Slate.com

Table of Contents


a fine whine
Me and My Big Wimpy Hobby

Advanced Search

chatterbox
Time Stole My Mirror Trick!

culturebox
The Power and Glory of the Rocky Montage

dear prudence
Here and Now

dispatches
Dispatch From Oaxaca

dispatches
A Night at the Opera

dvd extras
The Forgotten Jimmy Stewart Christmas Classic

explainer
How To Be a Shopping-Mall Santa

explainer
How to Cure a Sex Addict

explainer
Am I Not a Woman?

explainer
The Unanswered Questions

faith-based
Good Riddance

faith-based
Fore Shame

fighting words
The Real Sunni Triangle

foreigners
European Union

foreigners
Who Deserves Democracy?

gardening
Sleepy Solstice

hollywoodland
The Oscar Race

hot document
Woodward's Famous School for Journalists

human nature
Dismembered

human nature
The Best "Human Nature" Stories of 2006

in other magazines
Vatican West

jurisprudence
The Jury Snub

jurisprudence
Block That Branch

kausfiles
Obama--Too Reflective!

low concept
Drugstore Shopping Spree

medical examiner
The Skinny on Kids' Diets

moneybox
The Corporate Scrooge Contest Results

movies
Sugar and Spice

movies
The Movie of the Millennium

music box
The Greatest Song Ever Filmed

music box
The Best Jazz Albums of 2006

podcasts
Euphemisms for … Sex

poem
"Old Newspaper Clipping in an Old Novel"

politics
What Has Bush Learned From His Mistakes?

politics
The Five Best Political Moments of 2006

press box
The Lobbyist as Reporter

press box
Time and Again

recycled
What I Like About Scrooge

recycled
Fight! Fight! Fight!

slate fare
Slate's Most-Read Stories

sports nut
The Death of College Basketball

summary judgment
Dream On

television
Pressing Their Luck

the big idea
Romney's Religion

the dismal science
The Sovereign vs. the Idiot

the has-been
Son Knows Worst

the has-been
Inside the Whale

the music club
The Year in Music

the zeitgeist checklist
Zeitgeist Checklist, Earmark-Free Edition

today's blogs
Shifty Allegiances

today's blogs
"We're Not Winning"

today's blogs
Surge 'n' Generals' Warning

today's blogs
You're It!

today's papers
Murder They Charged

today's papers
Looking Back

today's papers
Binge and Surge

today's papers
Surging Debate

today's papers
Spy Troops

today's papers
Why Can't We Be Friends?

today's papers
Life After Death

war stories
The Urge to Surge



a fine whine
Me and My Big Wimpy Hobby
I make Christmas wreaths for the ladies in my life. You got a problem with that?
By Alex Heard
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 12:33 PM ET


If you ever read fishing magazines, you know there are these cool, woodsy guys who can walk up to any trout stream, take a quick look at which insects are hatching, and tie convincing dry flies on the spot using simple tools and found materials like feathers and elk hair.

That's how I roll, too, except that my woodsy art form is a little different—and a little disrespected. Every year, using natural materials gathered from the forests, backyard gardens, and Hobby Lobbys around my hometown of Santa Fe, N.M., I make very nice Christmas wreaths that I give to select women—including aunts, my sister, assorted females-in-law, and my wife's friends.

Both the hand-tied dry fly and the hand-sculpted wreath inspire powerful reactions. When a trout sees a well-crafted fly, its eyes bulge and it shoots toward the surface like a buzzing torpedo. When a woman sees one of my wreaths, she shoots toward it like a buzzing womenedo. The trout gets yanked out of the water, patted on the belly, and released. I get hugged until my eyes bulge, patted on the head, and released. Though, sometimes, the woman chases me down and hugs me all over again.

If you know as much about guns and engines as I do about evergreens, florist's wire, and delightful decorative ribbon, guys acknowledge it with a slap on the back. But the guys I know acknowledge my yuletide work with the comment, "Let's just not talk about it, all right?"

Even the old ladies sometimes sell me out. A few years ago, I made an excellent wreath for a friend's mom who was in town for Christmas. After I dropped it off and left, she said, "This is the most beautiful wreath I've ever seen." Then she paused, looking confused and staring into space. "He's married, Mom," my friend said after an awkward few seconds. "His wife's name is Susan."

It wasn't supposed to be this way. When I started making wreaths several years ago, as a natural outgrowth of my chainsaw-powered firewood-gathering expeditions, the self-image I nurtured was that of Everydude, circa 1955, stomping into the woods with his ax and Fudd cap to chop down a Christmas tree. While he was at it, he slashed a few pine boughs and manhandled them into something resembling a circle. Presto! Wreath.

I follow the same routine. The only difference is that I play to my female audience by adding perky stuff like sage sprigs, rosemary stalks, and dried seed pods. Arguably, these special touches push my work too far in the direction of "flower arranging." I'll admit that I happen to know something about that feminine science. In college, I worked part-time as the hard-shoveling yardman for a woman who ran a florist business out of her home. Sometimes I would watch her apply finishing touches to an arrangement, and I picked up a few tricks that you simply cannot learn from books.

(Don't tell anybody else, but the secret is to start with flowers that have stiff stems. Get a vase. Then jam everything into that vase and futz with it until it looks right.)


Wreathmaking relies on similar magic—although, obviously, you use a round wire frame as your foundation. After years of trial and error, I've amassed a Faustian knowledge about which materials work well in wreaths and which don't. My favorite evergreens are ponderosa pine and the often-overlooked white fir, with its beautiful, curvy, blue-green needles. My least favorite is any kind of spruce, that harsh, evil jabber of fingers. And don't get me started on the magical—but maddening!—array of pine-cone choices. (OK, get me started: White fir cones are resiny cylinders that can create a sticky mess. Ponderosa pine cones are just right—open, dry, rounded, and nicely proportioned. Most spruce cones are too small for anything other than tabletop centerpieces. Not that I've ever made one of those.)

My other gripe is that it's become way too hard to get my hands on the necessary boughs, and for this I blame the U.S. government. For years, I assumed that buying a Christmas tree permit—in New Mexico, for $10, the Forest Service will let you cut down one small evergreen in a designated patch of public woods—also entitled me to pick up a few branches that had been knocked to the ground by wind. It made sense, since one reason they allow tree-cutting is to clear the forest of "ladder fuels" like white fir, which help create explosive conflagrations when forest fires break out.

But no. Three years ago, I was exiting the Santa Fe National Forest with my tree and a small collection of windfall cuttings. At one point, I pulled over to get a closer look at an intriguing dried sunflower stalk. A ranger rolled up, saw the extra greenery, and—boom!—I got nailed for trafficking in "hot" branch tips. The Pickle Suit threatened me with a $5,000 fine and told me that, in the future, I had to buy a separate permit to do my thing. Since then I've been scared straight, and it's a good thing, judging by the big wreath bust that went down in Florida last month.

But honesty isn't easy. When I called the Forest Service recently, the guy who picked up sounded confused—"I've been working here six years, and nobody has ever asked for a wreath permit." Later, he told me the only place I could collect was at the site of a major summertime chop-down of ponderosa pines. I went there. The boughs, piled in ugly heaps, were brown. Just the thing for wreathmaking fun—with the Addams Family.

I struggled by this year, using piñon branches that I collected—legally—with one of my firewood permits. The wreaths turned out nice, but this option may not be available next year, and the whole situation seems out of whack. I can obtain a permit to shoot an elk or beat trout against rocks, but I can't gather a few ounces of evergreen windfall? Write your congressmen and tell them to "craft" a reform. The happiness of several nice old ladies may depend on it.



Advanced Search
Friday, October 19, 2001, at 6:39 PM ET



chatterbox
Time Stole My Mirror Trick!
My sister's, actually. But that isn't the point.
By Timothy Noah
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 6:49 AM ET

I'm hardly the first person to note the lameness of Time putting a mirror on its "Person of the Year" cover. ("Yes, you. You control the Information Age. Welcome to your world.") My beef, however, is that Time stole the concept from me. Lord knows how Managing Editor Richard Stengel caught wind of it, but I used a mirror in a campaign poster 37 years ago when I ran for president of the sixth grade at Theodore Roosevelt Elementary School in New Rochelle, N.Y.

The idea itself was, I think, my older sister Patsy's. Although it seems pretty tired in 2006, in 1969 a graphic incorporating a mirror, and thereby turning the viewer's eye back on himself, was a pretty cutting-edge notion for a 14-year-old girl to dream up. Patsy procured a round makeup mirror, removed its circular wooden frame, and with black masking tape attached the reflecting glass to the center of a large sheet of orange poster board. Above the mirror Patsy wrote out, "Look Who's Voting For Timmy Noah For Sixth-Grade President!"

The poster went up in a school hallway. You couldn't actually see yourself in the mirror because our teacher, Mrs. Klein, or the principal, Dr. Mason, or some other grown-up authority figure, wouldn't allow any campaign posters to stand at eye level (which of course would have needed to be fairly low to accommodate my fellow 11-year-olds). Still, the concept was what mattered, and that came across just fine. (The reflecting Mylar on Time's cover is pretty much all concept, too, since it doesn't reflect all that well.) What does the mirror say? It says, "This campaign/magazine is about you, my friend." It says, "There is no campaign/magazine that stands apart from you." It says, "There is only us."

With the distance of 37 years, I see now that my extremely poor showing in that 1969 election (fourth or fifth, I recall) owed something to the presumption inherent in that mirror on my poster. How annoying for a campaign poster to tell you that you already support the candidate—and you don't even know it! The intimacy of "There is only us" is entirely unearned. I feel the same way about the Time cover. Get away from me, Time magazine! I'll decide whether I want to pose for your damned cover—not you!

In the end, however, the deciding factor in that sixth-grade campaign was not what I attached to my campaign poster. Rather, it was what the victor, Billy Roberts, attached to his: an 8-by-10 glossy of Fran Tarkenton, then a star quarterback for the New York Giants, with his arm draped around … Billy Roberts. Above the glossy, Billy wrote out, "Fran Tarkenton Says …Vote For Billy Roberts For Sixth-Grade President!" Later, somebody told me that Billy's dad had some sort of in with the Giants.

It's axiomatic in politics that endorsements don't count for much. But I think it's safe to assume that this sixth-grade election for class president at Roosevelt Elementary was an exception. Billy won in a landslide. I ended up being class secretary, the guy who took notes at all the meetings Billy presided over, which of course was even more humiliating than ending up with no position at all. (A dozen years later, as I was starting my career in journalism, Dr. Mason wrote to ask whether the person writing those insightful articles about politics and government policy in the New Republic was the same bright young boy she'd known at Roosevelt Elementary. I felt pretty good until I got to the part where she noted that her Timmy Noah had been … class secretary. Was it my imagination, or did I catch the faintest whiff of mockery?)

I never ran for political office again. I have no idea what happened to Billy Roberts—a few months after this sorry debacle I moved across the country to Southern California—but Fran Tarkenton, I note with some satisfaction, is reduced to selling Bobble Heads of himself on the World Wide Web.

Fran. Dude. Some of us have learned to move on.



culturebox
The Power and Glory of the Rocky Montage
A video slide show.
By Josh Levin
Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 2:30 PM ET


An hour or so into Sylvester Stallone's Rocky Balboa, the washed-up brawler decides it's his destiny to strap on the gloves one more time. Bill Conti's theme music kicks in, and Rocky hits the floor for a set of one-armed push-ups, then lifts some heavy-looking metal chains and beats the crap out of a side of beef. It's an inspirational, back-to-basics training montage—one of Stallone's finest in 30 years. (You can see a few excerpts in this trailer.)

It's no accident that the Rocky Balboa training montage cribs shamelessly from the original Rocky. The 1976 film's low-budget aesthetic and understated storytelling exemplify what the franchise had strayed from in its godforsaken Rocky V-spawning years. It's only natural, then, that Stallone would signal his intention to slough off the series' overindulgences by aping Rocky's most celebrated scene. When our hero charges up the snow-covered art museum steps in Rocky Balboa, it's a signal that the champ's finally got his legs back.

There are 11 montage sequences in the first five Rocky films—and that doesn't even include the what-happened-in-the-previous-movie recaps that kick off the series' second, third, fourth, and fifth installments. These music-backed visual medleys presaged the rise of MTV and incited a montage craze in American cinema that has yet to abate.

Rocky, though, will forever be champion of the genre. Close readings of the series' montage sequences reveal countless details that are essential to understanding the silver screen's archetypal underdog hero. The Rocky montages also shine a light on the evolution of the series' aesthetics, the shifting sensibilities of American popular culture, and the geopolitical climate of the 1980s.

Click here for a video slide show on the secrets of the Rocky montage.



dear prudence
Here and Now
Would it be okay to have a tribute to a terminally ill friend before he goes?
Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 12:02 AM ET

Get "Dear Prudence" delivered to your inbox each week; click here to sign up. Please send your questions for publication to prudence@slate.com. (Questions may be edited.)

Dear Prudence,

My husband is mayor of a small village. He knows all the employees there, including 10 to 15 police officers. One of the officers is a man in his 40s who has been there since our village incorporated. He is very visible in the community, and my husband is particularly fond of him. This officer was recently diagnosed with an always-fatal form of cancer. Although he has vowed to fight it, his doctors have told him he has less than a year. All his fellow officers and employees are aware of his illness and are upset. My husband and I feel that the village employees should do something to recognize this officer and express our gratitude for his service. But what is the proper etiquette in this situation? Is it macabre to have a dinner or tribute or roast in honor of someone whom you know is dying? I would hate to let an opportunity to reach out slip away due to not knowing the right thing to do, but I would also hate to embarrass him.

—Sad and Confused

Dear Sad,

The tribute is a wonderful, not macabre, idea. How often have you been to a funeral and wished the person being remembered could have heard how much he or she meant? There are some people who don't want any special attention during an illness (some of Ed Bradley's colleagues of decades didn't know that he was dying of leukemia), but it doesn't sound as if this man is one of them. Since your husband and the officer are close, your husband should approach him about the town's desire to have a dinner thanking him for all he has done. It's hard for someone to say, "Yes, have a tribute to me," so he might make a polite demurral. In that case, your husband needs to say that if the officer truly doesn't want a party, everyone will of course respect his wishes. But your husband should then make clear that having the dinner would mean a lot to the officer's colleagues and the town's citizens. I bet it's a great event.

—Prudie

Dear Prudie,

I have a family holiday gathering coming up at my house. My dilemma is about the wine at dinner. Of the 12 of us, four like and appreciate good wine. The other eight enthusiastically appreciate "Two-Buck Chuck" wine, and all wine tastes the same to them. I would like to share some of my cellared bottles with those who can appreciate it, but do not have the budget to share it with family who are just as happy drinking Two-Buck Chuck. Is there a polite way to serve different-quality wine to different people at the same meal?

—No Merlot

Dear No,

The best way to do this would be to adapt for your dinner parties the handicap system golfers use. Guests would be evaluated on their weaknesses, and action would be taken to level the dining field. For example, those who can't tell the difference between Montepulciano d'Abruzzo and Mr. Clean get a slug of Ripple instead of something from the wine cellar. Family members who don't share your refined palate are served a Happy Meal and not the sautéed chanterelles. And when Uncle Hank starts droning on about his childhood in Peoria, you bring out a stopwatch and give him a three-minute warning. In other words, the answer to your question is no.

—Prudie

Dear Prudence,

I am 31 and a divorced mother of three who has found love with a man more than a decade older. He embodies all the qualities I've been seeking, and after a year of developing our relationship, he asked me and my children to move in with him in his new home. He'd been residing with his parents before, has never been married, and this will be the first time he's left his childhood home—he felt obligated to stay for his elderly parents. I get the impression she is forcing him to choose between me and his family. His mother feels it's her duty to know everything concerning my life and instead of asking me for details, she had my boyfriend's older sister run a background check on me over the Internet. My boyfriend had a long discussion with his difficult mother and thinks it would be appropriate for all of us to talk, although he says I shouldn't expect an apology from her. I'd like to appease him and be the bigger person, but I don't feel that anything I have to say would make her more accepting of me, and I also don't think I can ever feel comfortable around this woman again.

—Trying To Be Patient

Dear Trying,

An Internet search of your background is a sensible thing to do, and no apology is necessary. Your boyfriend's mother may be overbearing, but the welfare of her child is paramount to her. You should apply that lesson when thinking of your own children, which means that you should not move in with her son. Do not make your children experience the day-to-day vagaries of a relationship that is just getting started. Maybe your boyfriend is the man of your dreams, and not the middle-aged momma's boy he sounds like here. If so, slowly continue to build your relationship as he sees what it's like to live on his own for the first time. Your children have been through the trauma of divorce, and your first obligation is to try to bring some stability to their lives. Perhaps you and your boyfriend will end up being right for each other, and he can fulfill the role of stepfather. If so, you will find that out over time—and at separate domiciles.

—Prudie

Dear Prudence,

My boyfriend of two years often talks and mumbles in his sleep. Most of the time it's gibberish, but every so often, coherent phrases creep through. Last night he rolled over and whispered, "Good night, 'Amy,' my love," followed by, "No, add a little more salt." Now, this first part would be a sweet sentiment if my name were Amy, but it isn't. "Amy" is the name of a college buddy's wife. I have no reason to suspect he would be unfaithful, and I know that we can't control our dreams, but I'm still hurt. I've tried to put the episode behind me, but he can tell something is not quite right with me. Is it insensitive of me to address the episode next time he asks what's wrong, or should I bite my tongue and assume that these are random firings of synapses over which he has no control?

—Not Amy

Dear Not,

Maybe in his dream, Amy was a St. Bernard who was great to cuddle with, but not much of a cook. Or maybe Amy was the college buddy's wife and they were eating scrambled eggs off each other in bed. Who cares? It's a dream! If your boyfriend commits an actual offense, are you the kind of girlfriend who acts peevish but won't tell him what it is he did wrong? If so, cut it out. Also, stop being the kind of girlfriend who turns inexplicably chilly over phrases uttered by your boyfriend during REM sleep. Depending on how badly you've been behaving, you should either offer a sheepish apology and explanation, or just drop the hurt act and remember to give your boyfriend a pass about things he mumbles when he's unconscious.

—Prudie



dispatches
Dispatch From Oaxaca
What happens when a tourist destination becomes a war zone?
By Jan Jarboe Russell
Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 12:03 AM ET


OAXACA CITY, Mexico—In the fall of 2005, when William Scanlan—then an MBA student at St. Edward's University in Austin, Texas—wrote a business plan for opening a Mail Boxes Etc. store in this state capital, the 33-year-old entrepreneur never imagined that he would need a contingency plan for staying open during a civil rebellion that lasted more than six months and resulted in at least 17 deaths and the occupation of the city by the federal police.

One afternoon in mid-December, Scanlan stood in his store, which is located in a cheerful red-and-white building directly across a wide street from the city's university. "It's been very stressful and scary. This street was barricaded for weeks," said Scanlan.

On Nov. 2, several thousand protesters who had been encamped at the university squared off against 4,000 police who were trying to remove barricades the demonstrators had erected. Scanlan absent-mindedly picked up a rock that was hurled into his business by a protester. "One of my souvenirs from the revolution," he said, stoically.


On this particular afternoon, the famed cobblestone streets of Oaxaca, a city of 750,000, were jarringly quiet. The day before, Flavio Sosa, the corpulent, bearded leader of the protesters, had been arrested and jailed in Mexico City on charges of sedition and incitement of violence. Block after block of lovely old colonial buildings, blackened with graffiti and soot from fire bombs, were finally getting fresh coats of paint.

The main square is a confusing mixture of hope and dread. Several hundred federal police officers, armed with machine guns and riot gear, are still camped there in dark tents. Yet ordinary Oaxacans have planted hundreds of rows of poinsettias in the flower beds, many with handwritten messages: "We want to live in peace"; "No more violence"; "Tourists, please come back."

To Americans, what Scanlan euphemistically refers to as "the situation" in Oaxaca highlights the political and economic divisions and the unsteady rule of law within Mexico. From U.S. press reports, it's difficult to know which side to cheer for—the protesters who convened under the umbrella of an organization known as APPO on July 17 and declared itself the governing body of Oaxaca, or the state's governor, Ulises Ruiz, who many accuse of corruption and repression.

The view from Mail Boxes Etc. provides a window into how the rebellion went wrong. What started as the 25th annual teacher's strike for wage increases erupted into violence that has left the city's economy in ruins. "The movement may have started with good intentions," said Scanlan. "But it ended with a bunch of thugs kidnapping the city."

Scanlan grew up in an old South Texas family with ties on both sides of the border. As an infant, his first sentences were in Spanish. During a 1994 trip to Oaxaca, he met a variety of folk artists. He bought their work, and in time acquired so much folk art that he decided to open a gallery.

During his final semester in business school, he wrote a business plan for an art gallery, and he soon realized his biggest problem: There was no reliable or economical way to ship the art from Oaxaca to the United States. He changed directions and decided to open a shipping business in Oaxaca. In December 2005, he purchased a franchise for a Mail Boxes Etc. store in Oaxaca. His store was the 32nd MBE in Mexico and the only one owned by an American.

After months of untangling Mexican red tape, he rented a building and had a successful grand opening on Aug. 17. Local TV crews enthusiastically covered the event. That night, Oaxaca seemed eager to embrace a business whose sole reason for being was to connect the ancient city to the outside world.

During his first month, Scanlan did about $13,000 in business, the best month in the company's 13-year history in Latin America. A few of Oaxaca's 2,000 or so expatriates rented mailboxes; Scanlan signed up for Netflix. "Life was sweet," he says.

Then all hell broke loose. On Oct. 27, Brad Will, an independent journalist from New York, was shot and killed while filming a police shootout at barricades on the edge of the city. Both the Burger King and McDonald's, located not far from Mail Boxes Etc., were firebombed.

In the third week of October, as he loaded some of his equipment into his Suburban, a man wearing a ski mask roared up on a motorcycle. Another man sat behind the driver carrying a homemade bazooka and rockets.

"Where are you going?" asked the driver.

"This is my business," Scanlan explained. "I'm moving basic supplies home to protect it from vandals."

"You need to let someone know what you're doing," said the man in the mask, angrily. "You need to ask our permission."

Then he told him that APPO was protecting local businesses and that his was safe. "You have our permission to stay open," said the masked man.

Later, Scanlan told the man he needed his name, so that if there were trouble he'd be able to tell the protesters who had authorized him to stay in business. "Tell them to ask for Nacho," said the man.

For the next five weeks, the chaos intensified, and, all over the city, business came to a standstill. Next door to Scanlan's store is a small company that manufactures jeans for various U.S. outlets, such as Sears, Sam's Club, and the Gap. Arturo Fajardo, the store manager, was forced to close his business for the entire month of November. "We can never recover from what we lost in all of this," said Fajardo. "Working people feel caught in the middle: We don't like APPO burning our cars, our streets, our buildings—and we can't trust our government, either."

Through it all, Scanlan never considered pulling up stakes and moving back to the States. "Things were going too well before the situation exploded," he said. "I had too much money and emotion invested to just walk away."

During my visit, Scanlan and I drove through the forested mountains outside Oaxaca City to visit artists. We stopped in Teotitlan at the studio of Demetrio Bautista Lazo, a rug weaver who is famous for his use of natural dyes. Demetrio's business is down by 90 percent—like other artisans, he depends on tourists. "APPO says they are fighting for the indigenous people, but it's a lie," said Demetrio. "I am a Zapotecan, native to this place. Their acts of violence have hurt indigenous people, not helped. The way to solve problems is not to burn the town down and wreck the economy."

In the village of Ocatlan, we visited the four Aguilar sisters, all artists, who live side by side with their extended families. Seated on the dirt floor of her patio, feet tucked beneath her, Josefina formed a clay figure of Joseph for a nativity scene. "We've done almost no business at all," the 63-year-old said. "Everything has stopped." The only piece she sold in five months was one commissioned by a collector from Santa Fe, N.M., of former President Vicente Fox surrounded by rebels.

Josefina was the only Aguilar at work in her studio that day. Her other sisters were working in the fields picking corn and vegetables. "My mother has nine sons and daughters," said Isabel, Guillermina's daughter. "We have to eat." If a rebellion makes sad paupers out of its oldest, most successful artists, it's hard to consider it a success.

In early December, Oaxaca inched toward normalcy. One weekday morning, Scanlan arrived at work around 10 with his black Lab Diego by his side. Two boxes of rugs were packed, one headed for Santa Fe, N.M., and the other to Montana. A folk-art collector from Berkeley, Calif., called to tell him that a shipment had been delayed by customs. Scanlan assured her he'd intervene. As for the future, Scanlan says he's like everyone else in Oaxaca—hoping for the best. "Whatever happens," he said. "I'm here for the long haul."



dispatches
A Night at the Opera
Watching Idomeneo in Berlin.
By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 10:56 AM ET


BERLIN—In the first half, the chorus wore stylized mock Baroque, coordinated to match their hot pink, lime green, and fluorescent orange bouffant wigs. In the second half, Electra crawled into a tiny model of the Parthenon and had a kind of epileptic seizure (as, later, did several other characters, though most recovered). One of the sets featured a series of black doors, which King Idomeneo, dressed in the garb of an Italian playboy, opened and closed as he sang. Another set featured scaffolding, upon which stood the "gods." Among them were Jesus, in a white cassock and floaty hair; Buddha, entirely painted gold, with prayer beads in hand; and a somewhat anorexic Mohammed, veiled and turbaned. At one point, Poseidon—sporting waist-length dreadlocks and green body paint—did a back flip. It was that kind of opera.

Not that I expected any other kind of opera: This was, after all, the Deutsche Oper, the Berlin opera company historically famed for what might politely be called its aesthetic "courage." More important, this was Idomeneo, the Mozart opera that was canceled earlier this year for fear that its final scene—about which more in a moment—might offend Muslims and therefore pose a security risk to the theater. Following a torrent of indignation, much hand-wringing about artistic freedom, and some labored discussion of the need for greater cross-cultural interaction, Idomeneo was reinstated on the company's schedule. The German interior minister, Wolfgang Schauble, declared he would attend Monday night's "high-security" performance—high-security in Germany meaning a couple of metal detectors in the hall, which everyone made a great fuss about, and a huge amount of attention. One German TV station broadcast live from the opera house throughout the day; hundreds of cameras swarmed around the entrance foyer, diving at any nonjournalists who looked like they might have bought a ticket and want to talk about it.

In what was meant to be a grand statement about "artistic freedom," as well as "integration," Schauble also invited the city's Muslim leaders to accompany him to the show. A few refused. "It's part of the concept of freedom of opinion and thought that you also have the right to say you are not going," said one Muslim leader, which was fair enough.

A few said yes, though they weren't easy to spot. As far as I could make out, about a third of the audience really were journalists. The rest were a standard, German-German Berlin crowd: little old ladies in pearls, hipsters in black leather, student types in blue jeans. I think I caught sight of a man who could possibly have been Turkish a couple of rows behind me, but I could be wrong. There were no head scarves to speak of. There rarely are, at the Berlin opera. Which was just as well, because any foreigner seriously attempting to integrate into German society might well have been scared off completely by this production.

It's not that the music was bad. Quite to the contrary, several of the singers were superb, especially soprano Nicole Cabel as Princess Ilia (wearing sensible pumps, in contrast to Electra, who had spiky punk hair). But if one were trying to understand German society, or Western culture, or even Mozart by watching this production, one would have been seriously confused. The music was light, true, but the symbolism was heavy—not to say utterly incomprehensible. Why did the first scene take place at a black table, for example, around which sat corpses? Why did the satyrs wear phalluses on top of their furry costumes? And why did King Idomeneo shoot his pistol at the oracle, who had sweetly taken the form of a loudspeaker to come down to Earth and deliver his deus ex machina?

I'm sure there were some cooked-up reasons for all this, but none were immediately obvious. More to the point, none were even remotely related to the libretto, which is a seriously fluffy piece of nonsense. The main plot is a Faust-like story of a deal Idomeneo does with Poseidon, saving his own life at the cost of sacrificing the first person he meets on land, which turns out to be his son. The subplots involve, among other things, a Romeo and Juliet-like story of doomed love and a few moments of jealousy. It could have been done as a sweet farce, with dancing girls and frippery. Nothing about it called for Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, or beheadings.

But, as the entire audience knew, Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed were indeed due to be beheaded, along with Poseidon, at the end of the production. For that, after all, was how the whole controversy started: The head of Mohammed, sitting on a pedestal, presumably offending millions, was what led to the cancelation in the first place. Indeed, as the third act went on, the audience grew increasingly restless, waiting for this moment, even enduring the bit when, unexpectedly, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, and Poseidon stripped down to their underwear and walked offstage. The program notes hinted that this removal of clothing symbolized the loss of power—men were taking over from the gods, or some such thing. But—we're in Germany here—it also reminded me of other occasions in history when people have been told to strip before being executed.

Besides, it was hard not to want to laugh. When was the last time you saw Jesus and Mohammed in boxer shorts?

But finally—finally—after the chorus' clothes went from multicolored fluorescent to black, after five or six seizures had played themselves out, after Princess Ilia had tried to sacrifice herself in place of her lover, the audience finally got what it had been waiting for. In the last moments of the opera, when everyone else had left the stage, Idomeneo plunked each of the four gods' severed, bloody heads on a pedestal, before expiring himself, with a dramatic, blood-curdling roar.

Someone in the audience booed. More shouted "bravo." Then there was a standing ovation, the journalists ran out to file their copy, and a TV talk show started filming, live, in the opera buffet.

We in the audience went home feeling pleased with ourselves. Some might have been disappointed that "nothing happened," and others might have wished for some intellectual significance on such an important night. Still, we had attended this dangerous production, braved the wrath of radical Islam, stood firm through the bomb threats, and supported integration and artistic freedom. What more can one ask from a night at the opera?



dvd extras
The Forgotten Jimmy Stewart Christmas Classic
Forget It's a Wonderful Life. Watch The Shop Around the Corner this year.
By Elbert Ventura
Friday, December 22, 2006, at 6:10 AM ET

It is the dead of winter, and a weary everyman played by Jimmy Stewart has hit rock bottom. A fateful mix-up seems to have ruined his career. He walks the streets a beaten man, the embodiment of dreams deferred. But then comes a twist: A benefactor unexpectedly gives him a second chance. His tortuous path ultimately leads to a happy ending, and he finds love and redemption on Christmas Eve. Stewart's performance is wonderful, as is the movie: Ernst Lubitsch's The Shop Around the Corner. Forget Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life, a pretty good film turned sacred obligation. Anyone looking to escape this year's ritual viewing (NBC, Dec. 24 at 8 p.m. EST) would do well to seek out Jimmy Stewart's other, better Christmas movie.

Both movies follow the lives of ordinary folk, working in crummy jobs with few prospects. Both were the creation of legendary Hollywood auteurs working at their peak. And both star Jimmy Stewart. But only one has entered the popular imagination. The vagaries of copyright law conferred a double-edged immortality on It's a Wonderful Life. A clerical error left it in the public domain for two decades, and wall-to-wall airings have burdened the film with more cultural weight than it can possibly carry—it's more institution than movie now. By contrast, The Shop Around the Corner languishes in near-obscurity, loved by critics and cinephiles but unknown to most. The closest it's come to rediscovery was when Nora Ephron remade it as You've Got Mail, an indignity that no film should have to suffer.

Stewart plays Alfred Kralik, a no-nonsense clerk in a Budapest gift shop. He works with a colorful roster of co-workers: a meek yes man, an oily sycophant, a smart-alecky office boy, all presided over by the fatherly but exacting Mr. Matuschek (Frank Morgan). Into this peculiar ecosystem walks Klara Novak (Margaret Sullavan), desperately seeking a job. Matuschek hires her, and she and Alfred quickly become rivals. What the bickering pair don't realize is that they already know each other: It turns out that sober Alfred and spunky Klara have been conducting an anonymous love affair via correspondence—they are soul mates on paper.

As with all romantic comedies, it's not the getting-together but the getting-there that matters. Samson Raphaelson's script (based on a play by Nikolaus Laszlo) contrives a particularly arduous route. Halfway through the movie, Alfred receives a double blow. Matuschek fires him, wrongly suspecting him of having an affair with his wife. Alfred is slated to meet his unknown lover for the first time later that night. Loath to show up at his date an unemployed man, he skips the rendezvous—but not before going to the appointed cafe to sneak a peek through the window. Then, the second blow: Sitting at the table where his beloved should be is the despised Klara. Realizing fate's cruel trick, Alfred walks away from the restaurant dejected. But the camera doesn't follow him. After a few seconds, Alfred steps back into the shot and peeks through the window again. "Maybe she's not so bad," you can see him thinking.

A movie about lives stuck firmly in the mundane, The Shop Around the Corner has a melancholy undercurrent that deepens its love story. "Just a lovely, average girl … That's all I want," Alfred tells a friend early on. His low expectations get at the movie's sadness. Alfred's peers lead lives of lingering disappointment and tiny consolations. The same is true of Alfred and Klara, but their love letters puncture their resignation and allow them to dream. Talking to Alfred about her epistolary lover, Klara boasts, "It's difficult to explain a man like him to a man like you"—oblivious that her perfect man on the page is her loathsome adversary in the flesh.

The collision of the ideal and the real is Lubitsch's theme: Can love's fulfillment possibly match the exalted fancies it inspires? When Alfred finds out his pen pal's true identity, he confronts both disappointment and fear. His mystery woman turns out to be one he knew all along. And now he has to introduce himself—earnest, reliable Alfred Kralik—to a woman who has conjured up an impossible ideal in his place. When he finally reveals himself to Klara, the most poignant moment isn't the confession of love but the betrayal of anxiety. "Are you disappointed?" he asks her, a question that recalls the heartbreaking ending of Chaplin's City Lights, when the Little Tramp shows his face for the first time to the once-blind woman he loves.

The "Lubitsch touch" was the catchall for the alchemy of wit, sophistication, and playfulness that defined the German-born director's cinema. In movies like Trouble in Paradise and Ninotchka, Lubitsch achieved the apotheosis of his style, a delicate balancing act of grown-up and gossamer. But The Shop Around the Corner is resolutely earthbound; it may take place in Europe, but it's been stripped of Continental glamour. Lubitsch went so far as to have Sullavan wear a $1.98 dress to look the part. (Of course, she still looks ravishing.) Playing out to the rhythm of opening and closing doors—a nice metaphor for the second chances and surprises that abound—the narrative glides along gracefully, giving the screwball premise a warm, unhurried treatment.

Capra's principle flaw was his distrust of his audience's intelligence (Pauline Kael called It's a Wonderful Life "patronizing"). He couldn't resist spoon-feeding his morals, a condescension that manifested itself in the irredeemable corniness and enthusiasm for demagoguery in his films. The difference between the two Christmas movies can be gleaned in their respective titles. Despite its tantalizing forays into darkness, It's a Wonderful Life lives up to its name, slapping the mother of all Hollywood redemptions onto an ostensible tribute to small-town authenticity. By contrast, The Shop Around the Corner never strays far from the quotidian. Unlike George Bailey, Alfred never dreams big—he just wants a lovely, average girl.

And he gets her. Drunk on fantasy, Lubitsch's lovers are forced to open their eyes to reality. What they find is that the opposite of illusion need not be disillusionment. The movie's climax, a tangle of epiphanies and surrenders on a snowy Christmas Eve, approaches the transcendent. It's one of the most satisfying and well-earned happy endings in movies.



explainer
How To Be a Shopping-Mall Santa
First, grow a beard.
By Kara Baskin
Friday, December 22, 2006, at 11:17 AM ET

This holiday season, the average shopping mall will hire two full-time Santas to entertain almost 8,000 children, according to a survey from the International Council of Shopping Centers. Anyone can slip into a red suit and bellow, "Ho-ho-ho!" But how do you become a professional shopping-mall Santa Claus?

Sign up with a Santa distributor. While would-be Santas can apply to smaller shopping centers directly, national staffing services farm out talent to the larger malls. Noerr Programs Corp. serves as the North Pole's version of central casting: It supplies St. Nicks to 169 major malls across the country. At Noerr, aspiring Santas are carefully interrogated about their willingness to travel, experience with kids, and, if applicable, their own memorable moments playing Santa. One key question: What does Christmas mean to you? Preferred answer: It's all about the children. Santas can be of any ethnicity—certain malls prefer African-American or bilingual Santas—but they must be male, in keeping with tradition. Having a natural beard is also a prerequisite.

After passing a background check and receiving their mall assignment, Noerr Santas receive a list of dos and don'ts. Breaking character is a no-no. Trained Santas must maintain a jolly disposition, regardless of the situation. When asked for gifts, they should reply with positive phrases like, "Santa will see what he can do about that," to avoid disappointing a hopeful child. Any Santa supplied by Noerr also has to commit to a healthy regimen: avoiding large meals, steering clear of alcohol, and getting plenty of rest.

While personality and preparation are essential, appearance seals the deal. The best Santas wear hand-sewn suits that include pants, a jacket trimmed with white fake fur, a black belt, and long white gloves. (Since many Santas are naturally husky, padding is often unnecessary.) Beards should be manicured daily and bleached professionally. (Bleaching at home is not recommended, as improper technique could cause beards to go yellow.) A company like Noerr provides the Santa suit, but employees should show up with their own wire-rimmed glasses and boots, as well as enough blush to maintain a rosy visage.

According to Noerr, rookie Santas earn up to $10,000 per season, while repeat performers command more than that, as they are a magnet for the mall and attract loyal followers. Those looking to boost their résumés enroll at the International University of Santa Claus, based in Riverside, Calif. IUSC students pay $89 for a one-day workshop in which they learn tricks like how to guess a child's age based on his grade level in school. (Add five, and voilá.) They also get insider tips on the importance of keeping four to six red suits on hand and nibbling a half-dozen breath mints per day.

Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.

Explainer thanks Tim Connaghan of IUSC and Ruth Rosenquist of Noerr Programs.



explainer
How to Cure a Sex Addict
What kind of counseling did Bill Clinton get?
By Christopher Beam
Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 7:00 PM ET

A recent article on Hillary Clinton's political engine-revving mentioned that her husband, Bill, has received "counseling for a sex addiction." How do you cure a nymphomaniac?

The same way you'd cure any kind of addict: with counseling, group therapy, and, in some cases, medication. You won't find an entry for "sexual addiction" in DSM-IV, the standard manual of mental disorders. In fact, there's some controversy as to whether "addiction" is the best terminology for what might just be a naturally heightened sex drive. But many doctors discuss it in the same terms as a chemical dependency: Like drug addicts, sex junkies exhibit escalating behavior, withdrawal symptoms, and an inability to stop despite adverse consequences. Self-deceptive thinking and denial (e.g., "I did not have sexual relations with that woman") may play a role, often accompanied by feelings of shame. Having lots of sex isn't the only symptom. Looking at lots of porn also counts, as does acting out with anonymous partners, or excessive masturbation. (Sound familiar? Find out if you're a sex addict here.)

The treatments for sex addiction, like those for drugs and alcohol, are diverse, and experts differ on which works best. Psychologists might treat a sex addict with a cognitive behavioral therapy that focuses on the mental processes that lead to addiction, or a psychodynamic approach that looks at underlying causes, such as childhood trauma and longstanding feelings of neglect. (One British man recently claimed he became an addict after suffering a head injury.) Organizations for people with sex addictions—Sexaholics Anonymous, Sex Addicts Anonymous, and Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous, to name a few—offer volunteer sessions across the country and tend to feature 12-step programs modeled after the Alcoholics Anonymous template. Some treatments have a religious component, too: A Washington Post article from 2000 claimed Bill Clinton received weekly "pastoral therapy sessions."

