A jaunt to ye olde book shoppe clued me in on this pleasant surprise release, which I immediately snapped up: Biggest Brother: The Life of Major Dick Winters, the Man Who Led the Band of Brothers. I haven't started reading it yet, but Dick Winters is such a noble, amazing dude, that I'd probably even buy a book about him written by Maureen Dowd and translated into cuneiform (ok, maybe not by Dowd). As this volume seems to be written in American English by a man named Larry Alexander, I'm fairly confident that it will be a great read.

Related: a web site dedicated to retroactively upgrading Major Winters' Silver Star awarded for actions in Normandy to a Congressional Medal of Honor.

(It goes without saying, also recommended and recommended)

Heh.

That typically amusing post was authored by Jeff Percifield, who seems to have a problem with the fact that he looks like Jon Stewart. Let's play a game - see if you can pick Jeff's countenance out from these three not-entirely-dissimilar choices:

UPDATE: More Percifield look-alikes.

Has my mockery of the Llamas jumped the shark?

Read More »

Has blogging jumped the shark?

UPDATE: BTW, for those that are interested, I contributed some wee thoughts about blogging to Thomas Friedman's new book "The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century." It's about the flattening of hierarchies via the accelerating popular dissemination of technology, and I gave him my impressions of the relative importance of blogging as a component of mass media (an infinitesimal example in his overall thesis, from what I understand). It may seem like highfalutin, overstated babble (I don't remember exactly what I contributed and I haven't read the editing yet), but I surely believe that blogging is still, and will continue to be, a very important component of the political process in this country (and others). I also believe that vulgar comedy, intensely selfish personal posts and SERIOUS CITIZEN JOURNALISM can all co-exist under the same blogging roof. Oh, and Friedman is a super nice dude, and I've been told by multiple individuals that the book is great, btw.

UPDATE AGAIN: The tone of this post seems related ...

Pull on Superman's Cape has a new author. His first post is here, and check out this excerpt from a comment that he'd previously made as a visitor to the site:

We engaged in a fierce fight with five insurgents across the street. It was roof top to roof top. Then out of no were the house next to us opened up and pinned us down. My Sniper partner and myself stormed the third story roof killing two insurgents. Once on top of the third story the Marines started moving across to the second deck. First over was Shane. No sooner had he crossed over the wall I heard him scream for help. I looked over the edge and saw him holding his head, still screaming. I did what any true Marine loving Corpsman would do, I went after him to pull him out of the line of fire and treat his wound. I never made it to Shane though. I hung my feet over the third deck to jump to the second were Shane was no lying motionless. As I started to slide off It felt like a sledge hammer smashed into my right thigh, and it went limp. No sooner the same feeling in my right calf. It hit me, I'm being shot! I looked for a way to get out of the insurgents path and chose to jump off the side of the building. Before I could make the move My left leg went limp as more AK-47 rounds went through the upper thigh, calf and foot. As I was falling the insurgents rounds found target again, two round to the lower right abdomin and two round to the upper groin. I fell two stories and dislocated my right shoulder.

And he's now alive to blog about it.

Reuters via Yahoo

"Smells more like 'Captain France' to me, young man ..."

Read More »

3 PM EST, on Rightalk Radio.

Guests: Captain Ed Morrissey! Canuck Kate McMillan!

Topics: The state of political discourse; social cons vs. libertarians; current events; Canada.

Toll-free Call-in number: 1-866-884-8255 (866-884-TALK)

Because after I carefully employed a come-hither Beavis and Buttheadism to voice approval for the delicate Ziyi Zhang, a woman whose exceedingly rare and ethereal beauty both sparks and pains the hearts of jaded men, a Llama pirates my sentiment in order to orgle a bunch of grossly inflated, spackled, camel-toe-flaunting plasti-whores that squeal and wave garishly-colored puffs of shredded-polymer in a fucking shopping mall.

And that is why I hate the Llamas, this week. You know, in case you were wondering.

Reynolds gets testy, and rightfully so.

Personally, the Times has literally zero credibility with me; a large portion of the the news and all of the unsigned editorials are totally unreadable. And that's actually saying something, since I still highly recommend the Washington Post, in spite of its own passel of offputting flaws.

You know, just mentioning it. Again. It's kind of amusing how a blog that's been in existence for slightly more than a year can go from OUTRAGE! to utter dismissal of a news outlet. Even through the prism of my personal evolution, I'd still say that this is a pretty good sign that the NYT's power and influence are severely diminished.

UPDATE: More from Reynolds.

Sweet.

(Via Flea)

Read More »

INDC Journal: written at an 11th-grade reading level.*

Read More »

Ain't love grand?

Read More »

I finally caught Ben-Hur the other day, and I've got to tell you, I was rooting for the Romans. They bring a circus, roads, irrigation and various other public works to Palestine, not to mention a sense of style, and what's their thanks? A damn Judean tossing ceramic roof tiles on the head of the new Roman governor, that's what. Not to mention going N'Sync over a mangy street magician handing out water.

Rationally, such insolence demands a stern response. Whiny bitches.

