Frank Rich is, for once, making some sense. Expect the 9/11 onslaught to begin this week, and continue throughout September. Fox News asked all of its columnists to refelct, if they were so inclined, on 9/11 for a special retrospective section. I think I might pass. It would be easy to write about what it was like to be in midtown D.C. that day. It was frightening at times. But I don't think I could add much that hasn't already been said or written. I didn't lose anyone close to me last September, and I personally was never in any real danger. So to write a tear-jerker, or some harrowing I-survived-the-attack-on-D.C. firsthand account seems a little exploitative to me.

This Washington Post article asks an interesting question: at what point does comemoration become profiteering (or exploitation)? It seems perfectly acceptible, for example, for newspapers to print special sections, even entire editions to remember 9/11. They'll make money off of those special editions. And I don't see much problem with that. Some cable news channels have vowed to go commercial-free, which is admirable. But I don't think you can expect that from all media, nor you can find fault with media that does decide to run ads.

But we have seen endeavors over months past that raise some questions. I'm not at all comfortable with the Cantor Fitzgerald commercials implying that doing business with the company might be one way to pay tribute to WTC victims. And Rosie O'Donnell I think makes a good point (never thought I'd use those words in that order) when she scolds the Hollywood celebrities who went on TV to ask Joe Lunchbucket for a $50 donation to the Red Cross, but who scoffed when Rosie suggested there be a $1 million cover at the telethon's door. Camera time to ask America for money? Sure. Dig in to your own checkbook? Not likely.

Whatever the next month brings, unless you experienced the attacks in person, 9/11 will not be remembered as it was, but as it will be filtered through camera lenses, montages, videotape, and the prose of paid scribes. I share the fear that we'll become desensitized, but what's the alternative? "9/11, a year later" is news, and the media is right to cover it as such.

Gene, Brink, Julian and I are hosting the second D.C. area blog party (we'll see if we can't get Tom Palmer in on this, too).

Date: September 19
Time: 7ish. Or thereabouts.
Place: Rendezvous Lounge, 18th and Kalorama (same as Blogorama, the first)

All D.C. bloggers, friends of bloggers, readers of blogs, friends of readers of blogs, loathers of blogs, and those indifferent to blogs are invite and encouraged to attend. Bloggers are encouraged to promote the event. On their blogs. Of course. Blogorama I was a smashing success. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 people.

The AFC East.

1st Place -- Miami Dolphins -- 10-6.

Poor Miami. The new alignment sent Indianapolis to the leagues weakest division, not to mention the warm-weather games that come with it (Jacksonville, Texas and Tennessee). Miami was left behind in the AFC East, maybe the league's toughest division, and has to travel to Buffalo, New England and New Jersey. Still, Miami may have the best defense in the AFC. The Fins d-line and linebacking corps might be the best in the league. The secondary needs some work, as interceptions dropped off last year, but d-line pressure alone should allow for more turnovers this year. The offense is much improved, too. Chris Chambers had a solid rookie season at wideout, and should break into the league's elite this year. They also acquired Ricky Williams, who I think will compete with Edgerrin James for the rushing title. The only weakness I see is QB Jay Fiedler. He's got no arm, no mobility, no grace. That alone will prevent an advance beyond the divisional playoffs.

2nd Place -- New England Patriots -- 9-7

Yeah, I know, Super Bowl champs, blah, blah, blah. I still don't think this team is for real. They got to the Super Bowl on a bad call and some crappy weather. They then played the game of their lives. Bill Belichick knows defense, so this team won't be awful. But I'm not yet sold on Tom Brady. And Antowan Smith showed up at camp late and out of shape. I smell bad chemistry.

3rd Place -- New York Jets -- 9-7

Lots of people are picking the Jets to surprise and win this division. I'm not buying it. It's just too tough. They have no o-line and a washed-up QB in Testeverde. Curtis Martin will get you to nine wins. Not much further.

4th Place -- Bufallo Bills -- 4-12

No defensive line. Running back by committee. In Drew Bledsoe, a quarterback that you have to root for (he's just a great all-around guy), but whose confidence has to be shaken after Tom Brady stole his job in New England. Nobody's afraid of Travis Henry. The three solid defenses in this division will drop back into coverage and make Bledsoe miserable. Eric Moulds will be lucky to catch 80 balls this year.

The AFC South

Indianapolis Colts -- 11-5 -- 1st Place

A little hometown favoritism? Absolutely. Wishfull thinking? Probably. This year, Tony Dungy will be proven a fraud or a genius. Under scenario fraud, Indy's offense sputters, and its defense shows no improvement over last year. It quickly becomes apparent that Dungy had so much defensive talent in Tampa Bay, no one could screw it up, and that he wasted the skills of Mike Alstott, Warrick Dunn and Keyshawn Johnson with his complete offensive ineptitude. Scenario genius sees Indy's offense keep its pace from the previous two years, and Dungy's defensive scheme takes root and vastly improves the conditions and field position under which Peyton Manning goes to work. The Colts then plan for a deep run into the playoffs. Guess which scenario I'm banking on?

Tennessee Titans -- 10-6 -- 2nd Place -- AFC Wild Card

Another team that could "bust out" or "just plain bust" this year. It all boils down to Eddie George. Was his poor performance (which wrecked my fantasy team, by the way) last year really the result of a sore toe, or was it something more troubling? If George turns it around, Steve McNair gets more time to throw the ball, and the Tennessee defense doesn't spend 60% of the game on the field. That'll get them into the playoffs. I think George will bounce back. And Tennessee has a nice season.

Jacksonville Jaguars -- 5-11 -- 3rd Place

The Jags ruined themselves for the next five years by blowing open their salary cap. Expect Fred Taylor to drop with an injury any day now. Expect Mark Brunnel to call his agent in a desperate attempt to save his career. This team is awful, and will be for some time.

Houston Texans -- 3-13 -- 4th Place

Despite the NFL's generous provisions to help expansion squads get off the ground running, the Texans have shown zero promise in the preseason. I think a rookie quarterback on an expansion team is a huge mistake. Rookie QBs need time to build confidence. David Carr's fans might be stoked that he's getting prime PT so early in his career, but I think it's going to kill said career before it ever gets started. He went down with a bruised knee last night. If it keeps out a few games, it might be the best thing that could've happen to him in August.

Rest of the AFC is on the way.....

I was actually a little disappointed there was no strike. It would've made for great entertainment (not to mention blog fodder). All the coverage of the last-minute agreement was illing. Lemmesee, Messrs. Selig and Fehr narrowly avoid putting a .45 into their mouths and blowing baseball's brains all over its fans, so they promtply call a self-congratulatory press conference where they proceed to slobber all over one another? Pardon me if I steer clear of this group masturbation session. This agreement wasn't "historic," both sides didn't come out "winners," and there's no reason for "celebration." Each side barely managed to avoid suffocating themselves with their own greed. Congratulations.

One good thing that might come out of all of this is baseball returning to D.C. With contraction now put off until at least 2006, and with the Montreal Expos bleeding money, Selig's hand will likely be forced to find some way to generate revenue. Moving Montreal to D.C., and perhaps Florida or Tampa Bay to Charlotte or New Orleans seem like obvious remedies.

I hoped to do some writing this morning. Then, someone sent me a link to this addictive little bugger.

This site has been around the blogosphere a few times, but I haven't linked to it yet, and it's a ball of fun. Only problem, the computer geek in me happens to be learning disabled, so I can't figure out how to save and post my own South Park alter-ego. Oh well.

"I have no idea what Title IX is."

--JenCap when asked what she thought of President Bush's possible changes to the program.

So about 600 emails sit in my inbox. Browsing through them, I see the column was mentioned on several talk radio programs last night. Charlotte Twight's book is at #30 on Amazon at the moment. And the high-traffic website Jewish World Review has agreed to pick up my column, beginning next week. In fact, the withholding column should be the first one they run. In all humility, I really don't think the column itself was all that great. I think -- and take heart in the notion that -- there's a sizeable lot of you out there who are generally and genuinely pissed off at the size and scope of your federal government, and that you're footing the bill. This is good news. Apathy be damned.

A friend of mine just returned from a covert vacation to Cuba. Good for him. The Cuban travel ban is asinine, an anachronistic vestige of the Cold War. I asked him to keep a diary for me, which I promised to post on my blog. He'd like to remain anonymous. The threat of a $20,000 federal fine tends to promote anonymity. Here's his report:

First thing I did the moment I got back from Cuba was eat. Castro, you see, is a Communist. Communist countries tend to neglect some of the standard vacation amenities – good food, for example.

I know, I know. Who am I, wee little capitalist, to ask for variety? I guess I could live without variety. But if I can’t have variety, quality would be nice. No go. Because in Cuba, it's for the PUBLIC GOOD, comrades, to serve exactly three horrible fucking dishes of food – no matter where you are in the country: fried fucking pork, fried fucking chicken, and fried fucking fish. It's hell on your digestive system. Americans fight terrorism. Cubans fight constipation.

So yes, with romantic visions of cigars, mobster hotels, rum, and 1950's roadsters dancing in my head, a few weeks ago, I waved a giant middle finger at the fascist American embargo, snuck through the Canadian portal (Toronto), and, yes, flew to Cuba.

My romantic vision soured. Believe none of what you hear. Don’t let that crunchy European backpacker you met on the train in Barcelona convince you that Cuba is “unspoilt”—one of the last inexpensive backpacking destinations to be unclaimed by Western capitalism, and thereby robbed of it’s “natural” charm and beauty. Cuba is beat-up, worn out, and half dead. And you’ll pay out the nose to experience this “utopia.”

When Fidel took over in Havana, he “nationalized” all the houses from the upper-middle class. They’re architectural gems, street after street of grand Spanish colonial style mansions. Castro took possession, and made public housing of them. Architectural gem becomes cubic zirconium shithouse. We libertarians call this “tragedy of the commons.” Many of them have collapsed. Of those still standing, dirty clothes hang from wrought iron balconies, chickens shit on marble tiled courtyards, and sad faces stare down at you from broken French shutters.

At the top of Fidel’s favorite stolen structure, a 22 story modern concrete hotel, turkey vultures encircle a giant sign that proclaims, “Havana Libre,” or, “Free Cuba!” I felt like a soldier returning to Rome after the Germans had conquered.

The cigars in Cuba are the same price they are Canadian duty free shop. Despite the grand moniker, a “Cuba libre” is just a rum and coke, and it will cost you $US 3-4 dollars. A meal of fried pork/chicken/fish costs anywhere from $10-$20.

The 50’s Chevrolets belch thick black funk from duck-taped tail pipes. They wobble by on bent axles, usually teeming with Cubans, arms and legs flailing from windows. A taxi ride in one of them will cost you $US3-5. Barely refrigerated bottled water will cost you $US 1.50-3.00. The last truly glittering hotel, the beautiful “Hotel Nacional” costs US$ 200 a night, and an 35-65 bucks to get in the cabaret, “Tropicana.” The food’s still shit, but it’s pricey shit -- $30-40 a plate.

The average Cuban makes the equivalent of $10 a month. How can this be? As a tourist, you feel constantly swindled. There’s a state police officer on every corner of every block in Havana, watchfully supervising the swindle.

Don’t get me wrong. My vacation wasn’t all bad. Once we got out of Havana, we hit a beach in the south, Playa Alcon, just outside an old cobblestone Spanish colonial town called Trinidad. We stayed with a Cuban family, renting a private room, right on the ocean. As the sun set, we ate illegal fresh fish (i.e. caught privately) that our house keeper Olympia prepared. We rented beat-up 1950’s bikes, and rode down to the whitest, white sand beaches I’ve ever seen. We snorkeled along gorgeous blue coral reefs, and hiked to a mountaintop waterfall. At night, we wiggled our hips to soulful Cuban traditional music. The Cubans are the happiest, and most talented dancers I’ve ever seen. In Trinidad, we were suitably charmed.

You have to hand it to the Cubans. They’re a proud people. Our housekeeper would hide his hardship. He’d say that times have been tougher -- that Cubans will always look out for one other. And he was very quick to note the two (and only two) things the country’s got going for it: health care and education. We’ve all heard that line. So we pressed him a little.

Cuba’s health system isn’t voluntary. A government agent comes by your house with a register of what vaccines you should get, when your last trip to the dentist was, what you’re eating, etc. If you haven’t gotten something someone in Havana has decided you need, you’re off to the doctor. What if you don’t want that injection? What if you’d like to keep that tooth? Too bad. The State knows what’s best for you. Roll up your sleeve, put out your arm. It’s not your body. It’s Castro’s. Fidel wants the healthiest populace in Latin America. Step up to the plate.

Cubans are also selectively educated. Fidel, for example, has a thing for farming. Consequently, every 13 year old Cuban kid spends a month at “farming camp” where he learns how to tend the fields like a peasant, growing sugar, rice, and beans with wooden tools. Fidel’s likes languages, too, so a good number of Cubans can speak either German, Italian, or English. But they can only read what Fidel tells them they can. They can’t leave, so travel’s out of the question. Serving tourists is about the only productive use of knowing a second language that’s permitted. So yes, they’re educated. But for what?

Cuba certainly isn’t the backpackers paradise. I did take solace in the feeling I got that the country’s teetering on the edge of revolution. Once that happens, it’s pretty easy to see the island’s potential -- fantastic natural resources, a hard working, relatively well educated public, they even respect Castro’s rule of law, perverse though it may be.

Give capitalism ten years in Cuba. It’ll be a backpacker’s dream.

Nicely done.

On my way to lunch today, I had to negotiate my way through a throng of angry, striking flight attendands from Midwest Express. Angry, attractive, flight attendants. Bustling with their signs and their principles. Lots of them squished into a cozy little walkway, some slightly moistened by a cool D.C. rain. God bless Norma Rae!

To a party at P. Diddy's house. Just click here, print out the invitation, and show up. Nothing to wear? No worries. Just throw on some ratty jeans and unlaced hi-tops. P. Diddy won't mind. Not sure you can make it? Sure you can. P. Diddy's got pics from his last party. Take a look. You wanna' miss this?

That's how we swear in Indiana. I'm swearing because it seems as if there's some genuine interest out there in ending federal withholding. At least among patrons of FoxNews.com.

I just checked my email account for the first time in several hours. Well over 400 messages. Not sure just how many, because I can't remember how many were in my inbox when the day started. If you wrote, I will read your note. Eventually. Can't promise I'll write back, though. And I'll post the more interesting/thoughtfull/wacko responses here.

Charlotte Twight's book shot from the 13,000-something range on the Amazon charts to number 47, where it sits now. I think we should keep pushing it up. Top ten, maybe? Click here to buy it. Surely you have a loved one who needs a copy.

I should add here that it isn't that difficult to move a book up the Amazon charts. Every time Don Imus has an author on his radio show, that author's book jacks to number one. I think the charts are updated pretty frequently -- maybe hourly -- so just a few sales an hour is going to move you up pretty quickly. Even so, 13,000 to 47 is damned impressive, if I do say so myself.

Amazon sales rank for Charlotte Twight's book last night, before my Fox column posted: 13,452.

Amazon sales rank for Charlotte Twight's book as of 1 pm EDT today, after my column's been up 13 hours: 128.

First, we take Manhattan. Then we take Berlin.

Stephen Green rehashes the best from his site over weeks past. My favorite: "Roger Ebert has his head so far up his ass, he can lick his own esophagus. We call this maneuver "pulling a Fukuyama.""

Amen to that. I was much perturbed during the Clinton/Lewinski scandal that someone apparently told Roger Ebert that it was okay for him to have political opinions. It isn't. Roger, just keep doing that "thumb" thing. You're much better at it.

Also from the Vodka man, this quirky news item: Apparently MSNBC has begun promoting its own programing via TV spots on Fox! Have a cocktail, Roger Ailes. You win.

Page 2 collects the best of baseball fans' strike signs.

I wrote a column for Fox four weeks ago making the case that the U.S. government is a far worse accountant than any corporate scandal the private sector could possibly muster. I got lots and lots of email. Most all of it agreed with the piece, but a huge portion then asked the question, well, what can we do about it?

My suggestion: end federal income tax withholding. That's the subject of the latest column.

I got this email this morning regarding my post praising Bjorn Lomborg. Rest assured, a thorough deconscruction is coming. Probably this weekend. But I thought I'd let you read it first, and salivate a little. Or maybe even do a little debunking yourselves. It shouldn't be hard. Nearly every sentence is dead wrong.

Dear Radley,

I couldn't help but come across the comments on your web site regarding Lomborg's op-ed in the New York Times. I am a senior scientist who co-authored highly critical reviews of Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" for the journal Nature and for the Union of Concerned Scientists. I have also recently spoken in Denmark on ecological economics and opposed Lomborg in a meeting held in The Netherlands in June. Like his book, which is full of distortions and misinformation, his op-ed for the New York Times, "The Environmentalists are wrong" (Op-ed, August 26) underlines his myopic view of the way in which the world works.

Lomborg falls into the trap of believing that "trade" and "development" are the keys to alleviating poverty in the developing world, when there is an enormous amount of evidence that these are actually the problems that are driving poverty and environmental destruction in the first place. Global trade has increased elevenfold since 1950, yet poverty and unemployment are not even close to being eliminated. Moreover, many of the newly industrialized countries, like Taiwan, are becoming known as ecological catastrophes.

One of the most fundamental claims made by the pro-development/trade set, is
that traditional trade-and growth driven economic development will make people richer and thus move them to protect their environments. This claim, however, is based upon the well-cultivated myth that it is the poor who are destroying the environment. But most of the environmental damage is done by the planet's rich, which would include the North and the elites in the south. Even in poor countries like Nigeria, Brazil, Honduras and Guatemala, all of which are known for their environmental problems, small groups of families control the vast majority of political and economic power and use it primarily to enrich themselves. The bulk of land is in the hands of the very few, so the dispossessed poor are forced to scratch a living from land of marginal value.

The developed world, far from supporting Lomborg's absurd arguments, have repeatedly failed to cough up the money they promised ten years ago in Rio, and to find ways of holding big busienss to account. Ostensibly, the developed world's obsession with "free trade" and "development" ultimately assures that corporate freedom overrides environmental protection. Unless some means are found of making corporations accountable at the global level, of transferring technologies to the poorest parts of the world, of installing tough, enforceable global regulations to protect the environment, and of creating more global equity, then burgeoning environmental problems and the poverty gap are only going to get worse.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Jeffrey A. Harvey,
Senior Scientist,
Netherlands Institute of Ecology,
Center for Terrestrial Ecology,
PO Box 40, 6666 ZG Heteren,
The Netherlands

Here's a late-arriving email on a Fox column I did a couple of months ago about North Carolina's "Senator Handsome" John Edwards:

Great article on John Edwards - the 'botched' childbirth that he won millions on - was not botched. It was an unfortunate outcome - most likely genetic (meaning from conception) - that aroused sympathy in the jury (who had no knowledge or understanding of the intricacies of the case). His millions have been won by emotional persuasion, not from facts. And it put a very good, extremely bright physician out of business - and is doing the same thing to many others.

--An OB from North Carolina

A jury overwhelmed by emotion in a torts case? You don't say.

The obesity epidemic made Time's cover this week. And Megan McCardle's got a bellyfull of discussion on the topic over at Jane Galt HQ. Start here and scroll your way up. I'm much too lazy to refute her points here. Instead, I'll just defer her to my Tech Central column on the subject.

Jonah Goldberg's in prime form today.

More state quarter controversies:

1) From Missouri. State officials held a web poll to select what design MO would send to the Treasury. The winning design, however, was nixed due to "anachronistic" imagery -- the artist depicted the St. Louis Arch, constructed in the 1960's, in the background as Lewis and Clark paddle down the Missouri River. But Ohio's design is anachronistic, too -- it depicts John Glenn mid-spacewalk while the Wright flyer motors by a map of the state.

2) Slate says all the quarters are ugly, and assembled a slide show to make the case.

3) The California design is getting poor reviews, too. But it's the most honest state quarter I've seen to date.

Great post on the blond bomb(no shell) from Avedon Carrol.

Link via Jim Henley.

So a gracious link from the InstaMan produced a bit of feedback on this post. Let me first say that I am not an epidemiologist (if I didn't know better, I'd guess that's somebody you might see about a rash), nor a statistician. As I wrote in the original post on the subject, I was merely quoting from a 1995 Wall Street Journal op-ed by Jerry Taylor (no link available). That said, a couple of readers wrote in with quibbles, a couple of which I'll cop to, a couple of which I won't, and a couple of which have me completely befuddled.