When conventional methods fail, a sex addict might consider enrolling at a residential treatment facility—better known as rehab. Some of the best-known centers treat all types of addictions—and nearly all sex addicts have other dependencies, too. Programs vary in length, but they're never cheap: Costs usually run about $800 to $1000 a day.

In some cases, a doctor may recommend medication to suppress sexual appetite. Drugs like Depo-Lupron (normally used to fight prostate cancer) and Depo-Provera (used for contraception purposes) lower androgen levels and, thus, sex drive. You can't get them over the counter, though—a specialist will usually administer the drug once a month via injection. Because sexual addiction is usually accompanied by other disorders, the patient will often take these meds along with antidepressants.

It's hard to say what constitutes recovery from sex addiction. The goal isn't to eliminate sex from your life—although temporary periods of abstinence may be necessary. Some therapists describe it as the difference between alcoholism and social drinking—you're healthy when you can handle moderate amounts in nondestructive ways.

Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.



explainer
Am I Not a Woman?
How to perform a gender test.
By Melonyce McAfee
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 6:49 PM ET

Indian runner Santhi Soundararajan may be stripped of her Asian Games silver medal, after the Indian Olympic Association announced Monday that she had failed a gender test shortly after competing. Is a "gender test" as simple as it sounds?

No. You can't tell for sure if an athlete is a man or a woman just by glancing at his or her genitalia. That's because some people are born with ambiguous sex organs, and others have a visible anatomy that doesn't match up with their sex chromosomes. Fears that male Olympic athletes might be competing as women led to mandatory physicals for females in the 1960s, which soon gave way to chromosome-based gender testing. Officials collected mouth scrapings and ran a simple test for the presence of two X chromosomes. The method proved to be unreliable, since it's possible for a biological male to have an extra X chromosome (XXY) or a female to only have one X chromosome.

The gender of an embryo is determined during its early development. If certain sex-determining genes are present, the fetus will develop testes, which in turn produce testosterone. It's the testosterone that makes the fetus into a boy. The genes that are important for this switch are generally located on the Y chromosome. By the 1992 Winter Games, officials started testing for one of these genes, called SRY—if you had it, you couldn't compete as a woman.

That test didn't work, either. Having the SRY gene material, or even a Y chromosome, doesn't always make you a man. Some people born with a Y chromosome develop all the physical characteristics of a woman except internal female sex organs. This can result from a defect in one of genes that allows the body to process testosterone. Someone with this condition (known as "androgen insensitivity syndrome") might be XY, and she might develop testes. But she'll end up a woman, because her body never responds to the testosterone she's producing. Other signs of AIS include hairless genitalia and the absence of menstruation. (There are reports that Soundararajan had "not attained puberty yet.")

Since testosterone helps in building muscle and strength, a case of androgen insensitivity syndrome wouldn't give an XY-female athlete any kind of competitive advantage; if anything, it would be a liability. Seven of the eight women who tested positive for Y-chromosomal material during the 1996 Summer Games in Atlanta had some form of AIS. They were allowed to compete.

By the late 1990s, the International Olympic Committee turned to a more comprehensive evaluation by a panel of specialists to account for all these ambiguities. The panel now includes gynecologists, endocrinologists, psychologists, and experts on transgender issues. The examiners still test for the Y-chromosomal genes; gynecologists perform physical exams; endocrinologists diagnose gene disorders and resulting hormonal conditions; and athletes may be given psychological help to deal with the situation.

Mandatory gender testing of Olympic athletes was stopped altogether in 1999, but Olympic and IAAF rules allow for gender tests if an athlete's gender is challenged by another athlete or team, or event officials. (Soundararajan's screening is said to have originated with such a protest.) Some athletes are called in for a complete exam after they give their urine sample during a doping test. Officials watch the whole process to make sure the athletes don't swap in someone else's pee, so they can flag anyone whose genitalia don't appear consistent with his or her stated gender.

Athletes who have undergone sex-reassignment are allowed to compete alongside their new gender, provided they follow regulations.

Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.

Explainer thanks Dr. Myron Genel of Yale University, Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson of Baylor University, and Dr. Louis Elsas of the University of Miami.



explainer
The Unanswered Questions
Digging through the bottom of the Explainer mailbag.
By Daniel Engber
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 6:07 AM ET


It's been a long year for the Explainer. In the past 12 months, we've answered more than 200 questions. The Explainer has revealed that President Bush is shrinking and investigated why Satan smells like rotten eggs. Regular readers have learned how to deliver a professional head butt, what to do when your eyeball falls out of its socket, and how many cell phones can fit up your rear end.

There's only space to answer a small fraction of the questions that arrive in our in-box. Today, the Explainer offers a glimpse at a few of the 7,000 queries that, for one reason or another, Slate felt ill-equipped or unwilling to answer in 2006.

And that's not all! We want you, Explainer readers, to let us know which of the questions listed below deserves an answer. The question that gets the most reader votes will be addressed in an upcoming Explainer column. Please send your pick to ask_the_explainer@yahoo.com. Your e-mail should have the subject line "Explainer Question of the Year."

The Explainer's Unanswered Questions From 2006

• What comes after 999 trillion?

• Why do train whistles at night always sound lonely and mournful? Not so in the daytime.

• Given the exchange and dispersion of matter, how likely is it/how often do we inhale/consume and/or incorporate into our own protein structure molecules that were once in some historical figure, say Abraham Lincoln?

• Lasers are now powerful and small (at least I think they are), so why don't our troops carry laser guns?

• Why is smooth peanut butter cheaper than nutty?

• If we taught animals to talk, how would that affect the world?

• What would happen to the stock market if a meteor impacted the earth? What would happen to the global markets and the U.S. market? Say a meteor hits inside U.S. borders and takes out two states.

• Is it possible to collect all the cookie dough in Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough ice cream and actually bake cookies from it?

• How clean is bar soap in a public bathroom? Is it "self-cleaning," since it's soap? It seems like a health hazard to me.

• Why did Zidane head-butt his opponent in the World Cup final? Do the French not fight with their fists?

• When we are approaching another person, like in a hallway, why do we step to our left? That is, try and pass right-shoulder-to-right-shoulder.

• I have been pondering this situation for as long as I can remember (maybe age 7-8) and it drives me nuts. It makes me feel like my head will implode if I think any harder. Is the universe infinite? It must end somewhere. But when it ends … there must be something on the other side … right?

• If a group of passengers on a hijacked plane wanted to, could they bring a plane down by all of them using their cell phones at the same time?

• Why do humans die so young? In biblical times, people lived for several hundred years; now living to 100 is considered a long life. What happened?

• How can I tell if I was the first person to use the term "K-fed-up" in relation to Britney's divorce?

• Why is the No. 8 always the same combination (tamale, enchilada, rice, beans) in any Mexican restaurant I visit? This includes primarily the southeast United States but not obvious franchises.

• Hi, how does nature make water? How does nature combine one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms to make water? If we knew how nature makes water, then perhaps we can then find an efficient way of separating hydrogen from oxygen, thus creating the ultimate source for energy.

• Why is grilled chicken tasting increasingly rubbery and odd?

• i need more money.....what business can i start that will not take a lot of time...i have internet access daily...........and i have saturday morning free before 12 noon to run around. i work from 7am to 9:30 pm..............

• Just suppose, one day someone wants to sell you an old gold bar. You don't know if it belongs to any treasure, and you can't find out if there is any reward for it, if it was a lost treasure. How would you go about melting it and selling it? The same would go for a gemstone about the size of a dinner plate. How would you go about selling it? If you're living in a country that is corrupt and you cannot trust the government, or anyone else, what can you do?

• Can you tell me how long it will take if you eat rat poison to see if it is going to affect you? Please e-mail me back. Because my niece ate some.

• Hi. I just wanted to know if our eyeballs roll back when we are sleeping (or closed) or do they shake? Or …

• PYGMIES: How/when/where/still in existence/do we mate with them?

• Do dolphins actually save people? If so, why do they do this?

• I have a sister that stresses the hell out of me. For example this one sister out of three knows that I am recovering from a serious car accident. I thank God for saving my life, and healing me each and every day. My question is can a person who complains and talks about the same complaining crap every day stress you completely out? About four days ago I had to tell this one sister (Annie) basically to get a life and stop bugging me with her problems and everybody else's. I reminded her that I am still in a neck brace and healing … I really need to know if a person can really stress you out with the same old thing over and over and over again. PLEASE ANSWER BACK ASAP.

• Can someone be forced to masturbate?

• Why do we make a "lip-smacking" sound when kissing closed-mouth? We do make the sound; it doesn't happen on its own ...

• What's likely to happen to people, or what might they feel, when they're killed instantly?

• Can a state in the United States split into two or more states? If so, how? I think Texas has a special provision for being able to divide into up to five states. But I am wondering about the others.

• I have noticed that a lot of mainstream movies feature men peeing. Are the actors really peeing?

• yea i have my own 620 gang and i dont know how to run it to make not look like a little bitch gang joke it is just me and my friend how do i run it?

• Hi. How did the horse in the movie about dreams make it to not only survive but to win again? Was this movie true?

• Working in my yard yesterday, I killed a gnat in my ear canal, where it had flown. I couldn't remove the body as my finger was too fat. What happens to it now?

• What is the richest religion? Scientology has a lot of Hollywood stars and I think they actually make their members give money, but Catholicism is a very old religion with its own country. Also, Islam has a lot of members but I don't know about their money situation.

• Is chicken considered meat?

• Hello ... Could you tell me if there's been any kind of medical discovery in the last 30 years besides DNA.

• Are UFOs confirmed to be from other Alien Planets?

• How do you get to write articles for Slate. Do you have to go through a process?

• I met a 40-year-old stripper back in February of this year. We had a special connection. Yet, she was homeless, going through a divorce and bankruptcy. She has three kids who live in Alabama and she pays $500 a month in child support. Moreover, she used cocaine. At one point, she was arrested for forgery. She spent a month in jail but was released under the condition that she become a narc for the police department. She gave the names of her dealers and would wear wires when drug deals were going down. I let her stay at my place and kept food in the refrigerator. This past Monday she took all her clothes, my money, and left. The night before, she hung out with some friends. I called her, and she said I was too good for her. She said she had never been treated so well. She said she would drag me down and she couldn't bear to handle that. I told her my hopes and dreams the night before. I wonder if I scared her off. I don't know what to make of it. I don't know if she met someone else the night before and doesn't want to tell me. It's killing me inside. I cried for her. I really cared for her. Can you give me some advice?

The Explainer will answer one of these questions in an upcoming column. Please send your pick to ask_the_explainer@yahoo.com. Your e-mail should have the subject line "Explainer Question of the Year."



faith-based
Good Riddance
The Episcopalian split promises a stronger church.
By Astrid Storm
Friday, December 22, 2006, at 11:55 AM ET

As a theological liberal, I take a rather dim view of the doctrine of providence. Still, I have to say that there was something vaguely providential about the way events unfolded in the Episcopal Church this past week.

Last Sunday, eight Episcopal churches in the Diocese of Virginia voted to break away from the U.S. Episcopal Church. Many of them are now affiliated with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, a network of churches in the global Anglican Communion under the oversight of the archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola. The vote was the result of increasing frustration with the liberal direction the Episcopal Church has taken over the past 30 years, starting for many with the ordination of women in 1976 and culminating in the consecration of the first openly gay bishop in 2003.

The possibility of a breakaway, particularly one involving foreign bishops, has been taking up a lot of the Episcopal Church's energy over the last three years, because it could have significant consequences for its polity, finances, and even day-to-day parish life. Yet some Episcopalians, like me, are relieved that it has finally happened—and are especially relieved at how it happened. In fact, it seems to me that this couldn't have happened at a better time, with better people, or in a better way. The Episcopal Church may even be stronger for it in the long run.

Most significant, perhaps, is these churches' decision to align with controversial Archbishop Akinola—someone whom even many conservatives in the church have serious qualms about. He's called homosexuality a "satanic attack" on the church and considers gay-affirming churches to be a "cancerous lump" in the body of Christ. He has endorsed the implementation of anti-gay legislation in his country that would ban homosexuals from having relationships and practically eliminate their right to free speech, all at risk of imprisonment—proposals that the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association considers among the most oppressive in the world. Also noteworthy is his propensity for making stupendously insensitive statements—like, "I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don't hear of such things." Elsewhere, he compared homosexuality and lesbianism to bestiality. He also made an earlier statement this year that was tied to ensuing violence against Muslims in his community; while American mega-pastor Rick Warren was deftly defending Akinola, people in Nigeria, including another bishop, were decrying it.

Try as some have, no excuse—cultural factors, tribal politics—mitigates his venomous statements, and aligning with what basically amounts to the Jerry Falwell of the Anglican Communion exposes just how visceral and unexamined these anti-gay feelings must be for many of these people in these Virginia parishes. Even before they departed, these parishes were very much on the fringe of the wider Episcopal Church.

The timing of this decision is also important. It came at a time of relative calm and good will in the Episcopal Church, and many people have questioned the reasons—or lack thereof—behind it. The Rev. William L. Sachs, director of the Center for Reconciliation and Mission at St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Richmond, Va., told me that "since 2003 the Episcopal Church has worked very hard at listening to the Anglican Communion and trying to honor the Windsor Report and, in fact, there has been a moratorium on the consecration of gay bishops. So, what have they got to complain about?" The election of a female presiding bishop with liberal views on gays and lesbians is the closest he could think of to a proximate cause for last Sunday's decision, but considering Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's recent efforts to accommodate those who don't share her more liberal viewpoint on homosexuality, and considering many people's support for women clergy in these breakaway churches, even that seems an unconvincing provocation.

It's also worth pointing out that this decision came on the tail end of a bad week for conservatives in England. A few members of an influential conservative organization unilaterally presented a very un-Anglican proposal to the archbishop of Canterbury in which they brazenly petitioned to bypass bishops they don't agree with and to choose where their money goes—not acceptable practices in Anglicanism. A number of confused and angry replies—some of them from people who belonged to the group that presented the proposal but hadn't even seen it—poured in. Closer to home, that debacle in England may have prompted Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion, to issue a statement clarifying that the Archbishop of Canterbury had not indicated any support for the establishment of CANA, the organization to which these Virginia churches now belong.

The way these churches went about severing themselves from the U.S. Episcopal Church is also interesting. A church voting to secede from the larger church is not accepted practice in the Episcopal Church, and neither is seeking out another bishop. Elaborating on one of Schori's earlier statements, Bob Williams, the director of communication at the Episcopal Church Center in New York, said, "Parishioners and clergy leave the church; churches don't. … One bishop is not supposed to intrude upon another's jurisdiction. This has been true since the Council of Nicaea." Strangely enough, Akinola himself said the same to the Church of Nigeria News back in 2001: "You don't just jump from your diocese to begin to do whatever you like in another man's diocese. That is not done in our Anglican tradition."

Which is all to say that, in doing what they did, when they did it, and with whom, these churches appear disorganized, impatient, and uncouth. To quote William James, the ideal pairings of "fervor with measure, passion with correctness" seemed distinctly lacking in their actions, and it's very hard to imagine many other churches following their lead. In fact, Bill Sachs assured me that Virginia Episcopalians are distancing themselves, and he surmises that splinter parishes will amount to "not more than five percent" of the U.S. church—probably far less. If I had to bet on it, I'd even say Archbishop Akinola's power among Episcopalians in this country is quickly waning as of last Sunday.

It has been said that measure and manners are the glue that binds the Anglican Communion together. If so, then it seems these churches are coming unglued; as for the rest of us, I think we'll be sticking around just fine, thank you very much.



faith-based
Fore Shame
Did the Vatican steal Jesus' foreskin so people would shut up about the savior's penis?
By David Farley
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 12:32 PM ET

In 1983, as the residents of Calcata, a small town 30 miles north of Rome, prepared for their annual procession honoring a holy relic, a shocking announcement from the parish priest put a damper on festivities. "This year, the holy relic will not be exposed to the devotion of the faithful. It has vanished. Sacrilegious thieves have taken it from my home." Not since the Middle Ages, when lopped-off body parts of divine do-gooders were bought, sold, and traded, has relic theft been big news. But the mysterious disappearance of Calcata's beloved curio is different.

This wasn't just the residuum of any holy human—nor was it just any body part. It was the foreskin of Jesus Christ, the snipped-off tip of the savior's penis, the only piece of his body he supposedly left on earth.

Just what the holy foreskin was doing in the priest's house—in a shoebox at the back of his wardrobe, no less—and why and how it disappeared has been debated ever since the relic vanished. Some suspect the village priest sold it for a heavenly sum; others say it was stolen by thieves and ended up on the relics black market; some even suggest Satanists or neo-Nazis are responsible. But the most likely culprit is an unlikely one: the Vatican.

And why not? Protestant doubt ("They couldn't let Christ's body go without keeping a piece," John Calvin quipped) and the scientific revolution, which changed our thinking from superstitious to skeptical, have taken their toll on a relic that once rested high atop the pious pecking order of blessed body parts. It's understandable that the 20th-century church began feeling a bit bashful about the idea of its flock fawning over the 2,000-year-old tip of the redeemer's manhood. Still, when I arrived in Calcata six months ago, the idea of a Vatican theft of Jesus' foreskin sounded more like a ganja-induced brainstorming session with Dan Brown and Danielle Steele. But some transplanted bohemians, a deathbed confession, and a little historical context have convinced me otherwise.

Even before its disappearance, the relic had a strange history. It was discovered in Calcata in 1557, and a series of miracles soon followed (freak storms, perfumed mists engulfing the village). The church gave the finding a seal of approval by offering a 10-year indulgence to those who came to venerate. Lines of pilgrims stretched from the church doors to beyond the walls of the fortress town. Nuns and monks from nearby villages and monasteries made candlelit processions. Calcata was a must-see destination on the pilgrimage map.

That is, until 1900. Facing increasing criticism after the "rediscovery" of a holy foreskin in France, the Vatican decreed that anyone who wrote about or spoke the name of the holy foreskin would face excommunication. And 54 years later, when a monk wanted to include Calcata in a pilgrimage tour guide, Vatican officials didn't just reject the proposal (after much debate). They upped the punishment: Now, anyone uttering its name would face the harshest form of excommunication—"infamous and to be avoided"—even as they concluded that Calcata's holy foreskin was more legit than other claimants'.

But that wasn't the end of the holy foreskin. In the late 1960s, government officials, worried that crumbling cliffs and threatening earthquakes might doom the village, decided to build a new town. Hippies discovered the newly abandoned town, which was awaiting a government wrecking crew, and squatted in, then legally purchased, the vacated buildings. Some of the bohemian transplants were intrigued by Calcata's relic, which was now only shown to the public during the village's annual New Year's Day procession (even though the Vatican II reforms removed the Day of the Holy Circumcision from the church calendar). The new residents began writing about the quirky event and relic for newspapers in and around Rome, and Calcata's scandalous prepuce was isolated no more. And the church took notice.

Was this the reason Dario Magnoni, the local priest, brought the relic from the church to his home? Who knows. Magnoni refuses to speak about the relic, citing the 1954 threat of excommunication. Magnoni's predecessor, Mario Mastrocola, didn't want to talk about the relic, either, but when asked if he was surprised to hear it had been stolen, he shook his head. When pressed, he said, "The relic would not have been taken away from Calcata if I were still the priest there."

Mastrocola's ambiguous words—while not directly incriminating anyone—hinted at underhanded church dealings (interview requests with the Vatican went unanswered). And later, I found myself sitting in a wine cellar halfway up the hill between the old and new villages of Calcata. Capellone, the cellar's owner and a lifelong Calcatese, told me about his close relationship with a former local bishop, Roberto Massimiliani. Ailing in bed, the bishop told Capellone that when he was gone, so too would be the relic. Bishop Massimiliani passed away soon after, in 1975. Eight years after that, the relic disappeared. "To me, it almost felt like a confession," said Capellone. "Like he needed to tell someone before he died."

Could the "sacrilegious thieves" Magnoni mentioned in his 1983 announcement about the relic's disappearance actually have been Vatican emissaries? The thought of masked, black-clad Vatican agents on a mission to steal Jesus' foreskin does sound alluring. But for residents like Capellone, who swear the Vatican now has the relic, the thief could be Magnoni himself. Some locals claim they saw him go to Rome the day before he made the announcement, generating speculation that the Vatican asked for it and Magnoni not only failed to stand up to them, he delivered the relic himself.

Sold, stolen, or delivered to the Vatican—or even all three—the holy foreskin of Calcata is probably gone for good, even as some residents persist in the hope that it will return. And the church is certainly breathing a sigh of relief. While most of the other copies of the relic were destroyed during the Reformation and the French Revolution, Calcata's holy foreskin lived long past its expiration date, like a dinosaur surviving the meteoric blast of the scientific revolution.

But if it had survived, it would have been only a matter of time before someone wanted to clone it. And that could have given the Second Coming an entirely new meaning.



sidebar

Return to article

Luke 2:21 details Jesus' circumcision on his eighth day. According to the Infancy Gospels—which some have claimed are "lost" or removed chapters of the Bible, while others have said they're apocryphal—Jesus was circumcised in a cave. Afterward, Mary's midwife, an old Jewish woman, took the foreskin and put it in an alabaster jar filled with aromatic nard, a fragrant ointment known for its preservative qualities. The old woman handed the jar to her son, who was in the perfume business, and said, "Guard well this jar of aromatic nard and do not sell it, even when they offer you 300 denarii." Well, he must have been hard up for cash, because somehow, according to this legend (which was retold by French historian Patrice Boussel in his 1971 book Des Reliques et de Leur Bon Usage), Mary Magdalene ended up with the jar and then apparently passed it on to St. John the Baptist. The rest is history.



sidebar

Return to article

During the Middle Ages, the holy foreskin achieved a Holy Grail-level of fame. About a dozen monasteries and towns claimed to possess it, each insisting theirs came from Charlemagne—who received the relic from an angel while praying at the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. The holy foreskin that ended up in Calcata, the only papal-approved version of the relic, was said to have been given by Charlemagne to Pope Innocent III upon the French king's coronation in Rome on Dec. 25, 800. The Pope placed the relic in Rome's Sancta Sanctorum (where it resided with the heads of Sts. Peter and Paul) until 1527, when a German soldier—part of the booty-hungry army that sacked the city—swept in to the relic-laden room, grabbing a bejeweled reliquary, tucking it under his arm, and making a mad dash northward. He got as far as Calcata before being caught and imprisoned in the village, where he stashed the relic in his cell. Thirty years later, in 1557, its discovery set off a series of climatic miracles in the village.



sidebar

Return to article

Depending on what you read, there were eight, 12, 14, or even 18 different holy foreskins in various European towns during the Middle Ages. Coulombs, a French village near Chartres, had one. Chartres also had a famous foreskin, as did the French towns of Charroux, Metz, Conques, Langres, Anvers, Fécamp, and Puy-en-Velay. Auvergne even had two. And the French weren't the only ones obsessed with all things holy and foreskin. There were also pious penises in Hildesheim in Germany and Antwerp in Belgium. Santiago de Compostela, the famed pilgrimage town in the far northwestern corner of Spain, had one too. Not to be outdone, Rome's San Giovanni in Laterano also had a copy of the holy foreskin; this is the one that ended up in Calcata.



sidebar

Return to article

The holy foreskin has ended up in a few historical footnotes.



fighting words
The Real Sunni Triangle
There are only three options in Iraq.
By Christopher Hitchens
Monday, December 18, 2006, at 4:01 PM ET


The ructions on the periphery of the Saudi lobby in Washington—over whether Saudi Arabia would or should become the protector of its Sunni brethren in Iraq—obscures the extent to which what might or could happen has actually been happening already. The Sunni insurgents currently enjoy quite a lot of informal and unofficial support from Saudi circles (and are known by the nickname "the Wahabbis" by many Shiites). Saudi Arabia has long thought of Iraq as its buffer against Iran and for this reason opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein and would not allow its soil to be used for the operation. Saudi princes and officials have long been worried by the state of opinion among the Shiite underclass in Saudi Arabia itself, because this underclass—its religion barely recognized by the ultra-orthodox Wahabbi authorities—happens to live and work in and around the oil fields. Since 2003, there have been increasing signs of discontent from them, including demands for more religious and political freedom.

In 1991, which is also the year when the present crisis in Iraq actually began, it was Saudi influence that helped convince President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker to leave Saddam Hussein in power and to permit him to crush the Shiite intifada that broke out as his regime reeled from defeat in Kuwait. If, when reading an article about the debate over Iraq, you come across the expression "the realist school" and mentally substitute the phrase "the American friends of the Saudi royal family," your understanding of the situation will invariably be enhanced.

Many people write as if the sectarian warfare in Iraq was caused by coalition intervention. But it is surely obvious that the struggle for mastery has been going on for some time and was only masked by the apparently iron unity imposed under Baathist rule. That rule was itself the dictatorship of a tribal Tikriti minority of the Sunni minority and constituted a veneer over the divisions beneath, as well as an incitement to their perpetuation. The Kurds had already withdrawn themselves from this divide-and-rule system by the time the coalition forces arrived, while Shiite grievances against the state were decades old and had been hugely intensified by Saddam's cruelty. Nothing was going to stop their explosion, and if Saddam Hussein's regime had been permitted to run its course and to devolve (if one can use such a mild expression) into the successorship of Udai and Qusai, the resulting detonation would have been even more vicious.

And into the power vacuum would have stepped not only Saudi Arabia and Iran, each with its preferred confessional faction, but also Turkey, in pursuit of hegemony in Kurdistan. In other words, the alternative was never between a tranquil if despotic Iraq and a destabilizing foreign intervention, but it was, rather, a race to see which kind of intervention there would be. The international community in its wisdom decided to delay the issue until the alternatives were even fewer, but it is idle to pretend that Iraq was going to remain either unified or uninvaded after the destruction of its fabric as a state by three decades of fascism and war, including 12 years of demoralizing sanctions.

The disadvantage of an American-led intervention, it might be argued, was that it meant the arbitration of foreigners. But the advantage was, and is, that these foreigners at least have a stake in the preservation of a power-sharing system. Iraq has only three alternatives before it. The first is dictatorship by one faction or sect over all the others: a solution that has been exhausted by horrific failure. The second is partition, which would certainly involve direct intervention by all its neighbors to secure privileges for their own proxies and would therefore run the permanent risk of civil war. And the third is federalism, where each group would admit that it was not strong enough to dictate terms to the others and would agree to settle differences by democratic means. Quixotic though the third solution may seem, it is the only alternative to the most gruesome mayhem—more gruesome than anything we have seen so far. It is to the credit of the United States that it has at least continued to hold up this outcome as a possibility—a possibility that would not be thinkable if the field were left to the rival influences of Tehran and Riyadh.

I once heard U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad say that he was surprised by how often the different factions in the Iraqi parliament (the very existence of which, by the way, is itself a miracle) would come to him and ask his help as a broker. It was often possible to perform this role to some extent, he went on to say, as long as each group understood that it could not get what it wanted by force. The necessary corollary of this, though, was that nobody believed they could drive the U.S. presence out of the country.

The unspoken corollary of that, however, was that nobody believed that the Americans were going to withdraw suddenly or of their own accord. In that event, each group would immediately start making contingency plans—such as soliciting foreign support—to grab what it could from the impending scramble. The danger now is that all parties in the region are setting their watches and presuming that all they need to do is wait out the moment. This almost automatically dooms any negotiations that are currently being conducted. So the effect of the "realist" doctrine is to heighten the chances of destabilization and extremism. This is surely not what such vaunted elder statesmen as James Baker and Henry Kissinger can possibly have intended?



foreigners
European Union
A New Year's resolution for Europe: Less carping, more helping.
By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 6:11 AM ET


BERLIN—On the day James Baker's Iraq Study Group report was published, I gritted my teeth and waited for the well-earned, long-awaited Franco-German "Old European" gloat to begin. I didn't have to wait long. "America Faces Up to the Iraq Disaster" read a headline in Der Spiegel. In the patronizing tones of a senior doctor, Le Monde diagnosed the "political feverishness" gripping Washington in Baker's wake. Süddeutsche Zeitung said the report "stripped Bush of his authority," although Le Figaro opined that nothing Baker proposed could improve the "catastrophic state" of Iraq anyway.

And then, for two weeks … silence. If there are politicians, academics, or journalists anywhere in Germany and France who have better ideas about how to improve the catastrophic state of Iraq, they aren't talking very loudly. There is no question that America's credibility has been undermined by the Iraq war in "Old Europe" as everywhere else. There is no question that America's reputation for competence has been destroyed. But that doesn't mean there are dozens of eager candidates, or even one eager candidate, clamoring to replace us.

There is, it is true, quite a lot of wishful thinking. "Iraq is a disaster—now we will have to clean up the mess," one German diplomatic acquaintance told me; "Germany Mulling Bigger Role in Iraq" read another Spiegel headline. But Germany is notoriously averse to sending soldiers—or anyone else—anywhere near combat. At the moment, German politicians cannot even agree whether their troops should be allowed to fight in Afghanistan, where in principle they have been stationed for years. France, meanwhile, has announced it is removing its troops from Afghanistan. So how, exactly, will this Iraq cleanup take place? What will this "bigger role" be? "We can train judges and police," my acquaintance explained—after the fighting is over, of course. Whenever that happens.

Scattered across Europe, there are also a few diplomatic optimists, people who hope Europe can play "Middle East matchmaker," in the words of one writer, and maybe get Iranians and Syrians to be more helpful and kind in Iraq—or at least to stop funding the insurgency. Presumably, these are the same optimists who used to believe that a Franco-German-British diplomatic team could persuade Iran to stop conducting nuclear-weapons research. Presumably, they didn't notice that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held a Holocaust denial conference in Tehran last week—not, perhaps, the clearest signal that he wants to make friends with bien pensants Europeans—or that French President Jacques Chirac recently declared that his views on Syria exactly matched those of his U.S. counterpart.

With some exceptions, the weird reality is that most European governments, whatever their original views on the war, are either officially or unofficially opposed to an immediate U.S. withdrawal. Chaos might ensue. And the chaos would be a lot closer to Europe than to North America. Most European governments, officially or unofficially, are also now worried that the next U.S. president will retreat from world politics or become "isolationist."

Nor is there anybody here, of any stature, who believes that Europe—for all its recent economic improvement, for all of its trading power, and for all its dislike of U.S. foreign policy—is going to replace America anytime soon. Germany is about to take over the rotating presidency of the European Union, and therefore Germany is discussing EU integration policy, EU immigration policy, and EU economics. Germany is not discussing how the European Union will take on a leading military and diplomatic role in the Middle East. And not even Germany wants any of the other potential world powers—Russia, say, or China—to replace the United States in the role of dominant superpower, either.

In this weird reality, there is a very narrow sliver of hope: Maybe now the Germans, and even the French, will finally come to realize that there is no alternative to the transatlantic partnership, no better international military organization than NATO, no real "role" for any of us outside the Western alliance—if only because all the alternatives are worse. Maybe the Old Europeans will find inspiration to support and contribute further to the alliance, diplomatically and ideologically, if not militarily. Maybe the United States will come to the same realization, too. At the end of the day, the only way for the West to deal with the new threats posed by a disintegrating Iraq, a resurgent Iran, and a shattered Middle East is through a unified policy—an alliance whose members are not easily played off against one another—and a joint strategy.

Joyeux Noël and Glückliches Neujahr to you all.



foreigners
Who Deserves Democracy?
In the Palestinian territories, hypocrisy is the best policy.
By Shmuel Rosner
Monday, December 18, 2006, at 1:42 PM ET


As the dangerous situation in the Palestinian territories unravels, one question stands out: Who are the good guys? The politicians who are now trying to topple a democratically elected government or the people in power who are trying to pursue their ideology—one that they didn't hide from the voters who freely chose to elect them? And how come all these world leaders are publicly siding with the revolutionaries?

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, visiting the West Bank on Monday, declared, "If the international community really means what it says about supporting people who share the vision of a two-state solution, who are moderate, who are prepared to shoulder their responsibilities, then now is the time for the international community to respond."

I'm not sure if Blair thought seriously about this sentence before uttering it—but, in some ways, it captures the essence of the West's real policy—America's too—in the Middle East. Not the rhetoric, the reality: no democracy, no "elected government," no "right of the people to decide" (which they did, in last January's elections). It's the people who are "moderate" and who "support a two-state solution" that deserve the support of Blair and President Bush. And if those moderates lost an election—well, never mind. You can always call for another one, and another one—until the people get the message and elect the desired government.

And this is exactly what happened in the Palestinian territories this past weekend. This, and the bloodletting that puts the Palestinians—as King Abdullah of Jordan predicted three weeks ago—on the verge of a civil war, despite a fragile cease-fire. Mahmoud Abbas—the elected president of the Palestinians—announced that he is close to deciding that new elections are necessary. Exchanges of gunfire and raids followed, and soon enough, after the seizure of two ministries by armed forces loyal to Abbas, Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar started to talk about a "military coup."

In announcing his initiative, Abbas focused not on the choice the people had made, but rather on the suffering of the Palestinian people—and Blair did just the same. The current government, controlled by Hamas, faces many challenges to effective rule, since it's not ready to accept the three demands of the international community (recognizing Israel's right to exist, renouncing violence, and abiding by signed agreements). The outcome of this refusal has been a virtual freeze on most contacts between Hamas and the West, and an even more important freeze on aid money. Hamas looked for help in other, more troublesome, places, but last week, as the prime minister was returning from Iran with a suitcase full of money, Israel would not let him back into Gaza.

The pressure on Hamas started to build shortly after the elections, and many wondered then—as some do now—to what end: Is it a serious attempt to rein in Hamas' ideology or an attempt to topple the elected government?

The answer became clearer as time passed and Hamas' attitudes didn't budge. The policy of isolation was meant to correct a democratically conceived mistake. And for that matter, an American mistake. It was the Bush administration that had insisted on holding the Palestinian elections; Israel's then-prime minister, Ariel Sharon, insisted that Hamas should be banned from taking part in the election as long as it was a terror organization.

The missing component of the policy that is aimed at replacing Hamas with a more constructive Palestinian government was a Palestinian partner. Abbas—moderate, cooperative, pro-Western—always seemed too weak and too reluctant to act decisively against Hamas. But now the time has come for the final test of will. Supported by America and most of the West, Abbas will be tasked with the momentous burden of taking back power from the forces of radical Islam—in other words, rolling back the most troubling of trends in this trouble-ridden region.

If Abbas succeeds, democracy—at least in the most naked form of popular elections—will resume the secondary role it has always had in the Middle East. Democracy will be a desired policy only in places where accidents will not happen. Not in Egypt, not in Saudi Arabia, not even in Syria. Abbas might not be a leader in the style of the older moderate autocrats—but if he suddenly becomes one, there will be no outcry from the West.

Which will bring a whole new set of questions to the fore. Is it wise to be involved in a peace process with a ruling party that doesn't have the support of the people (polls don't count)? Isn't this policy of giving up on moderate Arab democracy a sign of racist or colonialist tendencies? What are the implications of this trial and error for other countries—namely Iraq and Lebanon? Whatever you think of the Baker-Hamilton report and its shortcomings, it is realism that is making headway this week in the Palestinian territories. Realism—and a healthy dose of cynicism.

So, the Palestinians who oppose Abbas' moves will be right when they point to this chain of events as the culmination of Western hypocrisy. But those who support him—in Palestine and around the world—will also be right. Sometimes, hypocrisy is the most basic way to recognize reality.



gardening
Sleepy Solstice
Why plants and animals hibernate in winter.
By Constance Casey
Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 4:02 PM ET

One of the big mysteries of biology is precisely how living things, including us, are affected by the seasons. We know we are—we feel it most acutely in the darkest days of winter—but how does it work?

There are a few clues and there's a lot to observe. This year's winter solstice—when the sun is farthest from the equatorial plane—falls on Dec. 21 at 7:22 p.m. ET. So, we're approaching the midnight of the year—the time of minimum sunlight and maximum night—when most of us feel a little dormant, a bit groundhogish. Some animals and birds have moved south, some are curled up in a cozy den. Some people have also flown south.

Those of us who are staying put experience a semihibernation. (Until March, I pretty much feel as though I've just gotten off an airplane flight from Moscow.) We are sluggish, gloomier than usual, sleepier; we're eating pasta with three kinds of bread; and we're tempted in our low state to drink terrible things like eggnog and pumpkin-spice latte.

The green things of the world, which don't have the option of migrating or overeating, are affected more drastically. Most trees and bushes are bare, annual plants have gone to seed and died, perennial plants have died back to their roots. (Note that we're talking temperate zone, Northern Hemisphere, and not counting evergreens.)

Because they can't migrate or dress warmly, plants are more alert than we are about planning for winter. Back in midsummer, while we were still gaily drinking gin and tonics and wearing flip-flops, plants began to prepare to ride out their most difficult season. By the end of summer, long before temperatures began to fall, they had noted shorter day lengths and set their winter buds. They could go dormant having provided for the season after winter, the season when daylight would increase, signaling leaves and flowers to unfurl.

Plants respond to shorter days faster than we do because it's a matter of life and death for them. A plant's life is all about light, the force they use to produce their food. Plants absorb the energy of light, using it as the motor to power a rearrangement of molecules of water and carbon dioxide to make oxygen and sugar, giving the world its food and most of its oxygen.

How do plants sense that the days are getting shorter? They have, in a sense, both a clock and a calendar. It's a chemical clock, and it works at the level of the cell. Just like most mammals, plants have circadian rhythms, fluctuations of proteins that occur over the length of the day. A short day leaves some of the daytime functions unfinished. This is a hot topic for plant biologists, especially because global warming may cause plants to die out in their normal range and begin to colonize areas farther north. Dogwood trees, for example, that used to freeze north of New York will begin to grow in, say, New Hampshire. Given a warmer world, the temperature may be right, but the winter days will be shorter and the angle of light darned confusing.

A plant's calendar tells it the difference between a short day in November and a short day in March. In early spring, plants have accumulated a cellular memory of winter going by; they know warm days are coming and it's safe to leaf out.

Like plants, we have an inner clock that tracks the seasons. Luckily, here in the dead of winter, we're not experiencing something similar to losing all our leaves, but we do note, at a cellular as well as a psychological level, that there are fewer hours of sunlight.

We, too, have ways of monitoring light and we, too, have light-dependent chemical reactions. Light coming into the eyes is registered by a bundle of neurons about the size of a grain of rice. It's called, should anyone ask you, the suprachiasmatic nucleus. Light causes that bundle of neurons to fire, which suppresses the production of melatonin, known as the sleep hormone. Most of us first heard about melatonin when friends tried buying it at health-food stores to reduce jet lag or help in getting to sleep.

Something is awry with the melatonin levels in people who get disabling seasonal depressions—called seasonal affective disorder. Taking a sort of sun bath with a light box for an hour early in the morning seems to work for the severely depressed by fooling the body into sensing that the sun has come up earlier. Hippocrates advised the saddened to look at the sun. We can wonder if there were a lot of eye-damaged people stumbling around Greece in fourth-century B.C.

We don't have the plant's talent for making sugar and oxygen out of sunlight, but we do have a useful chemical reaction using the sun's energy—the way we make vitamin D. The sun's ultraviolet rays hit our skin and shake up molecules, making a form of cholesterol that's on its way to being vitamin D. In the Rube Goldberg way the human body often works, the substance has to be modified first in the liver and then in the kidneys. Vitamin D's main function is to maintain normal blood levels of calcium and phosphorus. You can also consume it in some foods—notably milk fortified with vitamin D, salmon, and sardines.

Recent studies found that from November through February, the average amount of sunlight at about the latitude of Boston and points north wasn't enough to produce significant vitamin D synthesis. Not only people who live in northern latitudes are at risk—those who work in occupations that prevent exposure to sunlight or women who cover their body for religious reasons, for instance. Is there some poor woman dressed in full hijab, working as a nighttime security guard, to whom we should send vitamin D supplements?