UPDATE: And Charlton Heston as an ancient Jew? C'mon.

Read More »

PAY NO ATTENTION to the other scientific evidence in the corner; it's all smoke and mirrors, just like one flawed set of numbers from the government.

So mange bien at KFC and the Olive Garden! And bring the kids!

Read More »

1. How many of you think that my efforts on INDC Journal constitute "serious journalism," and how many of you think that INDC Journal is a "humor blog?" A mix of both?

More questions/information to follow.

Read More »

"Come To Butthead ..."

House of Flying Daggers: It's visually stunning, well-paced, intriguing and ultimately moving, continuing Yimou Zhang's mastery of the unique action/chick-flick genre of martial arts movies. 100+ minutes of watching Ziyi Zhang is worth the price of admission alone, and even she might not qualify as the most beautiful visual in the movie. Recommended.

The Office - Series One, Two and the Special: some of the most brilliant comedy I've seen in years. As funny or funnier than anything within recollection on TV, it reaches Spinal Tap proportions of drily delivered deadpan belly laughs. Buy it. Though if you're sort of daft and prefer to be bludgeoned over the head with Gallagher's mallet and Benny Hill's spastic waddle, try renting first.

Iron Maiden - Powerslave and the Number of the Beast: Bought on a nostalgiac whim, the bass-heavy strains of cheesy-thinky UK speed metal still hold up after all these years. I certainly can't generally recommend it, but if you were raised on Eddie, don't be afraid to "up the irons" once again.

Which begs a difficult question: when I'm 80, will I pop in the old Iron Maiden CD's and play air guitar with my IV stand? Because that's sort of an odd visual, ittn'tit?

UPDATE: Apparently, the "ADD Reviews" concept is already taken. Post title changed.

Some of my latter commments under "A Cautionary Note On Obesity" might be worth reading, as I field a couple of slow grounders from folks that either perceive my post as too light on the government (while others ironically think that I'm piling on the attack of the CDC) or fault me because the dissemination of finger-wagging public health information is "pointless." I guess that a common conservative/populist reaction to being lectured by health authorites, especially the government, is that "we don't need your stinkin' meddlin' exagerrated nanny-statism that tries to take away my Frito Lay potato chips! Like my nana said, 'three squares a day, all things in moderation,' and that's by gosh darnit all the health advice that a good, common-sense, red-blooded American ever needs!"

Of course, I exagerrate; but this seems like a common reaction (especially from blogger-pundits), taking apart weak or flawed science to prove a larger, opposite and reactionary point about nanny-statism and politically correct public health advisories. And while this instinct is not entirely unsound, what often winds up happening in the overreactive blowback is something different - an advocacy of ignorance, perceived "common sense" over detailed exposition of new, uncomfortable knowledge about health and wellness (or more generally, science), as well as the repetition of the exact offense that is criticized in the first place: the politicization and distortion of science in the service of an ideological, instinctive point.

Narrowing my complaint a bit: the populist conservative reaction to the initial CDC report and subsequent shamefaced correction - or any dramatic public health advisory - that seems to be something along the lines of "screw the nanny statists trying to control our lives," seems counterproductive to me for a couple of reasons:

1. Making very specific health proclamations based on macro statistical analysis is an inherently dodgy exercise, requiring some very human assumptions and extrapolation from smaller studies, pure and simple. But while knowledge of this fudging properly demands skepticism, and definitive, highly specific and drastically wrong proclamations deserve derision, it doesn't make the exercise entirely useless, either.

2. Disseminating information, even via the government, is not nanny-statism. Conservatives and the biggest "L" Libertarians should want and applaud as much accurate information as possible, and chastising the government for incorrect public health information should not stray into condemnation of public health information in general, even when that information advocates uncomfortable change that may contradict your nana's nutritional advice.

Bottom line: over the next 10 years (and now, if you choose to read avidly about health, nutrition and medicine), information will continue to dramatically seep into the public domain about how perhaps 80% or more of the foodstuffs in restaurants and grocery shelves are not particularly optimal for a longer, healthier human life (I'm seriously understating here), and how simple alternatives can both extend life expectancy, as well as enhance the quality of life via staving off preventable disease and deleterious metabolic processes. And as this happens, I'd advise everyone to avoid conflating the dissemination of information with some grinch-like social engineering designed to sap all of the tiny bits of culinary pleasure from your life. In short, open your minds a little bit - the market does not create adequate solutions without adequate information.

UPDATE: An excellent example of the collision between the dissemination of nutritional information and public policy? The majority of food served to growing children in public schools is nutritionally bankrupt swill that permanently affects their growth and short and long-term physical and mental well-being. Public policy change that enhances the diet of schoolchildren should not be fought or derided in the public domain. In the absence of seemingly-revolutionary yet accurate health information, when the market has its way - and it largely has - children are fed budget-friendly frankenmeat and vending snacks. And they pay for it.

I've faked a mental handicap in order to cut the line on Space Mountain.

UPDATE: The line was like an hour long. My props were some jauntily placed Mickey ears, a sloppy fudge ice cream cone and a thousand-yard stare.