1) Logan Spector, who is an actual epidimiologist, gave me a few quick pointers. First, those guys (hey, it's easier then spelling out the damn word), never use percentages. In the post, I lazily swayed back and forth between percentages and risk ratios, and in the process, I think I inadvertently threw a percentage sign on the tail end of a risk ratio. That's my fault. And since corrected.

But I jumped back and forth because I think a lay audience (of which I'm certainly a part) understands percentages more than "risk ratios." Risk ratios are actually fairly easily converted into percentages. A 50% increase in risk, for example, translates into a 1.5 risk ratio. A 20%, to 1.2. 300%, to 3.0. And so on.

2) Logan also points out that I completely misused the phrase "statistical significance." Apparently, this phrase has a precise epidemiological definition. I used it rather carelessly, mainly because it sounded a heck of a lot more impressive than the word "importance." Remedial English. Never use a $100 word when a $10 word will do.

Logan says that a 1.3 risk ratio, then, can be statistically significant, but not necessarily clinically significant. I have no idea what that means, but I'll take his word for it. All I can do is plead the one source I used for the post: The WSJ piece quotes someone named Eugenia Calle. Her title is director of analytic epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, which sounds fairly impressive to me. She's quoted thusly: "Epidemiological studies in general are probably not able, realistically, to identify with any cinfidence any relative risks lower than 1.3." I'll let Logan and Eugenia arm-wrestle for this one.

Similarly, Logan quarrels with my assertion that a risk ratio needs to be 3.0 or higher to trigger alarm bells in the Epidemiologists' school ceafeteria. Again, I defer to my (only) source: "Since epidemiologists normally take seriously only risk factors of 3.0 or greater, Lynn Rosenberg of the Boston University School of Medicine (again, a fairly impressive-sounding title) agreed with most scientists that the breast cancer study was "far from conclusive, and it is difficult to see how [it] will be informative to the public."

3) Logan, and others, also point out that the significance (and here I'm refering to the laiety's definition of "significance," not that of the Elders of the Church of Epidemiology) of risk ratios vary with sample size. Here, I concede. This makes sense. If a risk factor increases the likelihood of cancer from .0005% to .0010%, it's not that big a deal. But if it increases the likelihood from 10% to 20%, well, that's a big, honking deal. As Logan pointed out, the risk ratio of a game of Russian roulette is 80% with four bullets occupying five empty chambers. Increase that risk by 25% (add a bullet), and you'd better believe your risk increase is "significant."

All of this does little, I think, to undermine my general point: the abortion/breast cancer connection is dubious at best, and isn't at all worthy of the paper mountain of press releases the pro-life lobby wastes on promoting these studies. Sample sizes for the respective studies weren't provided on the webpage I linked to. I suppose someone could look them up, and if they want to do so and get back to me, please feel free. But this all began as a lazy weblog post, and frankly, I've now made my brain hurt.

But I doubt the sample sizes are so large, and the percentage of women who get breast cancer is so high, that a 20%, 40% or even 200% increase in risk is enough to say that women shouldn't have abortions because they might get breast cancer (as one reader pointed out, it may in fact be pregnancy, not abortion, that triggers the additional cases). There are plenty of other, more compelling reasons pro-lifers can give as to why women shouldn't get abortions.

As it turns out, Logan too generally agrees that the studies -- even if statisticall...er...significa....er....dammit.....even if they do happen to mean a damn thing -- they're still poor fodder for pro-lifer propaganda. A self-described "small-"L" libertarian," he writes

Incidentally, those pro-lifers who do advance an abortion/breast cancer link are doing their cause no favors regardless of the argument's merits or demerits. To attempt to scare women away from abortion is to give up the moral case against it. While they may convince some portion of women that the risk of breast cancer is not worth the abortion, some greater portion will conclude that a little more breast cancer is totally worth not having a baby. And in a purely providential calculus, as opposed to a moral one, they may be right.

Anyone else need a beer?

I'm miffed at the new Indiana quarter. Race cars? "Crossroads of America?" A map? Come on. What about basketball? Why not show a gorgeous -- but aging -- red barn, with a basketball hoop nailed to the side? Maybe there's a packed dirt "court" beneath it, and a ball resting on the ground nearby. The ball is smooth, from lots of use. There's a sun setting. That is Indiana.

The race car doesn't even make sense anymore. It's open-wheeled. Indianapolis Motor Speedway honcho Tony George ruined open-wheeled racing (and thus, the Indy 500) when he let his ego drive his business decisions (pardon the pun). Indy's still known for racing, but the Brickyard 400 is now by far the more prestigous event, and the new Forumula One race at the Speedway is fast gaining ground.

I'd have been happy with the suggestion of a friend of mine -- who hails from Boston: Why not just put Larry Bird's mug on the back?

Dead dog art.

I'll plug the new TMQ, too. The esteemable Gregg Easterbrook offers his review of the NFC, scoops the new Rockette's union, makes a strong case for dropping "Washington Redskins" in favor of "Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons," and plugs his own status as the only ESPN personality to ever be interviewed by PBS on the subject of sustainable development.

I've got goosebumps. Bill Simmons logs nearly every minute of his 250th viewing of the movie.

Though not for business reasons. Sadly, SatireWire is closing up shop. Read Andrew Marlatt's charming farewell.

Tony Moreno writes:

Radley and others would do well to peruse http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/ to become more familiar with the several studies done showing a correlation between abortion and breast cancer. Nevertheless, correlation does not prove causation. Find more facts before stating a 1994 study that was debunked. Social sciences polluted the scientific or medical debate regarding abortion.

But let's give it a closer look.

As I noted below, epidemiologists rarely give much attention to any study with a risk ratio of less than 3.0 -- that is, less than a 300% increase in likelihood of, in this case, breast cancer striking women who have had an abortion. Of the 63 studies on the abortion/breast cancer site, none pose a risk ratio of greater than 3.0. And, in fact, only two of them pose a risk ratio greater than 2.1, which is the risk ratio between pasteurized milk and lung cancer. Sixteen of the 63 represent either no increased risk at all, or actually show a negative risk -- that is, women who had had abortions were less likely to get breast cancer. And over half of them -- 35 -- failed to show a risk ration of greater than 1.3, what most epidemiologists consider to be the threshold of statistical significance.

So more of these studies showed no statistically significant link between abortion and breast cancer than did. Only two of 63 showed a higher correlation than a common, everday risk posed to us each time we put milk on our cereal. And none of the 63 showed a risk great enough to bump "correlation" into a possible "causation."

I suspect that Tony and many others who cite statistics like these are firmly on the "pro-life" side of the debate. That's where I'd put myself, too. But attempting to link abortion to an unrelated and frightening disease is manipulative, and reeks of junk science. I think it also draws from the more substantive arguments of the pro-life position, of which there are many.

Page 2 runs 'em down, from twenty to one.

Are you surprised that there's a strong Indiana connection to three of them? No, me neither.

"Eight Men Out," about the Black Sox scandal, was filmed at Bush Stadium, former home of the AAA Indianapolis Indians. "Breaking Away," a wonderful movie that gave Dennis Quaid his breakout role, is filmed entirely in Bloomington, Indiana -- appropiate given that it's about IU's annual "Little 500" bicycle race. And of course "Hoosiers" is all about Indiana high school basketball.

The latter's my pick for #1, though Page 2 put it 4th. I have friends who are in the movie. I played junior high ball in most of the gyms featured in the film. And I routinely rode my bike over the elegant cast-iron bridge in the movie's opening sequence. Personal connections aside, it's a classic, with Gene Hackman at his burly, curmudgeonly best, and Dennis Hopper getting a much-deserved Oscar nomination for his role as Shooter, the drunken dad/fan/assistant coach.

All three, in fact, are worth a trip to Blockbuster.

On the heels of the ridiculous U. of North Carolina/Koran controversey, we get this, from the University of Maryland.

The American Family Association (whose website, by the way is an absolute bounty of unintentional humor) is protesting the school's requirement that entering freshmen read "The Laramie Project," a play written about the murder of Matthew Shepard.

A spokesman for AFA said the organization is concerned that the university is requiring students "to adopt one particular point of view."

What, I wonder, is the "alternate point of view" to the assertion that murdering homosexuals is pretty much a bad idea?

A great piece in NRO, casting even more doubt on the FBI's case against the virologist. Mowbray's "Fisking" of Kristoff's anti-Hatfill column makes me think that perhaps there is some media blame to be cast. Kritsoff obviously didn't thoroughly check his sources, and the sources he probably did use (I say "probably" because he doesn't name them in the column) -- especially Barbara Hatch Rosenberg -- are disreputable, to put it mildly.

Excerpt:

The three most damning "facts" that Kristof offers seem to wilt upon closer inspection. In his fifth and latest column, the Pulitzer Prize-winner states flatly that Hatfill had failed three consecutive polygraphs since January. Hatfill denies this, claiming that he has taken one polygraph and passed it. If that were a lie, odds are every major news outlet would already have copies of the failed polygraphs.

The other two "facts" served up by the columnist point to a direct Hatfill connection to anthrax. In a July 2 column, Kristof discusses the "isolated residence" where Hatfill "gave Cipro to people who visited it." That's a jaw dropper. It also seems to be a distortion of reality.

According to Pat Clawson, a friend of Hatfill's for a number of years and who is acting as his spokesman, the "isolated residence" is actually a furnished three-bedroom modern house — with a hot tub and large TV — two hours outside of Washington, D.C. Clawson, who was an investigative reporter for years at both NBC and CNN, explained at the second Hatfill press conference what actually happened regarding the Cipro.

Last October, Clawson opened a letter intended for Oliver North (who works for the same company), and there was a white powdery substance inside. Understandably, Clawson was a little worried about possible exposure to a deadly toxin, given the intense media coverage that heated up a week later about the anthrax letters. When skeet-shooting at the "isolated residence" with Hatfill and about ten other guys that month, Clawson asked his biologist friend if he needed Cipro. (Hatfill advised that the tetracycline Clawson was already taking for jaw pain should suffice, and then the guys joked about sexual diseases and creative uses of Cipro.)

A third "fact" Kristof uses to tie a direct connection between Hatfill and anthrax — bloodhounds reacting to Hatfill and places he's been — is dubious at best, according to the Baltimore Sun. Kristof writes in his August 13 column: "Specially trained bloodhounds... responded strongly to Dr. Hatfill, to his apartment, to his girlfriend's apartment and even to his former girlfriend's apartment, as well as to restaurants that he had recently entered." Although he doesn't cite a source, this is apparently a reference to a Newsweek story that has been called into doubt by, among others, the Sun.

The Sun reported: "Three veteran bloodhound handlers interviewed by the Sun were skeptical that a useful scent of the anthrax mailer would have remained on the letters months after they were mailed, rubbed against other letters and then decontaminated to kill the anthrax." But more significantly, the Sun contacted the managers at all twelve Denny's restaurants in Louisiana — the restaurant where the bloodhounds went nuts according to Newsweek — and all said they had not been visited by federal agents with bloodhounds. But again, since Kristof never mentions which restaurant he was citing, there is no way to prove — or disprove — his allegation.

It would be tough, if not impossible, for Hatfill to sue the FBI should his name ever be cleared in all of this. If he is eventually cleared, let's hope the libel case against Kristoff grows, so this guy can at least get his day in court.

A brilliant piece of work today by Bjorn Lomborg. Lomborg, you may recall, was at one time a lefty environmentalist. Upon researching a book however, he began to, egad!, look at actual environmental data. Slowly, surely, the data he studied (on ozone depletion, global warming, etc.) led Lomborg to begin to draw conclusions anathematic to his environmentalist principles. The tone and tenor of his book took a dramatic reversal, and the result, The Skeptical Environmentalist was a runaway success. Lomborg brought a credibility to environmentalist debunking that his detractors have had a hard time undermining.

Today, Lumborg tackles the UN conference on sustainable development in Johannesburg, and deconstructs its premises with ease. A wonderful piece, and the NYT should get props from the blogosphere for publishing it.

An excerpt:

Why does the developed world worry so much about sustainability? Because we constantly hear a litany of how the environment is in poor shape. Natural resources are running out. Population is growing, leaving less and less to eat. Species are becoming extinct in vast numbers. Forests are disappearing. The planet's air and water are getting ever more polluted. Human activity is, in short, defiling the earth — and as it does so, humanity may end up killing itself.

There is, however, one problem: this litany is not supported by the evidence. Energy and other natural resources have become more abundant, not less so. More food is now produced per capita than at any time in the world's history. Fewer people are starving. Species are, it is true, becoming extinct. But only about 0.7 percent of them are expected to disappear in the next 50 years, not the 20 percent to 50 percent that some have predicted. Most forms of environmental pollution look as though they have either been exaggerated or are transient — associated with the early phases of industrialization. They are best cured not by restricting economic growth but by accelerating it.

Emphasis mine. Amen.

From Something Awful via Hoosier Review.

I really think this guy's getting the shaft. Yeah, it may turn out that he is the Anthrax killer. But can't the damn FBI wait for at least an indictment before ruining his life?

I wonder why a guilty man would cooperate with the FBI every step of the way. He has yet to assert any of his Constitutionally-protected rights. The feds didn't need a warrant to search his house -- he let them in. And they rewarded him by leaking his name to the media, thus destroying the poor guy's life without the need for a trial, or even an indictment.

Much as I'd like to nail this on the media, I don't think there's much blame to cast there. You can't blame the media for covering a possible suspect in a series of attacks that shut down both the mail system and the U.S. Congress.

I blame the feds, first for once again failing to protect us from a domestic terrorist attack (that is, after all, the most important and legitimate function of our government); second, for the complete ineptitude of the subsequent investigation; and third, for trying to mask that ineptitute by implicating a man who may or may not be guilty with far too little evidence.

Steve Hatfill, meet Richard Jewell and Wen Ho Lee.

You knew this would happen sooner or later. Congrats to "the Spoonman" on his whirlwind engagement (though I doubt he'd be flattered by the Chris Cornell reference). I've gotten more than a few emails from "curious" female readers, but I've never given them much credence. My first thoughts are that it's either a) a set-up (and I've busted one of these already), or, b) a 60 year-old man posing as a 23 year-old woman.

Just finished my fantasy draft. Here's my squad (called the Levellers, of course):

QB: Duante Culpepper -- Minnesota
RB: Edgerrin James -- Indianapolis
WR: Joe Horn -- New Orleans
RB/WR: Darrel Jackson -- Seattle
K: Jeff Wilkins -- St. Louis
Defense -- Miami
Tight End -- Tony Gonzelez -- Kansas City

Backups:

QB: Drew Brees -- San Diego
RB: Michael Bennet -- Minnesota
WR: Chris Chambers -- Miami

Edge was my first pick. I had to get him or Manning in the first round, just so I could cheer for my Colts with more enthusiasm this year. Peyton was gone, so I went with Edge.

Gonzelez was a steal in the fourth round, because as far as fantasy league tight ends go, he puts up wide receiver numbers. I think Wilkins was a great grab, too, in the fifth round. The guy scored 58 points last year on extra points alone. You figure he's good for three extra points and a field goal, minimum, every week, thanks to the Rams' not-of-this-world offense.

I'm a little weak at wide reciever, I think. Horn's on the verge of, but not quite yet first-tier status, and Jackson's clearly second-tier. Chambers had a great rookie year, and would probably be destined for stardom if he didn't have the plodding Jay Fiedler throwing to him.

I took Bennet to back-up James. I actually took Bennet last year and he didn't do much for me. But the Vikes are much improved this year, I think, and you just can't go wrong with Bennet's sprinter's speed. Plus he's got his rookie year behind him. Hopefully he'll produce. Made a miscalculation at RB, though. Bennet and Edge have the same bye week, so I'll have to pick up a free agent RB for week 5.

I took Brees with my last pick just because I've like the guy since he was at Purdue. I think he's a star in the making. Once he gets his timing down with Curtis Conway, and once LaDanian Tomlinson starts sucking safeties in with ten and twelve-yard runs, I think you'll see some big numbers from Brees.

I'll have my more in-depth (and almost assuredly inaccurate) analysis of the coming season soon.

I love the En Ef El.

There are so many things wrong with this CNN article on protests at the J-Burg UN summit, it's hard to keep count. But here's a big one. A honking, unmistakeable bit of media bias:

More than 60,000 delegates are in the city to find ways of reducing world poverty without repeating the environmental damage caused by industry in the West.

It's funny to watch these two competing anti-capitalists interests. On the one hand, you have the anti-poverty crusaders, who want to blame the West for Third World destitution. And even within that group, you have those who want the West to give more money and aid to the world's poor, and you have those who believe wealth and prosperity the root of all evil, and, apparently, would rather the West be reduced to the povery of, say, Malaysia, then for Malaysia to join in the wealth of the West. They hate poverty, but they hate wealth even more.

Then, competing with the anti-poverty crowd are the environmentalists, who are increasingly edging toward the "if mass Third World death means less exploitation of Mother Earth, then maybe mass Third World death isn't such a bad idea" line of thought. Cato's David Boaz, for example, quoted three prime examples of such stupidity in a recent column:

1) Earth First! Founder David Foreman: "We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox."

2) Environmentalist/novelist William T. Vollman: "I would say there are too many people in the world and maybe something like AIDS or something like war may be a good thing, on that level."

3) Jacques Cousteau, to the UNESCO Courier in 1991: "In order to stabilize populations, we need to eliminate 350,000 people per day."

The anti-humans oppose genetically modified crops, which could feed the world' poor; nuclear energy, which could give power, wells, and electricity to the world's poor; and development, which of course would grant comfort and liveability to the world's poor.

It's baffling that the two interests protest together so often, because they-- the anti-human environmentalists and the anti-poverty crowd -- have so very little in common. In fact, really the only thing they have in common is a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of vibe, and so they can unite behind the common enemies of capitalism, the UN, the World Bank/IMF (which, oddly enough, is rarely on the side as unfettered capitalism) and, most importantly, the United States.

Andrew Stuttaford (who gets an echo from InstaMan) has a problem with the anti-war crowd's latest strategy: challenging the legitimacy of being led to war by men who never served in the military. Well, if that were the argument, he'd have a point. It is, after all, why our armed forces are headed directed by civilians.

But I think Stuttaford's deliberately misstating the arguments laid out by anti-war advocates (of which I am not one, by the way) in The Guardian and elsewhere. Their argument is not that we shouldn't be led to war by men who've never served, but that it's a little hypocritical that the men who've beat the war drums most loudly are men who actively avoided serving when called upon. And given all the "draft dodger" banter we heard from conservative circles each time President Clinton sent troops into battle (and I can't say I disagree), I don't think that questioning the military bona-fides of the Bush warhawks is all that unfair a turning of the tables.

Isn't life really all about a warm cup of D&D; coffee, a newspaper, a rainy Saturday morning, and mellow music wafting from the background? Short of waking next to Kirsten Dunst -- and maybe she's subbing one of my dress shirts for a nightgown -- I don't think it really gets any better.

I'm currently nursing the caffeine buzz to Joe Henry's latest, Scar. The guy is tragically unappreciated. Put simply, he's a poet -- lyrically and musically. He's passionately literate. And Scarfinds him -- finally -- fully realized. The great Ornette Coleman blows a lazy and smoky saxophone. Throw in a drunk, meandering, melodic piano, a production swimming in warm sonic haze, and Henry's broken, 3am vocals, and you've got a stripped down, slow, writhing orgy of improvisational jazz, lonely, intimate lounge, with dashes of pop, rock, and Henry's roots -- heatland Americana.

But don't take my word for it. I can't give it a much better review than this guy did. I can only second him -- in spades.

UPDATE: Damn! I left this CD spinning after the last track played and found a hidden gem! Let the 10 track play for about three, four minutes after the song's over. Then bask in an absolutely awing Coleman tenor sax solo. It's set against a haunting sonic background -- faint howls and whispy walls of wind -- and it stretches for a good five minutes. Spectacular. Not sure how this CD got overlooked on the "2001's Best" lists.

This was the 45th ranked site on Blogdex this weekend.

The Guardian offers a tidy rundown (actually it's the summary of a rundown given by the New Hampshire Gazette) of current Iraq warhawks who found a reason to skip Vietnam.