We provide consolations to get through winter—vitamin D supplements, smoked salmon, candles, Christmas lights, cassoulet, oatmeal, velvet, Irish whiskey with hot water and lemon. But for all the comforts we give ourselves, for all the heating and bright lighting, we're still basically creatures who have more in common with the furry beings of the world, and even the leafy beings of the world, than we think. Our bodies are inextricably linked to seasonal cycles. I wonder if there was a time in human history when sluggishness in winter was good for survival? Should we be using this semihibernation as a time of renewal? Should we be, figuratively, setting the buds for spring leaves and flowers?



sidebar

Return to article

The way things are going—an indicator being the frequent use of the term "sectarian violence"—I'd like to suggest the suspension of organized religion and a return to worshipping the sun. The word is heliolatry (from the Greek helios, or sun).

Let's say we suspend all the nonsun religions for a year. If your religion has staying power, you'll go back to it.

There's a fine tradition of heliolatry, with a host of good names for the solar deity: Shamash, the main sun god of the Assyrians and Babylonians, Mithras of the Persians, Tezcatlipoca of the Aztecs, and Ra of the Egyptians.

I am indebted to my folklorist sister, Caroline, for reminding me of the following cheer:

Hail to the sun god,

He is a fun god,

Ra! Ra! Ra!

While most sun gods are male, Japan has a sun goddess with the wonderful name Amaterasu Omikami—the Great Divinity Illuminating Heaven.

As the Shinto myth goes, she was angry at her brother, the storm deity, for throwing his weight around and damaging her garden. So she angrily retired to a cave. There's a festival on Dec. 21 to celebrate her coming back out to light up the earth again.

We realize that our sun is not a he or a she, but simply a star, which is, to put it unsentimentally, a gravitationally contained nuclear reactor.

Here is the bad news: Like all other stars, our sun will die, shedding nitrogen and hydrogen and other gases back into space. Our sun is about halfway through its life—5 billion years behind it, 5 billion to come. Even more reason to get sun-worshiping fast—to appreciate the warmth and light that keep us from a dead planet.



hollywoodland
The Oscar Race
Will Dreamgirls get snubbed because of its African-American cast?
By Kim Masters
Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 4:43 PM ET

Thursday, Dec. 21, 2006

Let the Handicapping Begin: When it comes to the Oscar race, this is the weirdest year in a long time.

December has essentially ended, and no one can predict with confidence which five films will be nominated for best picture, much less which will win. Usually, by now the best-picture contest has narrowed to one movie that's marching to victory (The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King) or a couple of real contenders (Brokeback Mountain versus Crash, Million Dollar Baby versus The Aviator).

This year, it seems likely that nominations will go to Dreamgirls, The Departed, and The Queen. But a surprising number of films could still make the list: Letters From Iwo Jima, Babel, Little Miss Sunshine, Little Children … Who knows? There is no front-runner or even top two.

Dreamgirls was supposed to march like Sherman heading for the sea, but its legs are wobbly. The movie plays well in theaters—even at the screening for academy members, the audience burst into applause in the middle—but the reviews are not all adoring and the critics' groups have been snubbing it.

One could see the academy going for Dreamgirls, or finally cutting director Martin Scorsese a break by voting for The Departed, or cozying up to The Queen. The creative team behind The Queen has been invited to lunch at Buckingham Palace! That kind of thing could curl the toes of many academy voters.

The Los Angeles Times reports that one of the most accurate best-picture predictors in recent years has been the Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association. In that case, United 93 is the winner, which would be astonishing considering that most members of the academy probably haven't brought themselves to watch it.

Babel was falling back when it picked up the leading number of Golden Globe nominations. But aside from the Chicago critics, it's not feeling much love.

Babel is the international version of Crash, with clever—or is that contrived?—interconnected stories. That big global canvas might explain its appeal to the inconsistently credentialed Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the group behind the distended annual Golden Globes extravaganza. The movie also stars the highly telegenic Brad Pitt. The HFPA is all about ratings for its television show and this group makes sure the stars come out. (That doesn't unravel the mystery of nominating Leonardo DiCaprio twice in the same category for The Departed and Blood Diamond. Seriously, he'd show up even if he were only nominated once!)

The Globes don't predict Oscar winners, but all that attention has to help Babel. It makes one wonder whether the race could come down to a strange echo of last year. If Dreamgirls doesn't win gold, some will contend that race was an issue, just as some thought Brokeback Mountain lost to Crash because the older voters of the academy were homophobic. (The academy is just recovering from a long history of snubbing African-American talent.)

Of course, if Dreamgirls loses, it might mean something or nothing. Consider Martin Scorsese. He's acknowledged as a great filmmaker, he's been in the on-deck circle for years, and he's got no Oscar to his name. All he's got is one lousy Golden Globe—and he won that for Gangs of New York. Which just goes to show, de gustibus non est disputandum.



hot document
Woodward's Famous School for Journalists
Bob Woodward needs help.
By Bonnie Goldstein
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 4:29 PM ET



From: Bonnie Goldstein

Posted Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 4:29 PM ET

Bob Woodward, the most famous investigative reporter in America, is looking for a little help. According to this classified ad posted recently on www.JournalismJobs.com, the author, Washington Post assistant managing editor, TV personality, and lecturer can't do it alone.



The job of Woodward's research and reporting assistant is not for the untested. Woodward's looking for someone with "five to eight years experience in journalism, books, or in-depth research and writing." Although "the normal model is two years or one book," the departing assistant, Bill Murphy Jr., helped complete two books, The Secret Man and State of Denial, in only one year. Murphy is now headed for an assignment in Iraq, where maybe he can get some rest.

Murphy told the Boston Herald that "hundreds of resumes have already come in, and a number of applicants are coming from 'top papers.'" The salary? Unspecified.



Got a Hot Document? Send it to documents@slate.com. Please indicate whether you wish to remain anonymous.




human nature
Dismembered
How the earwig lost his other penis.
By William Saletan
Friday, December 22, 2006, at 9:41 AM ET

(Best of Human Nature 2006 linked to below. For the latest columns on gluttony, police shootings, and banning food, click here.)

Scientists are investigating the evolution of double penises. Many spiders, dragonflies, shrimp, lizards and snakes have two penises, but a particular earwig species "has a strong preference for its right penis." Differences among earwig species suggest males originally had two penises, but as they increasingly favored the right one, "the less-preferred (left) penis disappeared altogether." High-minded conclusion: Behavioral changes can drive evolution, not just the other way around. Translation: Use it or lose it. Conclusion that probably did not appear on the grant application: "Who would have ever thought you could learn so much from earwig penises?" (For updates on women who gave birth from two wombs, click here and here. For Kent Sepkowitz's take on member measurement, click here.)

Pot has been genetically altered to defeat drug warriors. A new hybrid called "Colombians" is showing up all over Mexico. Improvements: 1) The plants "mature in about two months and can be planted at any time of year," so "authorities will no longer be able to time raids to coincide with twice-yearly harvests." 2) "Yields are so high that traffickers can now produce as much marijuana on a plot the size of a football field as they used to harvest in 10 to 12 acres." 3) "The plants' roots survive if they are doused with herbicide." Old mantra: Agricultural technology will feed the world. New caveat: But first, it will give us all the munchies. (For more news on marijuana, see below.)

Bacteria may cause obesity. In a pair of studies, 1) fat people had more efficient calorie-extracting gut bacteria than thin people did, 2) the proportion of these bacteria declined as fat people lost weight, and 3) when bacteria were transferred from fat or thin mice to bacteria-free mice, the recipient mice gained more or less weight depending on whether their donors were fat or thin. (Fine print: To assess the bacteria, researchers "strained the faeces of 12 willing obese volunteers.") Excited reactions: 1) Maybe antibiotics or food additives are causing the obesity epidemic. 2) Bacteria would also explain why fat people have more trouble losing weight. 3) We could cure obesity by targeting the bacteria. Skeptical reactions: 1) The bacterial differences were too small to explain the obesity epidemic. 2) Maybe your weight changes your bacteria, instead of the other way around. 3) Don't let these dubious studies become "another excuse you give people to get obese." (For Human Nature's previous takes on the obesity epidemic and our efforts to control it, click here and here.)

Synthetic pot may be the most broadly effective treatment for pain, anxiety, and depression in cancer patients. Findings: 1) Patients "treated with the drug experienced significantly more pain reduction than patients treated with standard therapy." 2) Their "scores for drowsiness, tiredness, appetite and well-being were stable," while scores for other patients declined. 3) Their "depression and anxiety were also reduced significantly," unlike other patients. Arguments for these drugs, known as cannabinoids: 1) No other drug is as broadly effective. 2) Alternative drugs are riskier, more expensive, and more addictive. 3) Cannabinoids have "no street value," since they don't deliver "the toxic effects of smoking pot." Fine print: Side effects include "drowsiness … and euphoria." (For previous updates on drug legalization, click here, here, and here.)

Massachusetts might follow New York City in banning artificial trans fats. A legislator has filed a proposed statewide ban, and the Boston Public Health Commission is studying the feasibility of a citywide ban. New York officials touted their policy in a conference call. Boston officials' concerns: 1) "I can just hear cries that we're becoming the food police." 2) "I wouldn't want a regulation that couldn't be enforced." Rosy public-health view: We're building momentum! Cynical view: As Massachusetts goes, so goes George McGovern. (For Human Nature's take on banning trans fats, click here.)

A nasal spray could fight obesity by robbing food of its taste. A company has patented the spray and will soon test it in humans. The idea is to kill taste by temporarily disabling your sense of smell, so you stop getting a pleasure reward for eating. Other fat-control devices are in the works: a pill that blocks food cravings in your brain, and electrical gizmos that paralyze or contract your stomach. Spray company's spin: We're announcing this product to help people control their greed. Cynical view: They're announcing the product before it has even been tested in humans, to exploit investors' greed and con you into financing their risk. (For Human Nature's take on fat-control methods, click here.)

An Indian runner lost a silver medal for flunking a "gender test." The test report says she "does not possess the sexual characteristics of a woman," apparently because she has "more Y chromosomes than allowed." (The test involves gynecological, endocrine, and genetic exams.) She reportedly passed one gender test last year but flunked another. Indian officials' spins: 1) Her birth certificate says she's female. 2) She "almost certainly never had sex-change surgery" or took male hormones. 3) Although she's 25, she "has not attained puberty yet." 4) "It looks like a case of just natural hormonal change which could happen to people from [her] poor background." Conservative spins: 1) We need more gender tests to expose cheaters who use hormones to change their bodies. 2) We'll let test flunkers compete again only after they get "surgery and hormone therapy." (For Human Nature's take on performance enhancement and cheating, click here. For previous updates on sex changes and birth certificates, click here and here.)

A policy report says marijuana has become America's biggest cash crop. Estimated market value: $36 billion per year—more than corn and vegetables combined. The author favors legalization, but the government hasn't disputed his figures. Author's argument: Permit, regulate, and tax pot like tobacco. Government's rebuttal: Legalizing every country's biggest cash crop would mean coca in Colombia and opium in Afghanistan. (For previous updates on drug legalization, click here, here, and here. For genes and marijuana, click here.)

California and Florida have suspended lethal injections. A botched execution prompted Gov. Jeb Bush to halt them in Florida until a commission makes the practice more humane. Meanwhile, a judge ruled that California's sloppy administration of injections made them unconstitutional. Several other states have postponed or revised injections or are reviewing their constitutionality. Anti-death-penalty spins: 1) "This demonstrates that there is no happy and kind and nice way to execute someone." 2) Now maybe we'll stop killing people like animals. Pro-death penalty spins: 1) Actually, it demonstrates that unnecessary cruelty, not the death penalty, is what bothers people. 2) The judge in California explained how to clean up injections so we can resume them: by killing people like animals, with anesthetics. (For Human Nature's take on the death penalty as a deterrent, click here. For minors and the death penalty, click here. For updates on IQ, DNA, and the death penalty, click here and here.)

Internet use has surpassed newspaper reading, according to data and projections in a new census report. In 2000, Americans age 12 or older spent nearly twice as much time reading newspapers as using the Internet. By 2009, Internet time will be 20 percent higher than newspaper time. Over this nine-near period, Internet and home video time will have doubled, video game time will have increased 50 percent, book and box-office movie time will be flat, and time spent on newspapers, magazines, and recorded music will have declined. Television time dwarfs all other media but will stay nearly flat over the next three years. 1996 attitude: Slate will never catch on. 2006 attitude: We can't remember who said that. Anybody got a link? (For a previous update on the evolution of virtual-sex technology, click here. For laptops in the developing world, click here. For Human Nature's takes on cybersex and Internet politics, click here and here.)

Latest Human Nature columns: 1) The Best of Human Nature 2006. 2) Unhealthy food outlawed in New York. 3) Food and sex without consequences. 4) The mortal combat of biotech politics. 5) Rush Limbaugh's reality problem. 6) The eerie world of policing cybersex. 7) Pro-lifers against contraception. 8) Is eugenics better than sex? 9) Buried alive in your own skull.



human nature
The Best "Human Nature" Stories of 2006
The prurient, the revolutionary, and the outrageous.
By William Saletan
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 2:27 PM ET

Picking items for "Human Nature" is always a bit embarrassing. Should we go with the latest deep challenge to life as we know it, or the sick wire story we can't stop gawking at? The baby whose smiling, blinking second head had to be severed? The woman who gave birth to her own grandchild? The museum exhibit on gay animals? The driver who used her fetus to qualify for a carpool lane? Fish that grow meatier when you change their sex? Pro athletes who freeze their babies' stem cells to cure their own injuries? Parents who substitute bedroom TV for intercourse?

Memorable stories all, but none of them made the year's top 10. Here are the winners. (For related news and columns, you can click through to each item's original page.)

1. Scientists have grown and implanted the first custom-made human organs. They made bladders and put them in patients who donated the source tissue. Recipe: Take a tiny tissue sample from each patient, grow it in a dish, wrap it around a scaffold to shape it, grow it for seven weeks in an incubator, then put it in the patient, where the new bladder keeps growing. The bladders have been functioning in seven patients for about four years. Next, scientists plan to grow kidneys, livers, and hearts. Interpretations: 1) Tissue engineering has arrived. 2) We did it without embryonic stem cells. 3) Death, RIP.

2. In 10 years, self-reported oral sex has more than doubled among people aged 12 to 25, according to a comparison of 1994 and 2004 data in Baltimore clinics that manage sexually transmitted diseases. In a sample of more than 6,000 young people, the percentage of males reporting oral sex in the preceding 90 days rose from 16 to 32; the percentage of females reporting oral sex rose from 14 to 38. Meanwhile, the percentage of females reporting anal sex rose from 3 to 5.5. Interpretations: 1) More teens and young adults are having oral sex because they think it's safer than vaginal sex. 2) That's true of some infections but not others. 3) This is foiling urine tests, which are supposed to diagnose STDs but don't catch oral or rectal infections. 4) We'll have to warn kids more explicitly about the risks of various activities.

3. Several U.S. fertility clinics admit they've helped couples deliberately select defective embryos. According to a new survey report, "Some prospective parents have sought [preimplantation genetic diagnosis] to select an embryo for the presence of a particular disease or disability, such as deafness, in order that the child would share that characteristic with the parents. Three percent of IVF-PGD clinics report having provided PGD to couples who seek to use PGD in this manner." Since 1) the United States has more than 400 fertility clinics, 2) more than two-thirds that answered the survey offer PGD, and 3) some clinics that have done it may not have admitted it, the best guess is that at least eight U.S. clinics have done it. Old fear: designer babies. New fear: deformer babies.

4. Lesbian brains differ from straight women's brains. Last year, a study showed that gay men, like straight women and unlike straight men, processed a male pheromone in a sex-related part of the brain (the hypothalamus) but processed a female pheromone in a scent-related part of the brain. Now the authors of that study report differences among women: 1) Lesbians, like straight men, prefer the female pheromone and find it less irritating than the male pheromone. 2) Straight women find the female pheromone more irritating. 3) Straight men and women process same-sex pheromones in the scent area but process opposite-sex pheromones in the hypothalamus. 4) Lesbians process pheromones of both sexes in the scent area. Interpretations: 1) Sexual orientation is biologically based, not a choice. 2) Sexual orientation is more biologically based in men than in women.

5. A longitudinal study suggests whiny kids grow up to be conservative. They "turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity. The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests." The authors suspect "insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority," whereas "the more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives." This matches a 2003 analysis that suggested "people who are dogmatic, fearful, [and] intolerant of ambiguity ... are more likely to gravitate to conservatism." Criticisms: 1) They did the study in Berkeley. 2) The correlations aren't that strong. 3) They skewed the interpretation, calling moral confidence "rigidity." 4) They overlooked left-wing rigidity. 5) What about the recent Pew study that showed Republicans are happier than Democrats?

6. Chinese doctors performed the world's first documented penis transplant. An unexplained accident left the patient with a "small stump," unable to urinate properly or have sex. Doctors gave him the penis of a brain-dead man whose parents agreed to donate it. Good news: After 10 days, he could "urinate smoothly" and showed no signs of tissue rejection. Bad news: After two weeks, "because of the wife's psychological rejection as well as the swollen shape of the transplanted penis," the organ "regretfully had to be cut off." Upbeat conclusion: We're figuring out the human body. Skeptical conclusion: We still have no clue about the human mind.

7. The military is funding research into remote control of animals. Using brain implants, scientists have trained rats to navigate rubble and detect explosives. Now they're manipulating monkeys, fish, and sharks. Method: From your laptop, you send a radio signal to an antenna implanted in the animal. Different signals stimulate different parts of the brain, directing the animal's movement. Meanwhile, you try to read from the animal's brain what it's seeing, smelling, or hearing. Goals: 1) Learn how animals operate. 2) Learn how to help disabled people control their movements. 3) Turn sharks into remote-controlled naval spies, since they're self-powering and quieter than underwater vehicles.

8. Scientists chopped off part of a chick embryo's wing and grew it back. They did it by boosting production of proteins that spur limb growth. Frogs and salamanders can regrow limbs, but until now, we thought chickens couldn't. Theory: Evolution has turned off the ability to regrow limbs in many species, but the ability's still there, if we can figure out how to tweak the genes. Happy spin: By tweaking cells from your arm stump, we can turn them into stem cells and regrow your arm. Horror spin: There's a reason why evolution turned off these genes: Cells from some chicks in the experiment became cancerous, and other chicks "sprouted several appendages."

9. A German institute is developing spray-on condoms. Rationale: Unlike regular condoms, which may not fit you, a spray-on is a custom job. The technology consists of a "spray can into which the man inserts his penis." It "works by spraying on latex from nozzles on all sides … once round and from top to bottom. It's a bit like a car wash." Idealistic prediction: The spray can will prevent pregnancy and disease by sheathing men. Cynical prediction: It will prevent pregnancy and disease by replacing women.

10. Tall people are smarter than short people, according to an analysis of two studies. Data show that tall people make more money than short people. Previous explanations: 1) Our bias for taller people makes us pay them more. 2) Our bias for taller kids gives them more self-esteem, which helps them succeed. 3) Taller kids are healthier, which helps them succeed. New explanation: Kids who will grow up to be tall are smarter than kids who will grow up to be short. Key evidence: "As early as age 3—before schooling has had a chance to play a role—and throughout childhood, taller children perform significantly better on cognitive tests." Approving reaction: another blow against egalitarian correctness. Skeptical reaction: This is just the kind of Ayn Rand garbage you'd expect from two Princeton economists who are 4 inches above average height.



in other magazines
Vatican West
New York Times Magazine on L.A.'s Catholic Conversion
By Christopher Beam and Zuzanna Kobrzynski
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 4:50 PM ET


New York Times Magazine, Dec. 24

The cover piece examines how immigration has turned Los Angeles into a booming Catholic community. Hispanics now make up 39 percent of the national Catholic population, and while the priesthood remains as Irish as ever, congregations are increasingly Latino. The Los Angeles archdiocese requires many seminarians to learn Mass in Spanish as well as English, and some Masses have begun to incorporate mariachi bands. ''The church must always be willing to 'reread' our own tradition in terms of those we're serving," says a pastor working in South Central L.A. "It's what we've always done.'' A piece discusses how conservative politicians—particularly Christian Republicans like Sen. Sam Brownback—have embraced prison reform. The Second Chance Act, poised to become law, seeks to reduce recidivism and smooth prisoners' re-entry into society. But many criminologists remain unconvinced that re-entry programs work.—C.B.


Weekly Standard, Dec. 25

The cover celebrates the 400th anniversary of Rembrandt's birth. The Dutch Master dealt with the loss of his wife by burying himself in work and sex. Neither coping mechanism really worked out for Rembrandt: He became embroiled in a sex scandal involving a scorned mistress and was left bankrupt due to failed commissions and ostentatious spending. However, it did make his art a whole lot more interesting, according to the author: "Few lives have known the tempestuous ethical and emotional amplitude of Rembrandt's, and in his work one sees the sun-graced uplands and the pits of degradation, sometimes at once." An article stresses the importance of India's role as a U.S. ally in Asia. "The world's biggest democracy" can help temper jihadist strains in Pakistan and Afghanistan, serve as a model country for failed states in the region, and not only challenge China's influence, but perhaps "set a standard of democratic cooperation and prosperity China itself might ultimately embrace on its own path to greatness."—Z.K.


New York, Dec. 25 and Jan.1

A piece questions whether Barack Obama has the substance to match his style. Despite his popularity, Obama is "an empty vessel, with vulnerabilities that have been obscured by his blinding, meteoric ascent," writes John Heilemann. Comparisons to RFK, whom Obama cites in his speeches, fail to note a disparity in political experience. Whereas Kennedy had served three years in the Senate, plus three as attorney general, before running for president, Obama's legislative record has so far been "uniformly mundane, marginal, and provincial." A piece finds New York health Commissioner Thomas Frieden defending the city-wide trans fat ban: "Exhorting people to eat less and exercise more is ineffectual." But detractors think it's more complicated. "Trans fats is about a person making a trade-off between flavor and longevity," says Harvard economist Edward Glaeser. "The point of life is not to maximize mortality reduction."—C.B.


Time, Dec. 25 and Jan. 1

Time names "You" its Person of the Year. YouTube founders Steve Chen and Chad Hurley get a full profile, which calls them "premoguls." The pair dismissed as "too narrow" the original idea for the site—a "video version of HOTorNOT.com"—but maintained the DIY interface. The third founder, Stanford grad student Jawed Karim, finds himself excluded from the company's foundation narrative, and YouTube's rise has produced tensions: "Chad and I are pretty modest, and Jawed has tried to seize every opportunity to take credit," Chen says, while Karim insists the product required "the equal efforts of all three of us." A roundtable of best-selling authors and journalists discusses what went wrong in Iraq. Lawrence Wright speculates that U.S. intelligence erred in failing to hire more native Arabic speakers: "[The FBI sends agents] off to class for nine weeks, and at the end of that time they can order breakfast in Arabic. But they cannot interrogate a suspect. They don't know anything about the culture."—C.B.


Newsweek, Dec. 25 and Jan. 1

A cover piece asks not whether Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are ready for the White House, but whether America is ready for them. The jury is out on how gender and race affect their chances: "Historically, the odds favor a woman over an African-American," the author argues. But Hillary may be a special case: "People don't view her first as a woman—they view her as a Clinton," says a longtime adviser to Bill Clinton. Voters also tend to demand more of female candidates: "A female Obama would be questioned a great deal more about stepping forward with his level of experience," says a women's political advocate. Al-Qaida is recruiting Westerners to stage attacks on their own countries, according to a piece. A group known as the "English brothers," which includes British subjects, could penetrate American security more easily than jihadists from the Middle East. One of them reportedly said the London attacks of July 2004 "were just a rehearsal of bigger acts to come."—C.B.


The New Yorker, Dec. 25 and Jan. 1

Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk molds a tribute to his father into a reflection on the creative process. Pamuk's father once aspired to be a poet in Istanbul and late in life turned a suitcase full of notebooks over to his son. To Pamuk, that suitcase represents "the weight of literature." "The writer's secret is not inspiration—for it is never clear where that comes from—but stubbornness, endurance," he writes. "The lovely Turkish expression 'to dig a well with a needle' seems to me to have been invented with writers in mind." A piece examines the work of postwar Austrian writer Thomas Bernhard, whose battles with chronic illness colored his work. Bernhard developed his narrative mold at a young age: A genius protagonist "is obsessed with an impossible project and is eventually destroyed by the tension between the desire for perfection in his work and the knowledge that it is unattainable."—C.B.


Economist, Dec. 16

An editorial rails against Vladimir Putin's "loutish behaviour" when it comes to managing Russia's oil and gas supplies. A series of moves, including the apparent blackmailing of Ukraine's new government by cutting off the country's gas, have earned Russia the reputation of neighborhood bully. Russia's insistence on refining its own oil through the state-owned energy company, Gazprom, doesn't help, either. The editors predict these actions "will probably backfire," as the country risks scaring off foreign investors. They chalk Putin's self-defeating tactics up to his "belief that energy is a weapon with which to restore the lost greatness of the Soviet Union." Dubai is pushing to become a leading financial hub—an effort a special report calls "the emirate's most audacious gamble." With the number of "very rich" citizens expected to hit 1.8 million by 2010, the government is building new legal and regulatory infrastructure and opening new markets to attract investors.—C.B.


New Republic, Dec. 25

In a cover piece, Andrew Sullivan sketches out the growing tension on the right over homosexuality and, in particular, Mary Cheney. For conservatives precariously caught between public support for anti-gay policies and private respect for gay friends and peers, Cheney's existence—not to mention her pregnancy—is "an inconvenient truth." Even as the state of Virginia, where she lives, passed a constitutional amendment limiting gay rights, Dick Cheney has declined to confront the matter: "And so the politics of 'family values' requires the vice president to ignore attacks on his own family." A recently released report documenting Mitt Romney's record on social issues "could spell death" for the Massachusetts governor and presidential hopeful, according to a piece. The report even ventures into the prurient by connecting Romney, however tenuously, to fisting and golden showers: "[W]hat could play worse with the Falwell set than implying Romney's sympathy for women with penises?"—C.B.


Texas Monthly, January 2007

The cover piece honors Dick Cheney with its 2007 "Bum Steer of the Year" award, lauding the VP as "a man who's a real blast to go hunting with, who this year gave the country (and his friend Harry Whittington) a shot in the arm, among other places." A piece examines the debate over proposals to build 17 new coal power plants in Texas—a plan that would more than double the state's reliance on the "dirtiest energy source." What environmental advocates portray as an issue of public good versus private interest is complicated by the growing population, the rise in natural-gas prices, and the decline of nuclear power in the region. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey argues in an interview that the Republicans lost the elections after botching key issues like Terri Schiavo and illegal immigration: "Who is the genius that said, 'Now that we've identified that [the Hispanic community] is the fastest-growing demographic in America, let's do everything we can to make sure we offend them'? Who is the genius that came up with that bright idea?"—C.B.



jurisprudence
The Jury Snub
A conservative form of judicial activism.
By Seth Rosenthal
Monday, December 18, 2006, at 5:20 PM ET


For the most part, today's intense debate over the proper role of the courts—that is, the debate over judicial activism—focuses on a small number of Supreme Court decisions. This is unfortunate, because the lower federal courts decide far more seemingly unremarkable civil cases that matter a great deal for understanding when judges overreach. Unlike the cases that capture everyone's attention, these cases turn not on vexing issues of constitutional interpretation, but rather on how the facts of the lawsuit should be weighed—and on who should weigh them.

In our legal system, juries, not judges, are supposed to decide the facts. That's what the framers required when they adopted the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees the right to trial by jury in civil cases. Yet in a series of recent rulings, lower-court judges have been taking contested factual issues out of the hands of juries and substituting their own judgments instead. Have they been big-footing juries more than usual lately? No one has done a systematic survey, so it's hard to say. But there are enough cases in which this has happened to take note. Also noteworthy is that the judges engaged in slighting juries are not the liberals so often accused of activism, but conservatives, many of them appointed by George W. Bush.

Here's the legal standard that ensures juries will decide the facts of a case: Trial court judges must take the plaintiff's evidence as true and must let a case go to the jury unless, given that favorable view of the evidence, there is no way any reasonable juror could find for the plaintiff. Appellate judges must ensure that trial judges abide by this rule. In a string of recent cases, however, some appeals-court judges have voted to allow trial courts to grant "summary judgment"—or dismiss a case before trial—even though a jury might reasonably see a violation of the law in the evidence.

The problem appears to be acute on the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, where nine of the 11 active judges are Republican appointees, seven of them chosen by Bush. Eighth Circuit rulings granting summary judgment despite facts that might dispose a jury to favor the plaintiff have provoked a number of recent dissents and, but for the court's homogenous composition, might have provoked more.

In the last nine months, Senior Judge Donald Lay, appointed by President Lyndon Johnson, has dissented in four cases on the grounds that his colleagues prematurely threw out claims of wrongdoing in the workplace. In one of them, the majority concluded that a black Wal-Mart employee whose supervisor routinely used racially offensive language, including repeatedly calling him a "lawn jockey," didn't present enough evidence to get his claims of racial discrimination to a jury. Lay observed that a reasonable jury could have easily gleaned from the evidence that the employee had contended with an intolerable work environment and had been fired because of his race. In another case, which involved whether a worker's injury qualified her for workers' compensation benefits, Judge Lay criticized not just the majority's dismissal of the worker's claim, but what he viewed as a larger problem: "Too many courts in this circuit, both district and appellate, are utilizing summary judgment where issues of fact remain."

Conservative appointees on other appeals courts have been similarly quick on the summary judgment trigger (examples are here, here, and here). Two judges on a 4th Circuit panel ruled that a University of North Carolina soccer player named Melissa Jennings didn't merit a trial on a claim of sexual harassment. Jennings' coach had frequently singled out his players, including Jennings, with obscene, demeaning comments about their physical attributes and sex lives. The dissent argued that a jury might have seen this as a "team environment" that "was persistently degrading and humiliating" to Jennings and other players. But the majority saw nothing more than "sexual banter," "vulgar language," and "second-hand harassment." The ruling may be too much even for the conservative-dominated 4th Circuit, which threw it out and is reconsidering whether a trial is warranted.

Other appeals-court judges have undermined the right to trial by jury in a different way: by overturning jurors' verdicts. The rules of civil procedure strongly discourage the tossing of verdicts, allowing it only when a judge decides that a reasonable jury could have had absolutely no evidentiary basis for its conclusion. But on the 5th Circuit, Judges Edith Clement and Harold DeMoss, both Republican appointees, rejected a verdict in favor of an offshore-drilling rig worker who sustained a severe on-the-job back injury, reasoning that the jury should have credited the drilling company's defense. In dissent, the third judge on the panel, Clinton appointee Carl Stewart, accused his colleagues of "usurp[ing] … the jury's function." The majority then withdrew their opinion and issued a new one dressing up their jury-snubbing with a little more law. Stewart dissented again. When the full 5th Circuit refused to re-hear the case, Stewart, now joined by five colleagues, called out the panel majority for using "chameleonic legalisms" to justify "an audacious exercise in violating the Seventh Amendment."

Do conservative judges' decisions to supplant jury determinations expose an effort, perhaps subconsciously, to rid the courts of litigation in the service of curing a culture they see as burdened with "too much law?" Maybe. But even if you don't think judges' personal views color these decisions, you might recognize some paradoxes in these rulings.

Disrespecting the historic responsibility of the jury doesn't match up with the prototype of the modest jurist who conservatives say they embrace. Nor does it jibe with their championing of "constitutionalist" judges who adhere to the original understanding of our founding document. James Madison, after all, called the jury-trial guarantee "one of the best securities of the rights of the people" and wrote that it "ought to remain inviolate." Few things embody the will of the people like a jury verdict. And few things usurp it like displacing the jury from its fact-finding role.

Consistent with procedural rules, judges may, of course, legitimately weed out unfounded claims and step in to correct egregious juror mistakes. But they shouldn't commandeer the jury's constitutional authority by closing the courthouse doors. The party who files suit may lose. But it's the jury that should ordinarily make the call.



jurisprudence
Block That Branch
Why can Congress take cases away from the courts?
By Emily Bazelon
Saturday, December 16, 2006, at 7:59 AM ET


On Wednesday, a federal judge dismissed the case of Guantanamo Bay detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan. The reason was the Military Commissions Act, which Congress passed last fall to take away the Guantanamo detainees' rights to petition for habeas corpus. The MCA is a classic example of what is called "jurisdiction stripping." When the courts hand down rulings that Congress doesn't like, lawmakers sometimes retaliate by trying to take away their power to hear certain kinds of cases at all or strictly limiting what they can do.

That is also the story behind another case this week, in which the Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision to grant a new trial in a murder case. At the original trial, members of the victim's family wore large buttons with his picture on them, which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled violated the rights of the defendant, Mathew Musladin, who claimed he'd killed in self-defense. Musladin brought a habeas corpus petition arguing that the buttons could have prejudiced the jury. At oral argument, most of the Supreme Court justices agreed that seeing the victim's picture every day didn't dispose the jury to be fairer to the defendant. But the federal courts couldn't intervene, the justices ruled unanimously, because of a 1996 statute that allows them to give habeas relief only when the state courts have gotten the law utterly wrong.

Why does Congress get to take cases away from judges or change the rules for hearing them? In his book America's Constitution: A Biography, Akhil Amar, a law professor at Yale, points out that judges weren't the heroes of the Revolution. They were appointed by the British crown. "So even after Independence, judges carried a lot of historical baggage," Amar says. The Constitution's drafters gave Congress weapons to use against the courts without giving judges much to defend themselves with. The president can draw his veto pen if Congress goes after him. The Supreme Court has to find a straight-faced way to declare a law unconstitutional when it weakens the judiciary's powers, Amar writes.

The MCA is such a law. It also may be unconstitutional in some cases. But Hamdan's isn't one of them, according to this week's ruling by Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The problem for Hamdan is that he's a noncitizen whose contact with the United States has been "involuntary"—he's in Guantanamo because the military grabbed him and put him there. The MCA stripped Hamdan of the rights to habeas corpus granted by federal statute. There are also constitutional rights to habeas. But noncitizens like Hamdan don't have the sort of "substantial connection with our country" that justifies invoking the constitutional right to habeas corpus, the Supreme Court ruled in 1990, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez.

If Robertson is right that this ruling applies to Hamdan—a question the Supreme Court will eventually settle—hundreds of Guantanamo detainees won't get federal habeas review either. They'll get some other review provided by the MCA. This alternative isn't reassuring to the detainees. Habeas has hundreds of years of law behind it. The MCA review has nothing; no court has yet defined it.

At the same time, the limitations of habeas review, in the wake of Congress's tinkering, are on display in cases like Musladin's. The law Congress passed in 1996 says that the federal courts can't grant a habeas petition that state courts have turned down unless the state court decision "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court." That is a high bar. This week's ruling in Musladin's case underscores how high: The 9th Circuit was wrong to spend its time thinking about whether it was fair for the victim's family to wear buttons with his picture on them before the jury. Instead, the federal courts can only look to see whether the Supreme Court has already said it's not fair. If they don't turn up a case that's on point, they are to leave the state court's decision untouched.

There are reasons for federal judges to defer to state judges—among them the principle of comity, according to which different branches of government show respect for one another, and the principle of finality, which in this context basically means that you get your habeas crack in the state courts, and that's enough. But habeas review has historically given defendants a chance to air their appeals outside the state system, with its giant caseloads and sometimes rushed rulings. Congress's 1996 habeas law has largely choked off this avenue. Consider Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence in Musladin's appeal. "Buttons proclaiming a message relevant to the case ought to be prohibited as a matter of course," Kennedy wrote. And then he called for a new rule that would make it so—in a future case. In other words, too late to matter to Mathew Musladin.

If Musladin's predicament doesn't move you, consider Paul Gregory House. Twenty years ago, a Tennessee jury convicted House of a woman's murder after FBI testing appeared to show his semen on her clothing and her blood on his jeans. All the other evidence against House was circumstantial. He was sentenced to death.

Then, DNA testing showed that the semen on the murder victim's clothes came from her husband and that the blood on House's jeans came not from the woman's live body, but from autopsy samples that spilled in the crime lab. Whoops. And yet, House still had a big problem: His claims of innocence were barred by state procedural rules. Would the federal courts pry open the doors for him?

It was hardly a slam-dunk. Last June, in a dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts, four members of the court said that the courts need not reconsider House's appeal, because he'd failed to prove he was actually innocent. But five justices of the Supreme Court said House should get his second day in court because he had succeeded in showing, based on his new evidence, that it was more likely than not that no reasonable juror would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

But even with the good fortune of the majority's ruling, House doesn't get out of prison, or spared the death penalty, or even directly granted him a new trial. Thanks to Congress's 1996 habeas law, he has to plunge back into the procedural thicket.

Letting Congress strip the courts of the authority to hear certain claims or cases means giving more power to the people, who can elect their lawmakers but not their federal judges. From a pre-Revolutionary vantage point, that might have made sense. But these days, it's more often judges whom we count on, if we can count on anyone, to stand up for the procedural rights of murder defendants and Guantanamo detainees. Should Congress really be able to block them?

A version of this piece appears in the Washington Post Outlook section.



kausfiles
Obama--Too Reflective!
Show character, don't talk about it.
By Mickey Kaus
Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 4:22 AM ET

Obama--He's no Gary Hart! ... 1:08 A.M

Is that a photo of Rick Stengel or the Madame Tussauds installation of Rick Stengel? 12:35 A.M.

My Obama Problem: After reading up a bit on Barack Obama for a temporarily-aborted bloggingheads segment, my tentative working thesis is this: He's too damn reflective! And introspective. ... Maybe it's the writers, or the questions they ask, or the audience they think they're writing for, but all the drama in the stories about Obama comes from his "emotional wrestling match with his background," his overcoming of his "angry sense of racial displacement," his wrenching assessments and reassessments of how to live in "a world that is broken apart by class and race and nationality," etc.

One of those reassessments, according to Obama, came when a friend told him "you always think everything's about you." And he doesn't any more? Obama's favorite complexity still seems to be Obama--it was certainly a subtext of his 2004 convention address. ("We worship an awesome God in the blue states"). At the end of his early Obama profile, my boss Jacob Weisberg says Obama "would never be so immodest" as to compare himself to Lincoln. But a dozen paragraphs earlier, Obama had done just that:

"That kind of hunger—desperate to win, please, succeed, dominate—I don't know any politician who doesn't have some of that reptilian side to him. But that's not the dominant part of me. On the other hand, I don't know that it was the dominant part of—" his voice suddenly trails off as he motions behind him to a portrait of Lincoln, the self-invented lawyer, writer, and politician from Illinois. "This guy was pretty reflective," he says, offering a sly smile.

I'm a "character" voter, not an "issues" voter. But the way you reveal your character is by grappling with issues, not by grappling with yourself. Anguish is easy. Isn't it time for Obama to start being ostentatiously reflective about policies? That's what you want from a Harvard Law Review type.

And on the issues, what's Obama done that's original or pathbreaking? I don't know the answer. But compare his big speech on immigration reform with failed Dem Senate candidate Brad Carson's article on immigration reform. Carson says things Democrats (and Republicans) haven't been saying; Obama's speech offers an idiosyncratic veneer of reasonableness over a policy that is utterly party line and conventional, defended with arguments that are party line and conventional.

OK, that's just one example. Maybe I'm an old-fashioned Joe Kleinish Clintonian self-hating Dem. But I'm not swooning until I hear Obama to tell Democrats something they maybe don't want to hear. Did I miss it? 12:21 A.M. link

Shane MacGowan of the Pogues on Kirsty MacColl, who was killed six years ago yesterday, and their song Fairytale of New York, which won a 2004 poll for best Christmas song. [via Gawker] ... My nominee for best Christmas song is something I've only heard once, The Wedding Present's ecstatically noisy version of "Step Into Christmas." ... P.S.: OK, I've now heard it twice. (It's here.) I stand by my position. ... 8:52 P.M.