A common reaction to the CDC's revision of their fat-scare numbers is starting to bother me worse than the CDC's original, clumsy arithmetic.

Because while the Feds did indeed muff the numbers, the spin that almost shallowly scoffs at aggressive caution about the health risks of being fat seems like pretty atrocious research politicking as well. For one, the discussion in the linked article (and others) about the difference between Body Mass Index (which merely reflects "weight" in relation to frame and height) and obesity is woefully insufficient. A weightlifter or athletic individual typically has a very high BMI, and it makes perfect sense that individuals with a high BMI would have healthier life expectancy, given a high proportion of metabolically-beneficial muscle to fat. Two individuals might have the exact same BMI, yet one could be a fat wreck and one could be a paragon of health. So to start, the even minimal credence given to using BMI to indicate being "overweight" - and the subsequent layman's association of "overweight" with "fat" - is terribly misleading.

Furthermore, the generalization of "underweight" - and the behavioral implications - to indicate a more significant health risk could also be pretty misleading. Who is underweight? Why? For example, individuals with either poor nutrition in childhood or a genetic predisposition to have trouble metabolizing and building protein would intuitively have significantly abbreviated lifespans, for a host of reasons, in addition to the implied model-wannabe that environmentally starves herself to the brink of cardiac arrest. In contrast, an otherwise healthy but mildly obese person (the average American) could enjoy comparatively much better health, though mitigated by the fact that he or she eats too much junk and barely exercises.

Also, while the article mentions declines in high blood pressure and cholesterol, these are very well likely reflections of the proliferation of statins and other drugs, which represent a far inferior, reactionary intervention for the noted, widespread problems, when compared to the holistic, natural approach of not eating crap every day. Using modern drugs to combat common disease is a wonderful thing, but it's also akin to supergluing a Ming vase back together after it's broken; the beneficial effects of imperfect pharmaceutical interventions do not exist in a vacuum, and it's far more beneficial to make simple decisions that avoid breaking the thing in the first place.

Furthermore, while the section specifically dealing with the statistically questionable association between obesity (not BMI) and early mortality is the most compelling critique in the article, there is no thorough exposition of the criteria (neither the CDC's nor the author's) for "deaths directly related to obesity." And what really tingles my spider sense is the fact that any in-depth study and modern treatise on obesity, specifically significant central adiposity (a fat gut) and the abysmal eating choices of the modern American diet, reveals a proven association between being fat and a host of deleterious metabolic processes, including hormonal imbalances and an ongoing wave of inflammation in the human body. And just these two markers fundamentally underpin big killers like diabetes, heart disease and even cancer.

Which additionally begs the question: what constitutes "premature death?" Humans were not strictly designed to live much longer than our short window of reproductive viability, and the host of common diseases that beset aging adults are pretty much all functions of the twin influences of genetics and environmental wear-and-tear, with body fat (diet and exercise) being one of the most easily influenced and potentially important factors. So if one stops thinking of such diseases as a compartmentalized event that "just happens," and realizes that all of these natural, non-infectious afflictions are ongoing processes that are a result of the constant stress on the body, then one also realizes that obesity - due to its association with chronic metabolic no-no's - can be tied to almost every major preventable (non-genetic and non-communicable) disease out there.

Or, put more simply, if just being fat causes inflammation, and chronic inflammation is a factor in just about every currently-identified age-related malady, then the effects of obesity may be understated in any attempt to narrowly define the "direct relation of obesity to 'premature, preventable disease.'"

The CDC's original numbers are due some derision for the dramatic and unequivocal nature of the original proclamations on the issue of rising obesity and its public health risk, but the inherent complexity of the criteria for determining what constitutes "obesity-related death" should probably warn off critics from implying that it's safe to go back to Jack-in-the-Box. Because while the jury may still be out on all of the specifics, and an accurate macro statistical analysis may have to wait, there is no doubt that the twinkies we eat are a prime mover in a host of processes known to influence major diseases, even including something as unobviously-associated, omnipresent and deadly as cancer.

UPDATE: More.

I watch the OC. And I like it a great deal.

3 PM EST, on Rightalk Radio.

Guests: Firebrands John Cole, balloon-juice.com - Michele Catalano, a small victory.

Topics: The state of political discourse; social cons vs. traditional conservatives; privacy rights vs. government regulatory functions; Atheist Americans; amoral women.

Toll-free Call-in number: 1-866-884-8255 (866-884-TALK)

... and check out my advertisers:

*** As mentioned previously, if you dig dead tree, highly recommended.

*** What's the "Wal-Mart tax?" Let's consult the standard reference materials.

*** Is an "Asbestos Trust Fund" fair? Only if the asbestos proves itself by getting a good education and not taunting the help, say I.

Yeah, yeah, I know that my "recent blogging efforts aren't even worth a click." Shrug.