It's a nice exposure of ruling-class hypocricy, but I'd throw in a couple of caveats:

1) I (and The Guardian, I'd assume) think the Vietnam War was a bad idea. I can't say for certain that I'd have gone if asked, either. But I'd like to think that if I decided not to fight, I'd have paid the piper as a conscientious objector, and not have gotten a medical deferment for ingrown ass hairs. It's fair game, I think, to call attention to the fact that quite a few of the men most willing to send troops into harm's way today in fact ran like hell from harm when they were at the age of military service.

Of course, none of them is worse than former President Clinton, who not only risked American lives to save his political hide after it was revealed he'd been serviced by an intern, he once discussed sending troops into Bosnia with a Congressman while said servicing was taking place. And it's old news now that he too didn't serve when called.

2) I'm loathe to defend Pat Buchanan, but he's opposed to the current war with Iraq, so I don't think it's really fair to call him a hypocrite (though the arthritis-in-the-knees deferment for a guy who a short time later took up jogging is a pretty scathing indictiment of Pitchfork Pat's bravado). "Anti-Semite," maybe (I suspect he's opposed to war with Iraq because he's not so fond of Israel). But not "hypocrite."

(Link via James Landrith)

Another "Ramblings" column, another classic.

Favorite excerpts:

I'd love to go out for beers with 1) the guy who narrates the EA Sports ads, and 2) the guy who reads the "NFL on CBS" promos, just to hear them say everyday things like "I'll have another Miller Lite" and "You guys want to order some buffalo wings?"

A few weeks ago, I caught Robert Wuhl on some talk show making the "Why would people want Ted Williams' DNA when they saw what it did for John Henry?" joke, which has only been made 100,000 times since Ted died, and I realized something: Every time I think to myself, "That's it, I can't despise the Robert Wuhl era any more than I already do," something else happens to make me re-evaluate things again. And when you think about it, that's the power of Robert Wuhl, isn't it?

By the way, the readers keep asking me to start calling Manny Ramirez "Man-Ram," and frankly, I'm not biting.

You know you're drunk when it's 3 a.m. and you're attracted to Kelly Osbourne.

If there's a baseball strike, the thing I'll miss most is seeing Barry Bonds' head actually getting bigger and bigger by the week. At the rate he's going, his head will tip over and fall off his neck before he hits 700 homers. But no, nothing fishy is going on here. Just a good weightlifting program.

I'm sorry, but hell will freeze over before I use the phrase "LOL" in an e-mail.

If Jennifer Aniston really wants an Oscar nomination, she should steal Halle Berry's playbook, then flip to Chapter 20 ("Show breasts") and Chapter 21 ("Play a heartbroken, down-on-her-luck woman who turns her life around after an eye-opening, inspiring sex scene.") Thankfully, there's still time

You know we're getting close to the NFL season when Wednesday's USA Today runs the annual "Fred Taylor is finally healthy and has something to prove" article on the same day as the annual "Nobody has emerged from the Cincy QB battle yet" article. Big day.

Finally, if Magic Johnson's Basketball Hall of Fame induction doesn't include a sequence where presenter Larry Bird comes out wearing a Lakers jersey, gives a heartfelt speech about Magic, finishes, shakes Magic's hand, steps backward to let Magic bathe in the applause of the crowd, then inexplicably hits Magic over the head with a steel chair as Ernie Johnson Jr. screams, "My God, noooooooooooo!," followed by Bird ripping the Lakers jersey off (revealing a Celtics jersey), then kicking Magic a few times before exiting the stage to raucous applause ... well, I'm not going.

Friend/reader "Geoff," who's getting something of a reputation on this site, responds to my post on prison dating services:

The State of Florida has a proficuous dating tool for gents who fancy the incarcerated. I assume that the categories (height, weight, eye color, etc.) are meant for tracking down perps, but they also serve as a sweet way to find your consummate consort.

For example, I'm interested in finding a petite young burglar, 5'6" or less, with hazel eyes and a penchant for witness retaliation. A few clicks of the keys and PRESTO - instant soulmate. Jessie is young (she just had her 19th birthday), but her sullen glower shows a melancholy wisdom. I think I'm in love.

Say you are in the market for someone on the tall side, say 7'+ with at least one drug charge (so you know she parties). VOILA! Terry is 7'4", has been busted for smack, and has a scar on her right leg, to boot!

Perhaps a blond-haired blue-eyed forger is more your type. BOOM. DONE! Lori fits the bill (and evidently has access to copious amounts of blow).

Love, sweet love, doesn't have to have to be hard. In the sunshine state, it's as easy as point, click, and wait for parole.

How's that for a cheery title? Watch. I'm about to tie the three together.

Julian Sanchez continues (and rightly so) to castigate New York's Mayor Mike for his fascist smoking policy. Sanchez also takes Norah Vincent to task for defending Bloomberg's city-wide smoking ban in public places. The pro-ban position is of course, revolves around the rights of non-smokers to eat, drink and socialize without wheezing, and around our right not to get cancer and die.

As a non-smoker, let me be clear: second-hand smoke irritates the hell out of me. But unless its injuring me (and even then, I don't favor banning it -- markets will open for smoke free restaurants and bars), I can't see any real reason to regulate it.

Well, the argument goes, smokers are endangering us non-smokers. EPA studies show that exposure to one pack per day of second hand smoke for 40 years increases the risk of cancer in non-smokers by about 20%. Sounds like a lot, right? Not really. A 20% increase in risk means that in a sample of say, 1000 control people, if five of them got lung cancer without ever being exposed to secondhand smoke, and in a test group of 1000 people who are exposed to secondhand smoke, six of them get cancer, you're staring down a 20% increase in risk. But any number of other factors could have caused that one extra case in lung cancer. Anti-tobacco activists have long cited this risk increase as reason to ban smoking in public places.

Then I read this article from Evansville, Indiana about Indiana Congressman John Hostettler. It seems that a group of breast cancer survivors were meeting with the Congressman to discuss an increase in federal funding for their cause. Hostettler apparently spent most of that meeting lecturing the women about the alleged connection between abortion and the onset of breast cancer. This wrought the wrath of feminist groups, editorialists and abortion rights groups down upon Hostettler -- I'd say with good reason. First, because lecturing a group of women who've survived breast cancer is not only self-righteous and condescending, but just plain mean. And second, because he's probably wrong. The tie between abortion and breast cancer comes from a 1994 article published in the Journal of the American Cancer Institute. It has since been largely debunked.

Both of these stories together got me to thinking about an old op-ed I'd recently read written by Jerry Taylor for the Wall Street Journal (no link available -- it's from 1995). In it, Taylor in fact compares the relative risks between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, and between abortion and breast cancer. Taylor notes that epidemiologists (people who study risks like these) have a way of measuring correlations and risk from such studies. The secondhand smoke study that produced a "20% increased likelihood, for example, would result in a "risk ratio" of 1.20 (or, more accurately, 1.19).

Generally, epidemiologists say, any risk ratio less than 1.3% is statistically insignificant. And there's really no reason for alarm at all until a risk ratio hits 3.0.

Here's the interesting part. The secondhand smoke study is cited to this day as a reason to ban smoking in public places and it's never questioned, save by ardent tobacco interests and the occasional civil libertarian. This despite the fact that the risk ratio between a 40-year one-pack-per-day exposure to the stuff and cancer is statistically insignificant.

The risk ratio correlating abortion and breast cancer, on the other hand, sits at 1.5. Not nearly high enough to justify alarmist propaganda from pro-life quarters, but still noticeably higher than the secondhand smoke correlation, and at least higher than 1.3 threshold of statistical significance.

So why is it that when public officials cite the dangers of secondhand smoke, the media nods approvingly, but when a public official broaches possible ties between abortion and breast cancer, he's immediately chastised and ridiculed?

That's a rhetorical question. I think we all already know the answer.

Incidentally, in his op-ed, Taylor throws out a third number that puts both of the first numbers into their proper perspective. Wanna' guess what the risk ratio is between consuming pasteurized milk and lung cancer?

Two-point-one.

2.1!

So, yeah, you're more likely to get cancer from milk than from secondhand smoke or from getting an abortion.

Where's TheTruth.com's edgy anti-pasteurization commercials?

SWF, sometimes bi-sexual, lots of free time, working toward GED. Enjoy arts and crafts, rec time, and conjugal visits. Hacked family to death with ball peen hammer. Up for parole in 2029. I want to hear from you!

Meet-an-Inmate.com.

For "Mary," from The Onion:

It's good that John Ashcroft is devoting DOJ resources toward preventing the real threat to America's safety. I've got about 75 CD's I burned right off of Napster/Imesh/Kazaa, Mr. Attorney General. Come get me.

"Peace" protesters rally in Portland outside of hotel were President Bush is staying. "Peace" protesters damage six police cruisers, throw rocks at cops, injure one police officer. "Peace" protesters topple barracade, jostle pro-Bush supporters.

"People magazine reports that Michael Jackson has a 6-month-old boy, whom he calls Prince Michael II. He reportedly introduced the baby to his magician friends Siegfried and Roy backstage at their Las Vegas show on July 30."

I like this story. If my President is going to have an obsession, fitness is a pretty good way to go. Just stop with the "All America Should Be Fit As Me So I'm Starting A New Program" jive.

vs.

Get your tickets now! We'll sell you the whole seat, but you'll only need the edge!

(Click the pictures for the follow-up posts to the war-with-Iraq debate.)

E-bay madness.

A couple of years ago, I worked for a dot-com in St. Louis. There were basically two components to my job:

1. Surf the web for cool stuff.

2. Write about it.

Yep. They paid me for that. Unfortunately, the company only lasted about three months after I started work. I barely had time to enjoy a cup of Joe from the free cappuccino machine, or get a free massage from the on-site therapist, before it was time to wait tables at Houlihan's whilst looking for new employment.

The biggest tragedy of the dot-com bust, I think, is the loss of all the great content that went under with most of the sites that hosted it. Fortunately, lots of it is getting resurrected on the websites of more stolid, bricks-and-mortar companies.

A great example is Queer Duck, a hillarious cartoon serious originally hosted on the now defunct MediaTrip site. It's been picked up by Showtime, and it's now an exclusive on the cable channel's website.

Queer Duck runs with his other alternatively lifestyled animal pals: Oscar Wildcat, Openly Gator, and Bi-Polar Bear. Check it out. Chuckle at the campy gayness. It's okay. Gay people wrote it. You're allowed to laugh.

Natural resources are more plentiful than they've ever been. People are living longer. Diseases are being conquered. The world's farms are yielding more grain from smaller lots of land. Humans are generally living better and happier. All of this is thanks largely to western ingenuity, which is wrought by free markets and a healthy respect for property rights. The only areas of the world that are today unsustainable happen to be poor, and they happen to be poor because they've little respect for markets or property.

Yet next week, a conflagration of chicken littles will gather in Johannesburg to discuss why natural resources are running out, why people are dying, why disease is more prevalent, and why the very technology that could feed the world -- genetically modified crops -- is a product of evil western imperialism that UN bureaucrats should avoid like a New York City parking ticket.

They'll say that the west is the world's worst polluter, and they'll demand that the west give more aid to the dirty, poor areas of the world, despite evidence that such aid tends to keep those areas poor, and thus dirty. They'll lecture our "culture of consumption," all the while ignoring that we're also a culture of production. They'll ignore all historical evidence proving that central planning has done more damage to the earth than capitalism ever could (the Soviet Block countries were far worse polluters than the U.S. and Western Europe).

You want sustainable development? Grow yourself a sustainable economy.

Tech Central is crashing the Johannesburg party with lots of in-depth coverage and hard-core debunkery. Check it out here.

"The fact that I could come [from] adoption and be where I am, I think should be seen as a success."

--D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams.

I hate to dig on the mayor, especially in this context (Williams, a black man, was defending charges from the D.C. idiotocracy that he's "not black enough" to be mayor of the city).

But what's the implication of his reference to adoption? I would think adopted kids generally have a head start on their peers. After all, aren't adoption guidelines pretty darned strict? Don't parents have to be vetted -- emotionally, financially, etc. -- by caseworkers before they're granted a kid? Maybe I'm wrong, but my stereotype of the adoptive family sees two parents, upper middle class, no history of mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. Not at all a bad platform from which to ascend to the mayoralty.

I don't know the mayor's personal history, but methinks he's trolling for "hardship" points where there are none to be found.

Mayor Williams: stop apologizing. If "black" to your detractors is defined by the incompetent, kleptocratic, demagoguing, drug-abusing ways of your predecessor, then concede to them that you're "white," and define "black" on your own terms.

Jesus F. Christ. Aren't we over this whole "race" thing yet?

I raise my little girl right, hoping she'll be happy, content and give me lots of rewarding years. But no matter how hard I try, I have this terrible suspicion that one day she's going to bring home a date like this.

Will Wilknson crucifies the America's Future Foundation for falsely advertising to libertarians. I've always been suspect of AFF's libertarian outreach program. The group was originally funded by Ed Feulner, for Locke's sake.

That got me to thinking about the political loneliness we libertarians endure.

There's long been an understanding of sorts I guess that libertarians are part of the "right." That, in the end, we'd always come around to the conservative worldview. Or at least we'd vote for their candidates.

I don't think that's the case anymore. Freedom lovers have just as much to fear from Pat Robertson as from Barbara Boxer. I voted for Bush. But his kowtows to the Weekly Standard crowd make me more regretful of that vote by the day. I didn't vote for Ashcroft when I lived in Missouri. And I never voted for John Hostettler when I lived in Bloomington, IN.

It's not that the so-called "progressives" have gotten any more likeable. In fact, the dawn of political correctness has made them worse, too. Where we could once count on the left to defend free speech, free press and anti-discrimination laws, we now get speech codes, book burnings sponsored by campus radicals, and affirmative action. Where we once could count on the left to oppose the ugliness of racism and anti-Semitism, we now get leftist protesters likening Ariel Sharon to Hitler. And anti-Jewish blood libel these days comes from the campus and intellectual left, not the right.

On the other hand, it used to be that we libertarians could count on conservatives for support on issues surrounding the federal budget, taxation, regulation, and trade. No more. Conservatives no longer push for an end to taxpayer-subsidized welfare. Now, they just want to filter it through conservative-approved "faith-based" charities first. They no longer want an end to federal involvement in education. Rather, they want the federal government to issue standardized tests, and to send kids to private schools more in line with conservative values. As it turns out, conservatives have never been as skeptical of big government as we libertarians thought. They've been skeptical only of a big government that promotes liberalism. Use the hand of the state to promote conservative values and, well, maybe it's not so bad after all.

In the end, this isn't all that surprising. It's easy to oppose the power of the state when that power is being waged against your interests. It was easy for liberals to denounce censorship when censorship was being used to oppress liberal ideas. But when liberals took control of the college campuses, and could use censorship to oppress ideas they found repugnant, censorship wasn't such a bad thing anymore. Ant it's easy for conservatives to oppose the state, especially when the state is promoting anti-conservative ideas by means of the public school system. Some ideas, it seems, are too ugly to be heard.

Everyone opposes the state when the state opposes them. But both liberals and conservatives are quick to embrace the power of govenerment when one can use it to crush the other.

What libertarians realize is that government is still coercive and alluring and dangerous, even when its at your disposal, promoting philosophies you favor.

It doesn't take much to resist power when power's being wielded by someone else. It takes principle to resist power when the power's in your hands.

A few reader responses to the Tech Central column. I'll run through the positives first, as they don't require a lengthy response:

I can testify that carb addiction is extremely difficult to break. I lost sixty pounds on the Atkins diet and am, unfortunately, in the process of gaining it back. It is all my fault, but I do get mad whenever I see the idiotic 'food pyramid' and bags of candy that trumpet their 'fat free' status. I think the only solution is to come up with low-carb foods, like the recently introduced Michelob Ultra beer. I have every confidence a market solution is possible, but the forces arrayed against it are formidable. Thanks for the push in the right direction.

I read this New York Times article and had just, by chance, started Atkins. I am no longer hungry. I've lost 12 pounds in a month. I read labels on food containers and just cringe at what I used to give my kids thinking that it was OK. I buy low carb ketchup (online) and barbecue sauce (hard to find in stores). I use real Mayonaise. I purchase low carb bread (Country Kitchen lite bread)for the kids. Already my son seems healthier.

I just noticed that Snackwells has come out with a 'sugar free' cookie. It probably isn't politically correct to say 'low carb' yet. With Splenda, there is no reason not to have low carb, no sugar alternatives to many of the foods we eat.

If the food companies think there is a market, then they will create the low carb products.

However, as to the US Government, nothing surprises me anymore. They would rather bow down to the PC/green lobby than give us true information -- or even investigate if it is true. I wish I had found Atkins years ago. I just heard that it wasn't good for you so I avoided it. I've grown much more cynical since then.

I've written about the high protein diet controversy. I have information that complements Taubes and you can find it at my website.

I sat on a bench one day in WalMart waiting for my sister to finish shopping... the longer I sat there, the more alarmed I got... one fat person after another... after another... I hardly saw a 'normal' size person out of about 200, including teens and kids. It is the children that scares me the most.

I have been there... fattened up by my doctor on a low fat diet! My husband and I where on his low fat diet for over two years and all we got was fat. Our cholesterol never went down, matter of fact, mine went up. He kept telling me that I needed to eat less fat and I did... and got sicker and sicker. Now I know why after my internet research... it was the starches that made my midde grow.

I became more and more sick and developed fibromyalgia and going through menopause was hell. I got no relief from the medical people that I went to over and over. One day I was so miserable, I decided to take matters into my own hands, when I was told me that I would probably only get worse!

I did some internet research and found a cure, not only for the fibro, but for my fatness! It was low carb eating. I gave up the sugar and starches and in a week all my pain and depression was gone! In seven months, I went from a size 20 to a size 10, my fibromyalgia (a non curable) went away. My cholesterol went down to 166. I felt like a human being again.

I now walk/spring 4 miles a day and lift weights and look better at 51 that I did at age 40! I helped my sister roof her barn last week... when most would have been sitting on a sofa taking pain pills and anti-depressants. (That is what my doctor offerd me!)

Most of the people that deny that carbs make us fat are those that never tried a low carb diet, or can't stay on it. I can point you to a dozen of friends who also went low carb and reduced their cholesterol, lowered their blood pressure and got thin and healthy.

And if you don't believe me, you are more than welcome to go to my web page and see the before and after.

A picture speaks a thousand words!

The only problem with debunking the food pyramid is that we lose a justification for our 6-8 beers a night (beer has grain, grain is at the bottom of the food pyramid, must be good for us, right?) :)

Also, Karen DeCoster has been writing on the same issue for a year or so now. Check her entry here.

On the subject of protecting domestic sugar interests, lots of readers also pointed out that the the two Atkins-compatible sweeteners, Stevia and Splenda, have been kept off of US markets for years. The USDA only approved sucralose (marketed as Splenda) in 1998. Stevia still hasn't been approved for domestic consumption, despite that it's been used in Japan for 25 years with no ill-effects.

Thanks to all for the feedback. I'll address the critical responses when I get spare few minutes.

Gene Healy vs. Brink Lindsey.

Impetus: U.S. war with Iraq.

J.H. Huebert vs. FEE.

Impetus: FEE's invitation to Rudy Giuliani to keynote the organization's trustees' dinner.

Good riddance.

So I was looking down my line-item inventory of charges I incurred during my appendectomy. I came across this little number:

Room/Board............859.00

$859 for room and board? For one night? That doesn't include medicine, or my IV fluid, or the services of a doctor. That's room and friggin' board. What's worse, the "board" part of those charges consisted of a completely liquid diet. All they fed me was tea, broth, jello, and juice.

For $859, I could have recovered at the Ritz Carlton, dined on liquified steak and lobster, and hired a high-dollar escort to change my bandages. Instead, I recovered in a semi-private room, next to some guy who was getting open heart surgery and kept bragging to his buddies over the phone about how he hadn't had a job in four years, and how having heart disease is the greatest thing ever because the government pays for everything, and I had a nurse who was very jerky and rough with me because, she said, I was a "smartass."

I blame John Edwards for this.

Grandma, if you're reading, I'm just kidding about the escort part.

A Detroit trolley moving at 3 mph struck and killed an elderly pedestrian. Three miles per hour. You'd almost have time to mail her a letter telling her to get out of the way. Even using the U.S. Postal Service. On a Sunday.

What might a mattress company possibly gain by cyber-squatting this domain?

http://www.dominoespizza.com

Is there a Constitutionally-protected right to pizza delivery?

Apparently in San Fransisco. The city has made it a crime for restaurants to avoid delivering to high-crime areas.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo resurrects the issue from an old issue of the Freeman.