And Johnson Walks? So Fannie Mae ex-CEO Franklin Raines may have to give back $84 million in bonuses he received from 1998 to 2004, while his predecessor Dem bigshot Jim Johnson--who apparently got a bigger bonus than Raines did in 1998--doesn't have to give back anything? Hardly seems fair. ... P.S.: Johnson at one point had parlayed his position at the head of the Fannie Mae gravy train into the chairmanship of the Kennedy Center and the otherwise-reputable Brookings Institution. ... Yet even the conservative N.Y. Sun seems to have forgotten that Johnson, who also headed John Kerry's vice-presidential search, is involved in this mess. ... P.P.S.: Here's my attempt to assess Raines' relative guilt or innocence. ... In any case, if Raines had taken kausfiles' 2004 advice--'give the money back now!'--he'd be better off, no? He could be the Tara Conner of overpaid CEOs! And he'd still have a political future. ... 7:15 P.M.

If Judith Regan lawyer Bert Fields' bite were as fearsome as his bark, wouldn't Susan Estrich own the L.A. Times? Just asking! ... 7:14 P.M.

Y.U.: William Beutler, eerily prescient. ... He claims Time magazine is just preternaturally predictable. [via Surber] 4:23 P.M.

Hillary Clinton was asked about a possible troop surge in Iraq:

"I am not in favor of doing that unless it's part of a larger plan," Clinton said. "I am not in favor of sending more troops to continue what our men and women have been told to do with the government of Iraq pulling the rug out from under them when they actually go after some of the bad guys." [E.A.]

Note to WCBS: This does not support the headline "Clinton Opposes U.S. Troop Surge In Iraq." It supports the headline "Clinton Fudges on U.S. Troop Surge in Iraq." On balance, I'd even say it's more supportive than not--any troop surge will clearly be presented as part of a "larger plan," after all. Clinton didn't even say, as Sen. Harry Reid did, that the "plan" has to include "a program to get us out of there ... by this time next year." .... 11:46 P.M.

"Are social conservatives stuck with a pro-golden shower candidate?" Ryan Lizza goes into the hilarious details of Mitt Romney's not-so-long-ago tolerance of Bay State gay activism. ... What's shaping up, Lizza notes, is a battle between cynical inside-the-Beltway conservative pros who are willing to overlook Romney's "pro-gay, pro-abortion record" because "they need an anti-McCain," and actual outside-the-Beltway social conservative voters who might be horrified by state-sponsored fisting seminars and "Transgender Proms." ... P.S.: Instead of trying to persuade social conservatives he's been secretly battling for them all along, wouldn't Romney be better off playing the conversion card? 'Nobody knows the evil of golden showers better than someone who ...,' etc., etc.. I would think it would pack a convincing frisson. ... 11:13 A.M.

Breast Cancer Rates Fall as Women Abandon Hormone Replacement Therapy. ... Moral: Don't get your medical advice from The New Yorker. ... 11:29 P.M.

Warner rethink: OK, that's enough time with my children! ... And if the need for family time is not the big reason why Mark Warner dropped out, as rumor says it wasn't, what made him change his mind? ... Seems like there must be a story here, though maybe not the kind of story that ever comes out (except in novels). ... [via HuffPo via Goddard] 9:53 P.M.

Mohammed of Iraq the Model is cautiously non-pessimistic about the creation of an anti-Sadr majority coalition in Iraq, but doesn't expect it to move militarily against Sadr. ... Juan Cole, who's been right about Sadr before, argues that any military move will backfire:

The fact is that if provincial elections were held today, the Sadr Movement would sweep to power in all the Shiite provinces (with the possible exception of Najaf itself). It is increasingly the most popular political party among Iraq's Shiite majority. For the US to cut the Sadrists out of power in parliament and then fall on them militarily would just throw Iraq into turmoil. It would increase the popularity of the Sadrists, and ensure that they gain nationalist credentials that will ensconce them for perhaps decades.. ...

Neither thinks al-Maliki will be replaced as prime minister. ... 9:41 P.M.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

First Mark Warner, now Evan Bayh. The solid centrist Dem alternatives to Hillary are dropping out, one by one. Funny how that happens! ... 11:46 P.M.

Friday, December 15, 2006

Malkin and Alterman--Together Again: Lt. Col. Bateman's post on Media Matters ' Altercation--disputing Associated Press in the ongoing controversy over the alleged burning of six Sunnis in Baghdad--seems quite damning. Eric Boehlert's response--'Hey, I'm not defending the AP on this, just attacking the AP's attackers!'--seems quite weak. And Boehlert, while blasting "unhinged" warbloggers, comes unhinged himself, I think, when in his original, near interminable article he writes:

I don't think it's out of bounds to suggest that warbloggers want journalists to venture into exceedingly dangerous sections of Iraq because warbloggers want journalists to get killed.

[via Malkin] ... Update: But see ... 4:44 P.M.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Fading Reyes? Hmmm. Looks like that big fight over the chairmanship of the House Intelligence committee was a fight over a committee that will soon lose--or at least have to share--a big chunk of its turf. ... It wasn't because of the quiz, was it? ... 1:20 P.M.

Di Bug Bust: That official police report on Diana's death appears to be a bust, as far as alleging spying by the Clinton Administration on Republican magnate Ted Forstmann. Byron York:

[T]he Lord Stevens report contains no mention of Forstmann and no description of anyone like him, nor does it have any evidence that anything like the Forstmann scenario took place. [E.A.]

But the U.S. may have caught Diana talking about hairstyles with her friend Lucia Flecha de Lima! (The report speculates they would have been overheard because we were eavesdropping on the Brazilian embassy in D.C.). ...

P.S.--Keeping Hope Alive: I should also note, at the risk of sounding like a raving conspiracist, that the Stevens report doesn't seem to say anything that would rule out a U.S. a bugging of Forstmann that turned up conversations with or about Diana**--though to be consistent with the NSA's account they would have to be "only short references to Princess Diana in contexts unrelated to the allegations" about her death being the result of a conspiracy. It's just that the Stevens report was what was supposed to substantiate the Forstmann angle, and it doesn't. It's not like there is a lot of other evidence for the Forstmann-bug scenario--unless the credibility-challenged Brit papers can produce some. ...

Still! Diana's apparently famous July 14, 1997 statement to the press--

"You're going to get a big surprise, you'll see, you're going to get a big surprise with the next thing I do"

does seem a lot more consistent with future plans to hook up with a rich U.S. Republican who would run for president than with plans to marry Dodi Al Fayed--whom, the report says, she hadn't yet met "that summer," doesn't it?

**--From WaPo :

[NSA official Louis] Giles said the NSA would not share the documents with investigators on grounds their disclosure could reveal secret intelligence sources and methods. Nor did Giles reveal whose conversations were being targeted by the NSA.

12:07 P.M. link

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Bloggingheads bring sexy back! ... Plus Matt Yglesias does his best Muqtada al-Sadr impression. ... 5:32 P.M.

The Note writes that Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is "looking for ways to sharpen his differences with McCain on immigration." That shouldn't be hard! ... Here comes one now. ... 4:58 P.M.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Is it possible those British press reports are completely wrong about the bugging of Ted Forstmann and Diana? (See below.) Thursday's publication of the official Scotland Yard report on Diana's death should be near-definitive on the issue, since the Brit papers are supposedly merely offering leaks from that report. But, according to today's New York Daily News, Forstmann thought he was bugged:

A source close to Forstmann told the Daily News yesterday that Diana may have been overheard while traveling with Forstmann on his private plane, which Forstmann believed was bugged by the feds to listen in on his rich and powerful friends. [E.A.]

Note that the Washington Post's Source Close to Forstmann--who seems to know things only Forstmann himself would know--only says that "he had heard rumors that someone had planted listening devices in his plane to listen to the princess," not to listen generally to Forstmann's rich and powerful friends. Of course, targetting the princess is exactly what the Feds are busy denying. Which leaves open ... [via Drudge] 12:44 P.M.

Monday, December 11, 2006

They're restoring the Triforium, mighty symbol of L.A.'s "interdependence" and faith in the future! New York has nothing to match it. ...10:02. P.M.

The Brit papers are breaking the story that the Clinton-administration "secret service"** secretly bugged Princess Diana "over her relationship with a US billionaire" Ted Forstmann. Initial questions: What was the grave high-level concern about Forstmann, a big-deal investor, Republican, and education activist? ... What, were they worried Diana might endorse school choice?*** ... And did they have a warrant? ... Plus, of course: What did the Clintons know, etc.?... Intriguingly, Forstmann once made noises about running against Hillary Clinton in 2000. ... ***KEY UPDATE*** Even better, according to a September 15 , 2006 New York Daily News story [via NEXIS]:

CLAIMS THAT Princess Diana dreamed of moving into the White House as America's First Lady were confirmed yesterday by a source close to the politically minded mogul she hoped would take her there.

"It is true," said a source close to Manhattan financier Teddy Forstmann, who considered running as a Republican in the 2000 Senate race.

In his new book, the late princess' butler said she had hoped to marry a New York billionaire and fantasized he would make her the new Jackie Kennedy.

"Imagine, Paul, me coming to England as First Lady on a state visit with the President and staying at Buckingham Palace," remembered her former butler, Paul Burrell, in a book published this week.

Though Burrell doesn't name the mogul in his book, "The Way We Were," his description of a silver-haired bachelor matches Forstmann, who was linked to the Princess in 1994.

"The late princess was very interested in Ted. She was attracted by his philanthropy and his work with children's charities, and by his political aspirations," the source said."

She was excited at the prospect of going to the White House with him. Exactly what you read [in Burrell's book] is accurate."

Wow. I guess there's no way Hillary and Bill would be interested in what Forstmann and Diana were saying to each other, is there? ... See also. ...[via Drudge] ...

Update: Carefully worded U.S. denials here. ...

More: The NSA is "working on a statement"! ...

**--Alert reader K.M. notes that the British papers do not capitalize "secret service," suggesting that they may be referring not to the actual Secret Service but to any one of a number of secretive U.S. snooping agencies (CIA, NSA, DIA, etc.). That puts the capitalized statement of an unnamed U.S. Homeland Security official--"The Secret Service had nothing to do with it”--into perspective. ...

***--ABC and CBS suggest Diana was of interest to the U.S. because of her campaign against land mines. I'm still pushing the school choice angle. The N.E.A. is a very powerful lobby! ...

More: kf readers are demanding a Ron Burkle angle. There is a connection! Burkle and Forstmann appear to have been principal contributors to the same low-income scholarship fund in the '90s. The rest is all too obvious, don't you think? ... [Thks to reader S.S.] ... Say Anything goes with the "school vouchers" explanation. Yes!

Meanwhile: WaPo's Sullivan and Pincus do their best to calm everyone down, reporting the denials of the NSA (which seems to be restricted to "NSA originated and NSA controlled documents") and the CIA ("rubbish")--denials that are hard to interpret as decisively refuting the "Di-was-bugged" leaks from the British inquest, as reported by at least three British papers. True, they're British papers ... but still! The official British report is scheduled to be made public on Thursday. ... Sullivan and Pincus also assure us there "was never a romantic relationship between" Diana and Forstmann. (So they talked to Forstmann?) And they make it sound as if the "security" problem was simply that the Brits didn't want Diana's sons, the heirs to the throne, staying at a rented house in the Hamptons. But that would seem to explain the bugging only if Diana was its "target," which is exactly what the NSA now denies. Assuming there was bugging, of course! ... Bonus question: Do Sullivan and Pincus have NEXIS? How about Google? You would think they'd at least get their Forstmann "source" to comment on the Sept. 15 Daily News story about Forstmann's White House ambitions (and Diana's ambitions to accompany him) ...

Lucianne: "Could Di and Teddy Forstmann have been looking for mines in the Hampton dunes ..."

Loose End: How did the Brits find out about the decade-old spying, if there was spying? Wouldn't the U.S. government have to tell them? But why would the Bush administration want to possibly make public this info ... oh, right.

Coincidence? In the news this very day: "Hillary delays decision on 2008 bid" .... OK, I agree. Now I am going mad. ...

12/12 Update: Byron York discusses whether, if the Brit stories are true, the Clintonites coulda, shoulda, woulda gotten a warrant--but he notes "British press accounts can be notoriously unreliable." ... 10:27 P.M. link

Did the pessimistic Tom Ricks get it wrong about Ramadi? That's what a less-pessimistic Michael Fumento says, and he seems to have a point (though WaPo's latest piece from Ramadi isn't quite as "upbeat" as I'd expected after reading Fumento's blog.). ... [via Insta] 12:07 A.M.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Was that such a "dressing down" that Robert Rubin got from the Dobbsy Democratic House caucus? Republican Influence Peddler says it was, echoing hortatory spin from Dem populist David Sirota ("a VERY encouraging sign for progressives") that's so flimsy even Sirota's vaguely embarrassed by it. ... Was an incoming Indiana Democrat with a Delphi plant in his district not going to ask Rubin about outsourcing? That seems like a normal question Rubin has to be prepared to answer. ... If Sirota really is this gullible--impressed with standard Congressional posturing--maybe it will be easier to thwart the resurgent House "progressives" than it seemed a month ago. ... 11:38 P.M.

O.K., everybody gang up on Mookie! A crude summary of the latest Iraq gambit. Makes a certain amount of sense, no? a) Sadr's Mahdi Army seems to be behind much of the anti-Sunni sectarian thuggery; b) the Shiite Badr brigades are Sadr's rivals; and c) perhaps Iran, if it's really worried about Iraqi instability, could help persuade the Badr forces to assist in stopping the anti-Sunni cleansing. ... Add: And of course the U.S. forces are now itching to go after Sadr, according to Bing West. ... But kausfiles awaits the judgment of others who know more. ... 10:37 P.M.

The Case Against Opinion Journalism: Here's the Los Angeles Times' front page headline over Tracy Wilkinson's Dec. 2 story on the Pope's visit to Turkey--

Pontiff strikes right tone

Is that a fact? Isn't there anyone who thinks it was the wrong tone? I always knew that when the LAT finally abandoned objective journalism and started flinging around words like "right" and "wrong" it would be in order to promote only the most pompous, CFR-approved positions. Just because it's opinion journalism doesn't mean it's interesting! ... P.S.: Did I miss something--did Eli Broad buy the paper already? [Tks to reader G.M.] ...

Update--How Much Wood Can a Twit Chop? L.A. Observed has a good example of the dead hand of the LAT's hed writers, compared with Valley rival Daily News. Here are the heds each paper ran after UCLA's stunning football upset of USC:

BRUINED!

--L.A. Daily News

This USC story ends without a title

--L.A. Times

Pathetic. Can the Tribune Company at least lay the guy that wrote that off? ... All the Times is missing is "study says." 9:55 P.M.

Harman: Looking Better and Better I recently thought I was too ignorant to appear on bloggingheads. That could still be true! But I guess I couldn't possibly be too ignorant to chair the House Intelligence Committee. ... [via IP via Captain's Quarters] 9:28 P.M.

I am so not excited about Windows Vista! ... And I was excited about Windows XP, because I thought its sturdier code would stop it from crashing. I was wrong, at least for the early version of XP that I bought. Now I can't see a thing Vista's going to do for me that seems worth braving the inevitable Microsoft early teething problems. [It says you can "spend more time surfing the web"!--ed No I can't.] ... P.S.: Needless to say, if everyone has this attitude Vista (and the need to buy new computers powerful enough to run Vista, etc.) won't provide much of a boost to the economy. ... 9:08 P.M. link

Welcome, Hammer readers! 6:13 P.M.

The Cheese Stands Alone: John Kerry's "open ends" are not like other Dem candidates' open ends. ... 6:00 P.M.

Saturday, December 9, 2006

The Full Kirkpatrick**: Bing West argues the consequence of a failure by the Maliki government won't be partition, as suggested below, but a "power play by a fed-up Iraqi military." In other words, a coup. ... Interestingly, he also argues the practice of embedding U.S. advisers in Iraqi army units might work because:

Currently, the [Iraqi] army has more allegiance to their advisers than to their government. The advisers are the ones who drive to Baghdad and wrest pay and food provisions from recalcitrant government ministries.

So would it be a coup that our advisers (however reluctantly) go along with? (One that they are actively trying to forestall at the moment?) More important, would it really be a non-sectarian coup, on behalf of a unitary Iraq? And would it stick, given Iraq's centrifugal forces? Or would the Iraqi Army become just another side in a many-sided civil war?

**--Named for Jeane Kirkpatrick, defender of "authoritarian" second-best governments, who died Thursday. ... 1:01 P.M.

Looks like the low-turnout, play-to-the-base model of off-year elections--which has failed in the past three Congressional midterms--doesn't work in Iran either! 12:26 P.M.

Friday, December 8, 2006

Moral of the story: Just when Democratic populists have yelled themselves hoarse about how the growing economy isn't raising wages at the bottom, the growing economy starts raising wages at the bottom. It takes a while!** The point for worker-friendly Democrats should be to keep the tight labor market going (by keeping the economy going and avoiding a big influx of immigrant labor). ...

**--As the graphs accompanying the NYT's story makes clear, Clinton's economic boom didn't begin to produce significant wage growth for about three years, until Clinton's second term. The Bush-era lag has maybe been a little longer--but then, the Clinton boom was in part a bubble. One hopes the current semi-boom isn't. 9:54 P.M.

Ssst-pay! Artition-Pay! I opened up the Iraq Study Group report expecting to find a devastating, point-by-point critique of the Biden-Galbraith partition idea, which has been looking increasingly plausible from my remote non-expert (even semi-ignorant) vantage point. Instead I found a couple of cursory paragraphs that, ultimately, seemed half-resigned to partition. Here they are:

4. Devolution to Three Regions

The costs associated with devolving Iraq into three semiautonomous regions with loose central control would be too high. Because Iraq's population is not neatly separated, regional boundaries cannot be easily drawn. All eighteen Iraqi provinces have mixed populations, as do Baghdad and most other major cities in Iraq. A rapid devolution could result in mass population movements, collapse of the Iraqi security forces, strengthening of militias, ethnic cleansing, destabilization of neighboring states, or attempts by neighboring states to dominate Iraqi regions. Iraqis, particularly Sunni Arabs, told us that such a division would confirm wider fears across the Arab world that the United States invaded Iraq to weaken a strong Arab state.

While such devolution is a possible consequence of continued instability in Iraq, we do not believe the United States should support this course as a policy goal or impose this outcome on the Iraqi state. If events were to move irreversibly in this direction, the United States should manage the situation to ameliorate humanitarian consequences, contain the spread of violence, and minimize regional instability. The United States should support as much as possible central control by governmental authorities in Baghdad, particularly on the question of oil revenues. [E.A.]

Hmm. Why not proceed directly to the stage where we "ameliorate humanitarian consequences, contain the spread of violence. and minimize regional instability"? That's beginning to seem a lot more do-able than continuing to prop up a weak (and sectarian) unitary government ....

Compare Galbraith (pro-partition) with Aslan (anti-partition). If Aslan's strategies for maintaining a unitary Iraq--giving "security" priority over anti-terrorist offensives, reaching a "political settlement" with the Sunnis, etc.--had a good chance of working, wouldn't we see them working by now? I have little confidence that threatening withdrawal of U.S. forces will provoke the Shiite-led government to make the self-denying adjustments they are avoiding now. It's worth a shot, but isn't it more likely to prompt the various parties to arm themselves to the teeth further in anticipation of a post-American free-for-all, as Fareed Zakaria suggests? And will further training of the Iraqi military establish security or only "[produce] more lethal combatants in the country's internecine conflict," in Galbraith's words? ...

I understand the Sunnis don't want partition, to which possible answers are: 1) With partition they could have their own army, and as long as it didn't harbor anti-US terrorists or start slaughtering civilians we wouldn't clobber it; 2) The Sunnis don't have oil, but as I understand it they do have water, so they aren't without a bargaining chip; 3) We could intervene if necessary on their behalf; 4) The Syrians could intervene on a diplomatic level (e.g. with Iran) on their behalf; and 5) Screw 'em. ...

Just thinking. Not my area of expertise. Or personal moral burden! ... P.S.: The most appealing aspect of partition, perhaps illusory, is that it's non-Sisyphean: it would give our forces a seemingly concrete, plausible goal to shoot for, after which they can expect to leave and the three well-armed statelets can go about defending themselves. ...

It's also possible, of course, that as soon as it became clear that this was our goal, the Sunnis and Shiites would start all-out violent cleansing in the hope of maximizing territory and leverage (e.g. de facto hostage taking). So maybe we can't declare for partition "as a policy goal" right now. At the moment, it may be best to a) discreetely encourage--e.g. , with financial incentives-- threatened populations to move, rather than urge them to stay put, and b) plan for the inevitable (something the Bush administration can never be assumed to be doing). If the ISG report is any indication, the inevitable is where we're heading. ... 5:51 P.M. link

Garance Franke-Ruta discovers John Kerry's secret wellspring of presidential support! ... [via Blogometer] 3:13 P.M.

Thursday, December 7, 2006

Big Woof: Democratic New Mexico Governor (and presidential aspirant) Bill Richardson locks up another important Western state ... the state of Chihuahua!

"The [700-mile border] fence is very unpopular on the border in Texas and New Mexico, in Chihuahua," Richardson, a Democrat, said after meeting Wednesday with leaders from the Mexican state of Chihuahua. "So one of the most significant and constructive acts the U.S. Congress should take is to get rid of it."

[Isn't this the sort of Know-Nothing, xenophobic rhetoric I've warned you about?--ed On most issues American and Mexican interests align. We want Mexico to prosper; it's a non-zero-sum game; Mexico is on balance one of the better neighbors we could have, etc. But that doesn't mean our national interests don't sometimes conflict, and the border fence seems like at least one place they do, at least potentially. It's pretty tin-eared, then, to announce your opposition to the fence from Mexico. Unless, that is, you're trying to appeal to ... What?-ed. Never mind. I just felt some more Know-Nothing, xenophobic rhetoric coming on.] 8:36 P.M.

Here's Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, commenting on Republican Sen. James Inhofe's Wednesday anti-global warming hearings:

"In a free society in what is the greatest democracy in the world, I don't believe it's proper to put pressure on the media to please a particular Senate committee's view," Boxer said. [E.A.]

Huh? 1) How is Inhofe putting illegitimate "pressure" on the media? How would he do that? Doesn't he lose his chairman's power in the Senate in, like, a minute and a half? 2) Is Boxer saying politicians should never blast what they perceive as unfair media coverage, or single out particular reporters? In a "free society,"--let alone "a free society in what is the greatest democracy in the world"!--isn't the idea that everyone can criticize everyone? Even, you know, Miles O'Brien! ... Two years of Boxer will make Hillary Clinton sound like Will Rogers** ...

**--I'm looking for the opposite of shrill and bombastic here. [Update: Reader S.K. suggests "'The Dude' from 'The Big Lebowski.'" Having never seen The Big Lebowski, I don't know if he's on target.] 8:04 P.M.

Wednesday, December 6, 2006

B & B Review: Brian Williams asks the tough questions about during his newscast's unctuous Iraq Study Group celebration:

"Are we at our best when our best and brightest get together and hammer out a problem like this?"

When did NBC Nightly News become such CW sludge? ... P.S.: Of all the public figures I got to interview (usually as part of a group) when I was an actual MSM journalist, one of the two or three least impressive--and certainly the most disappointing, given his rep--was Lee Hamilton. Maybe he was having a bad day, but even on topics about which he was supposed to be a leading expert, the man was not mentally agile. ... 9:26 P.M.

Checking in with ... visionary CNN leader Jonathan Klein! Who knew, when Klein declared he agreed "wholeheartedly" with Jon Stewart's attack on what Klein called "head-butting debate shows,"--and when he pledged to "report the news" and not "talk about the news"--that what he really meant to give us was Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace! ... Ah, but that's CNN Headline News, you say, not Regular Pure Hard News Opinion-Free CNN itself. They're totally separate!** For the moment that's true. But thanks to Klein's visionary leadership, Regular Pure CNN has gone from being the second place cable network to being the third ... wait, make that occasionally fourth place cable network, behind a surging (opinionated) MSNBC and Head-Buttin' Headline News itself! ... If the "brash" head-butt format keeps delivering, how long before it infiltrates Regular Pure CNN? Sub-question: How much more expensive is it to produce Regular CNN than Headline News? Three times as much? Ten times? ... Bonus question: Whatever happened to storytelling?

**--Didn't they used to be synergistic? ... 9:05 P.M.

One-hour NBC Expense Account Special coming Dec. 26: "Tom Brokaw reports on the real story of illegal immigration" from the

pristine stretch between Aspen and Vail ....

Next summer: The trail of tears from Sag Harbor to Montauk! 5:56 P.M.

Tuesday, December 5, 2006

"If Obama runs, he wins"--1 out of 4 will do? So Markos Moulitsas expects Obama to lose Iowa, lose Nevada, and lose New Hampshire--the first three Dem nominating contests--but he nevertheless declares Obama the "prohibitive favorite," if he runs, because he might win South Carolina? I'm not quite following kos' logic. Does Jerome Armstrong have a new client or something? ... [Thanks to S.S.] 4:35 P.M.

Virtual Fence = Virtual Corruption? Speaker Pelosi's post-Hastings fallback choice to head the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, voted against building the 700 mile border fence. He prefers a system of video surveillance cameras, apparently. And gee, it seems that his daughter works for a firm that won a government contract to provide such surveillance services! What's more, according to WaPo's John Mintz (who broke the story) the firm did a really bad job. TPM Muckraker summarizes:

In 1999, IMC [the firm in question] won the contract, worth over $200 million. And at the advice of the Immigration and Naturalization Service official who was managing the operation, the company hired Reyes' daughter, Rebecca Reyes, to be his liaison at the company, the Post reported.

IMC's performance on the program was so bad it verged on criminal, according to later investigations. Millions of dollars in overcharges were alleged, installation was so bad that some cameras never worked properly, and the entire exercise wasted money and "placed. . . national security at risk," according to a GSA inspector general report. [E.A.]

Those who feel that a CW-endorsed "virtual fence" will be as effective a Bush-era bureaucratic initiative as, say, training a new Iraqi police force or providing Karina relief will not be encouraged by the history of Reyes' project. ... Doesn't an actual, non-virtual fence offer sufficient opportunities for sleazy contracting? Or is it too cheap and effective? It would seem distressingly easy (from an incompetent contractor's point of view) for the press and public to look and see what portions of a non-virtual fence have actually been built (as opposed to which high-tech surveillance devices are actually working). ... P.S.: It would be nice to have some Gates-like oversight hearings at which Reyes could be grilled about this video-surveillance debacle. But of course Reyes is the overseer, not the overseen. ...[via Influence Peddler] 2:02 P.M. link

Friday, December 1, 2006

"Congrats to Donny Deutsch," who "impregnated his ex-girlfriend"! ... That's the sum and substance of a Page Six item in Rupert Murdoch's NY Post (under the headline "Expectant Dad"). ... And to think that Americans in the Heartland are suspicious of New York City values! ... P.S.: "'This was planned,' a pal of Deutsch claims. 'He wanted a kid. She wanted another kid. They said, "Let's do this."'" It's win-win! But somehow I don't think Myron Magnet and Kay Hymowitz and Dr. Dobson will be sending fruit baskets. ... Note to Democratic candidates: Deutsch, an "advertising mogul" and CNBC host, would make a perfect Murphy Brown or Sister Souljah, no? He's rich and defenseless! ... Hillary doesn't need any more Souljahs, of course (she needs whatever the opposite is). But Barack Obama might. ... 3:10 P.M. link

On Beyond Baker: Steve Clemons agrees the Saudis may intervene in Iraq if we withdraw, in order to protect the Sunnis and to counter Iran's influence. ... He also concludes this is not a bad thing, despite the risks. ... P.S.: Will they be fighting against Al Qaeda in Anbar or alongside them? ... [via HuffPo] 12:17 A.M.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Back to the Ballot: Only "paper BALLOTS for every vote cast" will do, argues leftish Brad Friedman--allying with Instapundit but splitting with the New York Times and liberal Rep. Rush Holt, who support a fancy compromise called "voter-verified paper trails"--which apparently attempt to make a backup record of votes that are actually recorded on touch-screen machines. Friedman:

A so-called "voter-verified paper trail" on Sarasota's touch-screen systems would not have solved the problem [of 18,000 suspiciously non-existent votes] in Florida. ... Paper trails, such as they are used with DRE/Touch-Screen systems do not work. Voters don't verify them, elections officials don't count them, they are not accurate, they can be gamed, they jam the printers which leads to voters being turned away without being able to vote...among just a few of the reasons.

The National Institute of Science and Technology is shifting Friedman's way, and he senses victory. ... [So we just abandon touch-screen machines like 8-track players?--ed More like BMW's fancy I-Drive, which lets you adjust the radio by calling up a computer screen. Impressive, but it's easier and safer to just turn a knob. You are sounding more and more like Bob Packwood's diary-ed Watch it. Henneberger's hiring, you know.] 11:05 P.M.

The Hayden Scenario: Even '60s antiwar leader Tom Hayden is apparently opposed to a quick Murtha-like pullback, seeming to endorse a Sunni-Sadr anti-Malicki backroom alliance that would result in

an immediate public decision to embrace withdrawal within a political solution, perhaps requiring one or two years to carry out. [E.A.]

It looks as if the big difference between Hayden and James Baker is whether or not to have an explicit timetable. ...

P.S.: Two aspects of Hayden's sketchy scenario reek of possible wishful thinking:

1) That Sadr would support "restoration of Baathist professionals and military leaders in Sunni areas, ... the fair distribution of oil revenues, etc." and

2) that Al Qaeda's role would be diminished because "it is unlikely that a continuing jihad would be supported by many Iraqis if the occupiers were withdrawing and lights were turning on."

Wouldn't Sunnis want to keep Al Qaeda around--not to fight the withdrawing U.S. "occupiers," but to fight Shiite sectarians? The recent WaPo story on Anbar province suggests as much. ...

The [Marine] report describes Iraq's Sunni minority as "embroiled in a daily fight for survival," fearful of "pogroms" by the Shiite majority and increasingly dependent on al-Qaeda in Iraq as its only hope against growing Iranian dominance across the capital.

True or not, the memo says, "from the Sunni perspective, their greatest fears have been realized: Iran controls Baghdad and Anbaris have been marginalized." Moreover, most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability. [E.A.]

Of course, there's also the point that if anyone can guarantee Sunni leaders freedom from Shiite attacks, you'd think it would be Sadr, precisely because his army is suspected of carrying out so many of those attacks. So I'm not saying we should dismiss the Hayden Scenario out of hand. ...

P.P.S.: For an account of what it's like living in Baghdad these days, I once again recommend Iraq the Model, specifically this post. It's clear the recent violence has been terrifying and demoralizing. It's also clear that things could still get much worse. ... 11:21 P.M.

Bring back Zarqawi? His successor is a much more effective leader, according to Bill Roggio. ... 1:50 A.M.

My 'Macaca': My attempt at a dramatic vlog reenactment of that Mark Warner rumor turned out a lot more embarrassing than I'd planned. ... Should I ever seek the presidency, they can just play this clip and I'll drop out immediately. ... 1:19 A.M.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

10 of 11 Ain't Bad: According to the WSJ 's David Wessel [$], here are the policies the incoming Dems are considering to reduce "the gap between winners and losers in the American economy."

1. Raise the minimum wage.

2. "[F]orce companies to provide more and clearer details of CEO pay, devise policies to recapture incentive pay if earnings are later restated, and require shareholder approval of 'golden parachute' payments to dismissed executives."

3. "[S]low the flood of imports and rethink the pacts that President Bush has been negotiating to lower trade barriers."

4. "[R]equire employers to recognize a union after a majority of workers sign cards asking for representation instead of secret-ballot votes."

5. "[L]et at least some of Mr. Bush's income-tax cuts expire in 2010 or roll them back--including "[ r]aising the top two tax rates, now 33% and 35%" and raising the top (15%) capital gains tax rate.

6. Enlarging the earned-income tax credit

7. "[O]ffer eligible dislocated workers up to half the difference between weekly earnings at their old and new jobs, up to $10,000 a year"

8. "Allowing businesses with up to 100 employees tax credits to buy [health] insurance through a government-sponsored pool modeled on the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, which gives federal workers a choice of private health insurance plans"

9. A "'universal 401(k)' to which employees, employers and, in some cases, the government would contribute, a cousin to the private accounts Mr. Bush wanted to carve out of Social Security.

10. "[D]oing more to help Americans pay for college, including making up to $12,000 a year in college tuition tax-deductible ... [snip] as well as cutting interest rates on student loans and increasing the maximum Pell Grant for low-income students to $5,100 from $4,050."

11. "[M]ore government support of Pre-K education." [Boldface added]

Does anything on this list seem like a big problem to you? It's surprisingly anodyne. Only one item stands out to me--#4, which could dramatically change the structure of the American economy for the worse, spreading unprodctive, legalistic, Detroit-style union practices (work rules, promotion by seniority, protections for lousy workers, etc.) by subjecting non-union workers to thuggish peer pressure. The others might do little harm, in moderation (#3) or some substantial good (#1, #8, #9). But does anyone think that any of these measures--individually or in concert--is going to reverse the growing gap between the economy's winners and losers? What will the Dems do if they pass their agenda and the public realizes the rich are still getting richer (as they apparently did in the Clinton years)--while the gap between "winners" and "losers" isn't shrinking? ...

P.S.: How does greater immigration by unskilled workers fit into the Dems' inequality-averse agenda? It doesn't, that's how. As Demo-pessimist Thomas Edsall, in today's NYT [$], notes:

The strengthening of the Democrats' protectionist wing is virtually certain to force to the surface [an]internal conflict between the party's pro- and anti-immigration wings. This conflict among Democrats remained submerged while President Bush and the Republican House and Senate majorities fought without resolution over the same issue. [snip] ...

The Democratic Party made major gains in the Mountain West, he says, and many of these voters are ''populist with a lot of nativism,'' firmly opposed to the more liberal immigration policies of key party leaders.

A solid block of Democrats who won this month -- Jon Tester, James Webb, Sherrod Brown and Heath Shuler included -- is inclined to put the brakes on all cross-border activity (otherwise known as globalization): trade, outsourcing and the flow of human labor. Nolan McCarty of Princeton, writing with two colleagues, has provided some empirical data supporting the argument that immigration has led ''to policies that increase economic inequality.'' Significant numbers within the Democratic Party agree with this reasoning.

Update: bhTV has posted a video discussion of this subject, including a bottom line.. ... 9:27 P.M. link

Who's the journalist Michael Kinsley writes about this week--the one who turned into a solipsistic "ego monster" when he started a web site? William Beutler and Wonkette want to know, or at least pretend to want to know. I'm not the accused, I'm pretty sure--the timing and various details are off. Kinsley also writes that this journalist, pre-Web, was "a modest, soft-spoken and self-effacing fellow." So it's not Andrew Sullivan. Beats me. I'll try to find out after I move the laundry from the washer into the dryer. It's the light colors today. 5:01 P.M.

New House Intelligence Chair: Not Alcee Hastings. IP has a roundup. ... WaPo says Reyes, Dicks and Bishop are in the running, and offers yet another reason for Pelosi's dislike of Jane Harman-- Harman's "tough management style ... helped drive Democratic staff away that Pelosi had appointed when she was the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee." ... "Tough management style" can mean a lot of things, no? ... 4:49 P.M.

Sunday, November 27, 2006

"Analysts say" the failure of incoming Democrats to tackle immigration immediately "carries some risks ... because restless voters may see the new Congress as having no more boldness or or problem-solving skills than the 'do-nothing Congress' denounced in many political ads this fall." But the Dems will be OK "provided something is done before the next election, these observers said," writes WaPo's Charles Babington. [Emphasis added.] Unfortunately no analysts or observers are quoted saying any of these things. ... Hey, I've got analysts too! Many analysts say that "analysts say" pieces are the laziest form of journalism, because the "analysts" usually just happen to say what the journalist himself would say if the rules of journalism permitted him to do so without putting the opinions in the mouths of "analysts." Meanwhile, analysts who might say something else get ignored. But at least "analysts say" pieces, analysts say, should quote some analysts saying the things the analysts are supposed to have said. Otherwise the impression is overhwelming that the journalist who wrote the thing is just spouting off. According to observers. 2:23 A.M.

Now They Tell Us--Tasty Donuts, Part II: With the midterm election safely in the past, the NYT's Robert Pear reveals that the Bush administration delegated the task of saving the Medicare drug plan to ... a competent civil servant, Abby Block:

She solved many problems that plagued the program in its first weeks, when low-income people were often overcharged and some were turned away from drugstores without getting their medications. By September, according to several market research firms, three-fourths of the people receiving drug coverage through Medicare said they were satisfied.

P.S.: The Bushies can't have been so stupid as to only peddle this story now ... can they? This looks more like a source-greaser for Pear. But wouldn't the grease have been as slick a month ago? (Maybe not. Third possibility: Block isn't such a nonpartisan civil servant--and Pear's repeat attempts to describe her as apolitical are the giveaway. Maybe she didn't want to be greased a month ago, when it would have helped the GOPS.) ... 1:09 A.M.

Even the liberal Stephen Kaus thinks Alcee Hastings should be disqualified from heading the House Intelligence Committee. He notes that Hastings, in his recent letter,

believes it is sufficient to state that, "[s]o that complaint [of judicial misconduct] led to the remaining events that are so convoluted, voluminous, complex, and mundane that it would boggle the mind."

I recognize this argument. It is the one a defense attorney makes for a hopelessly guilty client.

12:55 A.M.

Charlie Cook has done the math: I figured Charlie Cook and Amy "Wahine" Walter had been right about Democratic mid-term "wave" until I read Cook's gloating post-mortem:

So when the national popular vote, according to figures compiled by Rhodes Cook for the Pew Research Center, went 52 percent for Democrats, 46 percent for Republicans, and 2 percent for others, no one should have been shocked.

Do the math: ...[snip] ... When the 6-point Democratic popular vote win is measured against the GOP's 5-point win in 2002 and its 3-point win in 2004, it clearly constituted a wave.

Wow. So in 2002, a humdrum, non-wave election, the GOP won by 5 points. But this year, in a "wave election that rivaled the 1994 tsunami," the Dems won by 6 points. See? No wave: 5. Wave: 6! Cook has a powerful way of putting things. ... Note to file: Cook also admits that "over the years" the generic congressional preference poll "has tended to tilt about 5 points too much in the Democrats' favor." ... [Thks to reader M.]12:23 A.M.

Caitlin Flanagan has done the math. 12:03 A.M.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Note to however many layers of LAT editors are still left: Technically, Jennifer Gratz, the woman who beat Barack Obama and the entire bipartisan establishment of Michigan on the race preference issue, won her 1997 lawsuit against the University of Michigan, John Rosenberg notes. ... P.S.: Don't you think Obama's conspicuous championing of race preferences might be a potential weakness? If he runs for President, and other Dems (playing for the same types of voters who voted in Michigan) successfully attack him on that issue, wouldn't that really be the death knell of affirmative action? ... 7:51 P.M.

Now They Tell Us--Tasty Donut Edition: WaPo, which before the election was running stories about the"'devastating'" effect of the Bush Medicare drug benefit "doughnut hole," now reports that the program "has proven cheaper and more popular than anyone imagined."

The cost of the program has been lower than expected, about $26 billion in 2006, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The cost was projected to rise to $45 billion next year, but Medicare has received new bids indicating that its average per-person subsidy could drop by 15 percent in 2007, to $79.90 a month.