An interesting post from Instapundit highlights the common trade-off between income and status:

My historian-brother often says that one of the most interesting phenomena that he's observed is the cross-cultural willingness of people to trade away economic benefits for status. I suspect that this is one example of that. So, in a surprisingly similar way, is being a politician. That's an obviously poor economic move for most folks. But one of the drug dealers in Price's book talks about how he likes the way he becomes the center of attention when he enters a room full of junkies. Politicians, I think, get the same thing, especially in the bubble-environments of Washington, or state capitals. I suspect, in fact, that people are, to varying degrees, hardwired to get an endorphin rush from that sort of attention, just as they're hardwired in varying degrees to respond to drugs.

Aside from the obvious politicos, this phenomenon is also especially noteworthy amongst the egghead set in Washington, DC. Many of these folks are so focused on the status or interesting nature of a particular public policy field that they enthusiastically invest six figures or more in a private education culminating in an advanced degree, despite the eventual pay-off of a sub six-figure job at a wonk tank or government office. And though many sub-six figure salaries may sound generous to a lot of people, such disposable income is quickly swamped in the second most heavily-taxed area in the US, if you have those crushing loan (and housing) payments. Is getting a masters degree from the Kennedy School of Government and taking a job at Brookings admirable? Sure. Odd? In my opinion, for the financially dependent, you bet - the ROI is pretty thin. I'd almost rather be a New Jack Hustler.

I mean, the way those junkies look at you on a charlie run? It's like I'm you're the Good Humor Man, the Messiah and a rock star, all rolled up into one bad-ass crack slingin' instrument of perfect yet transitory bliss.

Eh, maybe not.

Blogger Rusty Shackleford interviews the family of a hostage currently held in Iraq.

Cardinal Giacomo Biffi challenges you to guess the AntiChrist!

Answer below the fold:

Read More »

*** Keep wasting that ammo, buddy.

*** Ok ... I'll see your Jesus ... and raise you five Jesuses! Read 'em and weep, papist!

(I kid, I kid. What?!)

*** A Minuteman Project link round-up. The initiative shown by these citizens is what America is all about ...

*** Then again, here's a darn good reason to hang our heads in shame.

Egads.

Via Flea, who has the round-up of smart-ass remixes.

*** More John Kerry - George Bush IQ analysis.

I've gotten a couple of e-mails from individuals complaining that the embedded radio show file automatically plays whenever they open INDC Journal in their browser. This is not intentional, it's not happening in my browser, and I have no idea why it may be happening in yours. If anyone has a clue, let me know.

In the meantime, go for the "stop" button.

UPDATE: Yikes!

I would have posted this in the comments but I can no longer effectively access your site from my Opera browser (running on W2K).

The stop button doesn't help either. I still get the audio feed. And even if I close out the window where I brought up INDC, It doesn't stop hitting the net connection until I close out the entire Opera application.

And whenever I leave the INDC page and try to access any other page in that particular Opera window, Opera crashes. Every time.

Sorry for the bad news, but "that's the way it is", April 19th, 2005.

Opera browser? Is that like some sort of Chinese technology?

UPDATE: And I've gotten several huffy e-mails like this:

what in the hell is with the audio blasting out from your website??? You have just been erased from my list. What arrogance!

No, "arrogance" is probably making the assumption that it's intentional.

I took the post down until I can figure out why this is happening.

A WaPo article discusses the possible applications of the F-22 Raptor:

The Raptor is a fighter pilot's dream. It is nearly impossible to detect by radar and its cruising speed is more than 1,000 miles an hour, twice that of most potential rivals. Most fighters have sensors to spot the planes in front of them. The cockpit of the Raptor is reminiscent of a video game, taking a 360-degree picture and splashing it on an eight-inch screen while an onboard computer helps the pilot decide what to strike first.
...
The question facing the Pentagon and Congress is whether the Raptor's superior abilities, and the affection of pilots and Air Force leaders, is enough to justify a more than $70 billion investment at the same time the military is stretched thin by ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Critics contend that the Air Force, long dominated by fighter pilots, is exaggerating the threat it faces from enemy fighters at a time when warfare has changed and low-tech weapons such as shoulder-fired missiles are a greater threat. The service, they say, should be deploying more unmanned aircraft and replacing an aging bomber fleet.

But as the article goes on to mention - China. I don't think that the Chinese plan on being quite the comparatively cuddly superpower that the United States has been in the last portion of the twentieth century, and victory in any potential conflict is going to depend on superior military training and doctrine, as well as technologically superior force multipliers like the Raptor. We sure as heck won't have the numbers, in terms of money, equipment or people.

Watch video of the Raptor in action.

... Time Magazine's decision to do some trippy, artsy-fartsy low-angle voodoo on Anne Coulter's cover shot has some reliable conservatives (including Coulter) tsk-tsking about the insidious photo bias of the MSM. My opinion?

1. I thought that the cover was an artistic decision, and as Malkin even notes, the photographer has a bit of a history with that dramatic angle, Alice in Wonderland, through-the-fish-bowl vibe.

2. The cover does evoke a feeling that there's something vaguely wicked, smug and powerful about Coulter. Which, when you stop and think about it ... is accurate. It's, um, part of her shtick? Should they have posed her with teddy bears? Perhaps a sexy glamour shot?