Rhyming, classically liberal haiku from the unremitting master.

My favorites:

At an Airport

Grannies and geezers
in vexation formation:
"Are those your tweezers?"

And...

The Science behind Global Warming

People become rich
via marts, hard work, and smarts:
There must be a hitch.

Seems there might be a tiny white light in the dim din of Alzheimer's. For all it's malevolence, the disease does at least give us ample time to let the diagnosed know what they've meant to us -- while they're still alert and cognizant, and can still relay to us that they understand our sentiments.

Such precious lead time has in this case produced the odd but touching spectacle of Richard Dreyfuss paying tribute to Charlton Heston on the website of National Review. All the masks come off once we're in the foxhole, don't they?

Below, I linked to Sonia Arrison's fine Tech Central column on surveilance technology, which examined how we civilians might use emerging technology to keep an eye on the state. In an editorial aside, I noted that we should all get a bit antsy when the state attempts to pass laws preventing us from using the same kinds of surveilance methods it uses on us.

Eugene Volokh responds with this remarkable case from Massachusetts, in which a man was convicted of violating privacy laws for recording a traffic stop without the police officer's permission. The court even went so far as to reject the defense's argument that under the prosecution's interpretation of the law, a kidnapper calling to demand ransom can't be recorded by a private party without his permission. A fascinating case in which a court has transmogrified (hey, can you think of a better word?) a law designed to protect the privacy of civilians into a law enhancing the power of the state.

Also on Volokh, take a gander at this test, designed to measure your "coolness." It claims a perfect record of success.

My new Tech Central column is up. What's it about? The Atkins diet. Southwest airlines. Fast food. The "food pyramid." Obesity. Diabetes. It's a wholesale fat-o-rama.

Now that he's retired, let the debate begin. Does Terrel Davis belong in the Football Hall of Fame? I lean toward no. Four great seasons (perhaps the four greatest seasons ever, when taken in aggregate) just isn't enough to merit the "one of the best of his time" designation that comes with enshrinement in Canton.

But this Dan Patrick column has me starting to think otherwise. The Gale Sayers comparison I think is valid. And the league MVP and two Super Bowl rings are pretty compelling.

I suspect that Davis will be voted in, thanks also in part to his solid reputation off the field. I'm not terribly passionate either way, but hall of fame debates are always fun to think about.

I couldn't be more proud. The Princeton Review has named my alma mater the top party school in the country. We're ranked fifth in hard liquor, fourth in beer, and fifth in the fraternity scene.

I'd quibble with the fraternity/sorority scene ranking, as the university's gotten increasingly tough on the Greek system in recent years (and probably deservedly so). My fraternity in fact was thrown off campus a couple of years ago (well after I'd graduated, I might add) after a monumentally stupid series of decisions by the house's members that resulted in a freshman kid dying after slipping off a keg stand and slapping his head on concrete (they, for example, didn't call an ambulance because they feared the paramedics would alert school officials to the keg). At last count, IU had expelled at least four fraternities in the last few years.

But adding to the party scene, I think, is that the Bloomington campus has the highest concentration of beautiful women anywhere I've been, save for maybe the Cap Hill office of Sen. Strom Thurmond. A healthy boy in his late teens/early twenties could fall in love just walking to class. Six or seven times.

Three items I shamelessly pilfered from Gene Healy.

1) Norah Vincent. Everyone's favorite unliberal lesbian (sorry, but much as I like to read Camille Paglia, I just can't buy that a Nader voter can legitimately call herself a libertarian) has joined the blogosphere. She's already won me over. In her first few posts she in turn promotes the Atkins diet, cites Julian Sanchez, and takes shots at Mo Dowd. Egg-cellent.

2) ClearChannel's artist pricelist. How much would it cost to get, say, Li'l Bow Wow to play at your grandparents 50th anniversary dinner? About $25k. Other odd pricings: Reba McIntyre demands $250k(!), which makes Ray Charles a bargain at $40k. I'm disappointed to find out that Robert Bradley's Blackwater Surprise -- a great pop/blues band -- will set you back a mere $5k, the same price as Vanilla Ice. Fat Boy Slim ($35k) is a hair more popular than Fat Joe ($25k); Eve asks ($30k) asks a bit more than Eve 6 ($20-25k). In the alt country war, Wilco asks a mere $25k, Emmylou Harris asks $35k, and Ryan Adams is so hot at the moment, they can't give you a price. You wanna' book a Wayans? Shawn's your best bet (there's a "Shawn" Wayans?) at $20k. Keenan Ivory will set you back $25k, Damon $40k.

3) Jim Henley's Unqualified Offerings. I must concur with Gene on this one. Henley's damned smart and a fun read -- in the Mickey Kaus vein, I'd say. I don't agree with Henley or Gene on Iraq (I favor the war, they oppose it), but frankly, I'd rather not debate either of them on the issue. I'd come out bloody and beaten. Eve Tushnet's been linking to Henley for some time, but I have to confess, I only began reading him after a narcissistic Daypop search on my own name.

Just added up my bills from my 24-hour hospital stay/ambulance ride/emergency appendectomy. Unless there's some doctor/nurse/specialist/lab technician who has yet to bill me, it looks like my total tab figures to be a little over ten grand.

For a 24-hour hospital stay. Sheesh.

I'm sure there's some free market/public choice argument to be made here, but I'm just a little to overwhelmed to make it.

Good news is, the ambulance ride was only $250, not $700 as the doctor had told me. So the evil neighbor lesbians weren't quite as evil as I thought them to be. Still, they'd better never need to borrow any sugar.

Here's a fantastic short story by Brad Vice published in last month's Atlantic Monthly. Reminded me much of my days growing up in rural Indiana. There's lots of Hoosier in Vice's dry Texas dust.

Incidentally, for those of you who dabble in short fiction -- as I do -- there's also a fantastic website out there run by Francis Ford Coppola called Zoetrope. It's essentially an online community of aspiring short fiction writers, screenplay writers, poets, etc.

I've sort of abandoned my short fiction efforts of late, due mostly to time constraints. But Zoetrope is a fantastic service. Better yet, it's completely free. Basically, you have to review at least five short stories submitted by other members before you're permitted to submit a story of your own. After that, you can post a story, and get some valuable feedback from other members, who download it from the site's main story board. There are also discussion boards where you can discuss stories, technique, or set up regional critique groups with other members who might live close to you.

The site is billed as a submission spot for the companion hard-copy literary journal of the same name, as well as for Coppola's production company. But that's not really what it is. There are literally thousands of stories submitted monthly and, to my knowledge, only one or two have ever been selected for the journal, and I don't believe any have yet to be made into a movie. It's more valuable benefit for fledgling fiction writers is the feedback you get on the pieces you're constantly revising.

But FFC and his newlywed nephew Nicholas Cage have been known to jump into the discussion board threads from time to time, which is kinda' cool.

Cato's resident legal genius Bob Levy rightly chides the trial lawyers now salivating at the prospect of taking on Big Grease. What I found interesting, however, is that Levy quotes George McGovern in his concluding graph.

Yesterday it was tobacco, today it's fatty foods, tomorrow it could be skis, motorcycles, cars, you name it. "Our choices may be foolish or self-destructive," said George McGovern, "but we cannot micro manage each other's lives." When we no longer hold people responsible for their choices, civility and common sense will be diminished.

I just finished working on a column that will hopefully run on Tech Central soon. The premise is that the government has basically been making dietary recommendations for the past 25 years that have done nothing but make us fat. Or, put another way, you know that low-carb, high-protein "quack" Dr. Robert Atkins? Turns out he's probably right.

This is relevant to the Levy op-ed because those recommendations (aka, the USDA's low-fat, high-starch "food pyramid") are the direct result of a 1977 Senate committee looking into an alleged "epidemic" of coming diseases and maladies that were going to be brought on by too much dietary fat. The Senate made some stringent recommendations to NIH about the benefits of a low-fat diet, and NIH responded by recommending a low-fat, high-starch diet for the next 25 years, in spite of growing scientific evidence suggesting otherwise. In other words, it's the U.S. government, not McDonald's, that's largely responsible for America's pudge.

And do you wanna' guess which U.S. Senator chaired that 1977 subcommitte which directed NIH to go low-fat? Yep. George McGovern.

And now....you know....the rest of the story.

Two worthy entries from the comments section. Neither, happily, encouraging me to take my own life.

"Greg" writes on the prospect of Massachusetts voters abolishing the state's income tax:

It'll never happen here in the People's Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but it's fun to think about.

Incidentally: one of those oh-so-vital programs that would suffer from the cut is the street-musician office. That's right: In Boston, street corner musicians must audition and apply for permits, which gives them access to a predetermined territory.

Yeah, the state really needs that $9 billion.

Not surprising. The second comment concerns the D.C. statehood/federal income tax discussion, and comes from Aaron Lukas:

I think it's time someone printed up some parody t-shirts that say, in the style of the current statehood booster shirts, "Fuck representation...No taxation!"

BTW, as to who was promoting this idea the earliest, this is a letter of mine that ran in the Washington Times in Dec. 2000:

"Your Dec. 19 editorial "Who votes for D.C.?" correctly notes that D.C. residents pay the federal income tax without having a voting representative in Congress. Despite the many unique benefits of living in the nation's capital, such taxation without representation troubles many city residents."

"Instead of granting the D.C. delegate a vote, as you suggest, why not attack the problem from the other end? I gladly would accept continued disenfranchisement in exchange for exemption from the federal income tax."

"Forget representation, give me no taxation."

I like the idea. Anybody wanna' come up with a "Fuck Representation, Give Me No Taxation" logo for Cafe Press? I bet we'd make a small fortune. Seriously. If anyone wants to come up with a design that meets the Cafe Press specs, send it to me. I'll promote them on this page, and you can keep the markup take. Maybe we can come up with a "PG" version, too.

Bob Herbert follows up on the case in Alabama where a retarded, indigent black man was convicted of murdering a baby that probably never existed. Why do I get the impression that the prosecutor Herbert interviews in the article is likely a fat man whose face is regularly basted in a light glaze of sweat? Seems it'll always be 1954 in some parts of Alabama.

I remember sitting in my D.C. office last September 11 just after the second plane hit the World Trade Center. I remember the moments later when a plane hit the Pentagon. I remember hearing reports that a plane was hurling up the Potomac, destined for the White House. I remember hearing about an explosion at the Capitol, a car bomb at the State Department, and smoke coming from the Old Executive Office Building. And I remember thinking to myself in those tense and surreal moments, "what must Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins think of all of this?"

Actually, that's not true. My first thought was, "ohmygod, I wonder if Susan and Tim are okay?" After all, there was always the possibility that Susan may have been testifying on Cap Hill that week, and was on that plane leaving Dulles, bound for California. Or perhaps Tim was soliciting campaign contributions for Democrats in anticipation of the 2002 midterm elections from the bigshots at Morgan Stanley or Solomun Smith Barney or Cantor Fitzgerald.

Over the next few days, I was joyed to learn that Susan and Tim were in fact safe. But I barely had time to bask in my relief when another horrifying thought took grip of me: what might September 11 do to the political activism of Susan and Tim? I mean, was it possible that this national outbreak of "patriotism," of self-indulgent "grieving" and of lust for "justice" might somehow drown out Susan's important work on death penalty and abortion rights issues, or Tim's tireless advocacy for the environment and the working man? What if these new events somehow turned the nation's attention away from celebrity activism, and thus diminished the crucial platform from which Tim and Susan so righteously advocate?

Silly me! What was I thinking? Susan and Tim are cunning and evolutionary activists! They aren't one-issue wonders! If Susan can advocate so passionately about reproductive rights, then immediately jet to New York City in time to be arrested at an Amadou Diallo rally, surely she'd bone up on South-Central Asian history in time to make a passionate case against the war in Afghanistan! If Tim Robbins can sagely and reverently opine on corporate pollution and raising the minimum wage with equal aplomb, surely he'll be on the front lines of the war to defend our civil liberties from John Ashcroft!

How could I have underestimated Susan, the Babe Didrickson of social protest, and Tim, the Jim Thorpe?

Finally, my fears have been alleviated, my lofty expectations satiated. In a move that I have no doubt is respectful and solemn, and is not at all exploitative, and I'm sure in no way driven by ego or self-aggrandizement, Susan and Tim have written a play, starring themselves, about the events and issues of September 11.

It's about damn time, you two!

UPDATE: Dammit. As it turns out, I didn't read this article carefully enough. The play was written by someone named Anne Nelson, as has been pointed out to me via e-mail and the comment below. I did a quick Google search, hoping to find at least co-writing credits for the lefty couple. No luck. A perfectly good post mocking Hollywood activism gone to waste.

One of the joys of running a blog is the droll give-and-take I sometimes engage in with my readers. All in good fun, of course. In the post on Jeb Bush below for example, loyal reader "Gordon" offers this rather jocular rib-poking:

It's time to go, and kill your fucking self.

I never thought I'd say this, but I pity the state of Florida. I can't imagine two candidates more hostile to liberty than the two they'll likely be choosing from in November -- Janet Reno and Jeb Bush.

Bush's latest gaffe involves his appointment to head Florida's embattled child welfare agency. This is the agency that has completely lost children entrusted to its care. More than 500 children under the agency's care are now listed as missing.

Still, Bush refused to fire the agency's director, Kathleen Kearney. She finally resigned on Tuesday.

Bush's choice to replace her is a guy by the name of Jerry Regier. Regier has disavowed the extreme views put forth in a paper published by an activist group he co-chaired. But Bush's appointment of Regier suggests either political ineptitude (how come Regier wasn't more stringently vetted?) or a certain nonchalance about extreme corporal punishment and "tough love" tactics with children.

Given my experience with Straight, Inc., and the Bushes' intimate interaction with its officers, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

It is Jeb Bush's administration, after all, that refuses to investigate the allegations of abuse coming from SAFE-Orlando, a drug rehab center that's one of the few operating remnants of Straight, Inc. It was Jeb Bush who declared "Betty Sembler Day" in Florida, in honor of Straight's matriarch and co-founder. It is Jeb Bush and his wife Columba who sit on the Board of Directors of the Drug Free America Foundation, the direct descendant of Straight, Inc. And it was Jeb Bush's office that, after being contacted by a Miami television station about an expose the station was doing on the abuse going on within the walls of SAFE, sent this letter to the station's reporter, reiterating the governor's support for the center.

This column by Arianna Huffington likening President Bush's economic summit to a closed-door gathering of Branch-Davidians is meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

But the Bush family's history of coziness with cults and mind-control tactics ought to cause us all a little discomfort. When I wrote the original Straight column for Fox, I interviewed a cult expert named Rick Ross. In the interview, Ross described himself as a rather staunch Republican. Still, he told me, he's troubled by how willingly the Bush family has traditionally intermingled with the likes of Straight and the Moonies. It seemed odd, he said, that a family so public and politically conscientious would forge such risky relationships.

I've said before that I voted for President Bush in 2000 and likely will again in 2004. I'm not terribly happy with his performance so far, but I suspect he'll once again be the least worst viable option on the ballot. I also find him the least troubling of the Bush political clan when it comes to the matters I've outlined above. I'd be much more comfortable if he'd recall Mel Sembler from his cushy Italian Ambassadorship, though I suspect Bush's appointment of Sembler came more on the recommendation of Jeb and his pappy than from Bush's own judgment (at least I hope that's the case). But that's probably not going to happen.

Whatever the case, Floridians don't really have much of an option come November. For the next four years, that state's going to be run by either, a) a political heir who's too blinded by drug war rhetoric and political cronyism to investigate rehab centers that beat the hell out of children, can't fire a director whose agency inexplicably looses children, and appoints a replacement whose former organization endorses leaving welts on them, or, b) a power-hungry socialist whose political resume includes burning the children of Branch-Davidians to a crisp, and snatching a little boy from the arms of relatives at gunpoint so that he might be brainwashed and pilloried as political tool of a brutal Caribbean dictator.

Good luck, Florida.

Voters in Massachusetts(!) will have the option this November of completely eradicating the state's income tax. Should it pass, the state's annual budget would shrink from $23 billion to $14 billion, effectively mandating a less intrusive, more streamlined, more responsive state government. On average, it'd give the average resident of the state an extra $3,000 to throw back into the economy.

Of course, those who have the most to lose if the referendum passes -- politicians and bureaucrats -- are predicting Armageddon. Note the state rep who says the measure could turn the state into "the Idaho of the East Coast." What's wrong with that?

And check this quote from the president of the poorly-named "Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation," responding to the argument that the private sector will address the state services the measure would eliminate:

''There's no connection between their argument and reality,'' he said. ''Is the private sector going to pay $5 billion to cities and towns? It's a total fraud and shows no understanding of how the government spends its money.''

Hmm. Perhaps if the private sector isn't willing to pay $5 billion "to cities and towns," then maybe the projects and programs those cities and towns are spending that $5 billion on aren't all that necessary. Could that be?

And I don't think you really need to "understand how the government spends its money" to understand that a) it has too much money to spend, b) it doesn't spend that money nearly as efficiently as the private sector does, and c) if you take said money away, government won't be able to spend it anymore.

The measure is polling at about 37%, a pretty remarkable number considering that we're talking about Massachusetts. And it's quickly gaining momentum in a state rife with government waste and mismanagement.

There's one catch: even if the measure passes, the state legislature still has the power to repeal it. I'd guess that if it passes, you can pretty much count on that happening.

David Mecklenburg has an even more radical solution to the what-to-do-with-D.C. question.

Also, in the comments section below, a reader named "Bart" directs some rather pointed criticisms at me because I support the tax-free-D.C. idea:

You have dropped your Libertarian Ideals for the chance of paying no taxes. No more Libertarian when there's a chance for a free ride on the backs of all the other taxpayers. How quickly you have gone from fighting for lower taxes for everybody, to suggesting no taxes for a select few supported by everybody else.

Um...no. I live in Virginia. And I'd continue to live in Virginia even if a tax-free zone were passed. I'd get no benefit from a tax-free D.C. Nice try. And how is taxing a quarter million people without allowing them representation consistent with "libertarian principles?"

Your argument is so poor that it makes just as much sense to raise taxes in D.C. instead of lowering them. Raise them to the point that no one is willing to live there (its not a very big place anyway). Then we have eliminated the representation problem, as well as the Marion Barry's that thrive in the place.

I can't even attempt to respond to this. It's completely incoherent. How does wanting to inject the District with wealth "make just as much sense" as raising taxes "to the point that no one is willing to live there?" I'm lost.

Congress already doesn't pay social security and look how easily they abuse that fund. Spending it on other things every chance they get. Imagine if they paid no taxes, they would take our hard earned money for granted even more than they do now.

Um...Congressmen don't claim residence in the District. They're required to be residents of the districts they represent (or, at the very least, the state). So they'd still pay federal income taxes.

The idea that the people of D.C. are victims here without representation is a joke. The average person in D.C. has far more access and influence on the powers-that-be than the average person anywhere else in the U.S.

Have you ever been to D.C.? Venture outside the Northwest quadrant. Are you telling me Denny Hastert is more inclined to listen to the concerns of a single mother of three in the Anacostia projects than, say, a double-income family of three in Barrington, IL simply because the single mother lives closer to the Capitol? Come on. The "average person" in D.C. isn't a Congressional staffer, lobbyist or federal bureaucrat. The average person in D.C. lives below the poverty line.

Besides, what happened to "one man, one vote?" It's ridiculous to suggest that geographic proximity to the capital, or the nature of a man's job, or the amount of "influence" he has, should somehow cancel out his right to be represented in federal government. Should we take votes away from all people over a certain income level, then? What about movie stars and journalists? Seems to me they have more influence than the common man, too. Should we take away their right to vote?

I will grant you the fact that the real "average people" in D.C. probably don' t pay federal income taxes anyway, but they do pay for Medicare and Social Security. They're still getting money withheld from their paychecks, and are without a voice in Congress.

I'm simply saying that if you're going to deny D.C.'s residents a voice in Congress (and I've written that on the whole I think that's a good idea), then you can't hit them up for taxes. This country was founded on the principle that unrepresentative taxation is a violation of our liberty. Why does that principle suddenly change simply because those without representation will vote for Democrats, are largely poor and black, and find themselves living in the District?

I ran into a friend of mine last night at a bar. He's entered the foreign service and his first assigment will send him to Islamabad. He said his next few weeks of training involve:

a) Getting dumped in a suburb town in Virginia while two veteran agents tail him. His job is to figure out who it is that's tailing him within a couple of days.

b) Driver training, which involves stuff like learning how to crash a car through roadblocks, and learning how keep control of a car while someone's trying to ram you off the road.