Urban Institute President Robert D. Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, called that a remarkable record for a new federal program.

Initially, he said, people were worried no private plans would participate. "Then too many plans came forward," Reischauer said. "Then people said it's going to cost a fortune. And the price came in lower than anybody thought. Then people like me said they're low-balling the prices the first year and they'll jack up the rates down the line. And, lo and behold, the prices fell again. And the reaction was, 'We've got to have the government negotiate lower prices.' At some point you have to ask: What are we looking for here?" [Emphasis added]

Reischauer has a deserved reputation for straight-shooting. WaPo couldn't have gotten that paragraph out of him before November 7? 6:44 P.M.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Alcee Ya': Alcee Hastings has mounted his defense, and it looks like the last-ditch variety. In a "Dear Colleague" letter Hastings writes, "I hope that my fate is not determined by Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Michael Barone, Drudge, anonymous bloggers, and other assorted misinformed fools."** Roll Call reports [$] the letter also says Hastings has "requested a 45-minute meeting with Pelosi to discuss his 1983 trial and subsequent events ... " Influence Peddler notes it reflects

weakness to disclose that he's requested a chance to make his case before Pelosi, but hasn't been granted an audience. Has he gone public on this without realizing it makes him look weak, or has Pelosi left him twisting in the wind?

P.S.: Come to think of it, why is everyone (including me) so sure the Congressional Black Caucus really cares about Hastings' promotion? They must care, the argument goes, because if they didn't Pelosi would never have taken the risk of letting it be known that she favored appointing an impeached former judge to head the Intelligence committee. But that's putting what now seems like a lot of faith in Pelosi's good judgment! The CBC is already getting three chairmanships (Rangel, Conyers, Thompson) after all. Could they be simply going through the mandatory motions of advancing Hastings' cause? ... The proposed Bishop gambit (see below) only makes sense if the Black Caucus really will be furious if fallback candidate and Hispanic Caucus ex-chair Silvestre Reyes gets the job. ...

**--PR coup for Malkin! 12:18 P.M.

Friday, November 24, 2006

Finagling the fence: Are the House Democrats and Homeland Security secretary Chertoff planning to wriggle out of the 700 mile border fence--replacing it with "virtual" fencing--without actually amending the Secure Fence Act? It looks like it from this story. Don't tell White House spokesman Tony "'The Fence Is Going to Be Built'" Snow! ... P.S.: It's also possible the House Dems** don't want to take the heat for "revisiting" the Secure Fence Act at the moment--and the suggestion that the fence could be "virtualized" without a new law is a convenient way for incoming committee chair Bennie Thompson to avoid voting on the issue, in the secure knowledge that the Bush administration won't actually get around to building much fencing before the next Congress is elected in 2008. ... P.P.S.: Either way, it smacks of an anti-fence deal. ...

**--The Bush administration presumably doesn't want an actual vote gutting the Secure Fence Act either, since it's counting on the prospect of a fence to placate border-control conservatives while it passes a "comprehensive" semi-amnesty plan. ... 2:50 P.M.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Today's Jared Paul Stern Special: Highly informative, largely non-scandalous Forbes piece on Ron Burkle's business history. I did notice this paragraph about Burkle's investment-business partner, Bill Clinton:

Burkle and Clinton spend hours flying together onboard Burkle's Boeing 757. ... [snip] ... Burkle figures he accompanies Clinton at least half the time Clinton travels abroad.

"He's invaluable," Burkle says of his idol. President Clinton "is unique, he brands us to people who matter. He got us in with the Teamsters, and that's important for deal flow going forward."

Yucaipa arranged for Clinton to make a speech at a Teamsters conference in 2003, and later Clinton urged Teamsters President James Hoffa Jr. to trust Burkle and present him with possible deals. Result: This spring Yucaipa paid $100 million to buy a controlling stake in Allied Holdings, a trucking outfit in bankruptcy proceedings. "Clinton got it to the point where Hoffa actually helped us with that deal, something I couldn't have gotten on my own," Burkle says. [E.A.]

So Hoffa helps Clinton with a deal that makes Clinton and Burkle money. And if Hoffa needs something in a few years from President Hillary Clinton's White House ... 12:04 P.M.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Help Nancy! David Corn outlines Speaker-elect Pelosi's self-made dilemma when it comes to choosing the chairman of the House Intelligence committee. She doesn't want to pick the ranking Democrat, Jane Harman, for reasons the LAT attempts to divine here. Instead, she's led the Congressional Black Caucus to believe she'll instead choose Alcee Hastings, the next-ranking member. But Hastings was impeached and removed from the federal bench for corruption in the 1980s. The Democrats' more conservative "blue dog" faction has written a letter in support of Harman. The CBC has reaffirmed its support for Hastings. What to do?

Corn looks at the evidence and concludes "Hastings past will hobble him as a spokesman for the Democrats on national security." He suggests that Pelosi skip over Harman, and Hastings, and fallback candidate Silvestre Reyes, and instead choose Rush Holt, a liberal Dem from Princeton who worked as a State Department intelligence analyst and hasn't been shy about challenging President Bush. But how does Holt solve Pelosi's political problem? The black caucus will still be furious, and the Blue Dogs won't be too happy either.

Amy Holmes, appearing Tuesday on Hannity and Colmes, came up with a more ingenious solution: Pelosi could reach out and give the job to Rep. Sanford Bishop. Why Bishop? Because CBC's original beef with Harman, according to the LAT, is that when Harman returned to Congress in 2001, after a failed run for governor, she was awarded all the seniority she'd acquired from an earlier stint in the House. As a result, she vaulted over Hastings and bumped another black Congressman off the intelligence committee. The name of the bumped black Congressman: Sanford Bishop. Pelosi would be correcting an old injustice. Bonus factor: Bishop's a Blue Dog!

In short: Choose Bishop, and CBC is happy and the Blue Dogs are happy. And Pelosi is happy (because she's screwed Harman). Harman's not happy, but she must have known she might not be named chairman under Pelosi--anyway, she'll survive. The Latino caucus could be disappointed that Reyes didn't get the job, but Reyes had much less of an expectation of getting it than either Harman or Hastings.

Maybe Bishop has some disqualifying characteristic, though I haven't found one in a quick Web search. He might have to give up his seat on the (powerful) Appropriations Committee, but he's only a low-ranking member there. I can't find any House rule that would stop him from making the shift.

If there's a fatal defect with Holmes' Bishop solution, let me know. If not--why not?

Update: Time's Timothy Burger mentioned a possible Bishop gambit yesterday also. ..

More: Tom Maguire emails to note that judging from his voting record Bishop "looks to be an awfully Blue Blue Dog (which means he is kinda of Red)." Bishop voted to authorize the Iraq War, for example, and in favor of the Military Commissions Act. But he sided with most Democrats in opposing the warrantless wiretapping bill. Still, Maguire argues Bishop's record is "a heavy load" if Pelosi's "goal is to replace Harman with a Bush-basher."

Kf response: Does that mean that Henry Waxman, who also voted for the war, couldn't chair this committee? [But you yourself have argued that pro-war Waxman is ill-suited to investigate pre-war intelligence?--ed Hmm. So I have! I guess I'd say a) there's a difference between disqualifying all war supporters from general oversight of intelligence, which seems excessive, and allowing a war supporter to conduct a rifle-shot investigation into pre-war abuses of intelligence that promises to turn into a bogus argument that those who voted for the war were deceived; b) Waxman didn't need to support the war to be in synch with his district--on the contrary, it's a liberal West L.A. area highly skeptical of the Bush administration. But I suspect Bishop, from a conservative-drifting district in Georgia, would have been taking a big political risk by going against the grain of his district if he'd voted against the war.] 7:08 P.M. link

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

bhTV: Bob Wright says McCain's Iraq position is highly convenient. 2:57 P.M.

Hype Watch: In House races, Republicans lost 8 percentage points among Hispanics between 2002 and 2006. They also lost 8 percentage points among whites, notes Polipundit. How does this prove that the House Republicans' immigration stance cost them Hispanic votes? ... Meanwhile, acording to the NYT's chart, the Republicans actually gained two percentage points among blacks in this very unRepublican year. Immigration? ... P.S.: The NYT's Hispanic exit-poll numbers for 2002 actually don't add up. According to the Times, Hispanic men gave Republicans 36% of their votes that year. Hispanic women voted 33% Republican. How do those numbers average out to a 38% overall Hispanic Republican vote? Are there voters who aren't men or women? 12:53 A.M. link

Monday, November 20, 2006

It's Alive: I just noticed: The embattled Incumbent Rule** predicted the results in the hot Senate races perfectly, except for New Jersey. But New Jersey is ... the exception that proves the rule! [Why?-ed Because Senator Menendez wasn't really an incumbent--he'd only been in office a few months, having been appointed in January, 2006 to the seat vacated by now-Gov. Corzine]

**--The Incumbent Rule holds that undecided voters break almost entirely against an incumbent--meaning that if in the final pre-election polls an incumbent isn't over 50%,** he or she will lose.

P.S.: The cool-sounding Zogby Interactive polls performed as expected, which is to say very badly. The WSJ--which used those Zogby polls--reports the grim results. Meanwhile, Pollster.com's averages (featured on Slate) did very well. ...11:55 P.M.

Why would anyone want to gossip about Ron Burkle? He does nothing gossipworthy. Really, Hillary couldn't leave Bill in safer hands! ... [Not from alert reader J.P.S.] ...11:16 P.M.

I've now run into too many smart and connected political insiders who believe that ex.-Gov. Mark Warner didn't drop out of the presidential race solely in order to spend more time with his dad and his daughters. . ... kf supports renewed reportorial focus on this matter! ... 4:02 P.M. link

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Nancy Knows: Think Democratic congresspersons who voted for Hoyer over Murtha were protected from the wrath of Pelosi because the election was conducted by secret ballot? Not exactly. Dena Bunis of the O.C. Register reports:

Going into the election, Pelosi and her lieutenants believed the vote would be close. Pelosi was making phone calls late into Wednesday night trying to persuade members to vote for Murtha.

But the ballot was a secret one. So members who supported Hoyer but didn't want to anger Pelosi just told her what she wanted to hear.

Inside the room where the election was being held, there were boxes for members to drop their secret ballots. Pelosi and her crew watched as people voted. Some members actually brought fellow lawmakers with them when they marked their ballots so they could prove to Pelosi that they did vote for Murtha. And because the Murtha vote ended up being so small, the Pelosi forces can count almost down to the last ballot who voted for Murtha and who for Hoyer. [E.A.]

The members who told Pelosi they'd vote for Murtha and then voted the other way could be eager recruits for Tim Noah's maybe-not-so-premature campaign. ... P.S.: Doesn't this limit Pelosi's ability to replace Jane Harman with Alcee Hastings on the Intelligence Committee? If Murtha was strike one, and replacing Harman with Hastings is strike two, will Hoyer's legions feel like waiting for strike three? ... The answer, of course, is that it would be highly embarrassing to dump the first female House speaker after a minute and a half in office. That has to be one of the main pillars holding Pelosi up, no? Maybe Sirota is right! Thanks to the stunning Murtha miscalculation, Pelosi's weakness is now her biggest strength--the threat that any further defiance will force her humiliating collapse. Fragility=power. In this respect she is not unlike Nuri al-Maliki. ... [Thanks to reader b.h.] 12:09 P.M.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

I'm with CW: Tom Maguire gives the award in the hotly-contested category of Silliest Contrarian Argument that the Murtha Maneuver was Really a Win for Pelosi to ... David Sirota! 6:16 P.M.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

They said the Pontiac Aztek couldn't get any uglier. They were wrong. .. Update: Actually, it's so ugly it's .... 7:42 P.M.

bhTV: Bob Wright's post-election euphoria is giving way to nagging doubts about the Democrats' strategic prowess! No kidding. ... P.S.: That's not bedhead I have. It's a perverse and juvenile form of hathead. ... 6:32 P.M.

Pence: Still Scammin'! David Frum argues that GOP Rep. Mike Pence's "idealism and seeming guilelessness" are potential defects in a minority party leader. The problem with Pence's bogus immigration "compromise," Frum says, isn't that Pence tried to con conservatives, but that it was Pence who "got suckered."

Do I believe that the Pence plan was Pence's own handiwork? I do not. Somebody else devised it - and then persuaded Pence to adopt it as his own

Hmm. I rise to the defend Pence's cynicism and guilefulness. On Laura Ingraham's radio show, he gave the impression that he'd abandoned the Pence plan (which would reward illegal immigrants by letting employers arrange for them to become guest workers--the technical wrinkle being they'd have to leave the country briefly or perhaps just touch base at a border station). But in this Tuesday interview with Mary Katharine Ham it becomes clear Pence still backs the Pence Plan, and indeed intends to bring it up again if the opportunity arises.

As I told all of my colleagues, I stand by the legislation that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and I built, that we put border security first, and then create a guest worker program outside of the United States, only after completed border security measures. And applicants to that guest worker program would have to leave the United States of America to apply. We add into that strong employer enforcement sanctions. I believe then and I believe now that is a solution that could work and could be acceptable to many conservatives, me included. But I want to say again, that ship has sailed. That compromise will not be considered. We are going to get the McCain-Kennedy Bill. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs a math lesson. They have the math; they have control of the floor of the House and Senate now. I was heartened to hear Senator Jon Kyl expressed the willingness in the last twenty-four hours to use a filibuster in the Senate to stop an amnesty bill. I will look forward to being the power of the House minority effort to back that rhetorically and to use every weapon in our arsenal. The American people do not support amnesty and do not want to see Congress pass amnesty legislation. With that being said, I still believe the idea that we floated with a good one, and if we were in a different universe, I would still be advocating for it. [E.A.]

In other words, he's been trying to con gullible conservatives into thinking he's abandoned his con. Meta-fraud! By Frum's lights, he's the perfect minority leader. ... P.S.: To hear Pence oleaginate on Ingraham's show, click here. ... 5:38 P.M. link

You have to read those WaPo photo captions carefully. It's where they sometimes put the news. From the caption on an AP picture of the border fence in San Diego:

With the Democratic Party in control of Congress, Hispanic political activists are preparing for a big push toward reform, which would include repeal of the Secure Fence Act.

5:15 P.M.

Pelosi's "big win": That Democratic leadership race is no big deal! In a few weeks virtually everyone will have forgotten about the Pelosi-vs.-Hoyer dustup. Except Pelosi! Here's the most telling paragraph in today's excellent Romano/Weisman Washington Post report:

For the most part, lawmakers, Hill aides and some outside advisers -- even some close to her -- say they are at a loss to explain why Pelosi has held a grudge for so long, because she clearly has the upper hand as leader of the House Democrats. They suggest that part of what rankles her is that Hoyer is not beholden to her and feels no compulsion to publicly agree with her on every issue. This, allies say, she sees as a sign of disloyalty. [E.A.]

Wow. What about 149 people who publicly disagree with her? [More than 'disagree'--ed Defy!] ... 2:46 P.M. link

'We are entering an era where when the Speaker instructs you what to do, you do it": Pelosi puts her prestige on the line, in a self-conscious display of strong-arm tactics that sound like they were taken from bad movies,** and gets creamed. For some reason House Democrats decided they didn't want an old-school influence jockey who couldn't string five coherent sentences together without embarrassing himself to be their #2 national spokesman! Influence Peddler:

So now we know which of Pelosi's nightmares she will live for the next two years. The first act of her new majority was give her a 'no-confidence' vote.



And it isn't really a divided caucus, either. The vote for Hoyer was 149-86. That's not really all that divided.



So what does this show? That House Democrats will defy Pelosi, that she is out-of-touch with the will of her caucus, and that Hoyer has a sizeable constituency of his own. By making this such a high-profile, high-stakes contest, Ms. Pelosi may have graduated Mr. Hoyer from second-in-command to legitimate rival - something that would not have happened if she had not tested her influence in this contest.

At least she's not the vindictive sort! ... Meanwhile, the HuffPo "Fearless Voices" site has replaced regular programming with somber classical music. ...

**--Sample of the failed high-schoolish Pelosi-camp tactics, from WaPo:

One conservative Democrat said that a Murtha-Pelosi ally approached him on the House floor and said pointedly: "I hope you like your committee assignment, because it's the only one you're going to get."

10:15 P.M.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Alert reader R.H. suggests Rahm Emanuel as a compromise Majority Leader if Murtha is too tainted and Hoyer's relations with Pelosi are too strained. ...P.S.: Then Arianna will be happy and The Note will be happy! ... 9:02 P.M.

They sneered when kf suggested that press-fave Rep. Henry Waxman, who voted for the war, might have a problem investigating topics like the administration's pre-war manipulation of intelligence. Comes now Matthew Yglesias, writing about Jane Harman, to suggest that:

[Li]ike all people who voted for the Iraq War, she has a problem investigating the administration's pre-war manipulation of intelligence.

If Harman loses her chair because she supported the war, shouldn't Waxman lose his? 8:00 P.M. link

Now they tell us, Part XXVIII: THe NYT's military analysts discover that many anti-war figures, including General Zinni, think the Dem-proposed "phased withdrawal" strategy in Iraq is a really bad idea! ... Update: But NBC's Andrea Mitchell is reporting that "phased withdrawal," accompanied by "deadlines" will be the recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton commission! ... 4:35 P.M.

Even the liberal Joe Conason is disappointed in Pelosi:

As Ms. Pelosi takes up her constitutional responsibilities, she will hear many people say that she is no different from her tainted predecessors, that all politicians are crooked, and that Democrats are just as compromised as Republicans. Her most important responsibility is to prove those clichés untrue, but her attempts to enforce her personal agenda have only made that crucial task more difficult.

If she fails to deliver reform, her historic reign will be disappointing—and possibly quite brief.

2:35 P.M.

"Murtha Calls Ethics Bill 'Total Crap'": Pelosi's pick off to a great start!. ... P.S.: If Tom DeLay said that, you think it might get some coverage?... You'd think this might sink Murtha. [Update: No. Update: Yes.] ... Via IP, which also cites an example of Pelosi's subtle armtwisting

Baltimore Sun's Hay Brown reports the speaker-in-waiting is playing hardball: She summoned Rep.-elect Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to her office to ask why Gillibrand was supporting current Dem whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and, completely coincidentally, asked for Gillibrand's committee preferences

Update: But it's really great crap! According to TPMMuckraker Murtha's allies are saying he was 'misconstrued' and 'taken out of context.' ... More: On Hardball, Murtha had two strategies on "crap." The first was to try to claim it was the corruption that was "crap." When that didn't fly, he said only meant the bill was "crap" in relation to the more urgent need to act on the Iraq war. Nice try! The problem is in his initial discussion of the issue, Murtha gave away why he really thinks the new ethics rules are "crap"--that they are, in Chris Matthews' words, "Mickey Mouse." Here's the transcript:

MATTHEWS: OK, let's talk about the Congress today and I have—watching this and having worked up there, and we were old friends, we still are friends, I'll admit that, I don't mind admitting it. Let's talk about the system today. When a congressman—when you pass a bill on the Hill that says you can't take a lunch, a hamburger from, a steak, or a trip, whatever, do you think that makes the Congress cleaner?

MURTHA: Let me tell you. There's a lot of crap going on in Congress all the time. Guys violate the law, some do. But the problem we have is a few people violate the law and then the whole Congress has to be changed.

MATTHEWS: Okay. Is it Mickey Mouse, or, as you said, apparently at this meeting with the Blue Dogs the other night, total crap to tell people you can't take a lunch from somebody? Where do you draw—where is your position on ethics right now?

MURTHA: Let me tell you, I agree that we have to return a perception of honesty to the Congress. I agree with what Nancy's trying to do. The crap I'm talking about is the crap that people have violated the law, the crap that the kind of things that have happened with Abramoff, the kind of things that have happened with some of the members—

MATTHEWS: But that's not what you said. Didn't you say it was total crap, what she was proposing?

MURTHA: What I said was, it's total crap, the idea we have to deal with an issue like this, when—and it is total crap that we have to deal with an issue like this when we've got a war going on and we got all these other issues -- $8 billion a month we're spending— [Emphasis added]

The most likely interpretation--that Murtha thinks the new ethics rules are 'Mickey Mouse'--is still fairly damning. Murtha's obviously comfortable with the system as it now runs, as long as his Hill colleagues stay barely on the right side of the legal line. I'd thought the Democrats' point is the system as it now runs--even as it legally now runs--is corrupt. ... P.P.S.: Mad-for-Murtha HuffPo isn't exactly all over this story, though if you drill down long enough you'll get to the damage-controlling Hardball interview. ...

P.P.P.S.--Conversations with the NYT Search Engine:

Uh, no. But thanks! 2:00 P.M..

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Common Ground! Bevan against overpaid CEO's. 6:10 P.M.

kf Covers the Arts: Rigoloofah! 4:32 P.M.

According to KLo of The Corner, Rep. Pence no longer supports the Pence Plan on immigration.** The Pence Plan, of course, was a total scam, as discussed here. ... Old saying: "Man who tries to con with scam once may try to con with scam again!" I don't think backing off his plan is enough to clear Pence's name. ...

** Update: What he actually says--on Laura Ingraham's radio show--is that yes, he "put some ideas out there" but the "debates" about them are "a thing of the past." He sounds way too slick. ... 2:30 P.M.

Murthanoia: I initially figured Pelosi's support for Murtha was the pro forma support of a friend. It seems I was wrong--she's really going for it. From The Hill:

"She will ensure that they [the Murtha camp] win. This is hard-ball politics," said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a longtime Murtha supporter. "We are entering an era where when the Speaker instructs you what to do, you do it..." [E.A.]

Meanwhile, Murtha claims he's the victim of a "swift-boating attack" when really it's just the MSM playing post-election catch up, notes Influence Peddler. ... P.S.: Of course, more Murtha thrashes around like a frantic whale, the more attention he attracts--and the more he puts Pelosi's rep on the line, and the more he makes her pull out all stops to help him. See this Corner analysis (also via IP). ... 1:50 P.M.

Whose Agenda II: Alert reader G, in an email sent last week, has a Darwinian take on the question of what the Dems should do on immigration:

I can't think of a less effective move to establish a commanding national presence than to bail out an unpopular and recently repudiated President on an issue he couldn't even get his now-thumped party behind.

Meanwhile, the NY Post's Orin-Eilbeck notes:

Some Bush loyalists note that two hardline anti-illegal immigrant Republicans in Arizona lost their House seats as proof that there's support for legaliztion. But that's a misreading. A Bush push for legalization would risk more GOP rebellion.

The strongest opposition to illegal immigration is coming from heartland America and even the Northeast. Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.), one of the toughest foes of legalization, won his re-election handily. And one of the few Republican moderates to survive, Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.), said he turned against the Bush plan because voters in his swing district hated it (he also came out for firing Rumsfeld).

And few of the Democrats who upset Republicans in swing districts ran on legalization of illegal aliens - indeed, many raced to support the Republican plan to build a 700-mile border fence.

1:00 P.M.

KosPros: Kos is planning "the rise of a professional netroots activist class." What's troubling about this idea? Some partly-contradictory possibilities:

1) The Netroots Pro class will constantly need to gin up new causes to keep itself in business;

2) They'll pander to the mindless "Fight Club" tendencies of their partisan followers;

3) They'll tone themselves down to avoid chasing away big advertisers like Chevron;

4) They will become just another interest group that needs to be appeased;

5) Politicians will be tempted to do the appeasing by buying them off, rather than accomplishing anything. If Hillary Clinton, say, were to give Kos an exclusive interview which attractsd a lot of views of pages with ads on them, that goes directly to Kos' bottom line. If Hillary gives 60 Minutes an interview, that goes directly to CBS' bottom line, of course. The difference is that CBS isn't supposed to be an idealistic political actor (and also probably that a big political "get" means less to CBS than to a political blog).** ....

6) If Kos himself gets to choose who joins what he calls the "corps of 'fellows'" that gives him a whole lot of power, doesn't it?

[How is what Kos' pros would do any different from what kf does?--ed It isn't, as far as I can see. All these problems are inherent in the advertiser-supported blog model. And everyone who wants should join in the fun of acquiring those problems. But there are virtues to having an activist class that's not professional, maybe. Amateur activists can only be bought off by actual reforms. If they don't get what they're campaigning for, they're unhappy. If professional activists don't get what they're campaigning for, they've still fed their families for a year. ...[Don't be silly. Amateur activists can be awed by a lunch--ed That's now. When they get more cynical and jaded they'll stop being such cheap dates.]

**--On the other hand, CBS may be better able to sell a one-time ratings spike to advertisers. Blogs sometimes have trouble selling unanticipated hit windfalls, I'm told--it's much easier to "monetize" a steady flow of traffic. But that only means that, a politician who wants to buy off a blog would have to dole out lots of little tidbits rather than one big interview. ...11:57 A.M. link

Blogging Caesar has a handy table of as-yet-undecided House races, which he pledges to update. If the candidate who's leading in each race winds up winning, the final House breakdown will be 232 Dems, 203 GOPs--the same majority Hastert had at the start of the last Congress. ... 11:17 A.M.

Monday, November 13, 2006

House of Murth? A reminder of Rep. John Murtha's energetic 1980 efforts to bring jobs to his District. ... Attention TV producers: There's video! ... 7:15 P.M.

Now they tell us: LAT on Harry Reid's honest graft! ... TPM Muckraker discovers "less than squeaky" Dems! ... 2:56 P.M.

Schisms: Roots vs. Rahm! ... Soros/ Streisand Ethicists vs. Pelosi Peaceniks! ... [link via Drudge] ... Update: More anti-Murthism here. ... 2:34 P.M.

UPI: "Dem Congress May Scrap Border Fence"

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told reporters this week that he expected to "re-visit" the issue when he becomes chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee in the 110th Congress, which has a Democratic Party majority.

Someone (Hugh?) might ask Tony "The Fence Is Going to Be Built" Snow if Bush promises a veto. ... The administration is clearly relying on the tremendous appeal of a fence on the right to buy it a lot of support when it comes to guest-workers and semi-amnesty (sorry, "earned legalization"). My sense is that this calculation is pretty savvy--if you give the right a fence they'll agree to almost anything! Or way too much anyway. But Bush can't have it both ways--using the fence to buy off the right with one hand while allowing (encouraging?) Democratic repeal of the Fence Act with the other. 12:57 P.M. link

Paranoia Realized: Influence Peddler hears, from a "very high level" Dem Senate source, that it's "full speed ahead" on immigration reform--contrary to today's WaPo story. It's not clear, however, that IP is saying the high-level House Dem leadership agrees. ... P.S.: IP also thinks Pelosi's already made a big mistake on another front. ...12:26 A.M. link

Escape from Pinchistan? It's Nov. 13--isn't it time For the NYT's visionary Pinch Sulzberger to lock Friedman, Krugman, Dowd, Brooks and Suellentrop, et. al., back in their pay-to-read dungeon after a week of free access for all? But the cold steel doors don't seem to have slammed shut yet. ... Is the crack in the TimesSelect wall going to be like that crack in the Berlin Wall? ... Once they've tasted freedom .... Update: Brutal. Back to your cell, Krugman! Those impoverished Arab millions yearning for your insight--forget them, Friedman! As they will forget you. ... Project Lifeline: Send the Times pundit of your choice an email just to let them know you remember them. [You have to be a TimesSelect subscriber to send them emails--ed That Pinch is a madman! He's thought of everything. ... The cocoon is impregnable!]... 12:11 A.M. link

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Just asking: Whose Agenda?: In the NYT today Toner and Zernike describe all sorts of wholesome little populist reforms the incoming Rahm-Dems want to achieve--health care for children, changes in the Medicare drug program, tuition aid, etc. Do these Dems really want Congress tied up for months in a messy, potentially party-splitting and '08-endangering fight over immigration reform (and legalization of illegals and sanctions against employers) just because the younger Bush and Karl Rove decided years ago that this (along with taking out Saddam) would be part of Bush's legacy? Without Bush's willfulness, would anybody have put "comprehensive" immigration reform on the front burner? It's certainly not something these new Dems ran on, by and large. The press is baying mindlessly for a bipartisan agenda--but whose agenda: Pelosi's or Bush's?...

Update: Michael Tomasky argues the press' portrayal of the incoming Dems as socially conservative is miselading--a well-publicized handful are, most aren't. Tomasky asks:

Why would Democrats, having finally regained control of the legislative calendar, schedule a vote that highlights their divisions?

Tomasky's talking about abortion and gay marriage, but you could ask the same thing about legalizaton of illegal immigrants, no? ...

More: WaPo's Fears and Hsu:

In the days after the election, Democratic leaders surprised pro-immigration groups by not including the issue on their list of immediate priorities. Experts said the issue is so complicated, so sensitive and so explosive that it could easily blow up in the Democrats' faces and give control of Congress back to Republicans in the next election two years from now. And a number of Democrats who took a hard line on illegal immigration were also elected to Congress.

It's the CW! Now I'm suspicious. Bush badly wants a "comprehensive" bill, after all. Are "Democratic leaders" just playing hard-to-get in the press, holding out for concessions on other issues? [The paranoid mind at work--ed. They told you to say that, didn't they? It's part of their plan.] ... See also Drum (and his commenters). ...

Aha: As if on cue, Yglesias argues that Dems should take an immigration deal, in part because Bush is desperate and "more Latino citizens = more Democratic voters over the long term." But why would Republicans buy that argument? Doesn't the bill need at least some Republican support (other than Bush)? ... P.S.: Yglesias wants a bill that's "long on amnesty earned legalization and short on guest workers." His cross-out, not mine. Isn't a bill that's 'long on amnesty' kind of "explosive," just as WaPo says? 11:41 A.M. link

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Weird that the NYT, WaPo, and LAT obituaries for Jack Palance don't talk about Contempt. He was fantastic in Contempt--famously so, I'd thought. 7:59 P.M.

Go Ahead, Blame Rove! Slate's John Dickerson says Republicans "Don't Blame Rove." But he makes a good case for blaming Rove before he makes the case against it:

1. After the national horror of 9/11, Rove chose to please the president's conservative base rather than seize the historic moment of national unity by pushing a more moderate set of policies. ... [snip]

2. It was Rove's idea to push for Social Security reform after the 2004 election. He kept pushing it long after voters had told pollsters they didn't want it. He wildly misread the national mood, woke up the left, and saddled Republicans in Congress with a loser issue. Then, he pushed for comprehensive immigration reform, angering a different portion of the base.

3. He and Bush delayed announcing Rumsfeld's departure. Had Rumsfeld left two months ago, you can bet George Allen and Conrad Burns wouldn't be planning their retirement parties. [Emphasis added]

If all that's true, Republicans would have to be morons not to blame Rove. I know some Republicans who aren't morons. ... 11/13: See, for example, Orin-Eilbeck. ..

Update: It's easy to do after the fact--but Newsweek describes Rove as a deluded, isolated, obsessive, relying on semi-secret technical knowledge to overcome his large policy blunders:

Rove blames complacent candidates for much of the GOP's defeat. He says even some scandal-tainted members won when they followed what he calls "the program" of voter contacts and early voting. "Where some people came up short was where they didn't have a program," he told NEWSWEEK.

3:56 P.M.

Is something wrong? Only 6 plugs for Andrew Sullivan's book on his blog (not counting the two large reproductions of the cover). We expect more! 3:51 P.M.

Attention, President-Elect Calderon: Bush Press Secretary Tony Snow, in a post-election interview with Hugh Hewitt, is really, really insistent that Bush will build the border fence.

"The public needs to know, I'm telling you right now, the fence is going to be built. "

Snow promises "certainly, more than a hundred miles" by 2008, if I read the interview correctly. 1:05 A.M.

Just a reminder: Rep. Henry Waxman, the aggressive incoming liberal chair of the House Government Reform committee--who is chiding his Republican predecessors for not investigating (in AP's words) "the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, the controversy over the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name, and the pre-Iraq war use of intelligence"--voted for the war. ... All future beat-sweeteners about Waxman should be required to (unlike AP) mention this fact before reporting Waxman's righteous indignation. [Can't he complain about how the war was executed?--ed Sure. But complaining about the manipulated pre-war intelligence is a bit much. Maybe he was duped by all that manipulated pre-war intelligence--ed. Please. He's a smart, well-connected, experienced guy. I think he's hard to dupe.] 12:34 A.M.

Friday, November 10, 2006

To "Fight Club" Democrats**: Given the near-disaster of John Kerry's initial "I apologize to no one" reaction in the flap over his troop comments, do you think maybe Bob Shrum had a point when he chose not to immediately fight back in the Swift Boat controversy of 2004? [The point would be a) sometimes fighting back isn't the smart thing to do or b) some clods are really bad at fighting back?--ed Both, but mainly (b)]

**--Tom Maguire's term. 6:16 P.M.

Ford's new Fusion sedan has received shockingly high reliability ratings from Consumer Reports. That has to be good news for the workers in the assembly plant where it's produced ... in Hermosillo, Mexico. ... To be fair: Some Fusion engines come from Ohio. The Buick Lucerne and Cadillac DTS, both assembled in Detroit, also did very well. ... 3:41 P.M.

Jared Paul Stern Item of the Day: A PR triumph for Sitrick & Co. 3:32 P.M.

Thursday, November 9, 2006

Lou-ing: More on the new "non-comprehensive" Democrats: This email from an experienced immigration hand who disagrees with me on the issue--

What's REALLY important is that of the 27 or 28 seats where a Democrat replaced a Republican, in at least 20, the Democrat ran to the immigration enforcement side of the Republican: don't let Hayworth and Graf** fool you, cuz those two examples ain't fooling Rahm.

Mark Krikorian makes a similar point:

What's more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to "comprehensive" reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party's "Six for 06" rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, "comprehensive" or otherwise.



The only exception to this "Whatever you do, don't mention the amnesty" approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl ... by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.



Pederson lost.

Dreaded kf welfare analogy: After the 1994 midterm elections, welfare reform was the one big domestic issue that the new incoming Congressional majority had in common with the damaged President they'd just defeated. "Comprehensive" immigration reform is in the same logical position (with the parties reversed). The difference is that in 1994, Gingrich's Republicans had explicitly campaigned on welfare reform. Pelosi's Democrats have run away from "comprehensive" reform. That may not be enough of a difference, and there are differences that run the other way--arguably Bush is more desperate for an immigration bill than Clinton was for a welfare bill. But it's grounds for hope.

**--Hayworth and Graf are two heavily pro-enforcement Arizona GOPs who lost, and whose loss is being reflexively cited by pundits as evidence that an anti-"comprehensive" immigration stand didn't work for anyone. (Hayworth's actually still holding out a slim hope that uncounted ballots will save him). 9:24 P.M.

"Now they tell us" about Alcee Hastings: JustOneMinute on the NYT's sudden post-election discovery of a potential Pelosi problem. ... P.S.: Here's the proof of the Times' pathetically thin coverage of this issue. ... 9:03 P.M.

Not So Fast! Maybe "comprehensive" immigration reform isn't a done deal. Here, via Polipundit, is the immigration position of ... Senator-elect Jim Webb:

The immigration debate is divided into three separate issues. How can we secure our border? What should we do about the 11 million undocumented workers? And, lastly there is the guest worker question. It is necessary to separate out the 3 issues. The primary concern must be securing the border. Immediate action is needed to stem the flow of illegal border crossings. Approaching the issue using an omnibus bill that attempts to solve all three issues simultaneously creates a political stalemate that delays the border security solution. There is a consensus that our border security must be improved and we should act on that consensus as soon as possible. Once the border is secure we can develop a fair solution to other immigration issues. [E.A.]

That doesn't sound "comprehensive" to me. That sounds like "enforcement first, then we'll talk."

More: In attacking the "Lou Dobbs Democrats," Jacob Weisberg lumps opposition to illegal immigration with trade protectionism as part of the "economic nationalism" advanced by so many of the now-famous Dem "moderates" who won this year. That's very CFR of him, along with the not-so-veiled suggestion that advocates of border control are racists. But the immigration half of this Democrats' new Lou Dobbsianism does suggest that Bush and McCain might have a harder time selling "comprehensive" reform than I'd feared. Here are some Weisberg characterizations:

Here is a snippet from one of [Senator-elect Sherrod] Brown's TV spots: "I'm for an increase in the minimum wage and against trade agreements that cost Ohio jobs. I support stem-cell research, tighter borders, and a balanced-budget amendment." ...[snip]

In Virginia, apparent winner James Webb denounced outsourcing and blasted George Allen for voting to allow more "foreign guest workers" into the state. In Missouri, victor Claire McCaskill refused to let incumbent James Talent out-hawk her on immigration. ...[snip]

An even harder-edged nationalism defined many of the critical House races, where Democrats called for a moratorium on trade agreements, for canceling existing ones, or, in some cases, for slapping protective trade tariffs on China. These candidates also lumped illegal immigrants together with terrorists and demanded fencing and militarization of the Mexican border. In Pennsylvania, Democratic challengers Chris Carney and Patrick Murphy defeated Republican incumbents by accusing them of destroying good jobs by voting for the Central American Free Trade Agreement and being soft on illegal immigration.

P.S.: Weisberg distinguishes "economic nationalism" from the more "familiar"--and presumably more benign--"economic populism":

Nationalism begins from the populist premise that working people aren't doing so well. But instead of blaming the rich at home, it focuses its energy on the poor abroad.

So does Weisberg think it's ok to blame "the rich at home" for working-class living standards? That's not very centrist or DLC-ish. And I don't believe he believes that explanation. The claim that uncontrolled immigration does have the effect of bidding down wages, meanwhile, is quite plausible and consistent with normal market economics of the sort the DLC usually endorses. It's also consistent with support for free trade--the argument would be that it's easier to support free trade if Americans can at least get good wages for those unskilled jobs that can't be shipped abroad (the so-called non-tradable sector). In fact, that seems like a much more plausible combo than the coupling of free trade with Clintonian "worker retraining programs" whidh, as Weisberg notes, never amounted to much. ...

See this excellent essay by DLC-type Brad Carson. ... 7:24 P.M.

Egg on CNN Poll Face? As ABC's Note points out, by one measure those final three polls showing a Republican comeback turned out to be quite accurate. It's just that, as so often happens, the "comeback" didn't keep coming! ... The final vote (as measured by exit poll) was 53-45 Dems over GOPs. The three 'GOP comback' polls understated that 8 point Dem advantage by 1 percentage point (Gallup), 2 points (ABC) and 4 points (Pew). Meanwhile, the four polls showing no pro-GOP movement overstated the Dem advantage by 5 percentage points (Fox), 7 percentage points (Time), 10 percentage points (Newsweek), and an embarrassing 12 percentage points for CNN. ... 3:16 P.M.

Vilsack vs. Iowa: Isn't Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's presidential run more good news for the Democrats--he'll be the favorite son in Iowa's caucuses, meaning other candidates will have a ready-made excuse to skip them and the press will have a good excuse to downplay them? Maybe the sweet, polite fools who fell for the John Kerry authorized bio won't get to do similar damage in 2008. ... P.S.: The CW is presumably that this is also good news for Hillary, who wasn't looking like the likely Iowa winner (and maybe bad news for Edwards, who was). ... Update: Several emailers suggest that Vilsack isn't nearly popular enough in Iowa to clear the field the way Tom Harkin did. But he only has to do well enough to give Hillary a plausible excuse for skipping Iowa, no? ... More: Everybody still seems to think I'm wrong about this. I probably am! ... 2:34 P.M.