3. Complaining about the subtleties of liberal media photo-bias (which does exist at times, don't get me wrong) makes conservatives look oversensitive, thus diminishing legitimate kvetching about more noteworthy bias. For Pete's sake, conserve your ammunition.

See also, Llamabutchers: "Lighten up, Francis."

Dog lawyer.

(Via C&S)

Compounding his infliction of the two most recent films and the ruined DVD originals on a captive audience of Star Wars fans, here's another good reason to dislike George Lucas:

"You have to remember, this whole thing was written thirty years ago, says Lucas of the original Star Wars story, which he wanted to reflect "how Ceasar came to power" in a sci-fi setting. At the time, Nixon and the Vietnam war were deeply affecting the director, who had most recently completed American Graffiti. "A very powerful and technological superpower trying to take over a country of peasants was big on my mind," he says. "The fact that history repeats itself is a little shocking." -- Lucas in the current print issue of Premier Magazine.

Because, you know, when I think of American troops in Iraq (and Vietnam, for that matter) I can't help but think of Imperial Storm Troopers. And Iraqi insurgents and the Viet Cong both give me this total Luke and Leia vibe.

What a pompous dick.

Read More »

The Washington Nationals unveiled their new mascot ...

Read More »

... between the radio critics, rabid righties calling me a "death merchant" and now Mary Mapes labeling me a metaphorical violent offender, I feel downright persecuted.

Like Galileo.

UPDATE: Around the sun, bitches! Around the sun!

UPDATE: Or Jesus? Hmmmm? Without the beard? Or kindness? Or even mild stigmata?

Ok, maybe I'm not much like Jesus.

Washington Post style writer Robin Givhan's latest fusion of deep political analysis and a bitchy makeover show:

John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, desperately needs a haircut. It does not have to be a $600 Sally Hershberger cut. (Might I interject that no one on the planet needs a "$600 Sally Hershberger cut?" Unless one happens to be an insouciantly rich dickhead, that is. -- ED). Bolton simply needs the basics. Tidy the curling, unruly locks at the nape of his neck, tame the volume at the crown, reel in the wings flapping above his ears, and broker a compromise between his sand-colored mop and his snow-colored mustache.

He needs to do this, not because he should be minding the recommendations of men's fashion magazines or grooming experts but because when he settled in before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week to answer questions about his record, his philosophy and his intentions at the U.N., he looked as though he did not even have enough respect for the proceedings to bother combing his hair -- or, for that matter, straightening his tie, or wearing a shirt that did not put his neck in a chokehold. Bolton was one wrinkled suit away from being an insolent mess.
...
A Hollywood costumer could not have ordered a more perfectly stern Washington insider. Bolton embraces with a flourish all of the cliches that afflict so many men in Washington. During this testimony, his hand was constantly reaching up to adjust his no-frills glasses. His attire was not merely bland but careless. His hair was so poorly cut, it bordered on rude. Bolton might well argue that appearance has nothing to do with capabilities. But it certainly can be a measure of one's respect for the job.

Might I argue that Robin Givhan is an enjoyably shallow twit?

*** Heh.

*** The best reasons for xenophobia since the Germans? (circa 1932 - 1945)

Then again, who are we to judge?

*** THINK before you INK!

*** I could use one of these.

*** Beware - the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch!

I say, censored!

UPDATE: Rightalk won't replay it - apparently, it's too dirty for Grover Norquist. You decide.

Thanks to the Daily Recycler for emergency hosting services.

3 PM EST, on Rightalk Radio.

Guests: Ace of Spades y Val Prieto

Topics: The state of political discourse; social cons vs. libertarians; pop-culture; Cuban-Americanism; literacy rates; free health care.

Toll-free Call-in number: 1-866-884-8255 (866-884-TALK)

UPDATE: Rightalk isn't replaying the show. Apparently, it was dirty?

And I want a ten million dollars and an airy existence free from the menacing flicker of flourescent lighting. Perhaps we should both close our eyes and wish real hard ...

UPDATE: Ouch.

UPDATE AGAIN: This is pretty darn interesting.

Right:

"Too often, though, the idea of a conservative-libertarian divorce reads like an ultimatum from libertarians, who occasionally express so much frustration at conservative apostasy they threaten to walk away. If we’re going to follow the marriage analogy to its grisly end, this dynamic is akin to a mouthy, pushy wife riding her hardworking husband (cheap fedora cocked to one side, tie askew, briefcase bulging with work still unfinished) about how useless he is around the house from the moment he walks in the door to the moment his head hits the pillow. With all respect, on Election Day, conservatives are the ones doing all the work."

Casting aside the definition of who is "doing all the work" on election day (pulling the lever? volunteering? driving to the polling station? pure numbers?), the larger point is that one cannot win without the other. And the, uh, interesting analogy of the "mouthy, pushy wife riding her hardworking husband" would only hold true if said wife also had the flaky tendency to up and leave her husband for the smooth-talking, big "D" down the street. Because a "centrist" is a "centrist," and, let's face it, some of the other centrists have a friggin' map to the flower shop and understand the word "foreplay," you insensitive, unwashed bastard.