In other words, they're teaching him how to be Vin Diesel. I'm so very envious.

Instapundit’s posted a time or two of late on the prospect of D.C. statehood. I’ve always found the issue to be something of a conundrum. The framers’ concerns about giving representation to the country’s seat of government seem prudent. But it’s also tough to get past the fact that several hundred thousand people are paying taxes at the federal level, but have no voice in the federal government.

That said, the “no taxation without representation” shtick is getting old. They’re putting it on the city’s flag now. And one guy I know had to negotiate through a nightmare of bureaucratic monkey bars to avoid having the slogan imprinted on his license plate. Last I heard, the Institute for Justice is launching yet another lawsuit, this time to get the slogan removed from the inspection stickers you’re required to paste on your windshield.

After three years of living in and around the District, it’s plainly obvious to me that it’s an entity unready for home rule. And statehood? Come on. The current mayor hired from homeless shelters to collect signatures for his own re-election, racking up a few dozen broken laws and a couple hundred grand in fines in the process. When a politician can’t even show some competence when it comes to saving his own job, he’s certainly not ready to take the wheel of the nation’s capital without some oversight. And this is the guy who we’re told is a huge improvement over the previous mayor.

I’ll admit, part of my concern stems from the frightful prospect of allowing Eleanor Holmes Norton a vote in Congress – and two more just like her a vote in the Senate. But D.C. is the most important city in the world – I’d argue in the history of man. It’s just not acceptable to allow it to be run into the ground, as has happened in cities with equally inept executives at the helm – St. Louis, Detroit and Houston come to mind.

So here’s a solution that seems so patently obvious to me, I’m certain dozens of people have probably thought of it first. But I’ve yet to see it discussed when the D.C. home rule/statehood/representation issue comes up: Why not declare residents of D.C. exempt from the federal income tax? There could then be no complaints of unrepresentative taxation.

The economic impact of a federal tax-free capital could change the face of the city. High-earners would flood in from the suburbs (where real estate prices are absurd at the moment, anyway). Property values would soar, even in low-income areas. Business would follow, in order to accommodate the new class.

Granted, lots of D.C. residents would raise a stink – current gentrification wars would pale in comparison. But the city’s tax coffers would swell. Seems to me it’s a way to both correct an unfortunate injustice and revitalize the nation’s capital.

UPDATE: Ben Domenech beat me to the punch. He suggested the tax-free D.C. idea yesterday. And he's got numbers and stuff to back it up.

UPDATE II: T.J. Brown (a fellow IU j-school alum) tells me Jonah Goldberg broached the idea a couple of years ago.

The second entry in what I suspect might become a theme, as we follow "Mary's" journey to monkey guardianship. The horrifying passage below came up in an email exchange I was copied on between "Mary" and "Geoff," the name I'm giving my co-worker who is actively encouraging Mary's monkey-love. It's apparently from the "What to Expect From Your Monkey" section of a website called "Monkeys n' More." Soft and cuddly they ain't:

It is not reasonable to expect that you will never be bitten by any monkey. The relatively docile youngster eventually turns from play-aggression to the serious aggression of an adult. Proper management techniques go a long ways in coping. The larger the monkey, generally speaking, the bigger the problem. Yet it is hard to prepare someone for the onslaught of mature aggression in a monkey. Have you ever seen a rabid dog in the throes of an attack--the pursuit of an angry bull in a bull ring, the vicious ripping power of a lion's canine teeth? A mature monkey, even one who was hand-raised, can attack a friend or stranger with equal vengeance. An angry monkey has the cunning and dexterity to leap into the air and accurately take a swipe an the human eye, or to bite the human body in the most vulnerable places, the jugular vein, the veins of the wrists, the nerve-filled fingers of the hand. It almost takes the discipline of a professional trainer to deal with the personalities of some individual monkeys in a constructive way as they mature. It takes love, forgiveness and stick-to-it-iveness to remain a committed caretaker.

This morning, Nicholas Kristoff writes that because the United States won't fund the UN Population Fund -- which has in the past supported China's "one-child" forced abortion regime, and which is really no more than foreign aid aimed at third world birth control and abortion services -- we then are no better than Saudi Arabia, which requires its firefighters to stand and watch while a building fire burns women alive; Iran, which pushes women under the burkah; and the Sudan, which still practices the barbaric ritual of genital mutilation, and where "dry sex" -- which is every bit as painful as its name implies -- spreads AIDS in the name of keeping women from experiencing sexual pleasure.

Nicholas Kristoff says that because we won't give the UN fund $34 million, we're no better than these countries.

Nicholas Kristoff is an idiot.

Season four starts in 30 days.

Sixth-Grader's Family Tree Fails To Hold Up To Scrutiny CALVERTON, MD—Sixth-grader Adam Jones' family tree, assigned recently as homework, fails to hold up to scrutiny, social-studies teacher Gwen Wexler reported Monday. "I'm a little skeptical of Adam's claim that he's descended from [movie star] Vin Diesel," Wexler said. "There's also something suspicious about his tracing his mother's lineage to Cal Ripken Jr." Wexler expressed further doubts about Jones' claim that he is related to actor James Earl Jones by way of "the Zimbabwe Joneses."

Sonia Arrison pens (er...keys) a nice piece on government monitoring. I like how she turns the tables, and suggests the police brutality videotapes we've seen in the news are a good example of how civilians too can use surveilance to keep a check on power. (Click here for more on surveilance.) When authorities start preventing us from accessing the same technology they're using, well, then it's time to start getting antsy. Also, check out the clarity on Rapiscan Secure 1000. Sheesh. You can see everything. Even, perhaps, a person's appendectomy scar.

Bob Herbert details an extraordinary injustic in Alabama in today's NY Times. To entice you to read, take a gander at the lead:

If you are going to charge three defendants with capital murder for killing a newborn, do you have an obligation to show that the baby really was killed?

Not in Alabama, you don't.

Do you need to show, somehow, that the baby ever existed?

Not in Alabama. Not if the defendants are poor, black and retarded.

A friend of mine had the following conversation with one of our more eccentric colleagues this afternoon. He was so entertained, he immediately went back to his office and wrote it down, then emailed it to me.

“You know, on St. Patrick’s Day, I came home with these little white hairs all over me from your dog.”

“Yeah, my dog is brown and white, so her hair shows on just about everything.”

“I still haven’t gotten that green wool suit dry-cleaned.”

“It’s August. That was months ago.”

“I know. I have to get it cleaned before winter.”

“Sounds sensible. What makes you think about the dog hair? “

“Not dog hair. Monkey hair. I’m getting a monkey.”

“Like Clint Eastwood in Every Which Way But Loose?”

“No a little monkey.”

“Why a monkey?”

“My apartment building has tons of rules about dogs and cats. They put tons of papers our boxes about them. Last month, 220 sheets of paper.”

“No monkey regs?”

“No.”

“Clever. So you get a monkey and then you’re grandfathered in, there’s nothing they can do about it.”

“Well, if they did, I would tell them that he is just visiting.”

“Where would his address of record be? “

“Here.”

“Here? You mean here at the office?”

“Yeah, but I’ll have to get a plant.”

“Plant?”

“For my house. My house, listen to me! I mean my tiny apartment.”

“Okay.”

“So that the monkey can swing. Actually, I’ll have to get at least two. You need two if he’s going swing from plant to plant. One’s not enough. They can hang from the ceiling. My friends in Florida have a vine that grows up and all the way around the living room. They call it “Raider””

“Fair enough.”

“That means I’ll have to keep plants alive.”

“And the monkey.”

“Oh yeah.”

“Perhaps you should get fake plants, or ropes and hang them from hooks that you screw into the rafters.”

“Fake plants.”

“Yeah, fake plants. But a real monkey. You said “he.” Are you planning on getting a boy monkey?”

“I think of all monkeys as boys, so I should get a boy monkey. Nobody wants a girl monkey. Do you think that he can do things for me?”

“Like what, fix you a sandwich?”

“No! Nothing like that, but I would want him to be able to at least do microwave popcorn and bring it to me when I am in my chair.”

“Well, I would hope that he could at least do that. What are you going to name your monkey? Kiko?”

“No! No, I won't know that until I look in his eyes. Then I’ll know his name. I want him to have a biblical name.”

“Like Matthew?”

“Matthew the Monkey.”

“Yeah, Matthew the monkey. Or Ecclesiastes?”

“How about Corinthian? Or does that sound too much like a gorilla name?”

“Leathery. That's a leathery name. I want a small monkey.”

“How about Mark? Jonathan?”

“You only know Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John!”

“I'm not much of bible reader. So you want a little monkey?”

“Yeah, like the one on Friends.”

“He had a leash. You could train him to do his business outside.”

“I prefer the diaper idea. A monkey should be wearing pants.”

“Yeah, you don’t want a pantsless monkey swinging around, sitting on your counter, you know, dipping his junk in your breakfast omelet or whatever.”

“Yeah. Do me a favor and look into monkey pants for me.”

“Will do.”

When Richard Cohen and Ann Coulter are bloodsporting, whom do you cheer for? I don't agree with either of them on much of anything. I think I root for Cohen. Mostly because he's a far more talented writer and a far more pleasurable read. Even when he's wrong. Which is often.

How can I become a cop in this town?

Cheap ploy to get "teen sex" hits off of Google? Maybe. But there's a legit news story behind that header. Here it is.

Fifty-nine percent of teens said they'd stop using the services of family planning clinics (birth control and STD testing -- we're not talking about abortion, here) if those clinics were required to inform parents of what services the teens were using. But most of those teens also said they'd continue having sex -- even if it meant forgoing birth control and STD testing.

Most of us know this already. Teenagers have sex. But lots of conservative lawmakers seem to have a hard time understanding it. A Texas Congressman wants to pass a law requiring all "family planning" clinics that get federal funding to inform parents of what services their kids are using-- under the mistaken notion that such notification will stop teens from having sex. Wrong. What it will do is stop teens from having protected sex. That means more unwanted pregnancies. More abortions. And more STDs. All of which, I'm guessing, the good Congressman finds undesirable.

But wrongheaded as I find the Congressman's thinking to be, I'd have to throw in this caveat: why is the federal government funding family planning clinics to begin with? Let them fund themselves. Let private donors finance them. Then let each clinics' policies be set by the mores and standards of the community that supports it.

Forget dirty bombs. Forget bioterror. Forget rogue nukes, West Nile, or the troubling fame of Anna Nicole Smith. Tim Blair's got the goods on a looming crisis that's far more worrisome.

It looks at Social Security privatization, and why, despite the market downturn, corporate scandals and sagging economy, it's still a good idea (click the header to go read it).

A hearty welcome if that's what brought you here.

You can browse more of the op-eds I've written for Fox and elsewhere by clicking on the "published writing" link to your left. You can also sign up for updates when my columns are published by clicking the appropriate link -- also to your left.

I ran again on Saturday for the first time since my minor surgery. Ran Sunday and yesterday, too. About three miles each time. No pain. No reopened wounds. No innards spilt out onto the treadmill. In fact, it felt great.

So I signed up for a race. Don't worry. I won't be asking you for money this time. This is also a decidedly less ambitious race. Barring any unforeseen medical emergencies, I'll be doing D.C.'s Army Ten Miler on October 20.

If all goes well, I might then consider the D.C. marathon in the spring (not to be confused with the Marine Corps Marathon, which is mostly in Virginia. The D.C. marathon hits all four city quadrants. I'm thinking that's good motivation. If ever there was reason to run, it's when faced with the prospect of walking, exhausted, along the Anacostia river. Scary.).

OK, this should bother you. It bothers me. But, you say, aren't cops -- even sneaky, surrpeticious, snakey ones -- aren't they just catching speeders, people who are breaking the law anyway? Yes. Sort of. But understand something. Roads are built for speeders. Engineers design highways, biways and the like with speeders in mind. In fact, most knowledgeable folks will tell you, if nobody sped, we'd have gridlock that makes D.C.'s Wilson Bridge look like a Montana prairie. So when cops dress up like construction workers, when municipalities intsall speed cams, when GPS chips in your car might enable you to be ticketed by satelite -- it really just amounts to a tax on driving. Because everybody speeds, our society is built for speeding, and no amount of enforcement is going to change that.

Besides, is this really the kind of society we want to live in, one where our cops go undercover to rack up pissant misdemeanors?

UPDATE: "The Phantom Libertarian" (see comments below) points to this 1999 Cato study by Steve Moore on the dubious "speed kills" numbers thrown out by nanny statists and auto insurance interests. A wonderful little outfit called the National Motorists Association makes many of the same points.

A characteristically insightful and balanced opinion piece by James Bowman on the UNC-Koran imbroglio.

Asparagirl reads the tea leaves,and the news isn't so good. The unlikely trio of Broadway, Jonah Goldberg and India's independence day all portend an imminent terrorist attack. Huh, you say? Go read it.

This band might be the next chapter in "brogue punk," the fiercely Irish, poetically folk, attitude-laden sound popularized by the Pogues in the 80's and by lesser-knowns like the Dropkick Murphys in the 90's.

I haven't yet heard the debut CD, but I've been spinning the band's follow-up -- "Drunken Lullabies" -- for a few weeks now. It's every bit the mix of ass-drunk pub rock and warm Irish tradition the title might imply.

"What's Left of the Flag" (free download here) is a paean (though an edgy, rocking paean) to waning tradition, and a call to arms of sorts for a resurrection green pride. "If I Ever Leave This World Alive" is equal parts lullaby and punk stomper. "Death Valley Queen" lays lyrics of unrequited love over a gorgeous Celtic melody.

Mostly, the album rips with fast-paced punk anthems teeming with rich Irish heritage -- a slam-bang sound kaleidoscope of vocals, guitar, bass, drums, fiddles, accordions, banjos, mandolins, pipes, violins, whistles and whatever a "bouzouki" might be.

Buy. Spin. Listen. Enjoy. Be sure to have a pint of Guinness and a bottle of Jameson nearby.

This is fantastic. Jimmie "J.J." Walker is back. And in full effect. Not only is he hitting the stand-up circuit, he's got his own website. Here's the best part of all: J.J. has a "J.J.'s Views" section, where he opines on everything from patriotism, to sex ed, to affirmative action to the state of comedy! And, bonus!, it turns out that the guy holds some failry libertarian positions (turns out he also has crushes on Nora O'Donnel (who doesn't?) and Ann Coulter (uh-oh)). His favorite television stations? Fox News and C-SPAN. A few exceprts:

J.J. on affirmative action:

" Do you wanna be a millionaire?"... if you're a minority, you're not going to do it on the show of the same name. ABC's hit game show has done it without minorities. But, this is a sign of something much bigger... the affects of affirmative action! "Millionaire", "Jeopardy", "Win Ben Stein's Money" etc. etc. are shows you have to earn your way on. That means, standardized testing, no scoring on a curve, no breaks given. We, as minorities, must compete academically. Affirmative action was very necessary at the the time, but like "the lava lamp" , "the hula hoop", and "the eight track tape" affirmative action's time has passed. Minorities should be insulted by affirmative action! We are too intelligent to be held "back" by the shackles of the afirmative action mind set. California, Florida, and Michigan have stepped to the forefront and eliminated affirmative action from their university systems. Affirmative action has served as the tricycle of education, it's time to take off the training wheels. It's trivial that minorities aren't on game shows, but it's the tip of the iceberg. America, like these game shows, want the best and the brightest . And minorities can't do that by being held to lower standards and expectations. And that's my final answer!

J.J. on the voting habits of blacks...

Black folks have been led, like sheep to the slaughter. For over fifty years, black people have voted in monolitic masses for the democratic party . They are taken for granted in the democratic party. Black people are political orphans. According to the census, Blacks have become the second largest minority in the United States, losing out to the Hispanic population. "Black Leadership" is rudder-less. But still, Blacks have a passionate adversity to any other political party...ostracizing anyone not in the Democractic Party. Clarence Thomas, J.C.Watts, Alan Keys are examples of this. Sure, there has been obvious progress for Blacks over the last fifty years...but much of the Black agenda's cornerstone has gone by the wayside. In the last five years, welfare reform and standardized testing (something Blacks have long been against)is now the law of the land. The end of affirmative action as we knew it is now here. It's time for Blacks to stop being led like lemmings by the Democratic Party and look for a new political "empowerment zone .

J.J. on slavery reparations:

Reparations to African Americans...an idea whose time hasn't come. Slavery was a horrible institution which took place over four hundred years ago. Of course, that's one of the points...over "four-hundred years" ago. No one who participated in slavery is alive today. African-Americans are a major part of the American fabric, economically and otherwise. Yes, slavey was, and is wrong! Individuals from J.F.K., L.B.J., and Bill Clinton have said so! Yes, African-Americans were bought to the United States in chains. But, at Ellis Island, immigrants, Italians, Irish, etc., etc.,... although coming to America of their own free will, were forced to "work", many times for free, in at least as bad of conditions as Blacks...should they be paid reparations? Union soldiers fought against slavery in the bloodiest war in American History, should they be paid reparations? John Brown and his sons gave up their lives fighting against slavery, should they be paid reparations? How about the people who ran the underground railroad, who freed thousands of slaves and fought for the thirteeth ammendment? How much should they get? What African- Americans should be doing is celebrating the fact that we've come from slavery to head Fortune Five Hundred Companies, like American Express and Beatice Foods. We have become a President of an Ivy League school, Brown University. And, we can't discount the areas of sports and entertainment,or Colin Powell, former Federal Reserve Officers, Andrew Brimmer, Franklin Raines, Michael Powell,and Secretary Of Education, Ron Paige. Yes, we were bought here in chains, but we've freed ourselves and achieved!

Good times.

Eve's taken the gloves off in her abortion blog war with Julian. This is getting nasty. I think she's now accused him of eating babies. I walked by Julian's desk yesterday and caught him burning a paper mache effigy he'd made of Eve from cut up copies of Crisis magazine.

Also, Eve reminds me of a gross and really pretty embarrassing oversight on my list of the funniest people alive. Ryan Stiles! The "Who's Line Is It Anyway?" improv specialist probably competes with Ferrell for my #1 slot. The guy sweats and it's funny. I'd throw in the Abbot to Stile's Costello, too, the appropriately named Colin Mochrie (See him in those Fidelity commercials? Outstanding). The rest of the "Who's Line" regulars are good, but Stiles and Mochrie are in a class of their own.

Cato's President is on Washington Journal at the moment -- I think until about 8:30 am.

A crappy mood reinvigorated. Gregg Easterbrook, everyone's favorite new-New Deal liberal scholar/sports pontificator/sci-fi enthusiast/beautiful woman ogler has posted the 2002 season's first edition of the Tuesday Morning Quarterback. This preseason version of the former-Slate, now ESPN Page 2 masterpiece series reads suspiciously like a blog.

If you're a regular of this site, you'll be a TMQ regular by the end of the NFL season, as I'm certain I'll be linking to him once a week. An excerpt:

Ryan Leaf, one of biggest busts in the annals of sports, officially retired a few weeks ago, though it can be argued that he retired immediately after being selected No. 2 overall by the Bolts in the 1998 draft. Ye gods, this gentleman was bad marmalade on burnt toast. There are many, many statistics to support the contention, but TMQ's favorite is that Leaf departs the NFL with a career passer rating of 50.

How to put that into perspective? Last year's lowest-rated "qualifying" NFL passer (224 attempts or more) was Jon Kitna of Cincinnati, who ran up a 61.1 rating. So Leaf was worse, on a career basis, than last year's worst overall. Under the league's cryptic formula, if you attempt 10 passes, complete five for 50 yards with no TDs or INTs -- and this is pretty damn anemic -- you get a 64.6 rating. Leaf did worse than that. If you attempt 100 passes and every single one clangs to the ground incomplete, 39.6 is your rating. Leaf barely did better than oh-for-his career.

Yes. And let's not forget, not only did Colts' GM Vince Tobin get ridicule for selecting Peyton Manning over Leaf, he also caught heat for taking Edgerin James over Ricky Williams. The Edge led the league in rushing his first two seasons, and likely would have last year as well, were it not for an injury. Ricky Williams is on Paxil, and was traded to the Dolphins last season for a fifth-round draft pick.

As ridiculous as this is, I can completely see a market for it. I'm thinking central Indiana -- in the 'burbs of Indy. The same people who put neons on their Cameros and have "bad boy" stickers in their rear windows. Yep. That's the market.