Sleeping Giant Watch: That front-page Wall Street Journal article on the "Crucial Role of Hispanics" in the Democrats' victory--cited by Alterman, among others--would be more convincing if it came with some actual numbers about the size of the Hispanic vote. Yes, according to exit polls "Hispanics favoring Democrats over Republicans by 73% to 26%." But what percent of the overall vote, in what races, was Hispanic? ... P.S.: Even a follow-up WSJ story [$] has no numbers, only a (highly plausible) claim of "an increase in turnout" among Hispanics, attributed to Sergio Bendixen. ... P.P.S.: No turnout numbers here either. ...

More: Miami Herald's Andres Oppenheimer reports

Hispanics accounted for 8 percent of the total vote. That is about equal to the Hispanic vote's record turnout in the 2004 presidential election, and much more than its turnout in previous mid-term elections. [emphasis added]

You can be impressed with that or not impressed with that. But what's the excuse for leaving that mildy hype-deflating figure out of stories on the "crucial role" of Hispanics? 12:46 P.M.

Wednesday, November 8, 2006

Bloggingheads 2006 Post-Election Special: Kaus hits bottom! 2:27 P.M.

PoliPundit's compiled a useful list of "bright spots" for conservatives from last night. It's not long! 5:16 A.M.

Tuesday, November 7, 2006

Shocker of the Night: On MSNBC, Bob Shrum says Harold Ford wasn't populist enough! ... 10:09 P.M.

Obvious Big Post-Election MSM Theme #!: Why can't more Republicans be flexible like Schwarzenegger? ... [Theme #2?--ed 'The Red state/Blue state divide is over!'] 9:35 P.M.

Is it possible the anti-race preference Michigan Civil Rights Initiative will win? I'd vote for it, but the establishments of both parties had opposed it.. ... 9:12 P.M.

NBC's anchors Russert, Brokaw and Williams can't be Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative--that wouldn't do!--but they can be relentless, tedious advocates of bipartisanship and moderation. Isn't that an ideological position too? ["Bipartisanshp" is a blazing arrow pointing at ...-ed "Comprehensive" immigration reform, I know.] 8:17 P.M.

It looks like Clay Shaw, who played an important and honorable role in the 1996 welfare reform--in part by detoxifying Republican anti-welfare rhetoric--will lose. ... [You like a Republican? What a surprise?-ed Hey, I like Sheldon Whitehouse! I saw him at a fundraiser--he was charmingly wonky. He should be a good senator from Rhode Island (even if he's too violently opposed to the No Child Left Behind law).] 8:06 P.M.

Just Asking 2: How annoyed must Chris Matthews be at having to share his anchor desk with Keith Olbermann? 8:02 P.M.

Just Asking: What does it tell you about a political party if in a year of epic disaster for their opponents the best they can hope for is a 51-49 majority in the Senate? ... Update: Matt Yglesias says it tells us the Senate is constitutionally malapportioned. I agree. But that's still a problem for the Dems! And many readers email to point out that only a third of the Senate was up for election. That's true too. But it's also true that the Democrats have had other elections, with other Senate seats, to build a stronger majority and they haven't. ... The 2004 election, with its famous "wrong track" numbers, should have been good for the Democrats, while it's hard to imagine a more favorable climate than the current one. ... Six years into the last Republican two-term President, in 1986, the Democrats gained eight seats to achieve a 55-45 majority. And Ronald Reagan's sixth year wasn't nearly as bad as George W. Bush's sixth year. ... If this is the high water mark for the Dems in the Senate, it's a low high water mark. ... The same can probably be said for the House, though it's too early to tell exactly how big Pelosi's margin will be. ... 8:21 A.M.

Monday, November 6, 2006

Analyst Charlie Cook is standing by his "wave":

Seven national polls have been conducted since Wednesday, November 1. They give Democrats an average lead of 11.6 percentage points, larger than any party has had going into an Election Day in memory. Even if you knock five points off of it, it's 6.6 percentage points, bigger than the advantage that Republicans had going into 1994.

Furthermore, there is no evidence of a trend in the generic ballot test. In chronological order of interviewing (using the midpoint of field dates), the margins were: 15 points (Time 11/1-3), 6 points (ABC/Wash Post), 4 points (Pew), 7 points (Gallup), 16 points (Newsweek), 20 points (CNN) and 13 points (Fox). -- From Cook Political Report email update. [Emphasis added]

7:57 P.M.

Bloggingheads Pre-Election Special 2006: Featuring moments of deep paranoia. ... And comments! ... 3:08 P.M.

Polycameral Perversity: This is a perverse election.

1. We'd like to punish President Bush. If I could get Bush out of office now with my vote I'd exercise it immediately. But we can't get rid of Bush. We can only defeat his party in Congress.

2. One effect of a Dem House takeover is the radically increased probability that Congress will pass a version of Bush's "comprehensive" immigration reform, including some sort of not-very-difficult path to full citizenship for illegal aliens now living in the U.S. ("semi-amnesty"). The Republican House majority, after all, has been the only thing standing in Bush's way. In other words, a Democratic victory would punish Bush by giving him a gift of his top domestic legislative priority. Perverse! It would be easy to live with the perversity if Bush's plan were sound policy--but it's more Iraq-style wishful Bush thinking: a) thinking that granting amnesty won't encourage more foreign workers to try to come here illegally to position themselves for the next amnesty; b) thinking that a Republican administration will administer a tough, effective system of sanctions against any employers who hire those illegal workers. If you believe that, you probably believed we could just train the Iraqi police force and then everything would calm down over there.

3. If the GOPs lose, it will be primarily because of Iraq--but it seems unlikely that a Democratic victory will actually have a huge effect on American policy in Iraq, at least for the next two years. (Alter agrees.) Bush will still be president, remember (see Perversity #1). He will have to deal with the mess he's gotten the nation into. And it's not as if the Democrats have a raft of solutions that are better than the ones the Baker Commission will come up with. Nor does it seem likely that the Democrats will join with Bush to take responsibility for any new strategy he chooses. But the Dem victory is likely to limit Bush's options--e.g. making it harder for him to credibly threaten a long-range American military presence. Since extricating ourselves from bad military situations (e.g. the Korean War) often requires issuing threats (even nuclear threats) and making promises of military protetion, these new limits may not be a positive development even for those who'd like to get out of Iraq quickly.

The implications of these unintended-but-not-unanticipated, consequences for Tuesday night seem clear to me: the best outcome would be if the GOPs retain the House (thwarting Bush's immigration plan) but decisively lose the Senate (punishing Bush and establishing a mechanism for the hearings and oversight Dems like Alter want). This, of course, is the least likely thing to actually happen. Perversity #4.

Update--Perversity #5: I make a big deal about how it would be better if the Dems lost the House battle, but in the only House race on my ballot, I voted Democratic (absentee). Why? My Democratic congresswoman, Jane Harman, is moderate and responsible. I like her, even if Nancy Pelosi doesn't. ... 12:38 P.M. link


Bloggingheads --Bob Wright's videoblog project. Gearbox--Searching for the Semi-Orgasmic Lock-in. Drudge Report--80 % true. Close enough! Instapundit--All-powerful hit king. Joshua Marshall--He reports! And decides! Wonkette--Makes Jack Shafer feel guilty. Salon--Survives! kf gloating on hold. Andrew Sullivan--He asks, he tells. He sells! David Corn--Trustworthy reporting from the left. Washington Monthly--Includes Charlie Peters' proto-blog. Lucianne.com--Stirs the drink. Virginia Postrel--Friend of the future! Peggy Noonan--Gold in every column. Matt Miller--Savvy rad-centrism. WaPo--Waking from post-Bradlee snooze. Keller's Calmer Times--Registration required. NY Observer--Read it before the good writers are all hired away. New Republic--Left on welfare, right on warfare! Jim Pinkerton--Quality ideas come from quantity ideas. Tom Tomorrow--Everyone's favorite leftish cartoonists' blog. Ann "Too Far" Coulter--Sometimes it's just far enough. Bull Moose--National Greatness Central. John Ellis--Forget that Florida business! The cuz knows politics, and he has, ah, sources. "The Note"--How the pros start their day. Romenesko--O.K. they actually start it here. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities--Money Liberal Central. Steve Chapman--Ornery-but-lovable libertarian. Rich Galen--Sophisticated GOP insider. Man Without Qualities--Seems to know a lot about white collar crime. Hmmm. Overlawyered.com--Daily horror stories. Eugene Volokh--Smart, packin' prof, and not Instapundit! Eve Tushnet--Queer, Catholic, conservative and not Andrew Sullivan! WSJ's Best of the Web--James Taranto's excellent obsessions. Walter Shapiro--Politics and (don't laugh) neoliberal humor! Eric Alterman--Born to blog. Joe Conason--Bush-bashing, free most days. Lloyd Grove--Don't let him write about you. Arianna's Huffosphere--Now a whole fleet of hybrid vehicles. TomPaine.com--Web-lib populists. Take on the News--TomPaine's blog. B-Log--Blog of spirituality! Hit & Run--Reason gone wild! Daniel Weintraub--Beeblogger and Davis Recall Central. Eduwonk--You'll never have to read another mind-numbing education story again. Nonzero--Bob Wright explains it all. John Leo--If you've got political correctness, he's got a column ... [More tk]



low concept
Drugstore Shopping Spree
Slate's guide to last-minute, low-budget gift giving.
By Christopher Beam and Torie Bosch
Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 1:15 PM ET


Last-minute holiday shopping can be a tricky business. If you're in desperate need of a gift at 10:30 p.m. on Dec. 24, you'll probably have to go to the local drugstore. Once inside, you'll need to find low-cost gifts that don't reek of desperation. That can be a tall order when body-waxing kits and low-end deep fryers populate the gift aisle.

Just because you gave your holiday shopping no thought whatsoever doesn't mean you can't be a savvy gift-giver. Ground rule No. 1: Stay away from the fragrances—unless your second cousin just adores the scent of Shania by Stetson. Still need help? If you're so lazy that you can't even find your own gifts at CVS, we've picked out 10 thoughtful (or at least conversation-worthy) presents that cost less than $30. You should be able to find them all just a couple of aisles over from the aspirin.

Click here to read a slide-show essay about how to buy last-minute holiday gifts at the drugstore.



medical examiner
The Skinny on Kids' Diets
Revisiting 1928 wisdom.
By Sydney Spiesel
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 11:07 AM ET

Ever since I became a pediatrician many moons ago, parents have been pressing me for advice on feeding their children, and I have been blithely reassuring them that the best thing they can do is to pay no attention to what their children eat. In support of my laissez-faire position, I have cited the pioneering studies of Clara Davis, a Chicago pediatrician who began publishing in 1928. Truthfully, I cited them even before I actually read them, because what I thought they said suited my message about eating—"leave kids alone!"

When I actually read Davis' papers, my sense of them turned out to be about right. Davis was a skeptic who questioned the conclusion of the time that medical science had definitively established the precise nutritional requirements for children, and that parents needed to follow these rules exactly. Three-quarters of a century later, that rule-bound view still seems suspect. Davis' findings, on the other hand, appear to hold up—but must be adapted to the era of the Twinkie.

A recent article in the journal of the Canadian Medical Association by Stephen Strauss, a journalist who is writing a book about Davis, depicts the historical context for Davis' work. Davis seems to have been remarkably brave, willing to confront the inflexible authority of the leading pediatricians of her day. Her attack on their dietary and behavioral prescriptions was based on a model of childhood centered on joy, pleasure, and self-determination—a radical notion then (and, for some, even now).

In Davis' day, some medical authorities went so far as to recommend essentially starving recalcitrant children until they submitted to the prescribed dietary regimen. Dr. Davis, by contrast, believed in the "wisdom of the body." Offer children a range of simple, healthy foods, she counseled, and without direction they will assemble for themselves a healthful, balanced diet, one that even would correct nutritional deficiencies.

Davis set out to prove her theory with an experiment that would be unthinkable today. She conducted a long-term study of the foods children self-select by stocking nurseries in two Midwestern hospitals with orphans and children whose mothers couldn't support them, and rigidly controlling the foods to which they had access. The experiment began with three orphans aged 7 to 9 months (there is a hint that she later adopted two of them) and ultimately included 15 children. Davis began studying each child just as he or she was being weaned, so later food choices wouldn't be affected by earlier eating experiences. She studied some children for as long as 4½ years, offering them foods drawn from a list of 34 ingredients, plus water. These included such instant baby-pleasers as turnips, cabbage, spinach, bone marrow, sweetbreads, brains, liver, and kidneys. To be fair, there were also other vegetables, fruit, whole grains, eggs, beef, lamb, and chicken. Distinctly absent were candy, soda, ice cream, and prepared foods, and even foods like soups or bread that could be made from the 34 ingredients on the list. Food was never served, but simply made available. Nurses trained not to encourage or discourage eating, or to influence food choice, were present as needed to help with the feeding.

Did the experiment work? For my purposes, very well, since the results pretty much support the advice I've been giving parents. Davis found that each of the 15 kids she studied selected a unique diet for himself or herself. The kids might binge on foods that attracted them at one meal, but by the end of the day (or, truth be told, several days), the total food they'd eaten added up to a nutritionally perfect and complete diet for every one of them. The kids grew well and Davis described them as unusually happy and healthy ("rollicking and rosy-cheeked").

This was surely the largest and most comprehensive study of dietary self-selection by children that has ever been done—indeed, that is ever likely to be done, since we would no longer permit children to be placed and observed for years in an orphanagelike ward, no matter how jolly the hospital or laudable the research. Modern study of children's dietary preferences is more focused on simpler questions: Are children born with a preference for sweet taste? (Yes.) At what age does preference for salt emerge? (About 4 months.) Can we successfully change children's eating habits? (Maybe.) These questions bear on the foods children are likely to select if they get to pick. But they cannot replace research in which children are observed to see how they exercise choice.

So, however problematic, Davis' results continue to be of great value. And they reinforce my beliefs in the power of individual taste and the idea that parents don't need to tell their kids what to eat. At the same time, this wasn't much of an experiment. Only 15 kids in an unnatural setting, cared for by staff, eating weird foods, and under constant observation. And then, at the end, the result of this weirdness was compared with—what?

Is it valid to apply Davis' findings to contemporary children? As she herself pointed out in a lecture to the Canadian Medical Association summarizing her life's work, probably not. The children in this study were limited to an experimental diet based on a very narrow range of choices. There were no prepared or specially flavored foods, no sweet desserts (except a little fruit) and no rich, fatty foods. We have no idea how the experiment might have turned out had the children also been able to choose from these ingredients.

But we do have some suspicions. If kids today were asked to self-select from foods that included healthy options but also potato chips, chocolate chip cookies, Coca-Cola, cheeseburgers, and candy bars, I am skeptical that their diets would end up as well-balanced as the children in Davis' study. They would have to contend with our innate taste preferences for the sweet, the rich, and the delicious.

Still, Davis' work suggests some feeding strategies that are likely to have a better outcome than either choosing everything that goes on your child's plate or giving in to every request for snacks and dessert. Provide kids with a choice of healthy foods, keeping less-healthy ingredients out of the house. As best you can, resist your impulses to try to control your child's diet. Then (as with everything else involving kids), stand back, bite your tongue, and hope it works.



sidebar

Return to article

Sadly, as Strauss points out, Davis collected such huge amounts of data for her study—at least 36,000 daily food records, for example—that the records exceeded her capabilities of analysis and, apparently, were thrown away after her death in 1959.



sidebar

Return to article

The mouths of most mammals can perceive five basic tastes: sweet, salty, sour, bitter, and umami (the "delicious" taste added by MSG and many amino acids). Most animals, including humans, find sweet, salty, and umami to be attractive tastes. (Cats are an exception: They are genetically unable to taste sweet.) Much of what we think of as "taste" is really odor, detected in the back of the nose as we chew and swallow. A quality called "mouth feel" by food experts also plays a role in our attraction to particular foods. We seem to especially like the richness of foods that contain microscopic spherical particles, like fat globules.



moneybox
The Corporate Scrooge Contest Results
America's worst office Christmas parties, gifts, and bonuses.
By Daniel Gross
Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 4:41 PM ET

Our appeal for corporate Scrooges—tales of office parties canceled, miserly bonuses, and pathetic gifts—generated a generous response. Nearly 200 Slate readers wrote in, providing enough fodder for several episodes of The Office. We heard from employees of car dealerships, doctors, and small law firms, but also from blue workers at blue chips, including Burberry, Dow Jones, Goldman Sachs, Disney, Wells Fargo, and Wal-Mart.

The complaints fell into several broad categories:

1. The thought doesn't count. Several people described receiving bonuses and gift card items of defined monetary value that struck them as insultingly small. Two Wal-Mart employees reported that they received a holiday gift that consisted of a coupon good for 20 percent off a single item at the world's biggest retailer. One newspaper owned by McClatchy offered employees a $15 gift card to Dillard's department store, where $15 won't go much further than a pair of socks. Several people wrote of noticing bonuses of $25—pretax—tacked on to their year-end paychecks. One informant said that Cintas Corp., a uniform maker, offered employees a $25 Wal-Mart holiday gift card, but that the card couldn't be used to buy alcohol or cigarettes.

The winner in this category: A reader reported that his wife, a dental assistant, received a $30 certificate to the fancy clothing store owned by the dentist's wife, in which no item for sale was close to that price.

2. Useless, cheap merchandise. Universities seem to be particular offenders in this regard. The wife of an Indiana University employee recalls with disgust "a food basket filled with little paper cartons of dehydrated apple soup." Every year Duke University gives a Duke Holiday "Suncatcher," of a different campus building. And a former employee of Canadian printer Quebecor World recalls with chagrin receiving a "slightly damaged ornament" for Christmas. Le bah humbug!

The winner: A former employee of the firm that produces the Great Dickens Christmas Fair in San Francisco reports that the company departed from its tradition of giving modest cash bonuses and instead gave out white painters' caps with the words "Bah Humbug" stenciled in red.

3. Bait and switch. In which companies promise one thing and give another, or pair a meager carrot at holiday time with a large stick.

"When the CEO called me into his office to tell me about the Christmas bonus, I was genuinely surprised with the generosity," writes an employee of a thriving community bank in Florida. "When the deposit came into my account, it was 20 percent less than what he promised." Our Midwest correspondent reports that management of a food distributor in a small town in Iowa promised they would use funds raised from workers recycling soda cans to fund a catered holiday meal with door prizes at a local community center. But as the holidays approached, they shifted it to a "pot luck meal in the breakroom on a weekend." After complaints, management relented and offered a "snacks and punch reception."

The winner: A contract consultant sends word that the company to which he is currently assigned recently sent out an e-mail to some 2,000-odd consultants. The company would give away two $100 gift cards—to two of the brave souls who would commit to work 80 hours between Dec. 18 and Dec. 31. As our correspondent noted: "Hey, if you work Christmas, we'll put you in a pool of 2,000 other folks to maybe win a hundred bucks."

4. Devolution. Veterans of companies note with dismay the progressive scaling down of Christmas spirit. At a large marketing and printing firm, an employee recalls that Christmas 2005 brought a party on a boat. This year: a "casual snack" after lunch. An employee at the outsourcing firm Convergys recalls the following downshifting:

2004: $15 Target gift card

2005: $10 Publix gift card

2006: an umbrella with the company's logo

In 2004 and 2005, employees of one giant insurance firm received a $500 after-tax bonus on the last paycheck of the year. This year, however, the formula has been changed to a discretionary performance-based bonus. "Conventional wisdom estimates that the employees who actually receive one will net about $100 in March," Moneybox's insurance correspondent writes.

The winner: An employee of a very large law firm in Chicago reports that the firm in 2005 had a positively bacchanalian blow-out. It sprawled over four floors, "including one floor decorated to look like a forest glen in medieval England, complete with suits of armor and fake-fire torches with buffet tables stacked with serrano ham, sausage, smoked venison, cheeses, etc. And, naturally, a chocolate fountain." Mmmmm. Chocolate fountain. This year, our legal source writes: "no decoration, barely edible food, and worst of all, the party was completely dry." Completely dry? Why, a corporate party without alcohol is like, well, it's like a corporate party without alcohol.

There's more. In a news release, United Steelworkers Union Local 12-192 reports that Riverside Cement Company, a California-based unit of TXI, is using the Christmas party as a cudgel in negotiations, "In previous years, union hourly workers and their families have been welcome at the company's holiday gathering, where common laborers could sip eggnog with corporate managers in the spirit of fellowship," the release states. "But this year's party at the Hilton [in Victorville, Ca.] is for non-union, salaried employees only."

The lamest party ever? There are surely many contenders. But this one ranks high on my list. A former employee of Manhattan's legendary Strand Bookstore writes that the store treats its staffers to a holiday party, before the 18 miles of shelves are open to the public, from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. "Few employees actually attend," the ex-Strander writes, "given that to do so would have them arriving at their workplace a full hour early to eat bagels in dismal surroundings with their coworkers."

Perhaps the most Dickensian example comes from Scrooge's homeland. One writer nominated his former employer, David Bury Ltd in the Dickensian-sounding town of Grimsby. "During my time with the company as a consumer electronic service engineer, the annual Christmas bonus given to all employees was a bag of potatoes," he writes. Apparently a relative of the boss owned a potato farm.

God bless us, every one.



movies
Sugar and Spice
The schlocky appeal of Dreamgirls.
By Dana Stevens
Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 11:18 PM ET


For all its flaws, Dreamgirls is what this holiday season needs. It's a big, fat, luscious movie in which no one is tortured, murdered, or mutilated (honestly, how many recent films can you say that about?), as well as a heartfelt paean to the transformative power of singing (even if the songs themselves are kind of meh). Despite its schlocky score and slack pacing, I predict this film will be wildly successful, for two reasons: One, because it makes audiences feel good. And two, because in the figure of Jennifer Hudson, who was unexpectedly voted off American Idol in Season 3, Americans can finally experience the completion of the collective star-making fantasy we've nurtured for four years now on that show.

Though the beloved stage musical that the movie is based on predated Idol by two decades, the Dreamgirls ethos is of a piece with that of the hit reality show, where "being a diva" and "finding your voice" constitute the performer's supreme good. Dreamgirls is the story of a woman who does exactly that. Well, three women, actually: Deena Jones, the Diana Ross-like singer played by Beyoncé Knowles; Effie White, the soulful belter played by Jennifer Hudson; and the ditzy but loyal Lorrell (Anika Noni Rose) all do their share of voice-finding and diva-being over the course of the movie's 15-year time span. But the fact that even Beyoncé—a gifted and charismatic performer whose cheekbones alone are an argument for the existence of God—takes a back seat to Hudson throughout the movie is a measure of how star-making Hudson's supporting role is.

Dreamgirls takes off with a bang in a snappy opening sequence, as the titular trio, billed as The Dreamettes, compete in an amateur talent show in Detroit. Like Hudson in the third season of Idol, they lose the contest but soon move on to bigger things: A slick car dealer named Curtis Taylor (Jamie Foxx) offers to manage their careers and becomes Effie's man in the process. Soon the girls are singing back-up for a James Brown-style soul showman named James Thunder Early (played with career-remaking brio by Eddie Murphy). When the girls land a gig of their own at a lily-white Miami club, Curtis decides to revamp the look and sound of the group: He changes their name to The Dreams, relegates Effie to backup, and has the whiter-looking and -sounding Deena sing lead. When Effie gives him attitude about this turn of events, Curtis summarily replaces her with a skinnier, more compliant back-up singer (Sharon Leal) and starts an affair with the glamorous Deena.

Understandably furious, Effie launches into her big ballad, an abject plea that could be the theme, not only of every rejected lover, but of every showbiz wannabe (I predict it shows up next season on American Idol). After this showstopper, the show does, indeed, stop, or at least slow to a pace that never picks up momentum again. The second half of the movie descends into standard biopic rhythm, punctuating the Dreams' rise to superstardom with ever more expository and less moving songs. (My personal low point was when Foxx crooned his passion for Beyoncé over a montage of her increasingly outré fashion spreads, a number I like to call "Baby, I Love Your Photo Shoot.")

It only takes a short list of Supremes song titles—"Where Did Our Love Go?", "Baby Love,"* "Stop! In the Name of Love"—to point out the difference between genuine Motown and the Dreamgirls score. Were you able to read any of those titles without hearing the hook in your head? By contrast, the songs in Dreamgirls, even the big Effie number cited above, leave you walking out of the theater with nary a toe a-tappin'. I'll leave it to my colleague Jody Rosen to more explicitly discuss the score, but suffice it to say that, though the songs range from the agreeably banal to the watch-consultingly dull, not a single melody will remain in your head the day after.

Still, watching Dreamgirls on the big screen feels like an event somehow. Maybe it's the conviction and passion that the actors bring to their roles. Unlike the film version of Chicago (scripted by this film's director, Bill Condon), Dreamgirls doesn't feel synthetic and dead on-screen. It uses theatrical conventions to capture some of the energy of live theater; for example, a clever curtain-call-style credit sequence gives the audience a chance to cheer for the actors one by one as we revisit the highlights of each performance. The audience I saw Dreamgirls with went crazy for the whole cast but especially Hudson, who's a pure delight to watch whether she's shaking her copious rack at the talent-show audience, storming out of a recording session, or telling off her rival. Hudson's climactic plea in her big song—"You're Gonna Love Me"—seems to have done its job: We do. I'd say she has a lock on a Best Supporting Actress nomination, if not a win. Whatever happens next in Hudson's career, the journey from talent-show reject to this year's discovery is a Cinderella comeback worthy of Effie White herself.

Correction: Dec. 22, 2006: This article originally included "Please, Mr. Postman" in a list of Supremes song titles. The song was recorded by the Marvelettes. (Return to the corrected sentence.)



movies
The Movie of the Millennium
Alfonso Cuarón's fantastic Children of Men.
By Dana Stevens
Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 6:20 PM ET


Though I'll be coming out with a 10-best list in this space next week, I've never been much of one for the year-end obsession with sorting and ranking cultural products in neat rows. But I'll go out on a limb and say this: Children of Men (Universal), Alfonso Cuarón's dense, dark, and layered meditation on fertility, technology, immigration, war, love, and life itself may be the movie of the still-young millennium. And I don't just mean it's one of the best movies of the past six years. Children of Men, based on the 1992 novel by P.D. James, is the movie of the millennium because it's about our millennium, with its fractured, fearful politics and random bursts of violence and terror. Though it's set in the London of 2027, Cuarón's film isn't some high-tech, futuristic fantasy. It takes place in a grimly familiar location: the hell we are currently making for ourselves.

The particular conditions of that hell, sketched with a deft indirectness in the bravura opening sequence, are these: Since a fertility crisis of unknown origin struck in 2009, no new people have been born on earth. The human race is dying out slowly as the planet falls into political chaos. As a propagandistic slogan on a TV screen early in the film boasts, "The world has collapsed. Only Britain soldiers on"—mainly by means of a strict anti-immigration policy that rounds up refugees in cages to be sent to camps. When the world's youngest living citizen, an 18-year-old still known as "Baby Diego," dies in a bar brawl, the whole planet mourns, egged on by sentimental tabloid media that are only the barest exaggeration of our own.

Theo (Clive Owen), a former activist who's now a burned-out bureaucrat in the Ministry of Energy, hardly reacts to the death of Baby Diego."He was a wanker," he tells his friend Jasper (Michael Caine), an ex-political cartoonist who makes a living selling pot in the countryside near London. "Yeah, but he was the world's youngest wanker," Jasper counters.

On his way back to the city, Theo is kidnapped by the Fishes, a rebel group responsible for several recent bombings. As it happens, the Fishes' leader, Julian (Julianne Moore), is Theo's ex-wife, with whom he had and lost a child 20 years before. Now all business, Julian bribes Theo into using his connections to secure transit papers for a member of their group, a young African immigrant named Kee (Clare-Hope Ashitey.) As it turns out, Kee is mysteriously pregnant, only a month away from delivery. Soon the half-unwilling Theo is helping to smuggle Kee to the coast, aided by a new-agey midwife (Pam Ferris) and hunted both by terrorist factions and government troops.

When I said above that Children of Men is a "layered" film, it wasn't a metaphor. Nearly every frame is a palimpsest of visual information, from TV screens to graffiti-covered walls to the newspaper headlines and propaganda posters plastered everywhere in the gray and squalid London of Cuarón's imagination. His vision of the future comes to us in details that are as precise as they are terrifying. "It's Day 100 of the Siege of Seattle," burbles a radio voice as the movie opens, and we don't need to hear any more than that to picture the United States as a distant, war-torn police state like … well, a few others I could name.

The sound and production design lay the groundwork for a convincing dystopia, but it's Cuarón's daring, fluid camera that brings this terrible world to life. Without being showy about it, he creates two of the most virtuoso single-shot chase sequences I've ever seen. So virtuoso, in fact, that as the scenes are unfolding, all you can think is, sweet Jesus, please let the good guys get away! It's only later that you realize the technique that went into crafting that sickening suspense. In the first of the two sequences, a car chase, the cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, helped create a special rig that allowed the camera to swivel 360 degrees around the interior of the car. The second sequence, a siege on a building in a war zone, provides the movie's shattering climax; by the end of the nearly 10-minute shot, the camera lens is spattered with dirt and (fake, I hope) blood.

As reluctant hero Theo, Owen has the weary gravity of a Mitchum or a Bogart. He seems like an adult, a rare thing in action heroes these days, and Moore is a perfect match as the rebel leader who gave up long ago on the luxury of personal happiness. Michael Caine plays Jasper as John Lennon if he really had lived to be 64, a loopy, irreverent sage with a taste for strawberry-flavored pot. The scenes in Jasper's cozy hideout in the woods provide the only warmth in Theo's uncompromisingly chilly world, until he opens himself to the fragile hope growing inside the body of the decidedly unfragile Kee (played by 19-year-old Ashitey with great freshness and verve.)

I have almost nothing negative to say about Children of Men. A couple of scenes, including one expository monologue by the midwife, hit their emotional marks a little too neatly, and one might argue that the particulars of the film's political world are too vaguely sketched (though to me, this obliqueness was one of the film's strengths—it never condescends to its viewers with a pat history lesson). Cuarón, who's no newcomer to evoking magical worlds onscreen (A Little Princess, Y Tu Mamá También, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban), feels like he's just hitting his stride.

A movie about the last days of humanity that opens on Christmas Day may seem like a bleak choice for holiday viewing. But Children of Men is a modern-day nativity story that's far more moving and even, in its way, reverent than the current film by that name. It's also the herald of another blessed event: the arrival of a great director by the name of Alfonso Cuarón.



music box
The Greatest Song Ever Filmed
Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls.
By Jody Rosen
Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 6:47 PM ET


Reading the early reviews of Dreamgirls, you could be forgiven for getting the impression that it's not really a movie, but a song, surrounded by 125 minutes of padding. You wouldn't exactly be wrong, either. Reviewers have lavished superlatives on Jennifer Hudson's showstopping performance of "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going," just like theater critics did when Jennifer Holliday sang the song in Dreamgirls' initial Broadway run nearly a quarter-century ago, and there's no denying that it is by far the film's most riveting scene—the one moment, in this musical about music, when a song really grips your emotions. (The costumes and art direction in Dreamgirls are fantastic and period-perfect, but the score's alleged Motown pastiches are laughably off.)

The centerpiece, "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going," doesn't quite feel like a pop song, even though Holliday's version topped the black singles chart back in 1982 and reached No. 22 on the pop charts. There's a bit too much Broadway in the whimpering little bridge section that arrives at about the 1:20 mark in Hudson's recording ("We're part of the same place, we're part of the same time"). And the song's length is clearly a product of staging imperatives. (Hudson spends the first half of the song clutching and tearing at Jamie Foxx). Real pop songs have less slack.

Still, "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going" is an amazing piece of music, which will be blowing back listeners' ears long after Jennifer Hudson marches off with her inevitable Best Supporting Actress Oscar. The song arrives midway through the film—it was the first-act closer on Broadway—when Effie White (Hudson), the erstwhile lead singer of Detroit trio the Dreams, learns that she's being dumped both from the group and by her boyfriend, Curtis Taylor Jr. (Foxx). It is a squall of pain and defiance, delivered over swelling strings and gospel-flavored piano chords in series of crescendos: Just when you think Hudson is done, she rears back and delivers another, yet more stirring, skyward-striving chorus. While the pathos of the song is immense, it is dazzling simply as a piece of vocal athleticism. And Hudson has managed to claim the song as her own in spite of the hugely intimidating specter of Holliday's original. Reportedly, Hudson watched Holliday's torrid performance at the 1982 Tony Awards dozens of times—talk about overcoming the anxiety of influence.

The result is a cinematic diva moment for the ages: Even Judy Garland's most iconic on-screen ballad performances seem small compared with the last lingering shot of Hudson, the camera whirling overhead as she blasts out a final "You're gonna love me!" In fact, "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going" is a kind of summary of the great American diva tradition, our native answer to the grand opera aria-belters of the old world. The term diva has gotten rather watered down in current pop culture usage, to the point where the title is given to any moderately famous actress or singer with an air of hauteur about her and a personal trainer in her employ. But, in the classical musical formulation, Paris Hilton is certainly no diva—and for that matter, neither is Mariah Carey or Whitney Houston. Old-fashioned divadom entails not just an imperious attitude and a big voice, but a theme—pain, particularly as supplied by callous men and cruel fate—and a task: to transcend that anguish through cathartic declamation. You know the divas of whom I speak: Maria Callas, Edith Piaf, Billie Holiday, Garland, Aretha Franklin, and today's Queen of Pain, Mary J. Blige. And now, perhaps, Jennifer Hudson.

The key figure is Aretha Franklin. She was the diva who brought the tolling piano chords, dramatically slow-boiling songs, and explosive vocal expressiveness of African-American gospel and applied them to the secular subject of romantic love. It's there in her greatest ballads: "Ain't No Way," "Oh Me, Oh My," "Sweet Bitter Love," even lesser, latter-day songs like "It Hurts Like Hell" and her killer cover version of Lionel Richie's "Truly." The emotional heft of these songs, and the power of Franklin's musical genius, is self-evident. But there is more here. Political coding has been the norm in African-American music dating back to slavery, and the political dimension is especially pronounced in Franklin's work, with its strong gospel overtones. You need look no further than her most famous song, "Respect," which, through the sheer power of her performance, Aretha turned from a plea for sexual gratification into a civil rights anthem. Of course, a feminist politics is implicit in all diva ballads, with their fervent demands for proper treatment by men—demands that carry special poignancy and moral force in the music of Franklin and her followers, given the historically heavy burden shouldered by black women. In a society that still hasn't solved the problems or purged the guilt of its racial legacy, the spectacle of a black woman stormily standing up for herself can feel less like pop song convention, and more like a call to conscience.

Which brings us back to Hudson and her big song. Not a few writers have noted how Effie White's story grades into Jennifer Hudson's. In Dreamgirls, Effie is demoted from lead singer duties in favor of the lighter-skinned, thinner, prettier, and slighter-voiced Deena Jones (played by Beyoncé), who incidentally marries the man who fathered Effie's daughter. Hudson was a favorite to win Season 3 of American Idol, when she was inexplicably voted off. Elton John decried the result as racist, and indeed, it was hard not to see Hudson's dismissal as a case of the big-boned black girl getting screwed over. So when Hudson tears into "And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going," she is singing not just for Effie White, but for Jennifer Hudson, American Idol also-ran, and for all African-American women who don't quite look like Miss USA (or for that matter, Beyoncé Knowles)—not to mention those millions of black women raising children without a man in the house. Of course, the greatness of the song is the transcendence it offers, to those who know Effie's pain firsthand, and to everyone else. Hudson's voice booms, huge and bright, rippling with grief but bringing ecstasy. At the screening I saw, the audience gasped and applauded throughout the song, a first in my movie-going experience. "No, no, no, no," Hudson sings. Sitting in a darkened theater, you want to cry, "Yes, yes, yes."



music box
The Best Jazz Albums of 2006
Time and tide wait for no man, except maybe jazz musicians.
By Fred Kaplan
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 3:28 PM ET

Is jazz getting old, or is it just me? Looking over my picks for the year's 10 best jazz discs, I see that the leaders on only two of them are under 50 (though I should note that they're barely 30), four are over 70, and one of them is damn near 90! Still, youthful spirits are wafting all through this music. Abandon morbid thoughts, and drink the potion.


Ornette Coleman, Sound Grammar (Sound Grammar)

Ornette Coleman is 76, but rarely in a half-century of music-making has he blown his alto sax with such brio or sheer beauty. Through sweat-soaked ballads, languorous blues, serpentine dance beats, and boisterous hi-fly, what shines through most keenly is his feel for melody—still a surprise to many who expect nothing but dense chaos from "the father of free jazz." Sound Grammar is one of his most accessible albums, and his quartet (son Deonardo on drums, and two bassists, Greg Cohen plucking and Tony Falanga bowing) is his most supple in decades. (I wrote at about this album at greater length in Slate two months ago, replete with sound clips, here.)


Keith Jarrett, The Carnegie Hall Concert (ECM)

I've begun my reviews of Keith Jarrett's last three albums by saying something like, "I'm usually put off by his self-indulgence but this one's really good …" Time to change the preface: Jarrett is the most magisterial jazz pianist around, and this album marks a peak. He was 60 when he played a rare solo date at Carnegie Hall on Sept. 26, 2005, and this two-disc album captures its entirety—an hour of 10 improvisations, followed by five encores of his old hits. I was there that night, a bit wary at first but won over a few minutes in. His rhapsodic tone clusters, like something out of Ravel or Debussy, are still riveting, but more appealing, in a way, are the and the way he can craft a simple line into a sumptuous gem.


Fred Hersch, In Amsterdam: Live at the Bimhui (Palmetto)

Fred Hersch, 51, is another grandly lyrical pianist, though more in the school of Bill Evans and more prone to flex his virtuosity over the songbook of American standards. This live solo date at a Dutch jazz club finds him more restlessly propulsive than usual. There's a muscularity in his playing, yet he preserves his romantic touch. The highlight might be a 12-minute meditation on Jimmy Rowles' ballad "," but listen as well to the zest he can muster with two fingers, Chopsticks-style, from the intro to "A Lark."


Sonny Rollins, Sonny, Please (Doxy)

Sonny Rollins, the tenor saxophone colossus, 76, remains on his finest days the most inventive improviser in jazz. Sonny, Please stands as his best studio album in a few decades, which, yes, says more about his other recent studio albums than about this one (most of his great records are live), but even so. The usual complaints: He gives too much solo time to his bandmates, who are OK but way beneath him; and Sonny himself doesn't always push himself to the max. But he's on way more than he's off, and his solos are intense. Listen to the , where he probes in deep, dark territory but resurfaces with a return to the melody, followed by a quote from "O Susanna"—and it works!


Omer Avital, Asking No Permission (Smalls)

Israeli-born bassist-composer Omer Avital was 25 when he recorded this live session in 1996 at the very small Greenwich Village jazz club called Smalls with a sextet that included a drummer and four saxophone players. Much hype surrounded the band's weekly sessions, but they played the 2 a.m. set, so few heard them. With this album's long-overdue release, it's clear the hype was warranted. There's in this music—the dark rumbles beneath the merrily dissonant harmonies—but some of World Saxophone Quartet's , too, all topped with sweet tones and swaying melodies.


Bill Frisell/Ron Carter/Paul Motian (Nonesuch)

Guitarist Bill Frisell, 55, strums his customary mix of jazz, Twin Peaks, and wah-wah bluegrass, joined by bassist Ron Carter (69) and drummer Paul Motian (75—could it be?!) in an unexpectedly convivial trio. The disc begins with a very spacey rundown of "," a blues that Carter wrote with Miles Davis when they played together in the mid-'60s; follows up with the oddest-ball version of "" that you're likely to hear; and segues into a bluesy, twangy Frisell original called "," with Carter plucking the bass more imaginatively than I've heard from him in years. Motian swirls his brushes and keeps pushing the beat off-center like nobody. A wiggy delight.