Ever the ladies man, John Hawkins puts it in a somewhat smoother way ...

Then when you consider the small size of the Libertarian voting block and you factor in that generally sensible Libertarians like Neil Boortz and Glenn Reynolds seem to be equaled in popularity in the Libertarian community by complete, raving, lunatics like Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo, it becomes clear that it's futile to try to court Libertarians politically.

... but may swing and miss in one crucial respect: what defines a "Libertarian?" If you're referring to the big "L's" - the folks at Reason magazine and the Badnarikicks, then yes, Libertarians tend towards that tiny anti-authoritarian wacky cult that haughtily turns their nose up at political appeasement whilst mixing mushroom tea.

But, if you're a realist that's serious about more than political posturing and "yay us!" conservative butt pats, you'd also have to broaden the definition to include the "small l-l's" - libertarian-leaning Republicans. We vote for dead terrorists, less government intervention, lower taxes and scads of available porn and ammo, and we're the crucial (and politically reasonable) voting block that handed Bush the election with nearly as much verve as the vaunted evangelicals.

So let's get this macho pissing match out of the relationship, shall we? And would it hurt for you to make me feel like a beautiful woman every now and again?

UPDATE: You know, give me a random hug? For no reason at all?

UPDATE: Please click and listen. Please.

Ah, life in the People's Republic of DC, the second most heavily-taxed state or Federal district-thingy that's not exactly a state in the Union ...

Surprisingly? "Taxachusetts" is way down the list at 32!

(Scroll down to the very bottom of the list below the article)

*** Certainly one of the finest moonbat quotes of the young century ... from the right.

*** Dean Esmay celebrates his third blogiversary. In internet years that's ... like ... three ... times ... carry the ... add ... ... that's like 463 years. Congrats to one of the iron horses of the 'sphere.

*** Mmmmm hmmmm. That is one fine lookin' giraffe.

*** Eric from Classical Values completes his dissertation in mythological dentistry.

*** When is a handshake not a handshake? Why, when it's with a "J-O-O-O-O," of course.

I just got around to buying and watching Joss Whedon's prematurely cancelled 2002 sci-fi series "Firefly."

Description: "Five hundred years in the future, aboard a small, incredibly mobile spaceship a crew tries to survive." Essentially it's an almost literal western in space, featuring an interesting ensemble cast of talented actors.

My review: the best science fiction televison series ever. It features some of the "realism" that's made Battlestar Galactica popular, with a few major supremacies: much better direction, photography and acting, as well as a cast of accessible and personable characters that you actually come to care about very quickly. The quality of this program was astounding.

While the series was unceremoniously dropped midway through the first season, the DVD is well worth your money, and a feature film titled "Serenity" is due in theatres this September. I can't wait.

An interesting podcast about Firefly can be found on this page.

UPDATE: Oh, and after a couple of listens, the theme song is incredibly catchy. While marathoning the DVD, I sat through the opening of every episode.

I got into a minor scrape with Ace over his post about a "Georgia Woman Having Tube Pulled... Despite Living Will's Orders To the Contrary" that's being bandied about in the blogosphere. My issue with Ace was over his following assessment:

As I've said before, I'm not keen on slippery slope arguments -- after all, if we begin accepting slippery-slope arguments, who knows what arguments we'll take seriously next? -- but the Death Express does seem to be gathering momentum.

Let's be clear: we've got two well-publicized stories about questionable end-of-life issues (well, one "story" and one recent "national obsession"), yet we've got Ace and a ton of other pundits that are angry about the Terry Schiavo case making sweeping and nonchalant statements about "Death Express" trends "gaining momentum." In my mind, this begs some immediate questions: Is this a trend? Do these two recent stories in a society of 300 million people really indicate a gain in momentum on the slippery slope towards killing the "inconvenient?" It's possible that this is the case, but are there statistics to back up this assertion?

In response to Ace's post, I made the following comment:

Right Ace, two publicized cases! The momentum of the Culture of Death is unstoppable!

Pretty soon, they're just going to start plucking kids out of classrooms and executing them for having buck teeth!

Reminds me of how when abuse surfaced in the military prisons in Iraq, the trend of abuse by US soldiers was "gathering momentum." Or when a series of school shootings were publicized over a two year period, even though violent teen deaths were at their lowest point in decades, school violence was "gathering momentum."

... followed almost immediately with my response to one of his subsequent comments:

Oh, I think that this case is f'ed up (if that's the case) alright, I'm just giving you shit for your slipperslopeytrendism. You sound like a producer at CNN.

So, to be clear, I'm simply taking a swipe at the fact that a good number of pundits are displaying the same tendency that the MSM is famously criticized for: have a predetermined (or quickly determined) narrative after grabbing on to a story, look for like stories and start asserting a broad trend based on only a few (thus far) data points consisting of gripping cases. The quick posting and oft-shallow analysis of blogging also predisposes bloggers to this sort of offense (we all do it to some extent), but I'm fairly certain that shoehorning two data points to fit a strategic narrative is a bit overwrought.

