier for petitioners to initiate elections to change the rules on a community level, which is where decisions like this can most legitimately be made.

The home phone numbers of eleven Direct Marketing Association execs are on the FTC's Do Not Call registry

Members of The Free State Project have voted to descend on quaint, cozy New Hampshire when their ranks reach 20,000. Runners up, in order: Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Maine, Vermont, Delaware, South Dakota and North Dakota.

Delaware?

I went to see New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman speak last night. According to Paul, he's a moderate. According to me, he's crazy.

If there is a more intellectually dishonest columnist out there, I am unaware. The fallacies and inadmissions by Dr. Krugman throughout the evening were to many too count. Unfortunately I was without pen and paper to document my outrage. Instead I was forced to settle for a heavy dose of eye-rolling, audible sighs, and a brief solo clap when no one else was clapping (mainly because I am sure Paul did not mean it as a good thing when he said that some out there want to roll back the welfare state created by FDR and LBJ).

The main thing I took from Dr. Krugman's speech, aside from the fact that he is not above pandering to a decidedly liberal audience, is that he believes that deficits are a bad thing and that George Bush's tax cuts are sure to lead to deficits for many years to come. According to Paul, GW's tax cuts will lead to an immediate revenue decrease of $300 billion. Fine, let's take him at his word. He's studied economics and the tax package a lot more than I admittedly have. Its two of his following points that I take issue with though.

1) The $300 billion deficiency right now means that there will be deficits in the future. He, of course, puts the caveat in there "Unless we cut the welfare state. Which is what this administration and conservative extremist want to do." Well, yes, we do. But let's put that aside. Even without cutting spending, it does not necessarily mean that the tax cut will lead to deficits in the future.

He may disagree, but he should at least acknowledge the idea that cutting taxes will put money into people's hands for them to spend. That money will then go to businesses who will employ people. These new jobs will in turn give people new or higher salaries, allowing them to spend more money and repeating the cycle. As the tax base expands, government revenues increase. All the while, the government is taking a smaller percentage of everyone's paycheck. If you don't think it will work Paul, say why.

Even if the tax cut is 'for the rich,' the rich go out and spend money too. There is no reason their spending won't create jobs in the same way that a middle class tax cut would. (At point, by the way, which is by no means an acceptance that this is not a middle class tax cut.)

Further, even even if the rich don't spend, but rather invest the $300 billion they are getting back, a large portion of that money is going to be invested industries that are making products people want. That's how you make money. Invest in things people want. This influx of capital will allow successful businesses to expand and thus, employ more people. See above.

As long as the money is not being put under a matress, its going to create jobs. Sure their may be an imideate revenue decrease of $300 billion, but tax revenues do not operate in a vacum and the tax cuts should have a positive effect on future revenues in the years to come.

2) While Dr. Krugman's first point was an inadmission of the legitimate economic theory behind the tax cuts, his second point showed a blatant misunderstanding of how economics should properly work. According to Paul, with that $300 billion dollars, the government could employ 6 million people (at $50,000) even to "dig ditches or something." ???? What??? Are you a serious economist? I must have had you confused with someone who has taught at MIT, Princeton and Stanford.

Let's dissect this "economic recovery" plan for a second, can we. So Paul, what you're telling me is that rather than giving people back their tax money to spend on things they want, spending that increases the general population's possessions and enjoyment, instead we should pay 6 million people to dig ditches so at the end of the year we have a bunch of ditches to show for our $300 billion. Babies go without blankets, children go with out shoes, lawyers go with out Tivo, but the United States will run a trade surplus in ditches.

Not only that, but have you ever tried to fire a government ditch digger? I haven't but I can only imagine its hard. Now we're stuck coming up with $300 billion every year to pay an army of ditch diggers or we'll be accused of being mean old conservatives wanting to cut the welfare state.

The fact is, in almost any other time, Paul Krugman would be laughed out of any reasonable policy debate. Only now we have a President with a credibility problem. It was evident to me from the questions in the room last night that most people didn't hate George Bush for his economic policy - they hated him for Iraq. More than that, they don't trust him. To democrats, liberal leaning people and a growing number of moderates, Bush is as untrustworthy as Clinton ever was to Republicans. It makes it mighty difficult to sell even a genuinely good tax package if a majority of the population is not only convinced that you are lying, but that you have disingenuous motives. That's how they think about George Bush and for those of us concerned with economics, its a shame.

UPDATE: I almost forgot to mention the best line of the night, which Krugman credited to someone else although I forget who: "The US government is really the world's largest insurance company that dabbles in the side business of national defense." I almost started clapping. Until I realized he was saying this as if it was good.

The Chicago Tribune recently ran a letter to the editor by Bill Beckman, executive director of the Illinois Right to Life Committee about Paul Hill, the recently executed killer of an abortion provider and his bodyguard.

Unfortunately, each time Beckman used the phrase "pro-life," Tribune editors changed it to "anti-abortion," as prescribed by the paper's style guide.

I don't have a problem with "anti-abortion" when used in newscopy. It's more accurate than "pro-life," which is an amitedly loaded label. But the abortion debate is so rife with loaded phrases and labels, it's really inexcusable to alter the labels chosen by the author of a letter to the editor -- or an opinion piece, for that matter.

The changes were particularly egregious in this case, as Beckman's entire reason for writing the letter was to to disassociate Paul Hill from the "pro-life" movement, given that one who condones and actually carries out the murder of abortion doctors, by definition, isn't "pro-life."

Beckman titled his letter "Paul Hill Is Not Pro-Life, Nor Is He a Martyr." To change that to "Paul Hill Is Not Anti-Abortion, Nor Is He a Martyr" completely undermines Beckman's point, and makes him look rather foolish.

Paul Hill is anti-abortion. Vehemently so. That point really isn't open for debate.