Mario Pavone, Deez to Blues (Playscape)

Mario Pavone, 66, a veteran staple of New York's downtown jazz scene, may be the most unjustly obscure bassist-bandleader-composer. There's some Mingus here, too—and not just in the way Pavone slaps the bass strings and lets their overtones mingle with the stacked harmonies. His aptly peculiar sextet (a trumpet, tuba, and violin, meshed in with the piano, bass, and drums) navigates the shoals with airtight verve. They do and with equal aplomb and weird beauty.


Jason Moran, Artist in Residence (Blue Note)

Jason Moran, at 31 the most inventive and versatile jazz pianist around, wrote most of these tracks as commissions for art centers, and the album comes off as a sonic Chelsea art-gallery tour: alternately quirky, adventurous, maddening, wondrous, sometimes all at once. "," in which Moran expertly recites a Carl Maria von Weber tune over the sound of pencil-scribbling (in memory of his mother's furious note-taking while he practiced as a child) is pure Dada. "," in which he mimics an artist's monologue, highlighting the music of natural speech, is like a wittier-than-usual mixed-media installation. But there's also the brisk melody of "," which evokes a crisp dawn photo of, well, an Arizona landscape.


Fred Anderson, Timeless: Live at the Velvet Lounge (Delmark)

Tenor saxophonist Fred Anderson, 77, is a fixture on the Chicago music scene, which may be why he's less known than he should be in the Manhattan-centric jazzosphere. Imagine mid-'60s Coltrane with a few squirts of R&B, and you'll be in the ballpark: . His drummer, Hamid Drake, familiar to New York denizens for his work with William Parker and David Murray, spins rhythms within rhythms. Bassist Harrison Bankhead, who seems to play only with Anderson, is astonishing: soaring and diving through octaves and hitting notes as right as they are unexpected. This was recorded live at the Velvet Lounge, a South Side club that Anderson has owned for decades and where he plays routinely. It's worth a trip, or at least a purchase.


Hank Jones/Christian McBride/Jimmy Cobb, West of 5th (Chesky)

Here's the contest-winner: Hank Jones, 88 (!), who played piano with Charlie Parker and just about every great jazz musician since, still prowling the keyboard, maybe not quite as forcefully as he once did, but hardly less briskly or lyrically. His harmonies sing, and he's still got . No mind-benders; just a fresh, breezy set of standards, masterfully laid out, backed by Jimmy Cobb brushing the trapset as crisply as he did 47 years ago on Miles Davis' Kind of Blue and young Christian McBride plucking the bass more energetically than he has lately.

Finally, respeck to Mosaic Records, the mail-order record company in Stamford, Conn., for continuing to produce the liveliest, loveliest jazz reissue boxes. Highlights this year: the 7-CD Verve/Philips Dizzy Gillespie Small Group Sessions from the mid-'50s to mid-'60s (which, despite uneven material, confirms Diz's standing as the greatest jazz trumpeter ever); the 3-CD Andrew Hill—Solo (long out-of-print, always hard-to-find ruminations from 1978 by one of the most imaginative pianist-composers); and a single-disc Duke Ellington, The Cosmic Scene, an obscure 1958 session featuring a handpicked few from Duke's big band, ripping through classics in a muscular, streamlined sound (and, with this reissue, in stereo for the first time).



podcasts
Euphemisms for … Sex
Plus, help us find the best way to say drunk.
By Andy Bowers
Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 6:11 PM ET

Click here * to play or download Slate's latest euphemisms audio contest, featuring language columnist Barbara Wallraff.

There is quite probably no topic better suited to euphemism than, as it were, "playing cars and garages."

In fact, it's been noted that almost any phrase can be made to sound like a reference to sex, simply by adding the nudge-nudge clause "if you know what I mean."

Example: "Did you butter that bread, if you know what I mean?"

But last month, when we threw the challenge out to our readers to find the best euphemism for sex, they responded with some remarkably funny and apropos turns of phrase, many drawn from their own lives. You can hear the story behind terms like "waxing the giraffe," and find out what euphemism was judged the very best by contest curator Barbara Wallraff, by clicking here. *

You don't need an iPod or other portable audio device to hear the program—you can play it right from your computer.

The program also contains the details of our next euphemism contest. In this one, we're looking for your favorite ways to describe the state many of us will find ourselves in on New Year's Eve. That is, we want the best euphemism for drunk.

As always, we strongly recommend that you listen to the program before submitting an entry. Here are the details:

The deadline: Jan. 7, 2007.

The e-mail address: podcast@wordcourt.com.

The prize: None (sorry). But winners will be noted on Barbara's Web site, www.wordcourt.com, and she may include worthy entries in a future book (not unlike her most recent book, Word Fugitives).

(By entering this contest, you grant Slate permission to use your name, unless you expressly request otherwise.)

For comments, not contest entries, write us at podcasts@slate.com.

* If clicking on the link doesn't start the audio playing on your system, or if you prefer to download it, try right-clicking (Windows) or holding down the Control key while you click (Mac), and then use the "save" or "download" command to save the audio file to your hard drive.



poem
"Old Newspaper Clipping in an Old Novel"
By Michael McFee
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 6:10 AM ET

Click to listen to Michael McFee read this poem.





It flutters to the table

but leaves behind a silhouette,

a yellowish-brown rectangle

its newsprint pressed into

the front endpapers for decades,

an inkless stain, inverse bleaching,

the author's obituary scissored

by faithful librarian or fan

casting a shadow bookplate,

its grave a greasy window

we can't quite see through.



politics
What Has Bush Learned From His Mistakes?
Nothing.
By John Dickerson
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 6:43 PM ET


At his press conference Wednesday, the president was asked what lessons he's learned after five years of war. He's been asked a version of this question many times since he had such trouble answering it in April 2004. He has tried various responses over the years and none has been satisfying. This morning's answer also fell short: "It is important for us to be successful going forward is to analyze that which went wrong, and clearly, one aspect of this war that has not gone right is the sectarian violence inside Baghdad."

It is progress of a kind for the president to talk about the need to examine past failures—there was a time when he didn't even admit them—but the answer still failed. First, Bush didn't actually answer the question. He talked about what went wrong, but not what he learned. Second, Bush seemed to suggest that the sectarian violence in Iraq was unforeseen—not so much something that went wrong, but a surprise they didn't anticipate. But war planners did know the sectarian violence was coming. The State Department, Army War College, and CIA analysts all predicted that the Shia and Sunnis would go after each other (apparently they've been at it for a while). The president and his team ignored or discounted these assessments.

It's hardly surprising that the president didn't answer a question at a press conference. Bush regularly answers the wrong question at length to give the appearance of answering without actually doing so. He gives a response when what we want is an answer. (Even his dodge Wednesday was familiar.) What's so curious is why Bush is keeping up this avoidance act while at the same time trying to rebuild his trust with the country. By not answering this specific question, he trades away perhaps his only chance to get people to listen to him again.

People don't trust the president on the war, and they don't approve of the job he's doing. They haven't for a long time. They think he's either lying to them or that he's out of it. The tricks he has offered to win them back to his strategy—from scaring the public about Democrats and their proposals, to hyping the consequences of not following his policies, to poking his finger in the air—have not worked. This is a problem for him, because in January he will give yet another Big Speech on Iraq. In it he will offer his new strategy for completing the mission.

But why will anyone listen to Bush's new approach?

To win back that portion of the audience that hasn't completely turned away from him, the White House is employing a two-pronged strategy. First, Bush's people are trying to show that the president is working really hard to find the new answer. He has ordered reviews at the State Department and Pentagon and held repeated meetings with military officials. He's also studying the Iraq Study Group plan (even though he has pretty much trashed its major recommendations). Second, the president and his aides are trying to show that he actually understands how grave the situation is in Iraq. On Tuesday, he told the Washington Post that America is not winning in Iraq, matching the candor for which his incoming secretary of defense was praised during his confirmation hearings.

It's great that the president is being more candid about the ground truth in Iraq, but that's not enough to regain support for next month's big speech. That's only enough to keep people from thinking he's delusional. It's also not enough to be told that Bush and his advisers have thought really long and hard about the new way forward. Presumably they were thinking long and hard over the last several years. Perhaps they should think less. (As Bush's policies about the war, stem-cell research, and Social Security reform suggest, public displays of thoughtfulness are more a public relations effort than a sign of a vigorous assessment of policy.)

To get people to buy into his solutions, the president has to put candor into his policy review. He has to prove that the new solutions weren't cooked up with the same broken process that cooked up the first batch of bad solutions. Which brings us back to the question of what lessons he's learned. He's been accused of living in a bubble, so who told him things during this round of meetings that he didn't want to hear? Whom did he seek out at the State Department that he would not have in the past? Who yelled at him? Who talked him out of a bad idea? What gut instinct that he trusted in the past has he learned to think twice about? He should answer the question about what he's learned from his mistakes, how he incorporated those lessons into his new policy process, and how the strategy he's put forward is the fruit of that new way of operating. That might—might—persuade some Americans to give him one more chance.

White House officials and Bush supporters have always thought questions about mistakes and lessons learned are merely press attempts to make Bush whip himself in public. But Bush and his aides should get over it. If they don't, his speech in January will have the same dismal result as all the Big Iraq Speeches that came before it.



politics
The Five Best Political Moments of 2006
From Dick Cheney's pepper spray to Mark Foley's instant messages.
By John Dickerson
Monday, December 18, 2006, at 7:07 PM ET


December is usually a quiet time in politics. Members of Congress leave Washington, and the president is tied down by an endless procession of Christmas parties. Journalists finally do their expenses. But this year is ending with a spasm of news. South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson's precarious health raises questions about whether the Democrats can control the Senate. Presidential candidates Bill Frist and Evan Bayh have dropped out of the 2008 race while Barack Obama showed signs that he was about to jump in. Just over the horizon in January 2007 is the trial of former Cheney aide Scooter Libby, which promises to disclose lots of long-hidden secrets about the Bush administration. But before that starts, let's look back at 2006, an exciting political year that started with a bang in February, when Dick Cheney shot his hunting partner, and ended with a firing in November, when George Bush finally removed Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. Here are five of the year's best political moments, listed in chronological order:

1. Cheney's Got a Gun

Dick Cheney has done things his way in his six years as vice president. He's kept Congress from prying into his business, claimed expanded powers for the executive branch, and repeatedly stiff-armed the press. But there are some Washington customs he hasn't been able to change. It's still the case that when you're the vice president and you shoot a guy, you've got to speak up about it. In February, Cheney shot his hunting pal Harry Whittington. Despite being surrounded by the world's best communications equipment, Cheney didn't get the word out for nearly a day. When he did, it was to a tiny local Texas paper. The early spin was farcical. The owner of the hunting ranch tried to downplay the mishap, saying the hospitalized victim had "been peppered pretty good," making his injury sound no worse than a vigorous spa treatment. Some Cheney partisans tried to blame the victim, until the hunters rallied and said it was Cheney's fault.

"Duck! It's Dick" read the headline in the New York Daily News. In an unprecedented move, White House spokesman Scott McClellan implicitly criticized Cheney's handling of the incident. Behind the scenes, a senior Bush administration official called the delay "bone-headed." Keeping quiet didn't endanger national security, but it was a symbol of Cheney's utter disdain for the obligations of his public role. "Never explain. Never apologize," is how one senior White House official described the ethos in Cheney land.

2. Blogger Power!

Bloggers have successfully hounded politicians from office, but in August, the bloggers claimed their first real political scalp through an election. In Connecticut, political neophyte Ned Lamont beat three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Senate primary. Big-name bloggers lent their hand in the anti-war crusade against the incumbent. Marcos Moulitsas participated in a Lamont ad and Jane Hamsher flew in to volunteer. Dick Cheney called a rare press conference to tell reporters that the defeat of pro-war, Bush-kissing Lieberman was succor for al-Qaida and proof that the Democratic Party was fundamentally unequipped to fight terrorism.

But then the summer of the blogger was over. Shortly after bloggers had shown their effectiveness in the primary, they were proving their limitations in the general election where Lieberman ran as an Independent. Bloggers could never offer a believable rationale for voting for their candidate beyond his anti-war stance. When they tried to explain why people should vote for Lamont and not just against Joe Lieberman, it sounded like sham boosterism. At a key moment, blogger Hamsher embarrassed Lamont, and shortly before Election Day, Arianna Huffington was publicly criticizing him for his caution. The lesson was clear to any future candidate who wants to become a blogger favorite: The great new force in politics can build candidates up and then abandon them just like the old forces in politics. Lieberman ends the year as an independent who fought off the agents of extremism—and a more powerful political force than he was before the netroots attacked him.

3. George of the Bungle

Virginia Sen. George Allen was once a very careful politician who combined George W. Bush's easygoing manner and Ronald Reagan's conservative message. The GOP base loved him and he attracted high-wattage party operatives. Then it all fell spectacularly apart. In August, Allen began a protracted political wipeout of such sustained precision it seemed like he was participating in some kind of contest only he knew about. His race to the bottom began when he was caught on tape singling out an Indian-American operative from his opponent's campaign, heralding him by the name "macaca" and welcoming him to America. His aides laughably explained that the mysterious but derogatory appellation was somehow a reference to the fellow's faux-hawk haircut. As Allen launched into ham-fisted denials about his remarks and past use of racial slurs, he was then confronted by the discovery of his Jewish heritage. His first reaction was to complain that asking him about his ancestry was casting an "aspersion" and then days later made puzzling assertions about still eating ham sandwiches and his mother's great pork chops.

4. Foley: The Final Insult

Every time Republicans thought they had picked themselves up off the canvas, they were walloped by another scandal. What next, they asked? Those who guessed that a member of Congress would be caught seducing young male pages through lewd text messages guessed correctly. Mark Foley immediately resigned, blamed his drinking problem and a predatory priest who molested him when he was younger. But that didn't spare GOP leadership from having to explain why they missed the warning signs about the six-term congressman's increasingly odd behavior. The Foley scandal lost the GOP a safe seat in Florida and it may also have been the last straw in a year that was thick with GOP misbehavior. The year 2006 started with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleading guilty and singing to investigators about the GOP lawmakers he wheedled with skyboxes, free meals, and swish golfing junkets. Rep. Bob Ney ultimately pleaded guilty to corruption charges as a result. The taint of scandal torpedoed GOP operative Ralph Reed's effort to become the lieutenant governor of Georgia and further damaged House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who was already fighting an indictment in Texas on campaign finance violations. DeLay ultimately had to drop out of politics. In March, GOP Rep. Duke Cunningham was sentenced to eight years for accepting bribes, and just before the Foley scandal erupted, GOP Pennsylvania Rep. Don Sherwood had to produce a campaign ad apologizing for an extramarital affair that led his mistress to call 911 complaining he was trying to choke her. Democrats took 40 years to so mismanage their affairs that voters threw them out. Republicans, always anxious to streamline government, achieved that goal in just 12.

5. Rummy Felled

George Bush spent so much time defending his embattled secretary of defense this year it almost deserved a space on his daily calendar: work out, support Rumsfeld, lunch. After Republicans lost control of Congress on Election Day in what Bush called a "thumpin'," the president announced that he was firing his embattled secretary of defense because the war effort needed a new set of eyes. It was a decisive move that could have signaled a course correction from Bush had he not asserted a week earlier that Rumsfeld was safe in his job. The fib matched one the president had told earlier in the year about replacing his treasury secretary and offered final proof that Bush was only candid when caught swearing off mic. After the firing, a memo leaked, written by Rumsfeld just days before, that showed he was evaluating a wide range of alternative policies, including some that Democrats had put forth. The Rumsfeld memo bears the secretary's personal hallmarks of bureaucratic vengeance and ass-covering. Rumsfeld or someone serving his interests may have leaked it in an effort to show that he wasn't clueless or blind to the reality on the ground in Iraq. The president and his aides may want to get their memoirs out before Rumsfeld does.



press box
The Lobbyist as Reporter
Is this the future of the business press?
By Jack Shafer
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 6:45 PM ET

For a preview of the future of business journalism, read the Dec. 8 Wall Street Journal Page One article "Hedge Funds Hire Lobbyists To Gather Tips in Washington" by Brody Mullins and Kara Scannell. (A slightly abridged version was reprinted in the same day's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.)

Lobbyists, who usually work the back alleys of power to advance or stall legislation, are increasingly shaking down members of Congress and their staffs for potentially market-moving information, the piece reports. They, in turn, advance that information to their "political intelligence" clients—private investors, private-equity funds, investment banks, and hedge funds.

"There are a lot of savvy investors who have realized that there is a lot of money to be made from what Congress does," says lobbyist-lawyer Elliott Portnoy of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, whose political intelligence division has two dozen clients and a staff of 18. Examples of market-moving news chased on Capitol Hill by lobbyists include the future of legislation on asbestos liability, Internet gambling, and new regulation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Political intelligence outfits charge hedge funds and others as much as $20,000 a month for their "tips and predictions," according to the Journal.

What political intel units do seems indistinguishable from what newspaper reporters do, except that their wealthy clients pay much more and fewer readers get to see their product.

But does that make it journalism? If you regard what the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, Forbes, Bloomberg News, Reuters, the Financial Times, and Fortune do as journalism, you call the political intel reports anything but high-priced, low circulation journalism. Like the Wall Street Journal, the political intel groups exist to give their clientele an information advantage over the competition that will translate into profits.

The first journalism marketed both financial information and political intelligence. In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Fugger banking family established a network of correspondents throughout Europe to keep tabs on local business, Chris Roush writes in his new history of business journalism, Profits and Losses: Business Journalism and Its Role in Society. Correspondents filed the prices of goods and services to the Fuggers, who then used the information to set the price of loans. The family's business newsletter alerted its exclusive clientele to a wide array of commercial, exploitable news, including the "deaths of kings and queens, wars, the arrival and departure of ships, the burning of the exchange in Antwerp, executions, and the demise of the Spanish Armada," Roush writes.

Even the mass-circulation Wall Street Journal owes its origin to the information demands of a wealthy few. Roush notes that three reporters named Charles Dow, Edward Jones, and Charles Bergstresser launched Dow Jones & Co. in 1882 "to sell news and gossip items to stock brokers, bankers, and speculators." A few years later they started the Wall Street Journal, "a four-page newspaper devoted solely to stocks and bonds."

As a business news operation gets better at distributing information—i.e., building circulation—a strange thing happens to the value of information collected. Only the first readers who receive and act on the information can profit from it. For example, the Wall Street Journal provides a rich data dump six days a week, but it's futile for all 2.7 million readers to act on it, because the commercial advantage is quickly harvested.

The circulation successes of business publications are only one force driving lobbyists to practice journalism. Every new government rule or regulation forcing businesses to become more transparent in their financial reporting and disclosure comes at the expense of Wall Street veterans and benefits the civilian investor poking around on the Web. As the business-journalism arms race spirals outward, the painfully rich must dig even deeper into their pockets to pay for their precious tips. The pricey, limited circulation business newsletter gets outflanked by the ultra-expensive Bloomberg terminal delivering the news instantaneously. You see the pattern.

If early intelligence on unfolding legislation is as valuable as the Wall Street Journal article makes it out to be, then maybe The Politico, the soon-to-be-launched third newspaper of Capitol Hill (and home to Jim VandeHei and John Harris), isn't such a bad idea.

What other fields contain a trove of unreported, market-moving news? The Journal explains that the greatest hedge-funds interest is in government actions that will have a financial impact on a small number of companies, such as which airline will win the new daily nonstop flight to China from Transportation Department regulators and what the timetable is for FDA approval of a new drug.

A few years ago, my friend Dirk Olin, now editor-in-chief of JudicialReports.com, tried to interest his employers in funding a news operation that would track market-moving litigation. He hypothesized that prospective readers could make profitable adjustments in their portfolios based on, say, granular reports about motions to stay filed in liability lawsuits.

They passed. I'll bet he could find an investor today.

******

Pretty soon the lobbyists will be chasing news with tweezers and micrometers. Send your nomination for a potentially lucrative political intelligence beat: slate.pressbox@gmail.com. Thanks to Dan Gross for his coaching. (E-mail may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise. Permanent disclosure: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co.)

Slate's machine-built RSS feed.



press box
Time and Again
Richard Stengel's magazine makeover reeks of déjà vu.
By Jack Shafer
Monday, December 18, 2006, at 9:45 PM ET


"We're going from a 19th-century factory model to a 21st-century Internet model," Time Managing Editor Richard Stengel tells Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz today (Dec. 18). Factory-for-the-Internet is Stengel's metaphor for how Time is swapping its traditional methodology—in which reporters and researchers feed facts to writers in New York—for a new order in which reporters will write their own stories.

Reporters writing their own stories? What next?

You wouldn't know from listening to Stengel that Time has been down this reformist road before, and that upon reaching its destination the magazine didn't stay long. Henry Muller tried a similar makeover in 1987 when he became Time's managing editor. One of his first moves was to begin dismantling the magazine's "decades-old system of correspondents filing copy from bureaus to be rewritten in New York," as the Wall Street Journal reported in 1993, pushing "for reporters to write from the field, feeling their writing would carry more immediacy.

"We have to reinvent Time, to dare something more radical than the periodic renovations of Time through the decades," said Muller in a press release quoted by the Journal. He called his innovations a "1990s approach to newsmagazine journalism" that "will not be an obligatory regurgitation of familiar material. The stories will devote more space to ideas, to analysis; they can have a point of view."

Stengel sounds like Muller's distant echo when he tells the Post, "One great writer-reporter who has a point of view about a subject important to our lives—what's better than that?"

Stengel, like Muller, takes the job in a time of crisis, simultaneously redesigning the magazine and cutting its staff. And Stengel will soon face a novel challenge: Next month, the magazine will switch from Monday to Friday distribution on newsstands, taking it out of direct competition with Newsweek. Time's strategy is to drive news-hungry readers to its Web site, as Time Inc. Editor in Chief John Huey implies in this August press release.

One thing that persuaded Muller to abandon breaking news was his belief that the 24/7 metabolism of CNN had stolen the news thunder. In the current scenario, it's the breakneck-paced Web stealing the news. Muller thought the magazine's response to the quickening news cycle should be a more featurery, less newsy approach to events and issues, a sentiment Stengel seems to share.

By 1992, the Muller experiment was over. His changes were plowed under and staffers reverted to the old method, in which they used hand tools to chip each issue of Time out of granite. Three managing editors later—each of whom attempted some variation of Time revitalization—can Stengel really rejig the magazine?

In the Post, Stengel heralds the hiring of three "star" columnists, all of whom happen to have graduated from Harvard in the early 1970s: Michael Kinsley, who will write biweekly; Walter Isaacson, Time managing editor from 1995 to 2001, as a sometime foreign affairs essayist; and Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, who will contribute occasionally. Stengel has also hired the Washington Post's David Von Drehle as a roving political correspondent. (Von Drehle, who graduated from the University of Denver in 1983, got his Harvard education at Oxford, where he earned a masters of letters.)

There's nothing wrong with these hires—even this Kinsley guy has been known to write intelligently. But how can they change the magazine's current voice when they are the magazine's current voice? Kinsley has written Time columns under the magazine's "Essay" rubric since 1988. Isaacson worked at the magazine for about two decades. And Kristol isn't much of a deviation from Charles Krauthammer, an occasional Time "Essay" writer.

Only one new Time writer mentioned in Kurtz's piece stands anywhere outside the journalistic establishment: Ana Marie Cox, who has worked as an editor, a blogger, a novelist, and a magazine writer. Cox joined the Time's Web site earlier this year and contributes to the magazine. She's a force of nature—but one fresh voice does not remake a magazine.

One should never judge a relaunch while the magazine is still on the pad, but this is more than a relaunch. Stengel's to-do list includes changing the magazine's content, firing the old staff that can't do the new job, hiring new staffers that can, cutting the budget, and moving the pub date. While he's at it, Stengel is supposed to transition the magazine's readership to the Web. On the seventh day, they should let him rest. He'll deserve it.

******

Somebody at Time Inc. owes Henry Muller an apology. But where is Muller? This 2000 profile from Stanford magazine isn't much help. According to Nexis, his last byline was in July 2001, for Fortune Europe. Drop me a line, Henry, and I'll buy you a sandwich. My e-mail is slate.pressbox@gmail.com. (E-mail may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise. Disclosure: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co., which also owns Newsweek, a Time competitor.)



recycled
What I Like About Scrooge
In praise of misers.
By Steven E. Landsburg
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 6:05 AM ET

During the holiday season, most people seem to believe that giving is better than hoarding. But in an "Everyday Economics" article published in 2004, and reprinted below, Steven E. Landsburg argued that Ebenezer Scrooge, contrary to belief, is as generous as any philanthropist.

Here's what I like about Ebenezer Scrooge: His meager lodgings were dark because darkness is cheap, and barely heated because coal is not free. His dinner was gruel, which he prepared himself. Scrooge paid no man to wait on him.

Scrooge has been called ungenerous. I say that's a bum rap. What could be more generous than keeping your lamps unlit and your plate unfilled, leaving more fuel for others to burn and more food for others to eat? Who is a more benevolent neighbor than the man who employs no servants, freeing them to wait on someone else?

Oh, it might be slightly more complicated than that. Maybe when Scrooge demands less coal for his fire, less coal ends up being mined. But that's fine, too. Instead of digging coal for Scrooge, some would-be miner is now free to perform some other service for himself or someone else.

Dickens tells us that the Lord Mayor, in the stronghold of the mighty Mansion House, gave orders to his 50 cooks and butlers to keep Christmas as a Lord Mayor's household should—presumably for a houseful of guests who lavishly praised his generosity. The bricks, mortar, and labor that built the Mansion House might otherwise have built housing for hundreds; Scrooge, by living in three sparse rooms, deprived no man of a home. By employing no cooks or butlers, he ensured that cooks and butlers were available to some other household where guests reveled in ignorance of their debt to Ebenezer Scrooge.

In this whole world, there is nobody more generous than the miser—the man who could deplete the world's resources but chooses not to. The only difference between miserliness and philanthropy is that the philanthropist serves a favored few while the miser spreads his largess far and wide.

If you build a house and refuse to buy a house, the rest of the world is one house richer. If you earn a dollar and refuse to spend a dollar, the rest of the world is one dollar richer—because you produced a dollar's worth of goods and didn't consume them.

Who exactly gets those goods? That depends on how you save. Put a dollar in the bank and you'll bid down the interest rate by just enough so someone somewhere can afford an extra dollar's worth of vacation or home improvement. Put a dollar in your mattress and (by effectively reducing the money supply) you'll drive down prices by just enough so someone somewhere can have an extra dollar's worth of coffee with his dinner. Scrooge, no doubt a canny investor, lent his money at interest. His less conventional namesake Scrooge McDuck filled a vault with dollar bills to roll around in. No matter. Ebenezer Scrooge lowered interest rates. Scrooge McDuck lowered prices. Each Scrooge enriched his neighbors as much as any Lord Mayor who invited the town in for a Christmas meal.

Saving is philanthropy, and—because this is both the Christmas season and the season of tax reform—it's worth mentioning that the tax system should recognize as much. If there's a tax deduction for charitable giving, there should be a tax deduction for saving. What you earn and don't spend is your contribution to the world, and it's equally a contribution whether you give it away or squirrel it away.

Of course, there's always the threat that some meddling ghosts will come along and convince you to deplete your savings, at which point it makes sense (insofar as the taxation of income ever makes sense) to start taxing you. Which is exactly what individual retirement accounts are all about: They shield your earnings from taxation for as long as you save (that is, for as long as you let others enjoy the fruits of your labor), but no longer.

Great artists are sometimes unaware of the deepest meanings in their own creations. Though Dickens might not have recognized it, the primary moral of A Christmas Carol is that there should be no limit on IRA contributions. This is quite independent of all the other reasons why the tax system should encourage saving (e.g., the salutary effects on economic growth).

If Christmas is the season of selflessness, then surely one of the great symbols of Christmas should be Ebenezer Scrooge—the old Scrooge, not the reformed one. It's taxes, not misers, that need reforming.



recycled
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Why we need more NBA brawls.
Monday, December 18, 2006, at 12:28 PM ET

Denver Nuggets star Carmelo Anthony was suspended for 15 games on Monday for his role in this weekend's massive on-court fracas between the Nuggets and the New York Knicks. A headline on ESPN.com says this weekend's fight is a "revolting reminder" for the NBA of the 2004 brawl in Detroit between the Pistons, the Pacers, and various fans. In a piece that's reproduced below, Ben Mathis-Lilley wondered why every sports columnist seemed to think the Pistons-Pacers scuffle was a sign of the impending apocalypse. "In the bar where I was watching, I don't recall seeing anyone weeping inconsolably about the stain on the NBA, sport, and human civilization," Mathis-Lilley wrote.

If I had to reconstruct what happened during Friday night's Pacers-Pistons game based solely on the reactions of sports columnists, I'd probably come up with something like this: Ron Artest beats his own coach with a club, Stephen Jackson shows a homemade sex tape on the Palace's Jumbotron, and Jermaine O'Neal grabs a mike and makes disparaging remarks about John Wooden, Mother Teresa, and "the troops."

Luckily, I saw everything happen with my own eyes. I was in a bar on Friday night when the fight began streaming in an infinite loop. Many of us had been primed for the highlights by enthusiastic cell-phone calls. When it finally came on, most every patron in the establishment enjoyed, thoroughly and loudly, all of the hot-and-heavy action. That's right, we loved it. Sure, it was wrong for Artest to run into the stands, and wrong for Jackson to run in after him throwing haymakers, and wrong for the fans to douse the Indiana players with beer. But when a crazy basketball player charges into the stands and tries to pounce on some drunk jerks, I don't fly into a rage on behalf of the nation's children. Nope, I just kick back and enjoy the spectacle.

In the bar where I was watching, I don't recall seeing anyone weeping inconsolably about the stain on the NBA, sport, and human civilization. If anyone was crying, it was from laughing so hard after seeing that rotund, souvenir-jersey-clad fan run onto the court and try to show Artest who was boss. (Connoisseurs should also note that one of the first peacemakers onto the scene, running in from Artest's left, was a clown. Another was, of all people, Rasheed Wallace.) The very few people in the crowd who weren't interested in the fracas seemed like the kind of people who refuse to be entertained under any circumstance.

Immediately after the brawl, the talking heads on ESPN's NBA Shootaround all said that disgusted fans would stop watching NBA games in droves. At this exact moment, millions of people were talking, probably for the first time in history, about a regular season NBA game. Ailene Voisin of the Sacramento Bee wrote that "drastic and perhaps even draconian" measures were now required to salvage the NBA's image. But this once-in-a-lifetime brawl has, quite obviously, increased fan interest in the league. The fight was still the lead item on the local news last night—and I live in Brooklyn. When was the last time you remember your co-workers, your parents—anyone except Bill Walton—talking about the NBA in November?

Rather than acknowledge that the brawl was a freak occurrence—and a funny one to boot—the sports commentariat have heralded the apocalypse and rapturously praised NBA Commissioner David Stern's predictably harsh suspensions. Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News wrote that the fight "was more than just a black eye. It was Stern's Black Sox scandal." No, this was his Disco Demolition Night. Not that I disagree with Sterns's actions, or think that the players or fans behaved admirably. (Except for the clown; he is a hero.) Stern wasn't "a great commissioner when we needed him to be," as Lupica wrote, just a competent one. The fans drank too much and made a scene and Stern made a sanctimonious speech about how society is in decline. That's it.

The biggest lesson that we can take away from this mega-fight is that Ron Artest is really, really loony, just like Dennis Rodman was loony, and Vernon Maxwell was loony. This is a guy who, after becoming a national villain, appeared on the Today Show to explain himself while decked out in gear promoting his rap album. Rather than herald a plague of sports-related violence, the Pacers-Pistons brawl has just reinforced how rare this kind of behavior is. Now it'll be even rarer because the mental and physical boundaries that keep fans and players apart will be far stronger. I bet you'll think twice about tossing a beer the next time you go to a basketball game.

I haven't met, nor can I even imagine, someone who actually feels harmed by what happened. If the players had beaten somebody bloody or unconscious or worse, everyone in the bar would have stopped cheering. That we're thrilled by the occasional flash of violence in sports doesn't mean we're one step away from prime-time cockfights. Bill Conlin of the Philadelphia Daily News wrote that the fight showed that "America in general and American sports in particular" are at the same stage as Rome when it was overrun by the "lean and hungry subjects of the Empire." If this is the first sign of the apocalypse, then the ride to hell will be pretty smooth.



slate fare
Slate's Most-Read Stories
The 10 most popular articles of 2006.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 10:40 AM ET


Slate's most popular story in 2006 was a guide to surviving calamities of all kinds, and our most popular Explainer was an inquiry into the destructive properties of hail. But not all of the year's greatest hits were suited for nervous Nellies. Readers also loved our slide show about modern skyscrapers, our piece on Starbucks' mysterious "short" cappuccino, and our (premature, it turns out) eulogy for 7th Heaven (the show, scheduled to conclude last spring, was later revived by the CW network). Below, you'll find a list of the 10 pieces that attracted the most readers this year.

Are your favorites missing from the roster? Next week, we'll publish a list of readers' most beloved articles. Send your vote for the best Slate story of 2006 to bestofslate@gmail.com. (E-mailers may be quoted by name unless they stipulate otherwise.)


1) The Survivalist

How to survive a disaster.

By David Shenk

2) Up, Up, and Away

The new skyscraper, in all its guises.

By Witold Rybczynski

3) Starbucks Economics

Solving the mystery of the elusive "short" cappuccino.

By Tim Harford

4) What a Drag

The great Powerade ad you won't find on TV.

By Seth Stevenson


5) It's Me in That 9/11 Photo

Walter Sipser was in that picture Frank Rich wrote about. Here's what he thinks of Rich's column.

6) The Slate 60 Turns 10

The 60 largest American charitable contributions of 2005.

By Sebastian Mallaby

7) How Dangerous Is Hail?

Can a grapefruit-sized ice ball kill you?

By Daniel Engber

8) Kazakh Like Me

Borat
reveals the painful politeness of American society.

By Christopher Hitchens

9) Is Whole Foods Wholesome?

The dark secrets of the organic-food movement.

By Field Maloney


10) 7th Heaven Goes to Heaven

Saying farewell to the longest-running family drama in TV history.

By Marisa Meltzer



sports nut
The Death of College Basketball
NCAA hoops is past its prime. Here's what should replace it.
By Sam Eifling
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 12:02 PM ET


Here's how far college basketball has fallen: Fans and pundits are going gaga over 7-foot super-prospect Greg Oden, a guy whose career at Ohio State will last less than a year. The NBA's new age threshold means that high schoolers can't jump straight to the pros. Still, for immortal players, college will be nothing more than a one-year way station on the path to a huge payday. But fear not, basketball fans, there is a better place to watch the game's premier amateur athletes. Start weaning yourself off the NCAA, and start following AAU.

Admittedly, AAU basketball doesn't have the best reputation. Chances are you know the AAU best as a sink strainer for the money launderers and crack dealers who dole out cash and goodies to up-and-coming teenage ballplayers. And sure, the organization is a feeding ground for unscrupulous agents. But there's more to it than that. The 118-year-old Amateur Athletic Union organizes 8- to 18-year-olds across school-district lines for local, regional, and national tournaments, the biggest of which draw teams brimming with college-ready talent. These games may bring a player bragging rights, attention from scouts, or scholarship offers. The stakes are already as high for the teen players in AAU as they are for any collegians.

But why should you care? For starters, check out a list of former AAU players who made it to the NBA: Amare Stoudamire, Allen Iverson, Shaquille O'Neal, Shawn Kemp. Every great player—even those who for the past decade have bypassed college—signs up. A hard-core AAU fan would have already seen Greg Oden for years, just as he would have been well-acquainted with the last such phenom. (LeBron James' AAU team from the age of 10: the Shooting Stars.) The AAU circuit has also given us a tantalizing glimpse at the game's famous flameouts. Don't you wish you'd seen, say, poor Leon Smith as a 16-year-old, to know what all the hoopla was about? Or Kemp, back when he gave a crap about basketball?

Another point in AAU's favor is that the talent is homegrown. Rooting for State U is pretty much the same as cheering for a pro team, considering that your favorite school's roster is more likely to be stocked with guys from Croatia than with instate kids. Let's say you live in Atlanta. Does it make more sense to root for the Atlanta Celtics—an AAU program that recently produced Dwight Howard, Josh Smith, and Randolph Morris—or the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets, whose top players of recent vintage are all from out of state? There should be no debate: If you want to support local hoopsters, then go with AAU. These teams comprise boys and girls who attend your church and bag your groceries. You know them, and they know one another: It's not for nothing that Jalen Rose's 13-and-under AAU squad was called Team Superfriends.

Team continuity leads to superfriendships and super basketball. AAU teams stick together for years. Elite college teams stick together for a semester. Which do you think have a better understanding of how to play as a unit? Jim Calhoun, the Hall of Fame coach of the University of Connecticut, posited last season that the increasing parity in the college game is a result of high schoolers improving by playing AAU ball against one another. Then Calhoun's vaunted Huskies went out and lost to George Mason, a team made up of Marylanders who grew up playing AAU ball with and against each other. The LSU Tigers, another of last year's Final Four upstarts, are stocked with four players who won an AAU national title together as 15-year-olds.

To hear other college coaches kvetch, though, you would think that a player's basketball education begins when he arrives on campus. (UConn women's coach Geno Auriemma: "They might have played 90 million AAU games and it doesn't matter. They have never actually been to a practice where they actually have to practice.") Naturally, kids coached by a random guy with a whistle are going to be less polished than those coached by, you know, paid coaches. But good hoops requires intuition as well as teaching. It's hard to deny that a player with several hundred games of AAU ball under his belt by the time he's 18 is a less formidable athlete for the experience.

One reason that NCAA basketball has survived for so long is the idea that the players we're watching are getting an education. No one really believes that college ballplayers go to school to learn—not when the latest figures show that only 59 percent of male Division I basketball players get their degrees. Fans have swallowed the false promise of college athletics (learning + sports = wholesome fun!) because, if you want to watch amateur athletes, it's the only game in town. That's where AAU comes in—it's the NCAA without the sanctimony. You can watch up-and-comers play basketball without having to pretend they're suiting up to get free books and room and board. AAU confers no degrees upon its matriculants. It's all about basketball.

All that being said, the NCAA still has one bonanza propping it up: March Madness. It's a shame that such a great tournament has to be wasted on such a lousy sport. Maybe one day, ESPN willing, AAU ball will grow to warrant its own billion-dollar basketball cavalcade. Just think—more talent, better team chemistry, and no Mike Krzyzewski hawking cars during timeouts. A fan can dream, can't he?



summary judgment
Dream On
The critical buzz on Dreamgirls and The Good Shepherd.
By Doree Shafrir
Friday, December 22, 2006, at 12:02 PM ET


Dreamgirls (DreamWorks/Paramount). Film buffs are watching carefully to see if the deafening Oscar buzz about Dreamgirls translates into nominations. In the meantime, mostly positive reviews are trickling in for director and screenwriter Bill Condon's movie adaptation of a Broadway musical about a Supremes-like trio in the 1960s. Newsweek's David Ansen notes, "[W]hat makes Dreamgirls a blast is Condon's obvious love for the show's heart-on-its-sleeve theatricality," but A.O. Scott gripes that the film's songs "are not just musically and lyrically pedestrian, but historically and idiomatically disastrous." No matter what they think of the film as a whole, most critics gush about breakout star Jennifer Hudson's turn as Effie, which has already garnered her a Golden Globe nomination. In Slate, Jody Rosen observes that the greatness of her defining song, "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going," "is the transcendence it offers, to those who know Effie's pain firsthand, and to everyone else." (Buy tickets to Dreamgirls.)