And now we come to Paul from Wizbang, who's proffered the same slippery slope argument, and tacked on a swipe at me:

Update Meanwhile Ace picks up the case and Bill from INDC Journal makes an ass out of himself in the comments. It's not buck teeth Bill, it's glaucoma.

Right, and both "buck teeth" and "glaucoma" (and "aortic dissection at an advanced age," but let's not confuse this with detail) are pretty stupid reasons to end someone's life. I used sarcastic hyperbole in order to take a swipe at hysterical declarations about "Death Express" trends based on two stories. I also followed up my criticism by opining that the specifics of this case (if true) were indeed "f'ed up."

So, reviewing the entirety of Paul's post:

* Continuation of his chronic outrage and histrionics

* Inadequate data shoehorned to fit a predetermined ideological narrative

* A requisite immature political swipe at the mortal "enemy" ("Liberals care about the poor and the oppressed? My ass.")

* Aggression and stupidity, all rolled up into one clumsy package

* Abysmal reading comprehension

And what do we have? Who is Paul from Wizbang? These elements, combined with his consistent hostility, gloriously torched strawmen, inaccuracy and tendency to delete comments and shut out honest debate make him ... the Oliver Willis of the right-wing blogosphere.

UPDATE: FYI - I may disagree with Ace's characterization of this, but he's a very bright guy with respectable analytical abilities. Don't conflate my well-considered condemnation of Paul (who is chronically and aggressively nasty and foolish) with some sort of issue with Ace.

UPDATE: More.

... and whereas I'm taking on his former status of indefinite light-blogging, total-burnout hiatus, he's now kicking ass.

If the memo is real, the Powerliners must deal.

John Cole is opining similarly.

Ha:

"Blue-collar Kucinich is the only one who can win back the blue-collar Reagan Democrats. Imagine him in a debate with Dubya. It would be a knockout in the first round, & we'd have an honest-to-God working-class President. Kucinich is the man to light the fire."

Willis gave us an initial contact number a couple of days ago, but then changed the number via another e-mail to me two hours prior to the show. Since he didn't copy Jeff on the message and I was away from keyboard until the very start of the show, we missed the change in contact information. There was no chickening out and we'll be happy to have him on another time.

3 PM EST, on Rightalk Radio.

Guests:

Guests: Charles Johnson, Rob Harrison, and special guest lefty Oliver Willis

Topics: The Islamist threat; the state of political discourse; music; Nazism / Chimpy McHitlerBurton. And Hobbits!

Toll-free Call-in number: 1-866-884-8255 (866-884-TALK)

Check out this astounding series of slideshows featuring pictures from Iraq. Many of the images are quite amazing, in both good and bad senses of the word.

Did you hear that the Pope died?

Jeff and I have invited Oliver Willis on this week's edition of the Citizen Journalist Report.

And as of about 10 minutes ago, he's tentatively agreed to appear. I guess you can't say that Ollie has no stones ...

Can I retire now too?

Just "heh."

... to NPR's report on the awarding of the Congressional Medal of Honor to Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith.

UPDATE: A flash reentactment of Sgt. Smith's engagement.

(Via David Johnson)

Of all the wacky examples of local governmental overreach to come from the Bay area, this may be the dumbest.

And the Stacy Tabb tradition of customer service rolls on ...

Two caveats about that exchange -

1. The customer in question got a bit angry much earlier than I would have (or did) with Ms. Tabb.

2. Though she basically refused to answer his question (even with an estimate, as most businesses typically do), that was actually a pretty professional voice for Ms. Tabb (no insults about the customer's stupidity, etc.).

My experience would have predicted verbal evisceration immediately after he dared to asked the question a second time. Perhaps she's taken up soulful meditation. Or benzodiazepines.

And make sure that you read the comments.

... to my new advertiser, the Washington Post. Seeing as the Post is far and away the best daily in the nation, often one of the least biased MSM outlets (comparatively) and likes to give me awards, I have no problem heartily endorsing the subscription pitch. Check it out.

UPDATE: The ad is down, I'll let you know when they get it fixed.

*** What does the Uniform Code of Military Justice say about destroying classified documents? If only Sandy Berger were in the military ...

*** I think that Christopher Hitchens' sharp mind and acidic tongue are public treasures. That being said, when someone famous dies, I tend to wish he'd just sit in the corner and quietly nurse his scotch:

Look, sometimes, in the euphoria of the moment, eulogy becomes hagiography, and people need to be reminded of reality. Sometimes the dead need ill spoken of them. And perhaps a case might be made that "what no one else will say about John Paul II" needs to be said...and must be said before the body is even cold.

Perhaps. But Christopher Hitchens is no noble Truthteller. Christopher Hitchens is merely a contrarian at the funeral—a necro-heckler.

*** Political progress in Iraq:

The Iraqi national assembly appointed a speaker and two deputy speakers today, taking the first, if symbolic, step in installing a new government.