Sports Illustrated's Gary Van Sickle says there's still much left for Tiger Woods to accomplish. And he's not talking about the U.S. Senate.

Here's the nasty write-up of last week's game. You have to scroll down a bit.

Drug war lunacy. A cop was forced to use her maiden name on duty in order to keep her job. That's because her married name, taken with her first initial, spelled C. O'Kane. As in, "cocaine." And I guess we can't have cops named after drugs. So she was barred from reinstatement after taking leave to care for a relative.

Doug Bandow says no. Joe Katzman says yes.

Scelson proclaims himself the world's most prolific spammer. He's unapologetic. He claims he can get around any filter. He's a huge waste of your time. And he costs you bandwidth each time you inadvertently download an unsolicited message from one of his customers. Thisguy has hatched a scheme to get back at Ronald Scelson. It's worth reading.

I largely agree with this morning's editorial. But I'd have thrown in a condemnatory sentence or two about the FBI's media leaks regarding Hatfill.

This should inspire some spirited discussion. About five years ago, Entertainment Weekly published it’s “Funniest People Alive” issue. While watching an old Saturday Night Live rerun, the roommates and I came to agreement that Mike Myers, most likely, is today the funniest man alive. I can’t remember a single character he did on the show that bombed. He's also the only SNL alum since Chris Farley (and before him since...who?) to have any success at the box office. That got me thinking of the EW list. I decided it’s time for an update. So here now, my list of the top ten funniest men alive (after Myers, of course).

10. Ray Romano. Probably not a widely popular choice. But I love his show. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an episode that didn’t elicit at least one out-loud belly laugh. And despite the family/relationships theme, the show is surprisingly heavy on guy humor. Apologies to: Larry David. Mega-props for co-creating Seinfeld. Fails to make the list only because I haven’t yet seen enough episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm to give it proper consideration.

9. Joel Stein. Up until the last year or so, Stein was a weekly columnist for Time Magazine. He’s been bumped of late, probably because editors haven’t felt comfortable with Gen-X slacker humor as a preface to post-September 11 coverage. Still, Stein’s a hell of a writer – in the Dave Barry vein. Apologies to: Gene Weingarten of The Washington Post Magazine. Writes in a style similar to Stein’s. His scathing assaults on D.C. bureaucrats are riotous – and well-deserved.

8. P.J. O’Rourke. He’s lost some of his bite since he started writing for more serious outlets like The Atlantic Monthly. His older, more politically incorrect stuff (like this, which will first shock the vocabulary out of you – then have you roaring) should be required reading at every university sensitivity seminar. Still, P.J. gets my #8 slot for his politics (he’s a libertarian), and the merciless rhetorical dagger he takes to those in power. Apologies to: Dave Barry. Still churning them out. Still laughs-worthy. A much subtler libertarianism.

7. Bill Murray. I’d argue he’s the best onscreen “prick” in movie history. The guy does asshole like no one else. Apparently, lots of people in Hollywood say he plays the role pretty well off-screen too, which is why he was overlooked at Oscar time for Rushmore a few years ago. Apologies to: Gary Shandling. Another one of comedy’s great bastards. He misses my list only because he hasn’t done much lately. But even in reruns, the Larry Sanders Show is one of the funniest half-hours on TV.

6. Ben Stiller. Just a brilliant, brilliant mind for comedy. From the Ben Stiller Show, to the SportsCenter Commercials (yep, Stiller wrote them), to Meet the Parents and There’s Something About Mary, the guy knows comedy from conception to planning to execution. I haven’t seen it, but at least two of my friends say his performance in the fat camp movie Heavyweights is worth waiting through the entire, rotten film to see. Apologies to: Owen Wilson. A tenfold better comedic pair for Stiller than Jeanine Garrafalo. He too writes, directs and acts.

5. Christopher Guest. You give me Spinal Tap, Waiting for Guffman, and Best in Show, I give you #5. All three are in my comedy top ten. Apologies to: Eugene Levy, Guest's co-writer co-star on Guffman and Best in Show. Most underutilized talent in showbiz. Gary “Two Left Feet” Fleck. Priceless.

4. John Stewart. His timing on the Daily Show couldn’t be more precise. He delivers prewritten text with aplomb, but can also do a charming, funny-on-the-fly with the show’s celebrity interviews. TDS has gotten quite a bit more partisan lately, which I find a little troublesome. The show’s premise works so much better when you don’t feel like you’re being saddled with an agenda. Apologies to: the rest of the cast of TDS. Mo Rocca, Steven Colbert, and the now-departed Beth Littleford, especially.

3. Trey Parker and Matt Stone. For consistently pushing the sensitivity envelope, they get my #3. Who’d have thought NAMBLA, AIDS, the handicapped, pederastic priests and abortion could be so darn funny? These guys have tackled them all in the past few seasons, and have found laughs in all of them. Apologies to: The Simpsons writers. Not to worry. Your “lifetime achievement award” is on the way.

2. The Onion Staff. After 9/11, CNN’s Jeff Greenfield famously declared irony to be dead. The rest of the media jumped on board. Gen-X detachment and the humor it inspired, it seemed, would be no more. Then The Onion released its 9/11 issue. Remarkably, the staff found genuine, inoffensive wit lurking in the Ground Zero rubble. Jeff Greenfield’s fledgling television show was cancelled a few months later. Apologies to: the Modern Humorist staff. Wry, intellectual satire. Survived the dot-com content bubble’s burst by actually having worthy, readable content.

1. Will Ferrell. Remember how Saturday Night Live made its comeback a few years ago? Watch it today. It’s awful again. The only difference? Will Ferrell is gone. Funny how his absence brings the entire cast down. Weekend Update doesn’t even seem as funny any more – and he had nothing to do with it. Apologies to: Phil Hartman. If you were here, this spot would be yours.

So where are the women? My bias is showing. There aren’t many women who can consistently make laugh. In fact, Ellen DeGeneres is probably the only female stand-up comedian I could honestly describe as “funny.” The above-mentioned Beth Littleford used to conduct some hilarious B-list celebrity interviews for The Daily Show, but she’s sort of disappeared since leaving TDS. Tina Fey is now head writer for SNL. She’s funny (and hot), but again, the show’s taken a dive since Ferrell left. Cheri Oteri is a very talented sketch actress, but I can’t see her turning it into a career on the big screen. She might be doomed to the fates of Jan Hooks, Nora Dunn and Victoria Jackson, all of whom were great on SNL, but sadly mediocre in the movies.

I’ll also concede that the above list is pretty pale. But again, my only criterion here is the ability to make me laugh. Chris Rock nearly made the list. As did Bernie Mac. And I sometimes find Dave Chapelle fairly amusing. But I’m not into the Def Comedy Jam scene. Lots of humor I think rests on shared experiences. We laugh at stuff we’re familiar with. So bits that start off with “didya’ ever notice how white people…” or “why is at that men always….” probably won't get me smiling.

From the bottomless treasure of list archives:

DIVES NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE OYMPIC DIVING COMMITTEE

BY PETER SCHOOFF

- - - -

A forward double flip with one and one half twists with a half-caf half-decaf double espresso.

A forward 2 1/2 somersault while smoking a pipe and reading "Remembrance of Things Past."

A back 1 1/2 somersault with 1 1/2 twists while contemplating the fleeting nature of athletic excellence.

A backward 2 1/2 somersault with 1 twist while ordering Chinese food on a cell phone.

An inward 2 1/2 somersault with 1 twist while in the sitting-on-the-toilet-reading-a-newspaper position.

A forward 3 1/2 somersault with the hand clap from the "Friends" theme song in a pike position.

A triple Lutz with a forward 1 1/2 somersault while wearing ice skates with a big splash.

An inward 3 1/2 somersault tuck while wearing a bulletproof vest and being shot at.

Moonwalking off the diving platform into a back 2 1/2 somersault with a crotch grab while playing the air guitar.

A forward 1 1/2 somersault while flapping arms and making airplane jokes.

A backward 1 1/2 somersault with 2 1/2 twists in the arms-wrapped-tightly- around-the-neck-so-it-looks-like-I'm- making-out-with-someone-from-behind position.

P.J. O'Rourke attended the anti-globo-idiotarian protests in D.C. last April, too. Read his account here. I was there, too. Read my account here.
Incidentally, P.J.'s assistant Max Pappas is running for state rep in Massachusetts. Max is a libertarian. Visit his candidate site here.

How to make a "shiv cozy" and a "velvet fisting glove."

CBS aired the 60 Minutes rerun last night featuring Steve Kroft's infuriating interview with Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta. I don't have an exact transcript (and I'm not paying eight bucks to get one), but the interview goes something like this:

Kroft: Is racial profiling ever okay?

Mineta: No.

Kroft: So the fact that all 19 of the September 11 highjackers were of a certain age, a certain religion, a certain complexion, and came from a certain region, none of that should play into how we screen passengers at airports?

Mineta: Of course not. That would be profiling. All passengers should be screened with scrutiny.

Kroft: But you can't give all passengers the utmost scrutiny.

Mineta: No. We can't.

Kroft: So how do you figure out who's more likely to be a threat?

Mineta: We can use other criteria.

Kroft: Like what?

Mineta: Well, for example, we can look for passengers who pay cash only for tickets. Or passengers who purchase one-way tickets. Or both.

Kroft: Did any of the September 11 hijackers pay cash for their tickets?

Mineta: Um....no. They paid with credit cards.

Kroft: I see. Did any of them purchase one-way tickets?

Mineta: Um....no. They all bought round-trip tickets.

The interview gets no less maddening the second time around. Kraft also posited a reducto-ad-absurdum scenario to Mineta. He asked the Transportation Secretary to picture two would-be passengers in an airport (Again, I'm very loosely paraphrasing, here). One is 25, sports a three-day beard, is of Arab descent, and is knelt on a rug praying to the west before boarding the plane. The other is an 85 year-old woman clutching a rosary and a handbag. Mineta said both passengers deserve the same level of scrutiny.

I was listening to "suspicious" bioweapons expert Dr. Steven Hatfill's press conference on C-SPAN radio in the car yesterday.

Certainly, there are some suspicious elements in the guy's story that warrant investigation. He's apparently one of only about a couple dozen scientists with the access and the know-how to pull off a bio attack similar to the Anthrax assault last fall (in an odd twist, he's also one of just a few scientists on the UN's list of potential UNSCOM investigators -- that is, should Sadam Hussein allow bioweapons inspectors back in to Iraq, Hatfill might be in the group that goes). Hatfill has also been working on a novel manuscript that involves a bio attack on Washington, D.C. -- one that infects members of Congress and their staffs. He was in London when the letter to Sen. Daschle's office was mailed -- from London. And while living in New Zealand, he stayed just a few miles from a town that shares a name with the fictitious elementary school listed on the return address of the Daschle envelope.

But that's all circumstantial. It's certainly enough to launch an investigation, but it's nowhere near enough to convict -- or even indict -- Hatfill.

I thought the man's press conference was pretty damned convincing. He pointed out that he works in virology -- Anthrax is a bacteria. He hasn't had a an Anthrax vaccine booster (which is required to retain immunity) since 1999. He has cooperated with every request the FBI has made.

Having apparently learned nothing from the Richard Jewell case, the FBI has again ruined a man's life to deflect attention from its own inept investigation. Imagine for a moment that Hatfill is innocent -- as our system implies we should do until he's convicted. Each time Hatfill gave permission for agents to search his house, he did so under assurances from the FBI that the searches would be private and confidential. Both times, the FBI vans were accompanied by news helicopters, satellite trucks and cameras -- the second time within minutes of Hatfill signing the search waivers.

Hatfill has lost two jobs now as a result of the FBI's labeling of him as a "key figure." According to Hatfill, agents searched the home of his girlfriend, detained and isolated her four eight hours, roughed her up, and asked her how it felt to be involved with a man who "killed six people."

This fall will mark one year since the first Anthrax letter was mailed. The FBI investigation would probably have yielded more results if it had been conducted by the Washington Metro Police Department's "Lost Intern Division."

It isn't difficult to see how the agency, when called into account for its bumbling ineptitude, might leak a name to appease the media. That is, after all, what happened with Jewell. And to this day, the FBI still doesn't have an Olympic Park bombing suspect in custody.

Maybe the FBI is sitting on evidence that more directly implicates Hatfill. But whatever they have, it obviously isn't strong enough to indict him -- or they would have done it by now. If there's anything worse than a trusted federal law enforcement agency manipulating the media to implicate an innocent man, it's one that doesn't learn its lessons -- and does it again.

Innocent or guilty, Steve Hatfill's reputation is ruined. In my book, so is the FBI's.

Gene seems to think I'm far too laudatory for a site called "The Agitator." That is, I only blog about stuff that's good. OK. Here, then, three bad movies I've seen in the past month or so:

"The Contender": Preachy. Self-righteous. Wholly unbelievable (All Movie hints that the ridiculous plot may in fact be satire. I think that's giving it too much credit). Joan Allen got an Oscar nomination for her role as a fill-in vice presidential nominee with a smutty sexual history. She didn't deserve it. Jeff Bridges is decent as the president. Everyone else is awful. I'd guess Hollywood was too blinded by the movie's pro-private life, pro-sexual peccadillos message to see that it's a really crappy piece of filmmaking. And that's coming from someone who generally agrees with the message.

"Gosford Park": Huge disappointment. After my anticipation was built up by rave reviews, I ended up turning the damn thing off 50 minutes in. This is a movie for people who make movies. It isn't a movie for people who watch them. I'm also annoyed by movies with accents so thick, I spend so much mental energy translating the dialogue, I forget what's going on with the plot. It's a "whodunnit" where the murder doesn't take place until the movie's halfway over. I guess we're supposed to marvel at the dichotomy of lifestyles, mores, and values of the aristocracy versus those of the serving class. I just got bored. Maybe I'm too lowbrow to enjoy a movie with this kind of sophistication.

"Lord of the Rings": Not awful. But really overrated. I constantly had to suspend disbelief. How come Gandalf can use magic to save his butt at some points in the movie, but not at others? Also, too long. And wouldn't the barefoot thing get dangerous on some of the terrain they had to traverse? How come they never cut their feet? Guess I'm not much of a sci-fi buff.

The guy can act. He hasn't has the opportunities just yet to show the range of, say, Sean Penn or Edward Norton, but give him a little while longer. I saw him last night in "Monster's Ball," and he didn't disappoint. I can't really complain about Halle Berry's Oscar, either. She was great. Peter Boyle (from "Everybody Loves Raymond) was outstanding, too.

Thornton's been great in just about everything I've seen him in. Stellar as Joe Klein's "fictional" James Carville in "Primary Colors." Great in "A Simple Plan." And he gave one of the great minimalist acting performances I've evern seen in the Cohen Brothers' "The Man Who Wasn't There" (go rent this, if you haven't already). Granted, all of these characters share a certain, um, "backwoods" charm -- as does Karl Childers, his mentally deficient redneck from "Slingblade." Thornton's got "redneck" down cold. But he's one of just a few actors today for whom I make an effort to see each of his films.

It's too bad his politics suck. And he has some -- we'll call them "quirky" -- personality glitches (he allegedly has a morbid fear of antique furniture, plus there's that whole wearing-Angeliena-Jolie's-blood-around-his-neck thing).

But I like him. And Monster's Ball is definitely worth the $3.50 at Blockbuster.

....on O'Reilly, and on smokin' Mike Bloomberg.

OK, not really Big Brother. Just idiocy. Florida apparently has a law requiring women who want to give up children for adoption to publish their sexual histories in the local newspaper. The misguided law is apparently an attempt to avoid custody disputes with estranged fathers who suddenly feel the tug of paternal obligation. Wouldn't a better system strip any and all custodial claims of fathers who abandon their kids or turn up deadbeat on child support?

I wonder if the abortion rights lobby is behind this bill. If you're facing an uwanted pregnancy and option (a) is to give the kid up for adoption, but only after posting your sexual peccadillos, or option (b) is to get an abortion, and nobody's the wiser -- what track do you think looks most attractive?

Reader Michael Marchese sends this item from the Cincinnati Inquirer. Apparently, the state of Ohio has been keeping a DNA bank of all suspected criminals -- even those who've been acquitted, or were never indicted. The more I read about him, the less likeable I'm finding Ohio's Governor Taft.

Note that my home state of Indiana declined to employ the practice, citing "privacy concerns." Note also that Kentucky cops don't collect DNA either, but only because they "don't have the time." Or maybe because most Kentuckians have the same DNA. Making fun of Kentucky never, ever gets old.

A smart piece on NRO by Deroy Murdock.

Robyn at Sekimori just sent me a preview of the new design and asked for my feedback. I figure, since you all are the ones who will be looking at it every day (I hope), why not get your opinions, too? Click here to check it out.

My thoughts: I'm going to shrink the logo -- lots (and give Brian Kieffer credit for designing it). I also think I'm going to take the outline box out of the blog section, or at least make the lines thinner. I like the colors, though, and the understated layout. Lot's of white space.

Let me know what you think....

A couple of interesting responses to my review of Josh's review of Max Boot's book. They're in the "comments" section, but they're good enough to pull out for a look. Phil Thomas writes:

. . . it's sensible to acknowledge that Kipling was a product of his time, and was well-intentioned. Hayek made anti-Semitic remarks, but that doesn't mean we should ignore everything he had to say. Now for the content of the post..First of all, Jefferson's advice was great when America was just getting started as a nation. It would have been a bad idea to latch our fortunes on to those of another power. It is less relevant now, when America's power is unparalleled and global in reach. Such power demands robust international involvement.

Secondly, making racist remarks in Southeast isn't the same as engaging in interventions abroad. The first is unjustifiable and deliberately provocative to an entire ethnic group, with the only purpose behind it to offend. The second is justifiable (although reasonable people can disagree), provocative to the opponents who generally tend to be despots and terrorists, and with the purpose of bettering the lot of the people of the country in question and that of the world in general. "Black Hawk Down" is an example of bad tactics (insufficient firepower was used) and tells us nothing about the larger issue. I don't think the excerpt quoted at the end is "neoconservative Burkean twaddle;" rather, it looks like legitimate historical analysis. London is using examples from the past to inform his opinion, not claiming that simply because such wars were waged in the past means they are dandy now. In fact he admits mistakes were made in past wars that need to be avoided in future, so he can hardly be accused of being prone to "make the same mistakes again." And he and Boot are right that such wars are sometimes necessary. What is the alternative? Should we have let Slobo run all over the Balkans slaughtering whoever he liked and destabilizing the entire region?

As for the hostility to "nation-building" in Afghanistan, the whole point of the war is to change the facts on the ground to ensure that Afghanistan is not a safe place for Osama or his comrades. The warlords who naturally run things would just as rather let al-Qaeda do their thing (as long as they didn't threaten their rule) as the US Army. Which is why it's important we make sure a different government is in place so we don't have to go in there again.

1) "Kipling was a product of his time." Not really. Two years after Kipling's poem appeared in McClure's (and after two years of a bloody and needless war in the Philippines that Kipling's poem encouraged), Mark Twain wrote, "The White Man's Burden has been sung. Who will sing the Brown Man's?" And just weeks after Kipling's poem appeared, Henry Labouchere published a biting response called "The Brown Man's Burden," in a London magazine called Truth. Also that same year (1899), Howard S. Taylor published "The Poor Man's Burden," another response to Kipling.

Yes, there were many idiot race theories floating around at the turn of the century (read a history of the St. Louis World's Fair sometime -- the jingoism on display will knock your socks off), but there were also lots of smart people who didn't buy into them. Kipling wasn't a product of his time. He was a product of his own prejudices. I don't think historical context gets him off the hook.

2) My comment about an epithet in Southeast was meant to be compared to Boot aligning himself with Kipling. Both are courageous. But neither is really all that intelligent (and both have racial implications). It's a clumsy analogy, but was meant to employ a bit of hyperbole.

3) Why does our power "demand" robust international involvement? Why are the world's problems our concern? I'd also submit that most of the actions we *do* take end up backfiring, and the consequences are inevitably worse than the conditions that led to our original involvement (yes, I'm of the "9/11 was blowback" school of thought. No, that doesn't mean I think we "deserved it," or that we shouldn't punish those responsible with vigor and might. But actions do have consequences, and our actions in Kuwait, Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, etc., have had monumental consequences). Foreign aid is another great example of how our benevolence does more harm than good.