In last-minute dealmaking on Saturday and this morning, the leaders of the top political parties settled on naming as speaker Hajim al-Hassani, a prominent Sunni Arab and the minister of industry under the interim government. Hussain al-Shahrastani, a nuclear physicist and leading Shiite Arab, and Arif Taifour, a Kurd, were selected to be the two deputies.

The selections were formalized in an hourlong voting session of the assembly. Mr. Hassani's appointment came after several days of fractious negotiations, in which various groups reviewed and rejected candidates for the position. The groups had agreed that a Sunni Arab should take the post, but could not settle on which one.

An AFP lead paragraph:

LOS ANGELES (AFP) - Accused pop icon Michael Jackson has been crowned America's most foolish person for the third straight year, snatching the dishonour from the likes of a murderer and US President George W. Bush.

(Emphasis mine)

Interesting syntax, that.

(Via Julie Gerleman)

*** Aside from the lame role-playing, the actual "killing" in this video looks kind of fun.

...

...

Oh, uh, I mean, uh, if you're, uh, a dork or something.

(Via Ace)

*** A Portugese poet ponders America in 99 points:

1. The duty of every American is to make America grow. And every one who makes America grow is American. In Europe, it doesn’t make sense for a citizen of a country to immigrate to Germany, for instance, and become German, but to come to America and become American makes total sense. Coming to America is in itself already being American. To come is not to visit; those who come don’t go. America is not a natural country. It’s a created country; an invention of human beings. Since World War I, the story of the world is to come to America.
...
8. One can be American never having been to America. To be American is to wish well for America. Whoever wishes well for America makes it grow? To want to go to America is what there is more of in the world; this craving is an overwhelming good. To wish well for America is to make the world grow.

(Via SMASH)

*** Tom Friedman is misusing poker analogies. Intrepid CITIZEN JOURNALIST Stephen Green is on the case!

*** The Washington Post recaps a series of interviews with a Baghdad bookseller:

In interviews every few months, beginning before the U.S. invasion in March 2003, Hayawi, now 41, has watched the fate of his country unfold with fear that turned to anger, and resentment that melted into resignation, bound together by a resilience that is perhaps this country's defining trait. Resilience can mean many things -- fatalism, endurance, persistent hope and an ability to make the unusual normal.

Hayawi's story is neither stirring nor tragic, but rather quiet -- the conflicted reflections of one man, a prominent bookseller in Baghdad on a journey through tumult in a country that he, like his fellow citizens, struggles even now to understand.
...
Hayawi is an Iraqi who resents the U.S. occupation but voted in the election the United States backed. He is a devout Muslim, but fears the rise of religion in politics. He is a Sunni who resists identifying himself as such, even as he is forced to do so more and more. And from behind his desk, over cups of excessively sweet tea, cigarettes that never stop burning and a water pipe that is delivered every day after lunch, he watches the very complexion of his country transform -- in books, conversations and politics, sometimes in the most subtle of ways. Iraq changes even as the rhythm of its life remains the same.

In streets more tattered than ever, there is the inspirational: posters of voters with their ink-stained fingers, a testament to their courage in defying insurgent threats to disrupt the election. And there is the grim: rubble crafted by the bombs of the U.S. invasion that mixes with the birds' nests of steel rods, concrete slabs and twisted girders left by the more recent destructiveness of car bombs.

Outside Hayawi's bookstore are the lasting scars of looting that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Inside, he celebrates an inventory in which "the prohibited has become permitted." He points to celebrated freedoms that Iraqis will probably never surrender. And in the same breath, he glumly asks any customer who will listen, "Can Iraqis live on freedom alone?"

An interesting read.

(Via Spartacus)

I try to spare my reserves of outrage for worthy topics, and this one might just qualify:

Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.
...
The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.

He described the episode last summer as "an honest mistake." Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger's permission said: "He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent."

Under terms negotiated by Berger's attorneys and the Justice Department, he has agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance. These terms must be accepted by a judge before they are final, but Berger's associates said yesterday he believes that closure is near on what has been an embarrassing episode during which he repeatedly misled people about what happened during two visits to the National Archives in September and October 2003.
...
The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.

So, let me get this straight: Sandy Berger intentionally destroyed the only copies of top secret documents about this country's historical knowledge of looming terrorism threats for clearly political purposes, even though a bipartisan Congressional commission was requesting and utilizing all such documents in an effort to formulate recommendations about how to protect America from another terrorist attack.

In my world, that's not a "$10,000 fine ... three-year suspension of his national security clearance" offense, it's in the parking lot of the ballpark of treason. Former NSA or not, this man should suffer a permanent revocation of any security clearance, and probably sample the cuisine at a federal prison.

Jim Geraghty has more, as does Powerline:

Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger got away with a criminal cover-up today when he pled guilty to a misdemeanor in connection with his theft of sensitive documents from the National Archives.

It is undisputed that Berger illegally stuffed original documents relating to America's response to the threat of Islamic terrorism into his coat, pants and briefcase. Berger then destroyed a number of these top-secret documents, so that they will never see the light of day.