4)"Should we have let Slobo run all over...." Sure. Why not? What was our interest there? We didn't seem to mind the slaughter in Rwanda. We let the Russians butcher Chechnians because it's politically inconvenient to intervene. Our efforts in Indonesia/East Timur were decidedly half-assed. What criteria should we use when deciding when to get involved? Why did Bosnia demand our attention, but Rwanda didn't? Should we get involved *every* time a powerful force is slaughtering a weaker one? Our troops are *still* in Bosnia, by the way, despite Clinton's promise to have them out in a year. Our troops are still in Korea, despite the fact that South Korea doesn't want them there.

I'd submit that the only time we should commit troops to an international skirmish is when our national security is threatened -- as it was in Afghanistan, and as I think it is with Iraq (and probably Iran). As for "nation building" in Afghanistan, I really don't think that should be part of the mission. The mission was to go and get the people who attacked us. The argument that if we get out,Afghanistan could again become a terrorist haven fails, I think, because there are any number of other countries that could also become safe havens. You need only an oppressive regime in power with anti-western sympathies, no rule of law, and lots of poverty. That describes pretty much every country in sub-Saharan Africa (don't forget that Osama had camps in Sudan, too). Should we commit troops to nation-building there, too?

The U.S. government has a responsibility to spend U.S. tax dollars to protect U.S. citizens. Not East Timur independence fighters, not Chechnians, not Bosnian Muslims, not Rwandans.

Finally, Mikhail O' Dalaigh writes:

C'mon Radley! You wait 'til the 4th para of your negative critique of the book before you inform your readers, you "haven't read it".
While I will always root for Heritage over Cato, you shouldn't let the loss of a recreational contest color your thinking.
BTW, in describing Policy Review, wonky, you somehow neglect to mention it's a bi-monthly publication of, drum roll now, The Heritage Foundation!

Economist, anarchist, and all-around brilliant guy David Friedman has a solution to the SPAM problem: start charging strangers for the right to access your in-box. Simple, no? Yes, he's the son of Milton Friedman.

Looks like Monday is now the target date for launch. So just a few more days of eyestrain. I should get a look at the new layout tomorrow. Then some edits over the weekend, and we'll hopefully be ready to roll.

I guess I should post this, since I've been hyping it up:

Heritage 40, Cato 23

It was uuuugly. Worse, it'll likely be in the Washington Post on Tuesday. My first loss. Tough to take. I've been drinking since 7 this morning.

Josh London reviews the new book by Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Max Boot for the wonky periodical Policy Review.

Josh is a friend of mine, so I'll go easy on him.

I'm in awe of how a guy so smart can be so wrong.

Boot's book is called The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, and at risk of sounding like Noam Chomsky, it's basically a love poem to U.S. imperialism. The "small wars" Boot waxes fondly about are the very types of "foreign entaglements" Thomas Jefferson warned America to steer clear of early in our adolescence.

Boot even borrows from Rudyard Kipling for the book's title, taking a line from the racis...er...we'll say, "insensitive" poet's infamous work "The White Man's Burden," which both coined a phrase and summarized a philosophy. Today we might modernize the White Man's Burden, and call it the "Ann Coulter Doctrine" of international diplomacy -- invade, conquer, and convert to Christianity.

Josh praises Boot's "courage" for casting himself with such a pariah to "political correctness." Okay. But courage and prudence aren't the same thing. It's courageous for a white guy to drop the "n" bomb at 2 AM in front of a liquor store in Southeast D.C. It isn't all that prudent. The courage/prudence themes might well apply to the "small wars" Josh and Boot fetishize, too. There's a shitload of courage in "Black Hawk Down." I challenge you to find a hint of prudence.

Josh is right to criticize Boot's failure to establish a philosophical base from which to justify these wars. And though I haven't read it, I'd suggest that the reason the book lacks such a base is that there really isn't one -- at least not one that can be reasonably defended. Instead, Boot argues -- and Josh agrees with him -- that the Bosnias, Sudans, Somalias, Panamas and the like are inevitable, so, to borrow a crude quote from ex-Hoosiers hoops coach Bobby Knight, "we might as well sit back and enjoy them." Josh writes:

Small wars, a regular feature of our past, are an inevitable feature of our present and future. We should embrace them and fight them well. Such conflicts are an unavoidable outgrowth of the global reach of America’s power and interests, as they have been since our independence. America can’t be the big boy on the Western block and also avoid small wars.

If, further, we are to fight these small wars, it is necessary to be “bloody-minded” about it — we need to stop being squeamish about exercising our power and flexing our muscles. The specter of Vietnam is just a lot of nonsense wedded to very specific, historical, tractable, and avoidable mistakes.

I'd paint myself far from the isolationist wing of libertarianism. I'm joyed that we went into Afghanistan. And I'm game for a limited incursion into Iraq (though the 250,000 troop scenario seems a little excessive).

But I don't buy the idea that, as the world's superpower, we'll be inevitably drawn into snarling excursions requiring our policing, peace-keeping, nation-building, or body-guarding (as U.S. troops are now doing for Hamid Karzai), so we may as well relish them -- and kick up our bloodlust so we'll win them.

It just isn't so. We can always heed the advice of that neocon matriarch Nancy Reagan. We can just say "no."

Slate has gotten hold of the infamous Rand PowerPoint briefing to Pentagon brass that labeled the Saudis an "enemy" of the U.S. Slate senior editor Jack Shafer is pretty critical of the presentation. Granted, it's rather poorly pulled off -- sloppy, disordered, vague -- even kind of nutty in places.

But does any serious person really buy the public line the State Department's feeding us about the Saudis' role as an "ally?" Come on. I suspect that my reaction to the Rand story was similar to most others -- "Yeah? Of course. Where's the news, here?"

This after all is a country that hosted a nationwide telethon to benefit the families of suicide bombers. It's a country teeming with anti-American madrassas, mosques, schools and media -- most all of them on the public dole.

No, I don't think we should nuke Mecca, confiscate oil fields, or even seize Saudi assets -- all either suggested or implied in the briefing. And there certainly exists the possibility that were the House of Saud toppled, we'd end up with regime a dozen times more anti-west.

I'd guess the the truth the matter is neither as dour as the Weekly Standard would have you believe, nor as rosy as the State Department attests.

Bob Novak looks at the rosy economic picture painted by the Clinton administration just before the 2000 election. Quick, somebody call Arthur Andersen. The numbers don't add up.

More proof that the alternate universes of our reality and the Simpsons' reality are on a collision course, and will one day become one.

Every time a major problem or panic breaks out in Springfield, Mayor Quimby calls a town meeting, bustling with angry Springfieldians. Inevitably, he proposes a "blue ribbon commission" to address the crisis at hand. The townspeople mutter among themselves -- "Oh! If it's a blue ribbon commission, it must be good," "Yeah, blue ribbon sounds right to me..." -- the meeting dissoves, concerns are placated. A government-funded blue ribbon commission is on the case. All is well with the world.

President Bush just pulled a Quimby. He announced this week that he'll be assembling his own blue ribbon commission (or rather, a "conference") to address the alleged problem of a missing and abducted children. Likewise, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison announced this morning that she'll be introducing legislation providing for a federal, nationalized version of the "Amber Alert," a civilian notification scheme used in 14 states, and which helped save the two teenage girls abducted in California last week. The bill would effectively create a new federal agency, as well as a new deputy AG in the Department of Justice.

Here's the problem: There is no problem. The "child abduction summer" is more the product bored national media fresh out of missing interns, shark attacks, and wife-slaying celebrities than any significant spike in kidnappings.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the number of children abducted and murdered has halved since the 1980's, from about 200 per year twenty years ago, to about 100 per year in the last few years.

And this year is shaping up to come in with an even lower number. In a summer where every snatched kid is showing up on MSNBC (even the nonwhite ones), there have only been about 10 cases over the past couple of months. Ten in two months -- that amounts to about 60 over the course of the year.

It's all media hype. Photos of missing little girls with big eyes and cheeky smiles bring big ratings.

So what to make of President Bush and Sen. Hutchison's efforts? It's the symbolism, stupid. Pure political opportunism. As Howie Kurtz notes in the link above, this is the same kind of shallow, photo-op waste-of-tax-dollars bullshit conservatives long criticized Clinton for (OK, so Kurtz didn't use the word "bullshit"). So where's the criticism of Bush?

Bush and Hutchison have proposed dumb answers that won't work to address a problem that doesn't exist. So sleep easy America (and Springfield). Your worries are placated. A government-funded blue ribbon commission is on the case. All is well with the world.

No, not a treatise on Internet smut. Rather, a(nother) music recommendation. This is happy-fun-roll-the-windows down stuff. The band sounds a little like the Posies, only dirtier. Or maybe a modern day Fleetwood Mac -- on meth (And my guess is that the modern day Fleetwood Mac is on meth -- they've been on everything else).

Vocals are split three ways, between drummer Kurt Dahle, keyboardist Carl Newman, and alt-country darling Neko Case. But if you're a fan of Case, don't let her presence fool you. The songs on Mass Romantic are up-up-up tempo, infectious, and busy -- nothing like her slowed-down, critical country masterpiece, Furnace Room Lullabye.

If you're like me, your first listen will have you wondering where the melody's at. The New Pornographers are marketed, after all, as a pop/rock band. You might also toss in rockabilly, college rock, quirk-rock and spunk-rock. But give it a second or third listen. Shouldn't take too many more spins until you're reaching for this CD every time the weather's fair, your mood's light, and your gassin' heel hangs heavy.

The songs are certainly singable, but you need a couple run-throughs to get a feel for what they're pulling off. "Mass Romantic," sung by Case, kicks off with a rush. The album's best cut is probably its third, called "The Slow Descent Into Alcoholism." Believe it or not, vocalist Newman manages to fashion that unwieldy title into a rather infectious hook. Other favorites: "Fake Headlines," "To Wild Homes," and "Jackie."

A fun, summer band.

Since many of my readers come here as the result my Fox News column, and since many are thus likely to be fans of Bill O'Reilly, this post is probably borderline suicidal. But I've got to get it off my chest.

Thank you, Jonah. Thank you, Ramesh.

I saw the epsidoe of "The Factor" in question. And it was embarassing. O'Reilly's comparison of Mein Kampf to the Koran was assinine.

Very generally, O'Reilly serves a usefull purpose, I think. He's a check on power, and he has a big microphone. That's important. You can't begrudge the guy his considerable (and loyal) audience, either. I'd guess I agree with him on about the same number of issues in which I disagree with him.

But the way he debates is no less than infuriating. Didactic. Simple. Belligerent. Black and white. All the world is either right, or it's wrong. And he's the arbiter. He'll cite a study or some empirical evidence when it bolsters his point, but when the opposition throws out numbers, he counters with lines like, "well, you can make statistics say anything you want them to, Mr. Balko...."

He seems to confuse "straight talk" and "no spin" with simpletonism and pedestrian thinking.

And the few times I've seen him debate the drug war, my remote damn near melted in my hand.

OK. I've said my piece. Let the hate mail begin.

A Canadian couple was pulled over and cited for...um...overly amorous operation of a motor vehicle. I'm amused that the reporter actually consulted a sociologist to help explain the "odd" behavior.

This is a riot. A pistol inadvertently went off while in the hands of Georgia Rep. Bob Barr during a reception in his honor. This passage absolutely cracks me up:

Widener said "one of us hit the trigger" just as he gave Barr the gun during Friday's reception at Widener's home.

"Nobody was in any danger. We were handling it safely, except that it was loaded," said Widener, an independent lobbyist.

An interesting -- if philosophically thick -- debate between Sara Russo, Julian Sanchez and Eve Tushnet on abortion. I wanted to respond to Julian's original post that set off the give-and-take, but Eve beat me to the punch.

Julian's main mistake (perhpas it's not a "mistake," but it's certainly where he's begins to lose people) is that all the moral criteria he ascribes to the fetus could just as easily be ascribed to an infant. That's a common theme among pro-choicers. And were you get a couple of drinks in them, I suspect many pro-choicers really don't see much problem in that -- you might call it the "Pete Singer" effect. It certainly explains why vigilant pro-chioce groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood actually opposed the Infant Protection Act, a piece of legislation that says, simply, that an infant born alive -- even as the result of a botched abortion -- can't be killed.

The most compelling pro-choice (I should be writing "pro abortion rights" instead of "pro-choice," but it just takes too damn long to type) argument I think is that a fetus is essentially a parasite. The argument says that yes, a fetus lives -- and is therefore worthy of some moral consideration. But it's also dependent on its host, and therefore a host unwilling to support it has the right to rid herself of its burden. That's really the only pro-choice argument I've come across that draws a distinct line between abortion and infanticide, though I do think it casts some serious moral doubt on the practice of late term, partial-birth abortions.

My own take is that the state has an obligation to protect the natural rights of individuals (not "citizens," as the Supreme Court has ruled that citizenship is not prerequisite to Constitutional protection). At some point after conception, but well before birth, I'm of the opinion that a fetus becomes an individual, and consequently worthy of state protection. The parasite argument works in the early stages of pregnancy, but becomes less and less compelling as a fetus develops, and approaches extra-uteran viability. After all, a parasite that can live independent of its host isn't really a parasite, is it? Such is why I'm not much morally outraged by a morning after pill, but partial-birth abortion I think is pretty much indistinguishable from murder.

The problem is that science continues to push "viability" further back into pregnancy, and will likely soon eliminate the distinction altogether as concepts such as "artificial wombs" become more science and less fiction.

So how do you formulate policy out of this mess? My own inclination, obviously, is to set a public policy that strongly discourages abortion, and probably outlaws it altogether outside the first trimester. But more importantly, I think that abortion policy should be made at the most local levels possible. At the very least, the issue should be a matter for state legislatures to sort out. Ideally, it would be set at even more provincial levels.

Tonight is the much-hyped softball showdown between Heritage and Cato on the National Mall. The Cato Running Dogs are 7-1 this year -- 7-0 with yours truly on the field and filling out lineup cards. Heritage claims to be undefeated. The weather is beautiful, too. Usually, August sits down on D.C. like a sweaty fat man in Speedos sits down on an inflatable kiddie pool -- hot, heavy, oppressive, sticky, inescabable. But this week has been gorgeous. Temps in the low 80's. Dry. Feathery breezes. Tonight will settle it all. Beer, bats and egos -- likely with a Washington Post write-up on the line.

I sort of figured this would happen.

Schmucks in the comments sections. I don't mind criticism. I welcome it. But have a point -- and make it. I have no problem quickly deleting idiot posts. If you're looking for flame wars, a place to practice your pedantry (I post a lot. Yes. I do make mistakes), a forum for ad hominem attacks, or are just posting insults to get a rise out of me, find another site. I'm not going to get angry. I'm not going to email you. I'll simply delete. And we'll move on.

After the new design is up, I might switch to the Instapundit method of comments -- only opening them up on the few posts most likely to trigger discussion.

I'm off for an appendix check-up this afternoon, so this will be my last post today.

I have some bad news for the Straight alumni crew. Reason won't be running the article I wrote for them. And while I think Fox made - I'll call it an "unbrave" -- decision in pulling the original Straight column from its site, I really can't fault Reason's editor at all for his decision. To put it rather bluntly...I fucked up.

Here's what happened:

Fox News pulled this column from its website after some mysterious agents representing Mel and Betty Sembler and/or the Drug Free America Foundation contacted Fox's legal team with complaints.

After almost six weeks, Fox's editor finally explained to me that he pulled the column for three reasons: 1) It had already run on the front page, and was merely in the archives when it was pulled; 2) It was easier to pull it then to fight a legal battle over a column that was only accesible through the search engine, and 3) I had neglected to place a call to either the Semblers or DFAF before submitting the piece.

Let me be very clear. At no time did Fox articulate to me that they lacked faith in the reporting or the accusations contained in the column. In fact, they still paid me for the piece, even after it had been pulled. Let me be clear again. I still stand behind everything I wrote. I understand -- but certainly don't agree with -- Fox's decision to pull the piece. The Semblers' agent also attempted to persuade Fox to cancel my column altogether. Obviously, they haven't done that.

That said, I'll cop -- and copped at the time -- to the charge of neglecting to call DFAF or the Semblers for comment. I assumed they'd hang up on me. They later proved that assumption correct. But I should still have made the call.

On to Reason.

I had approached the magazine well before the Fox column ever ran about writing a magazine-length treatment of Straight. After the column ran, Reason agreed to allow me to write a 2,500-3,500 word piece on spec, meaning they reserved the right to refuse payment and publication. After completing an initial draft that topped 5,000 words, one of Reason's editors said I needed to continue trying to elicit a response from the Semblers. To that point, DFAF had ignored my telephone and email requests, both for an interview, and for the contact information of either Mel or Betty Sembler.

With no success via phone or email requests for an interview, I mulled over and decided on a different option. Here's where I screwed up.

I sent a draft copy of the article to DFAF for comment. It seemed perfectly logical at the time. My reasoning went like this: if there was indeed libelous material in the piece -- as these mysterious agents had claimed tainted the Fox column -- an advance copy would give them ample opportunity before publication to tell me what was libelous, and to offer evidence to refute the allegations in question.

I couldn't have been more naive. Or wrong. DFAF director Calvina Fay responded with a certified letter threatening a lawsuit, and instructed her staff not to accept my phone calls. She didn't refute any specific charges. Rather, she threatened a blanket suit if the story went to press.

This apparently is cardinal rule #1 in investigative journalism. And I violated it. You don't send advanced copies of hatchet pieces to the people you're hatcheting. Ever. (It also proves that my Indiana University journalism degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Four years of classes -- and I had no idea.)

I understand now why this is the case. Doing so gives the opposition advanced warning, which renders your publication's later efforts at fact-checking pretty much useless. It gets the agile attention of attorneys. It makes potential sources uncooperative. It's just a bad idea for lots of reasons.

I still maintain that my mistake was really more out of ignorance and inexperience than out of stupidity. That is, I think that my reasoning for originally sending the piece wasn't boneheaded, but ill-informed. Nevertheless, it basically paralyzed Reasons editors from fact-checking and otherwise moving the piece forward, which pretty much makes it unpublishable -- at Reason or anywhere else.

It's a pretty painful way to learn an important lesson. Fortunately for me, I'm pretty certain my fledgling writing career will be unaffected. Fox is happy with my work, as are the other outlets who publish my stuff -- though I'd guess it will be quite awhile before I place anything in Reason. I don't think my mistake was anything akin to plagiarism, inventing facts, or other journalistic shortcuts you've read about in the news. It was naivette, really, more than anything else.

What bothers me is that this hampers the chances this story will get the national attention it deserves -- and hampers the chances that the Semblers will at last be held accountable for the abuses administered to Straight clients for 25 years. Worse, DFAF director Calvina Fay -- who threatened both Reason and I with a lawsuit -- will view this as a victory. No doubt she'll continue to abuse the legal system in her efforts to suppress the truth each time someone grows the cajones to attempt to tell this story. It'll likely only strengthen the self-righteousness of drug warriors like Fay and the Semblers. And it's an anectdote they can cite in future attempts to censor the exposure they deserve.

It's in that respect that I still beat myself up over getting the article killed (not to mention the headaches I'm sure I gave Reason's editors).

So I apologize to the Straight alumni who were waiting for this piece. Hopefully someone with a bigger megaphone and a little more experience will pick this up and run with it. I think someone will. It's really too good, too important, and too distrubing a story for that not to happen.

In addition to HIV+ muppet, Modern Humorist got hold of a PBS memo detailing the list of other dysfunctional, soon-to-be residents on Sesame Street. Get ready for "Bitter Chain Smoking Divorce Muppet," "Muppet that Drops Out of School and Decides to Tour with Widespread Panic," and "Potentially Threatening Shifty Eyed Extremist Neighbor of Middle Eastern Descent Muppet." Another favorite:

Cookie Monster, the Muppet with Excessively High Cholesterol
Cookie Monster has just experienced a massive heart attack, and will be sticking to his strict diet of Kashi and skim milk. Our viewers suffering from youth obesity will think twice before reaching into that cookie jar and exploding their tiny, struggling hearts.
Radley Balko | permalink | (1) comments

---

If a U.N. report says there was no "massacre" at Jenin, I'm inclined to believe it. Not because I give much credence to the U.N. On the contrary. But because the U.N. begins such investigations awash in Palestinian sympathies, you pretty much have to believe anything it says that remotely vindicates Israel. It's like Jesse Jackson investigating a corporation for racist hiring practices...and finding none (except that it's unlikely the U.N. report is the result of Isreali donations to U.N. charities, as often happens with Jackson and his targeted corporations).

I was a little ambivalent on Jenin when it happened. Not because I think Israel is necessarily capable of war crimes, but because I was suspect of Sharon's refusal to allow journalists into the West Bank to document the incursion. Seems to me that when you black out the world's access to your actions, you invite allegations of wrongdoing. I still think that. Those allegations may be fallacious, but they could've been avoided from the outset with a little bit of sunshine.

There were two reasons given by Isreal's supporters for the blackout. One I buy, one I don't. The first was that Sharon was protecting the journalists. That I don't buy. Journalists assume risks by delving into war zones all the time. Soldiers, commanders and political leaders aren't responsible for and shouldn't assume responsibility for such adventurous journalists' well-being. If a reporter wanted to forge into the fire, Sharon should've given the ok, but also put them on notice that he'd risk no Isreali lives protecting him.

The second explanation is a little more plausible. That explanation says Sharon feared that terrorists disguised as journalists would launch covert attacks on the Israeli military from within. Given that we've seen Palestinian terroists disguise themselves as EMTs and ambulance drivers, such a scenario doesn't seem all that fantastic. But that's a reason to limit mass access to the media, not to black it out entirely. Why not grant access to a few, known, trusted journalists willing to assume the risks of battle?

As Richard Cohen notes in this morning's WaPo, Jenin has become now a battle cry among militant Palestinians. European leftists still trumpet the massacre myths. All of that could've been avoided had Sharon merely let the world see what he was doing.

Just a reminder, gang, that this is not the completed makeover for The Agitator. Some of you have sent your comments and suggestions. Much appreciated, but they'd be more helpful at the end of the week, when we'll (hopefully) be ready to roll out the new look.

More from this week's WaPo Magazine. A lengthy and surprisingly balanced profile of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas is my favorite Supreme, and something of a personal hero. He's the closest thing to a libertarian we're going to get on the Court. He also makes all of his law clerks watch the 1949 movie adaptation of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead.

Maybe not. Gene Weingarten -- probably the funniest guy you've never heard of -- examines the issue in this week's WaPo magazine.

Weingarten is funny. But if the question intrigues you, you might explore this paper, which digs at a similar vein. Boston University law professor Randy Barnett -- a libertarian-come-anarchist -- takes a challenging look at the legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution. Sounds blasphemous, doesn't it? But think about it for a moment. Did you consent to abide by the U.S. Constitution? Why do we submit to its authority, and to the Supreme Court's interpretation of its authority? Do we passively agree to abide by it simply by living in the United States? If so, does that mean that the Jews who remained in Germany after the Nuremberg laws passively agreed to abide by them?

Barnet concludes:

A lawmaking system is legitimate if there is a prima facie duty to obey the laws it makes. Neither "consent of the governed" nor "benefits received" justifies obedience. Rather, a prima facie duty of obedience exists either (a) if there is actual unanimous consent to the jurisdiction of the lawmaker or, in the absence of consent, (b) if laws are made by procedures which assure that they are not unjust.

Option (a) isn't possible, of course. So Barnet concludes that the U.S. Constitution, with its acknowledgement of natural rights, due process and rule of law, fits the criteria of option (b).

You might take this a bit further. What if the Constitution is legitimate, but the way the Supreme Court has come to interpret it isn't? Should we continue to live by the Constitution, or should we defer to laws passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court that clearly don't pass Constitutional muster?

No anwers here. Just questions to ponder.

The WaPo this morning chastises John Ashcroft for upholding the 2nd Amendment as an "individual right" (never mind that it's the second entry in a body called "The Bill of Rights"). The paper's editorial board is evidently concernced that preserving the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens might hamper criminal prosecutions -- in this case, a drug offender caught with a handgun. Yes. So might preserving 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendment rights, respectively. That's the point.

On the same page, the paper correctly criticizes a Kansas law that criminalizes defamation -- and a Kansas jury that applied the law to a tabloid that libeled a Kansas City mayor. Criminalizing libel creates a kind of de facto prior restraint. Far better to delegate libel to the civil courts, where victims can be made whole without the threat of censorship.

Two editorials. Same day. One upholding the 1st Amendment. One undermining the 2nd. It's not really surprising when lefty media designate certain portions of the Constitution as applicable, and others anachronistic. But it's worth taking note each time they do.

With the onset of the corporate scandals, Republicans are running from Social Security reform like Goldmember from black light (okay, that's a forced analogy, but trust me, it works). Midterm elections are three months away and, so the conventional thinking goes, voters will still be smarting from lost pensions and stock market investments. Why would any sensible politician, then, run on giving Americans the option of investing their withholding tax (and that's what it is, spare me the "trust fund" bullshit) in a fallen market?

The answer is simple. We earned the money the feds surreptitiously steal from us under the guise of FICA. Most of us under 35 know that unless the system's changed, we'll never see the 12% of every paycheck we're coerced to "contribute." And the 35 to 50 crowd is increasingly aware that the 1-2% return they'll be getting in the next few decades on their lifelong contribution is meager. Had it been properly invested, that money could've made them retirement millionaires. Blacks too are increasingly realizing that were they to have ownership of their "contribution," and were they able to pass that accumulated wealth onto subsequent generations, perhaps they might eventually be able to escape the cycle of poverty. Currently, most black men die before reaching retirement age, meaning their entire contribution goes back to the general fund.

People are learning. And that's showing in public opinion polls. My employer released a fascinating poll a couple of weeks ago. Cato commissioned Zogby to measure how the public feels about private retirement accounts. Funny thing is, the poll was commissioned months before Zogby actually went into the field to ask the questions. That's how polling works. As it turns out, the Cato/Zogby poll was in the field from July 8 to July 12. That was perhaps the worst possible week in years to conduct a poll in which you're hopeful that public opinion will favor private accounts. That was two weeks after the WorldCom story broke. And it was the very week that the Dow dropped 700 points. If ever there were a time for the American public to be leery of privatizing Social Security, it would have been for those five days.

The results were staggering. On the whole, respondents favored private accounts 2-1. Young people favored them by 83%. Union workers favored them by 64%. Democrats by 56%. Even seniors 65 and over favored private accounts, 54 to 39 percent, respectively. Across all demographic lines, a majority supported private accounts. Blacks, women, Hispanics -- even self-described liberals!

The media has jumped all over President Bush for continuing to favor private accounts in spite of Enron, WorldCom, et. al., and the volatile Dow. Media types just assume that given market instability, Americans would rather entrust their retirement to the federal government than unstable corporations with greedy CEOs and shady accountants.

But by measure of this poll at least, the American people have gotten wise to the fact that the federal government is just as capable of mismanaging, raiding, borrowing from, and generally pilfering away theire retirement fund as any corporation. And even if the government were to take care of your "contribution," the best scenario sees your Social Security working at a rate barely above "idle," festering, giving you no opportunity to reap a significant return.

Bush is right to continue his support of private accounts, and the American public is (finally) behind him. But he needs to speak louder, and he needs to be sure his party is behind him. Tom Davis, who chairs the NRCC, refuses to make Social Security reform a campaign issue. He forbids the use of the word "privatization." He's woefully mistaken.

Americans are waking up to the fact that they've been lied to for the past sixty years. Social Security isn't a trust fund. What's withheld from you paycheck isn't a "contribution." Social Security is wealth redistribution, from one generation to another. What's withheld from your paycheck is a tax. It's a tax on your own labor. Americans of all ages, races, political affiliations and voting habits now realize that they're being robbed of the opportunity to get real returns on that tax so that they might enjoy a real retirement -- or provide financial security for their heirs.

The American public finally realizes all of this. So why don't Republicans?

For one up-and-coming Gen-X writer's take on Social Security reform, click here. And here. To calcualte how much you'd save if given ownership and opportunity to invest your FICA tax, click here.

In case you're wondering, this is not the much-anticipated new design for The Agitator. This is something of an interim look while the Sekimori team designs and installs the new templates. But we do have a "comments" section now, which could be fun. Hang in there. I'm hoping our new look will be complete sometime this week.

Another new blog for you. Hannah Metchis runs Quare, and she's a spunky young libertarian. She's also the sister of Dahlia Metchis, a regular reader of and occasional writer to this site. I'll have an updated list of recommended blogs once our makeover is complete.

Thanks to reader David Odegard who advised me on the word "meme." His advice? Look it up in the dictionary. Of course.

meme Pronunciation Key (meem)
n.
A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.

James Lloyd, a Straight survivor, has started his own blog. It's worth checking out. James' politics are quite a bit to the left of my own, but he's a vicious defender of civil liberties. You can be sure he'll be all over the Semblers. And any time the Semblers are sleeping a bit less soundly, it's a net gain for the rest of us. The blogosphere could use a few more lefties, anyway. James has already started in on Mr. and Mrs. Ambassador, by the way. He found a connection between them and LAWNET, the group in Michigan using antiterrorism laws as an excuse to conduct warrantless drug raids. Sic em' James.

More drug war news. John Stossel's probably used to advocacy groups calling for his job after one of his specials airs. Thing is, they usually come from the left. This time, it's conservative groups who are upset with Stossel, and are initiating a letter writing campaign to ABC in protest of his excellent special exposing the idiocy of the drug war. James Landrith has details on how you can write a letter on Stossel's behalf.

A new study shows that the top three anti-drug programs aimed at elementary school students are largely ineffective (that includes D.A.R.E., which continues to be used desipte several studies now showing its futility).

A nice lineup on the NYT editorial page today.

First, Washington City Paper editor Erik Wemple spotlights the problems D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams is having getting on the primary ballot for reelection. Williams is no Giuliani. He's no Riordan. But compared to Marion Berry he's a Godsend. He'll likely still win the primary, even if as a write-in. But the comical problems he's had with petition drives make for great reading.

Then, a wondeful piece by George Wein, founder of the Newport Folk Festival. Bob Dylan will be playing the festival this year for the first time since 1965. That of course is the year that Dylan famously "plugged in." Backed by the Paul Butterfield Blues Band, Dylan's decision to go electric changed rock forever. Wein reflects on that summer, and offers some cool insider observations.

A confession: I have no idea what the word "meme" means. Other people use it all the time. I'm clueless. But it seemed to fit into context below.

The "Tiger Woods as political activist" meme continues to pick up steam. This time from WaPo sports columnist Michael Wilbon, a guy who continues to amaze me by consistently having the wrong opinion on everything. (After Notre Dame fired George O'Leary, Wilbon said on ESPN's "Pardon the Interruption" that Notre Dame as an institution is inherently racist, and would never stoop to hire a black football coach. Well, Mr. Wilbon, say hello to Tyrone Willingham. Where's Notre Dame's apology?) Wilbon says Tiger has a rsponsibility to speak up for the black community, the same responsibility all black people have, a responsibility that looms larger with success. Obviously, I don't buy it. But even if that were true, what exactly is the nature of this responsibility? What if Tiger were to state publicly that that welfare, not white privilege, is the root cause of the black underclass? What if he were to say that he, Tiger Woods, got to where he is on merit and individual achievement, and that the group identity/victimhood labels pushed by current "community" leaders is holding black people back? What if he were to say that the negatives of affirmative action as it applies to blacks far outweigh the positives? That's still speaking out on behalf of the community, is it not? Let's be honest. Wilbon would be furious. That's because he wants Tiger to be a liberal mouthpiece, not merely a mouthpiece.

For an alternate viewpoint on Tiger, click here.

Traffic reports for July are in. Wow. Let me put it this way: In June, we had about 6,000 unique visitors over the course of the month. In July, we had just under 20,000. In June, we averaged 490 visitors per day, 566 on weekdays. For July? 1,055 visitors per day, 1,002 on weekdays!

Now most of this is because I managed to get my Coke/Pop/Soda analysis listed on Fark, a website that delivers obscene amounts of traffic. The two days I was posted on that site account for about 15,000 of my 32,000 total visits in July.

But even discounting that rather mountainous anomaly, we still had our best month yet -- news that gets even better when you consider that summer months inevitably yield diminished traffic. 17,000 visits over 29 days (taking out the two Fark days) is still better than the 14,800 visits we had in 30 days of June. And on any given weekday, we can expect about 600 visitors (except the Thursdays my Fox column runs, when we hit about 1,500).

So again, thanks for reading, linking and recommending. Keep it up!

Click here to take a look at the reports.

In the NRO column I link to below, John Derbyshire lists immigration of one of his conservative signs of the apocalypse. He laments that immigration is out of control, and that, alas, conservatives are afraid to take it on, liberals see "new clients" in Hispanics, and Derb frets that our INS aren't licensed to mow down freedom-seekers at the border. He writes:

Nothing will be done about immigration.
Business leaders and economic decision-makers all believe (perhaps correctly) that mass immigration is the main reason for this country's continuing economic vitality. The Left sees poor immigrants as clients. Huge numbers of Americans are now "Hispanic," and believe that anti-immigration activists hate them. The Joint Chiefs have no intention of letting their commands be used to police the southern border, understanding perfectly well that they would never be allowed to open fire on anyone — which is the main thing that trained soldiers are trained to do, and the inability to do which leads to collapsing morale and cratering recruitment. (It is also, of course, the only thing that would have any actual effect.)

Here's case #1, that we know about anyway. Anti-terrorism laws (which were passed due to the "unique circumstances" of 9/11, remember?) used to justify a (failed) drug raid. I hate to say it, but -- wait a minute. I don't hate to say it at all. I told you so.

Thanks to Effin' Eh for the link.

John Derbyshire, meet Julian Simon.

Cato's Ted Galen Carpenter writes a superb commentary this morning on American aid to the Taliban. Turns out, in May of 2001 we gave Mullah Omar and the gang a cool $43 million (not bad for a country with a GDP of $4 billion) in aid as a not-so-subtle reward for their proclamation banning opium on Afghan farms. That's right. Four months before 9/11, your U.S. government gave the Taliban $43 million in thanks for their help in our drug war. Then, four months after 9/11, your U.S. government then spent another $3.5 million on a television commercial campaign accusing American citizens who use marijuana of supporting terrorists.

Drug users don't support terrorists. Drug warriors do.

So we topped out at 353 emails yesterday in response to the column. There may have been more, but my Hotmail account hit its limit overnight. I imagine a few more will roll in over the next few days. I've noticed an interesting trend in how responses come in.

Generally, the first batch of responses are almost all positive, likely because I'm writing to a friendly audience -- FoxNews.com readers (of course, that depends on the topic -- the two times I've written pieces critical of the drug war, the responses were more mixed). The second wave too is generally positive, as people who really liked the piece forward it on to friends and colleagues.

It's the third wave that usually carries the most negative reactions -- usually well into the evening. I suspect it takes this long for the piece to find its way to people who disagree with it -- and for them to then forward it on to like-minded and similarly prone-to-be-outraged acquaintances.

There's a fourth wave, too, and it usually comes the next day. That's when the sources I've used pick up the column from their clipping services and notice that I've quoted them (or a study they've published). Usually, they'll post the piece on a website or include it in an email newsletter, which will then trigger another round of replies. If I used the source to bolster my thesis, the responses will be positive. If I (ab)used the source in an unflattering way, obviously, the responses will be negative.

Usually a column generates somewhere between 75 and 150 email responses. The only column that came close to the response this one got was my column on the tax code, called "Wealthy? Give Me a (Tax) Break." That one earned me an appearance on Fox News Live the next day. So far, no phone calls from producers.

Here's an uncomfortable little item from the Indepundit (scroll down a bit), which I found via Instapundit (stop laughing). The good Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney took in a whopping $13,850 in campaign contributions in one day last year. Want to guess which day that was? Yep. September 11, 2001. Browse the list of donors. Notice their affiliations. More than a little creepy.

Wow. A to-the-point response to the column today from a unsettlingly cynical reader. At first, the guy comes off as a wacko. But read it again. Doesn't he come really, really close to making sense?

You write: "We tend to take our inept federal government with a grain of bemusement. But why? Why do we give government a pass, but then feel outrage when WorldCom makes the New York Times?"

Because Worldcom doesn't handcuff you, beat the crap out of you, and throw you in prison to be gang raped if you cross them. The government has the guns and the thugs...and if push comes to shove, it will use them on us. We are little kids, and the government is our crazy, broke uncle Sam muttering to himself in the kitchen, with a knife in each hand.

For most of my life, the benefits of the coercion have outweighed the costs...but sooner or later the pigs will empty the trough and come looking for the last scraps we have. At that time, the American people will rise up, and be slaughtered. Then the whole stupid societal cycle will repeat again.

To quote Jim Morrison, in a rare, lucid moment: "I just wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames"

Fox column email count: 278. 275 positive. 2 negative. 1 really negative. (And, personal note to the really negative guy: I'd love to take your advice, but I'm not even sure a goat would fit up there. Even if I greased it first, as you suggest.)

Another inspired WTC idea, from Frederick Turner at Tech Central.

SURVEY SAYS -- EGOS, DEATH, AND BLACKMAIL!

That's the title of the E! True Hollywood story episode on Family Feud, which debuted this week (an odd coincidence considering I just recently posted on my fondness for Richard Dawson. I'd love to go drinking with this guy). So I caught the show last night. Out-friggin'-standing. And here, from the website, a few "Didya Know?" tidbits about ol' Dick Dawson:

Facts & Figures:
• Dawson left home at 14 to join the Merchant Marines.
• He's a talented boxer.
• Born Colin Emm, he eventually changed his name to Richard Dawson. He's also known as "Dickie" Dawson.
• He first kissed his second wife, Gretchen Johnson, when she was a Family Feud contestant.
• Occasionally, Sammy Davis Jr. would help Dawson host.
• Richard Dawson is an anagram for "arachnid words."
• When he returned to the Feud in 1994, Dawson had gained weight and refused to lose 30 pounds--even though it was in his contract to do so.
• He played a game-show host in The Running Man.

Speaking of the column -- a new personal record. 241 email responses. And counting.

In response to the Fox Column, a reader sends in this link to a three-year-old Washington City Paper smackdown piece on DNC Chair Terry McCauliffe. I've mentioned it before, but I think radio host Don Imus best summed McCaulliffe when he said, "I can't even watch that guy on TV without needing to take a shower."

The Wilco documentary "I Am Trying to Break Your Heart" opens this weekend in New York and L.A., and across the country over the next two weekends. If there's an artsy theater near you, odds are they'll be showing it. The project began as a documentary about a rock n' roll band making an album. But after Wilco's label balked at the critical blockbuster Yankee Hotel Foxtrot as "too experimental," a contract fight ensued. In the ultimate middle finger to any major label, Wilco bought the rights to the album and began streaming it for free from its website. The response was so immediate and overhwhelming and laudatory, the band had its choice of labels a few months later.

And so a simple little film about making an album morphed into a firsthand account of Big Music's anti-artist shenanigans. As a libertarian, I'm inclined to cast a skeptical eye at the oft-demonic caricatures of corporate America. But I'm convinced now more than ever. Big Music and Big Movies are evil. Really evil. Baldwin evil. They don't do a damn thing for artists. And they sure as bullocks don't respect their consumers (see the Sonia Arrison Tech Central post below).

I'm digressing. Check out the website. Go see the movie.

James Landrith just completed the August/September issue of the Abolitionist Examiner. In it, you'll find an article I did for FoxNews some months back on the shaky biological foundations for what we've come to call "race."

Bob Herbert on the little town of Tulia, Texas and its racist sherriff -- a dirty, shadowy little corner of the drug war.

The New York State Museum has opened a display of chilling artificacts culled from the WTC wreckage.

My latest Fox column is up. The gist is that it's absurd to give the federal government more regulatory power over private corporations because for all the hype about the evils of corporate America, the government's accounting practices are much, much worse.

Looks like this one might hit a nerve. It's 7:45 am and we've gotten 35 email messages already. Responses usually don't pick up until a little later in the morning.

Finally, a reason to keep smoking.

Sonia Arrison on the Berman/Coble/Rosen/Valenti bill, which would give the recording and motion picture industries the right to hack your computer if they suspect you're harboring filesharing software. Look for Senator Luddite, Fritz Hollings, to co-sponsor a sibling bill in the Senate. It baffles me how Hollywood leftists and liberal recording artists decry the influence of corporations on government, but the most obvious examples of how corporate strong-arming of, campaign contributions to and lobbying of Congress hurts consumers come from their own alleged mouthpieces -- the RIAA and the MPAA. This bill legalizes digital vigilantiism.