The Good Shepherd (Universal). Generally positive reviews for this Robert De Niro-directed film about the early days of the CIA, in which he, Matt Damon, and Angelina Jolie star. The Los Angeles Times takes a philosophical tack, musing that the movie is "about how a soulless occupation can destroy souls, about the price you pay for being the way you are." The New Yorker's David Denby positively raves that Shepherd is "one of the most impressive movies ever made about espionage," and he calls it a "sharply knowing social history of the C.I.A." But in the New York Times, Manohla Dargis yawns that the "story boils down to fathers who fail their sons, a suspect metaphor that here becomes all too ploddingly literal." (Buy tickets to The Good Shepherd.)


David Rose, They Call Me Naughty Lola: Personal Ads From the London Review of Books (Scribner). Critics are chuckling over this quirky collection of personals from that bastion of intellectualism, the London Review of Books, compiled by its ad manager. (The Guardian calls it a "perfect Downstairs Loo Book.") Salon notes that the personals section of the Review has become "a not-so-guilty first stop for lovers of wordplay, humor and the occasional philosophical reference," and the San Francisco Chronicle calls it "wry, hilarious, creative in ways Craigslisters could only dream." To wit, a sample: "I'm just a girl who can't say 'no' (or 'anaesthetist'). Lisping Rodgers and Hammerstein fan, female lecturer in politics (37) WLTM man to 40 for thome enthanted eveningth. Box no. 2498." As William Grimes observes dryly in the New York Times, "The British do not go in for the cheery, self-affirming personals favored by Americans." (Buy They Call Me Naughty Lola.)


Letters From Iwo Jima (Warner Bros./Dreamworks). Clint Eastwood's companion to Flags of Our Fathers tells the story of the battle of Iwo Jima from the Japanese point of view. Critics are almost uniformly raving. A.O. Scott intones, "It is, unapologetically and even humbly, true to the durable tenets of the war-movie tradition, but it is also utterly original, even radical in its methods and insights." Newsweek's David Ansen is likewise enthralled: "It's unprecedented, a sorrowful and savagely beautiful elegy that can stand in the company of the greatest antiwar movies." The New York Observer's Andrew Sarris is philosophical about the film's thought-changing capabilities: "Letters may help modify our thinking about our present enemies as a monolithic mass of malevolence, as we were once conditioned to think of the Japanese people as a whole." (Buy tickets to Letters From Iwo Jima.)


Rocky Balboa (MGM). Critics seem relieved that they've taken to the sixth (!) Rocky movie starring Sylvester Stallone, now playing a 60-year-old Rocky trying for one last comeback. But like all the Rocky films, this one is about more than boxing: "It is, first and foremost, a character study of a good, simple man edging with sadness and dignity into old age," observes the Houston Chronicle. In the New York Times, Stephen Holden concludes, "Surprisingly Rocky Balboa is no embarrassment. Like its forerunners it goes the distance almost in spite of itself." The Washington Post lauds Stallone's writing and directing chops, noting that the film "doesn't rest lazily on its own nostalgia. … [I]t smartly reprises the atmosphere of Hollywood's yesteryear." The Los Angeles Times' Kenneth Turan is one of the lone voices of dissent, carping that Balboa is "for those who can't be bothered counting up to six, or maybe for fighters who've taken so many punches to the head they need help remembering their hero's last name." (Buy tickets to Rocky Balboa.)


Nas, Hip-Hop Is Dead (Def Jam). The 33-year-old New York rapper's latest album has inspired meditations on the nature of contemporary hip-hop. The Boston Globe believes Nas is arguing that greed has killed hip-hop, and that "rappers and their peers have no claim to moral leadership." Kelefa Sanneh muses, "Nas is a formalist, obsessed with the way rappers put words together. And his album is full of insinuations that today's rappers care more about money than craft." Online music magazine Pitchfork says Nas creates narratives, while other hip-hop artists are more consumed with superficial lyrical complexity: "[T]oo often they're just saying what's on their minds instead of getting something off their chests." But Nas' ruminations can get tiresome; the San Francisco Chronicle calls the album "brilliant yet at times pedantic." (Buy Hip-Hop Is Dead.)

Judith Regan update. The New York Times reports that Judith Regan's firing was precipitated by a phone conversation with a HarperCollins lawyer in which she referred to a "Jewish cabal"—consisting of HarperCollins publisher Jane Friedman, HarperCollins executive editor David Hirshey, and ICM literary agent Esther Newberg—that was united against her. Regan's lawyer, Bert Fields, denied that she is anti-Semitic, and said that HarperCollins was simply looking for an excuse to fire her.


Judith Regan fired. The powerful publisher of her own HarperCollins imprint, ReganBooks, was fired Friday after a tumultuous few weeks—a book by O.J. Simpson she commissioned, If I Did It, was pulled after a public backlash; she had been criticized for a forthcoming controversial fictional biography of Mickey Mantle; and she had publicly tussled with Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns HarperCollins. Still, "[m]ajor players in the publishing world … could not contain their amazement at the rapid series of events," notes the Los Angeles Times. In his New York Times column, David Carr analyzes that Regan had "refused to go away quietly even though Mr. Murdoch had already taken a bullet, then continued to complain that she was being undermined long after the story had quieted down." But few doubt that Regan will return to publishing, as Jeffrey Pinkerton argues on the Huffington Post: "Since Murdoch neglected to drive a stake through her heart, I have no doubt she'll bounce back, with new financing and new authors."



television
Pressing Their Luck
Two more game shows from NBC.
By Troy Patterson
Monday, December 18, 2006, at 5:35 PM ET


Deal or No Deal—the hit game show to which there's nothing more than dumb luck, short skirts, tense synths, and the odd magnetism of host Howie Mandel—celebrates its first anniversary this week. It's still gently mindless, which is the new rule for NBC game shows, and its set still glows a calmly infernal red, which marks the program as an exception. Blue is emerging as the primary color of NBC game shows, the default hue of the lights that blaze across the stage and bathe the studio audience.

While 1 vs. 100 (usually found on Fridays at 8 p.m. ET) does add a few lilac accents and the new Identity (introduced in a five-installment fusillade this week, Monday at 9 p.m. ET, Tuesday through Friday at 8 p.m.) makes smart use of both yellow and sea green, the dominant theme is blue, cold and bold. Is the shade closer to cobalt or aquamarine? Are the creators paying homage to the extraterrestrial tint of Who Want to Be a Millionaire? What sorts of psychological testing and audience research went into this choice? If you tune in to these shows, you may find yourself wondering deeply about such issues; there is precious little else to occupy your faculties.

On 1 vs. 100, one contestant matches off against a "mob" of a hundred panelists in answering multiple-choice trivia questions. The concept—not a bad one—is that when mob members choose incorrect answers, they're knocked out of the competition and the contestant wins an ever-escalating sum of money. There are usually a few famous-ish people in the mob; a recent episode found veteran game-show hosts Wink Martindale and Bob Eubanks strenuously twinkling among its ranks, as well as charming professional poker player Annie Duke, who would have been more charming yet had she sat up straight. The mob also usually features a handful of subgroups—people united by occupation (a flock of hairdressers), by accomplishment (a flotilla of valedictorians), or, in one instance, by a special relationship with the hereafter ("five people who had been brought back to life"—a covey of the resuscitated). A bespectacled Bob Saget handles his hosting duties with a light touch, coming off genial, unobtrusive, and mellow, with the air, somehow, of a hip priest.

Indeed, the only problem with 1 vs. 100 is its determined idiocy. On the last episode I caught: "Which creature's body has the fewest number of cells?" went the initial question—the gimme question intended only to ease us into a quiz show with a soft chuckle. Was it a) an eastern gray squirrel, b) Calista Flockhart, or c) an amoeba? Are you most horrified here by the fact a) that the Flockhart joke had a decade of dust on it, b) that the contestant resorted to one of those familiar help-giving gimmicks to supply the answer, or c) that 11 members of the mob got the answer wrong? The quality of the quiz is of no importance to the new breed of quiz shows. (Fox, in fact, is developing a program titled Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?) All that matters is the show of emotion—the contestant's joyful squeals, worried quivers, and relieved slumps.

Which brings us, wearily, to Identity. Hosted by magician Penn Jillette, whose carny's heartiness does offer something of a balm, it's a degraded update of What's My Line? The contestant wins money by correctly matching each of the 12 silent people standing before her with one of 12 identities. In the help-giving gimmick here, the guest can appeal to the wisdom of a panel comprising a psychologist, a body-language expert, and an FBI behavioral expert, who I really hope is off the clock.

I am about to tell you what happens in tonight's episode, but this does not constitute a "spoiler," as the show, thoroughly obvious, denies surprise at every turn. Which one of the dozen strangers is the sushi chef? That would be the Japanese fellow wearing a "hapi," the type of robe favored by sushi chefs. Which of them is the youngest? Might it, by chance, be the delicate lass in the jailbait-ish ensemble of plaid skirt, midriff-baring top, and knee socks? The opera singer is the fat lady in the billowing gown, and I can't figure out why the producers didn't just put her in a Brünnhilde helmet, with the horns and the pigtails, and get it over with. True, the contestant shows some perspicacity in differentiating the bouncer from the alligator wrestler, but her powers of observation are beside the point. While the color blue can symbolize the spirit or the intellect, on the set of Identity its meaning is self-contained—the dull glow of a TV set that simply has been switched on.



the big idea
Romney's Religion
A Mormon president? No way.
By Jacob Weisberg
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 3:43 PM ET


Someone who refuses to consider voting for a woman as president is rightly deemed a sexist. Someone who'd never vote for a black person is a racist. But are you a religious bigot if you wouldn't cast a ballot for a believing Mormon?

The issue arises with Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's as-yet-undeclared bid for the 2008 Republican nomination. Romney would not be the first member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to run for the nation's highest office. He follows Orrin Hatch (2000); Mo Udall (1976); his father, George Romney (1968); and not least of all Joseph Smith, who ran in 1844 on a platform of "theodemocracy," abolition, and cutting congressional pay. Despite a strong showing in the Nauvoo straw poll, Smith didn't play much better nationally than Hatch did, and had to settle for the Mormon-elected post of King of the Kingdom of Heaven.

With his experience as a successful businessman, Olympic organizer, and governor, Romney has a better chance, but he may still have to overcome a tall religious hurdle. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, only 38 percent of Americans say they'd definitely consider voting for a Mormon for president. Yet many analysts think LDS membership is not an insuperable obstacle. Various evangelical sects continue to view Mormonism as heretical, non-Christian, or even satanic. But because of their shared faith in social conservatism, evangelical leaders seem open to supporting Romney. As far apart as they are theologically, Mormons and evangelical Christians may have more in common with each other anthropologically than they do with secular Americans watching Big Love on HBO. The remaining skepticism on the far right seems to have more to do with doubt about whether Romney has truly and forever ditched his previously expressed moderate views on abortion and gay rights.

But if he gets anywhere in the primaries, Romney's religion will become an issue with moderate and secular voters—and rightly so. Objecting to someone because of his religious beliefs is not the same thing as prejudice based on religious heritage, race, or gender. Not applying a religious test for public office, means that people of all faiths are allowed to run—not that views about God, creation, and the moral order are inadmissible for political debate. In George W. Bush's case, the public paid far too little attention to the role of religion in his thinking. Many voters failed to appreciate that while Bush's religious beliefs may be moderate Methodist ones, he was someone who relied on his faith immoderately, as an alternative to rational understanding of complex issues.

Nor is it chauvinistic to say that certain religious views should be deal breakers in and of themselves. There are millions of religious Americans who would never vote for an atheist for president, because they believe that faith is necessary to lead the country. Others, myself included, would not, under most imaginable circumstances, vote for a fanatic or fundamentalist—a Hassidic Jew who regards Rabbi Menachem Schneerson as the Messiah, a Christian literalist who thinks that the Earth is less than 7,000 years old, or a Scientologist who thinks it is haunted by the souls of space aliens sent by the evil lord Xenu. Such views are disqualifying because they're dogmatic, irrational, and absurd. By holding them, someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is.

By the same token, I wouldn't vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism. The LDS church holds that Joseph Smith, directed by the angel Moroni, unearthed a book of golden plates buried in a hillside in Western New York in 1827. The plates were inscribed in "reformed" Egyptian hieroglyphics—a nonexistent version of the ancient language that had yet to be decoded. If you don't know the story, it's worth spending some time with Fawn Brodie's wonderful biography No Man Knows My History. Smith was able to dictate his "translation" of the Book of Mormon first by looking through diamond-encrusted decoder glasses and then by burying his face in a hat with a brown rock at the bottom of it. He was an obvious con man. Romney has every right to believe in con men, but I want to know if he does, and if so, I don't want him running the country.

One may object that all religious beliefs are irrational—what's the difference between Smith's "seer stone" and the virgin birth or the parting of the Red Sea? But Mormonism is different because it is based on such a transparent and recent fraud. It's Scientology plus 125 years. Perhaps Christianity and Judaism are merely more venerable and poetic versions of the same. But a few eons makes a big difference. The world's greater religions have had time to splinter, moderate, and turn their myths into metaphor. The Church of Latter-day Saints is expanding rapidly and liberalizing in various ways, but it remains fundamentally an orthodox creed with no visible reform wing.

It may be that Mitt Romney doesn't take Mormon theology at face value. His flip-flopping on gay rights and abortion to suit the alternative demands of a Massachusetts gubernatorial election and a Republican presidential primary suggests that he's a man of flexible principles—which in this context might be regarded as encouraging. But Romney has never publicly indicated any distance from church doctrine. He is an "elder" who performed missionary service in France as a young man and did not protest the church's overt racism and priestly discrimination before it was abolished in 1978. He usually tries to defuse the issue with the tired jokes about polygamy, or cries foul and insists that his religious views are "private." That they may be, but if he's running for president, they concern the rest of us, as well.



the dismal science
The Sovereign vs. the Idiot
What kind of gift-giver are you?
By Joel Waldfogel
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 12:06 PM ET

Economists generally salute holiday gift-giving for its healthy effect on the macroeconomy. And indeed, gift spending boosts GNP to the tune of $100 billion a year in the United States. But on the microeconomic level, spending on gifts is a resource allocation disaster. Most of the time, people choose purchases for themselves and only buy things that they expect to value at or above the price they pay. With gifts, by contrast, recipients end up with items that givers guess that the recipients might appreciate. Both activities generate spending, but not of equal benefit. The microeconomic question about any spending is, how much satisfaction does it buy?

Economists tend to believe strongly that a person is best off when she makes her own choices rather than, say, when some bureaucrat makes choices for her. When you buy a present for your cousin, you, like that bureaucrat, have to guess at what she wants. Usually, you make your guess based on limited and outdated information. Which means that you are going to buy her less satisfaction, per dollar that you spend, than she would get if she were buying stuff for herself. I don't mean sentimental value, I mean how much she values that sweater or that dartboard or that singing fish. Hence the idea of "consumer sovereignty"—that people should be left alone to make their own decisions without interference from the government.

Many economists have recently come to believe, however, that people are inept decision-makers. They lack self-control. They save too little. They have trouble deciding whether to plan for events that are unlikely to happen. They can't remember what they've liked, and they can't even accurately predict what they'll want next week. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel Prize in 2002 for a career spent documenting the shortcomings of decision-making. His findings raise questions about whether people really are best suited to choose for themselves.

The two competing views of the consumer, the sovereign versus the idiot, suggest very different consequences, efficiency-wise, for gift-giving. According to the traditional sovereign view, gift-giving is likely to generate less satisfaction for recipients than their own purchases. But according to the idiot view, who knows? Maybe givers can choose items that will make recipients happier than their own choices would have.

So, compared with your cousin's own choices, how well do your gifts create satisfaction for her? How about what you buy for your wife or your boyfriend? I started doing surveys to answer this question about a dozen years ago. In the time since, I've asked thousands of college students to tell me about the holiday gifts they received. How much did they think the givers paid? Putting aside sentimental value, how much did they think those gifts were worth to them (specifically, how much money would they demand to be paid to give up each gift?). In the most recent round of surveys in 2002, I also asked people to record the same information—the price they paid and their personal valuation—for items they purchased for themselves.

Here's what I've found. On average, a dollar that people spend for themselves creates nearly 20 percent more satisfaction than a dollar that someone else spends on them. Put another—depressing—way, gift-giving effectively discards 20 percent of the gift's price. So, of the nearly $100 billion spent on holiday gifts each year, one-fifth is effectively flushed down the toilet.

Of course, some gifts end up being worth more to their recipients than their own purchases. Givers who are in daily contact with their recipients produce 10 percent more satisfaction per dollar spent than givers with only yearly contact. So, your gift for your wife or boyfriend will probably give more satisfaction than the one you bought for your aunt who lives across the country. Still, on average across all givers, the satisfaction rate remains a fifth lower for gifts than for a recipient's own purchases. At some level, givers know this, and you can see that in their behavior. The types of givers most likely to give the least valued gifts—aunts, uncles, anyone who isn't in frequent contact with the recipients—are far more likely to beg off choosing particular items. Instead, they tend to give cash or gift certificates. Which, happily, the students I surveyed tended to value at exactly the price the givers paid.

So two cheers for the sovereign consumer. As dumb as people may be, they are still better than others at choosing their own shirts and CDs and perfume. And forget about government as the sole bogeyman of inefficient allocation. Your Aunt Sally is at least as bad as your Uncle Sam.



the has-been
Son Knows Worst
The self-defeating rebellions of the Rebel-in-Chief.
By Bruce Reed
Friday, December 22, 2006, at 12:18 PM ET

Friday, Dec. 22, 2006

George Has Two Fathers: Like Bill Murray in "Groundhog Day," George W. Bush seems doomed to wake up every morning in the same Maureen Dowd column about a father's shadow he can darken but not escape. Bush 43 owes much to Bush 41 – his name, his VP and half his Cabinet, his fateful obsessions with Iraq, taxes, and the Republican base. And for his father's troubles, the current president has been singularly ungrateful. The elder Bush handed his son the keys to the car, and the Daddy Party has been paying for it ever since.

Bush the younger watched his father lose the presidency over a brief moment of responsibility, and vowed to avenge the family name by never governing responsibly again. Bush 43 seems to view Bush 41's administration as a zero-sum game: He is willing to add one old Bush hand (like Robert Gates), so long as he can dismiss another (like James Baker). He has dealt with the Iraq Study Group report the way stubborn sons usually deal with parental advice – once they hear something is supposed to be good for them, they'll never do it.

Less has been made of Bush the younger's rebellion against another father figure, his silver-haired predecessor, Bill Clinton. Although the same age as Bush 43, Clinton has a temperament more like his new friend and fellow elder statesman, Bush 41.

While the younger Bush would never admit it, he owes much to Clinton 42 as well. As governor, Bush stole his campaign slogan – "Opportunity and Responsibility" – from Clinton's campaign speeches. In 2000, Bush ran for president as a different kind of Republican, stealing a page from Clinton's '92 New Democrat playbook. No father in history has left behind a bigger inheritance than Clinton: a $5 trillion surplus with no strings attached.

Of course, Bush rebelled against Clinton in just as self-defeating a fashion as against his own father. Within a year of taking office, he squandered the entire surplus. In every possible way, he styled his presidency to be the opposite of Clinton's, even when it meant failing where Clinton had done well.

As Mark Halperin and John Harris point out in their book, The Way to Win, Bush's whole approach to politics is the opposite of Clinton's. Clintonism stresses common ground, evidence, and results. By contrast, Bushism eschews common ground in favor of sharp partisan and ideological differences. This year, Bush proved that when winning elections becomes the only result you value, it's bound to elude you as well.

Bush is a famously stubborn man, and never more so than in his insistence on throwing over the conservative achievements of his predecessors. Clinton kept the elder Bush's pay-as-you-go rules to ensure that government didn't try to do what it couldn't pay for; Bush ditched pay-go so he could spend and give away money with abandon. Clinton renewed confidence in government that had been waning since the '60s. Bush shattered confidence in government by reviving the double-barreled spending of the '60s.

In perhaps the most telling rejection of Clintonism, Bush dismantled the COPS program, which had helped communities put more police on the beat and helped cut violent crime by a third nationwide. Not having enough troops turned out to be a losing strategy here at home, too. This week, the FBI announced the sharpest increase in violent crime since 1991.

Under Clinton, the nation's police forces produced the longest sustained drop in crime on record. Now many cities are becoming murder capitals again. In 2006, robbery went up 9.7% -- the fastest rise in at least the past quarter century.

A Justice Department spokesman said the administration will wait for an ongoing study to determine why crime is going up. But the International Association of Chiefs of Police and other leading crime experts pointed out the obvious: Just as more cops on the beat led to less crime, fewer cops on the beat is leading to more crime.

In fact, the current crime wave represents a convergence of Bush failures. The Post notes that an influx of residents displaced by Hurricane Katrina helped produce a 28% surge in the crime rate in Houston. With many police officers serving extended tours with the National Guard and Reserves in Iraq, the war has further depleted the thin blue line here at home.

The more the son rebels, the more prodigal he becomes. Bush 41 and Clinton 42 look better than ever, while Bush 43 never looked worse. Bush is not the sort to learn from his mistakes. But by now, he ought to realize that resisting his elders is yet another rebellion he's not winning. ... 12:14 P.M. (link)


Saturday, Dec. 16, 2006

Dangerous Liaisons: If you're tired of buying presents for the people you work with, be glad you're not Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. This holiday, he has to find white-elephant gifts for 180,000 employees.

From the beginning, the Bush administration has never wavered in its message about the true meaning of homeland security: keep shopping. So it's fitting that Chertoff chose the holiday rush to deliver his own State of the Union's security speech.

From Katrina to the Dubai Ports World fiasco, Chertoff has endured a rocky tenure at DHS. You have to feel for a guy who gave up a lifetime appointment as a federal appeals court judge for a four-year stint as America's least successful management consultant. On Thursday, he talked about "total asset visibility" and "metrics of progress." If only America's borders could be as impenetrable as our speeches.

Last year, Chertoff promised a major reorganization of the sprawling department. Judging from Thursday's speech, sprawl is winning. Chertoff outlined a five-part mission:

#1: Look out for "dangerous people."

#2: Look out for "dangerous things."

#3: Resist an attack if we fail to stop dangerous people with dangerous things.

#4: Respond to disaster if we fail to prevent an attack by dangerous people with dangerous things.

#5: "Unify the department into a seamless whole, one in which people are both parts of proud components with real legacies, but also working together to build a visionary new 21st century government organization." In other words, look out for dangerous departments who are supposed to protect us from dangerous people with dangerous things.

Chertoff lavished praise on most of his agency. But like Cinderella's cruel stepmother, he berated his unhappy stepchild, FEMA. "We have to make sure that FEMA does not become so enmeshed in its own bureaucratic processes sometimes that they lose sight of the need to have simple common sense," Chertoff said. "We've embarked on a very ambitious program of retooling FEMA to make it a 21st century response organization."

Chertoff has it backwards: FEMA's whole problem is that it was swallowed up by the bureaucratic processes of a 21st century response organization. Back in the late 20th century, when FEMA was independent and capable, director James Lee Witt could call the White House about an impending disaster and speak directly with the president. After FEMA was swallowed by the DHS whale, director Michael Brown's calls to the White House might as well have been forwarded to a call center in India. Or as Chertoff would say, "a 21st century response organization."

The trouble with DHS is that its primary mission is now responding to its own size. Something is wrong when the need to "unify the department into a seamless whole" is as urgent as the need to "protect Americans against dangerous people." If Osama bin Laden runs out of caves in Afghanistan, he might try hiding in a cubicle at DHS.

The sheer size of the department suggests that our survival strategy is modeled on the way the penguin masses endure winter storms in Antarctica – huddle together by the thousands, then move those at the outer edges to the middle when they've been exposed for too long.

Chertoff touted 20 new "intelligence fusion centers," which for a mere $380 million will bring us "embedded DHS analysts in state and local offices and also state and local analysts at DHS, improving the flow of two-way information and fusing our intelligence - not only horizontally across the government, but vertically at all levels, as well." We have embedded the enemy, and it is us.

On the same day Chertoff spoke of his dream of a seamless whole, the Government Accounting Office released a survey of the 1,800 agricultural specialists who became DHS employees as part of the merger with Customs. Earlier this year, the GAO issued a report on the ag specialists entitled, "Management and Coordination Problems Increase the Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Foreign Pests and Disease."

In this week's report, the agricultural experts complained more about the domestic pests they're embedded with at DHS. The GAO asked the specialists what was going well. Their second most frequent response was, "Nothing is going well."

DHS has succeeded in streamlining one mission: handing out contracts. A tab on the front page of the DHS website declares, "Open for Business." Presumably, that message is meant for prospective contractors, not terrorists, but the jury is still out. Chertoff's speech was overshadowed by this week's decision to ditch a costly system to track the departure of foreigners at U.S. borders. Since 2004, the program has recorded 61 million foreigners entering the country, and only 4 million people leaving. That means DHS spent $1.7 billion to lose track of 57 million foreigners in two years. In the Bush administration, these are called metrics of progress.

Sadly, all his organizational jargon makes Michael Chertoff sound more and more like Michael Scott with a really big branch of "The Office." At least the Scranton branch of Dunder-Mifflin doesn't pretend to be a seamless whole. When it comes to shaking things up at DHS, Michael Scott's management philosophy might make him the better choice as Secretary:

"I'm friends with everybody in this office. We're all best friends. I love everybody here. But sometimes your best friends start coming into work late and start having dentist appointments that aren't dentist appointments, and that is when it's nice to let them know that you could beat them up." 12:02 P.M. (link)


Thursday, Dec. 7, 2006

Snowflakes on Falling Leaders: Donald Rumsfeld's last memo enjoyed quite a run, from lead story in Sunday's New York Times and Washington Post to Slate Hot Document to welcome harbinger of a leaky new era. Amid all that attention, one aspect went overlooked: After half a century in the nation's service, Donald Rumsfeld still can't write a memo to save his political life.

Rumsfeld is not alone—for a variety of reasons, most Cabinet memos aren't very good. Cabinet secretaries are busy people, so their memos are often written by committee. A Cabinet member's world revolves around his or her agency; a memo is an attempt to make the president feel the same way. As a result, Cabinet memos are almost always too long. No president could read 20-page memos from two dozen Cabinet members, but the Cabinet churns them out anyway—and the White House staff secretary dutifully boils each down to a one-graph summary.

Two other flaws plague the Cabinet memo genre. First, White House advisers usually have a better idea what the president needs to learn from a memo, because they spend more time with him—and hear back from him whenever their efforts don't measure up. Cabinet members often have to guess what the president knows or thinks and, unless they really screw up, rarely hear an honest appraisal of what he thinks of their work.

Second, White House advisers can afford to be candid. Their advice is privileged, they can't be hauled before Congress to testify about it, and internal presidential memos rarely leak unless the White House does so on purpose. A presidential memo from a Cabinet member is privileged, but an agency's internal memos are less protected. At a more basic level, the White House hates Cabinet memos because they are usually unsolicited and always a risk to leak. That's a deadly combination, and not unrelated: the less the White House wants a memo in the first place, the greater the chance they'll see it on the front page.

Aside from the leak, Rumsfeld avoided some of these problems. His memo is short, and written in his own pull-up-your-socks tone of voice. But it's still a lousy memo, and a telling one. If, as the Duke of Wellington once said, the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, the war in Iraq may have been lost on the memo pads of the Pentagon.

Consider another famous "leaked" Rumsfeld memo, which made headlines in October 2003. That memo didn't exactly sneak out the secretary's door; as USA Today reported, Rumsfeld sent it to top defense officials and handed it to congressmen. In the span of 13 paragraphs, the memo asked 16 often-unrelated questions, including this impenetrable gem: "Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?" I don't begin to understand the question, but I'm pretty sure the answer is "no."

"Memos have one purpose in life," according to the award-winning Online Writing Lab at Purdue University, "Memos solve problems."

As a former White House chief of staff, Rumsfeld should know that most basic of rules. Presidents don't read memos for pleasure; for that, they have Albert Camus. A memo reaches the president only when the stakes are high, the choices are difficult, and all other means of resolution have failed.

That makes Iraq a good topic for writing the president. But the Rumsfeld memo doesn't do the one thing a presidential memo is supposed to do—help the Decider decide. Instead, Rumsfeld's "recommendations" are more confusing than the Iraq debate itself.

The Post called it an "unusually expansive memo," but national security adviser Stephen Hadley's term—"laundry list"—seems more on point. Rumsfeld offers 15 "Above the Line" options, and six "less attractive" ones. He says many of the above-the-line options "could and, in a number of cases, should be done in combination with others"—but he doesn't say which ones, or why. He doesn't make a case for the above-the-line options, or against those below the line.

Not only does the memo fail to give the president any clearer idea what to do in Iraq, it doesn't give a clear idea what the secretary of defense thinks. Rumsfeld's memo is a blue-ribbon commission report gone bad—the septuagenarian without the executive summary.

In contrasting Rumsfeld's memo with "the lawyerly memo" from Hadley, the Times says:

At the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld has been famous for his "snowflakes"—memos that drift down to the bureaucracy from on high and that are used to ask questions, stimulate debate and shape policy.

Fortunately, his successor appears to understand that secretary of defense is not a snow job. If you can't help the Decider decide, a blizzard of memos only leads to drift. ... 1:55 P.M. (link)


Friday, Dec. 1, 2006

Belly of the Beast: Last year, the big rage was sudoku. These days, the most popular Japanese craze in Republican circles is seppuku—the "belly-cutting" ritualistic suicide better known as hari-kiri.

Republicans have been practicing all week long. On Iraq, James Baker has generously offered to hold the sword; all President Bush has to do is fall on it. Bill Frist changed his mind about doctor-assisted suicide, pulling the plug on his presidential bid rather than pretend a miracle would revive his chances. Yesterday, it was RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman's turn, in a speech to GOP governors about how Republicans had offed themselves in the midterm elections.

Mehlman is a master of apologies. Last year, he told the NAACP how sorry he was for Republicans' divisive, racist Southern strategy of the last three decades: "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong." In yesterday's speech, he was so busy atoning for Republican losses, he forgot to apologize for the divisive, racist Southern ad that helped Republican Bob Corker hold the Senate seat in Tennessee.

As Bush's former campaign manager, Mehlman was careful to honor his role as presidential apologist. He praised the Republican ground game for winning 13 of the 22 closest races, even though the dismal performance of the president and Congress deserve most of the credit for making what should have been cakewalks so close.

Mehlman also repeated the White House line that they'd beaten the historical spread: "Since the 1860s, the party of the incumbent President has lost an average of 45 House seats and five Senate seats during the second midterm." Don't despair, Mr. President: Ulysses S. Grant lost 96 seats in his sixth year, but he still got to be buried in Grant's Tomb.

But after running through the customary excuses, Mehlman made a damning admission: "If 2006 taught us anything, it is that a good ground game alone cannot be depended upon to push us over the top. We need to remember … all of us … that it is good policy that makes good politics." From a longtime disciple of Bush and Rove, that is the ultimate denunciation of the Bush administration and Rovism: Bush and the Republicans lost because their policies didn't work.

Mehlman claimed that Democrats, not Republicans, are supposed to be the ones who think government is the answer to every problem: "We Republicans don't believe that … but sometimes, over the last few years, we've behaved as if we do. What does that lead to? It leads to defeat, and it leads to temptation, and it leads to a government that is bigger and more intrusive than any of us would like."



The saddest part of Mehlman's speech, in fact, was his struggle to name a single Bush accomplishment worthy of Republicans' own mythical tradition. Reagan, he says, made Republicans "the party that would change government, not sustain it." Gingrich offered "a detailed list of congressional and governmental reforms that took power away from the smoke-filled rooms and returned it to the people."

And what has Bush done to make Republicans the party of reform? Mehlman's answer:

"President George W. Bush reorganized our entire security system, creating the Department of Homeland Security."

No wonder Republicans feel like killing themselves. The only hope their own chairman can give them that they're not the party of government is that Bush created the largest, costliest new federal bureaucracy in American history.

When the GOP's cheerleader thinks a bloated bureaucratic nightmare with 170,000 employees is a shining example of "limited government" and "our Party at its best," even Republicans seem to be saying sayonara to conservatism. Stick a sword in it—it's done. ... 1:48 P.M. (link)


Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2006

Traitor to His Class: As they survey the ruins of the conservative movement, Republicans ponder what might have been, if only Bush hadn't blundered so often and Congress plundered so much. A study in today's New York Times provides shocking evidence of the latest conservative betrayal. According to the latest available IRS data, the richest Americans have fared worse under Bush than any other income group.

If the Republican revolution promised anything, it was that after years of oppression and neglect, rich people would finally have the chance to get ahead. But the Times reports that life is tough on Easy Street:

"Incomes after 2000 fell the most among those at the top of the income ladder. The top one-tenth of 1 percent, about 130,500 taxpayers, reported their average income fell almost 17 percent, to just under $4.9 million each in 2004."

Even Bush's harshest critics would have to concede that the president has done everything in his power to help the rich. He cut tax rates for the upper brackets. He cut the capital gains rate from 20 percent to 15 percent. He gutted the estate tax and virtually eliminated the tax on dividends.

From 2001 to 2004, Bush gave the rich a new tax cut every single year. Yet as the Times points out, even with all those trillion-dollar tax cuts, the richest Americans saw their after-tax incomes plunge by 12.1 percent.

In his 2004 campaign, John Edwards called Bush's economic theory "the most radical and dangerous economic theory to hit our shores since socialism a century ago." It's now clear that for the very rich, even socialism might have been a better deal.

This is shattering news for Democrats and Republicans alike. What is the point of supply-side conservatism if it can't even make the rich richer? For that matter, where is the joy in railing against it? Supply-side economics never made any sense to begin with, but now its logic isn't worth the napkin it was written on. Trickle-down theory turned out to be no trickle, just down.

President Bush is famous for setting big goals and failing to meet them. Now we know he can't meet the easiest of goals, either. The rich have been getting richer for centuries. Moreover, in contrast to its other pursuits, the Bush administration's efforts to help the rich were a model of persistence and consistency. No pesky resistance tried to stop them; no clumsy Rumsfeld botched the execution. They did their best, yet still they failed.

In response, the rich are voting with their feet—or perhaps their footmen. In 2004, Bush carried voters with incomes above $200,000 by 63 percent to 35 percent. This year, the Republican margin shrunk 20 points, to 53 percent to 45 percent. That was the sharpest Democratic gain of any income category. More and more rich people are coming around to Bill Clinton's view that "if you want to live like a Republican, you have to vote like a Democrat."

While the very rich keep seeing their incomes go down, the cost of being rich keeps going up. The PNC Christmas Price Index, which tracks the price of everything from 12 drummers drumming to a partridge in a pear tree, reported this week that the cost of the 12 days of Christmas has jumped to an all-time high of $18,920. PNC says that a tight labor market means wages for piping pipers and other skilled workers are up, while the burst in the housing bubble "has dampened demand for luxury goods, such as gold rings."

Ronald Reagan used to say that in the 1960s, Democrats fought a war on poverty, and poverty won. In this decade, Republicans fought a war on rich people's poverty, and poverty won again.

Once upon a time, the United States was the world leader in making people rich. Not anymore. The annual World Wealth Report keeps track of High Net Worth Individuals (HNWIs), otherwise known as millionaires. According to the 2006 report, South Korea, India, and Russia are producing new millionaires three times faster than we are. Last year, the United States even fell behind Canada.

By examining "how much it costs HNWIs to live extremely well," the World Wealth Report shows just how hard it can be to keep up with the Gateses:

"HNWIs around the world have two things in common: a deep concern about preserving their wealth and an abiding desire to ensure growth of their wealth for the benefit of future generations and benefactors. … The 'admission and maintenance charges' to a life of privilege cannot be overlooked when discussing impacts to HNWI wealth."

While the gap has shrunk in the past two years, the report says that in 2003, the inflation rate for luxury goods was 5.5 percent higher than the Consumer Price Index. The report monitors an annual basket of luxury goods—including "5-star hotels, spa visits, and boarding school tuitions." As a percentage of wealth, rich Americans pay 60 percent more to live like Paris Hilton than Asian-Pacific millionaires do.

As they look toward 2008, that gives Republicans a new mantra: Stop the class warfare! Let Democrats whine about the middle-class squeeze. The upper-class squeeze—now that's an issue that Bill Frist and Mitt Romney can run on. ... 4:33 P.M. (link)


Thursday, Nov. 23, 2006

Crystal Ball: Move over, Mort Kondracke. You heard it here first: as predicted, Flyer and Fryer held on to defeat Plymouth and Rock, 27 percent to 22 percent, in this year's White House turkey naming contest. Corn and Copia, the other food item on voters' menu, finished third with 21 percent, ahead of deserving founder Ben and Franklin at 18 percent. Washington and Lincoln ended up first in war, first in peace, and last in the turkey standings, with 12 percent.

In what may be an early glimpse of a kinder, gentler Bush, the president dispensed with his annual neck-and-neck joke. He has given up pretending the election was close. Instead, Bush joked that it was probably better to be called Flyer than Fryer. He said the turkeys' owners "did a fine job raising these birds," then petted Fryer's neck and called it "a fine-looking bird."

Bush also revealed that although Barney had enjoyed chasing Flyer around the Rose Garden, his favorite toy is a soccer ball. That makes the president an honorary soccer dad, too late to win back any suburban swing voters.

Bates Motel: Flyer and Fryer have flown off to greener, Barney-free pastures in Disneyland. They don't know how lucky they are. With no help from Washington, some states are finding their own ways to reduce the turkey retiree burden. The Montgomery Advertiser reports on Alabama's solution: coyotes.

Every November, Bill Bates, a leading Republican who runs the largest turkey farm in the state, brings the best bird from his flock of 20,000+ to Montgomery for the governor to pardon. Bates, who has been doing this since segregationist days, doesn't need an online naming contest. He gives his best bird the same name every year: Clyde.

While a pardon may be the dream of every turkey worth his salt, the Advertiser's account suggests it's not easy being Clyde. The paper reports that many of Bates's prized turkeys "ate so much and got so fat that they had a hard time even waddling around the farm." Others apparently "have been known to drown during storms when they lift their beaks to the open sky."

But the pardon of Clyde '05 proved to be the cruelest hoax of all. After being honored by the governor, Clyde '05 went on display at a farmers' market in Montgomery. PETA complained about his shabby treatment, so Bates brought him back to the farm. A few months ago, a coyote got into his pen and had an early Thanksgiving dinner. "Poor Clyde never had a chance," Bates told the paper. "There wasn't much left but feathers and bones."

Since then, Bates has installed a new security system—barbed wire. But if more coyotes had time to read blogs, they might have left Clyde alone and followed this hot tip from Huffington Post: Tofurky. Made with "organic, non-genetically engineered soybeans," Tofurky has been "America's Leading Turkey Alternative Since 1995."

The 2007 "Gobble the Vote" naming contest is 364 days away, but we already have a frontrunner: Tofurky and Clyde. You heard it here first. … 1:27 A.M. (link)



the has-been
Inside the Whale
Michael Chertoff takes over the DHS branch of "The Office."
By Bruce Reed
Saturday, December 16, 2006, at 12:02 PM ET

Saturday, Dec. 16, 2006

Dangerous Liaisons: If you're tired of buying presents for the people you work with, be glad you're not Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. This holiday, he has to find white-elephant gifts for 180,000 employees.

From the beginning, the Bush administration has never wavered in its message about the true meaning of homeland security: keep shopping. So it's fitting that Chertoff chose the holiday rush to deliver his own State of the Union's security speech.

From Katrina to the Dubai Ports World fiasco, Chertoff has endured a rocky tenure at DHS. You have to feel for a guy who gave up a lifetime appointment as a federal appeals court judge for a four-year stint as America's least successful management consultant. On Thursday, he talked about "total asset visibility" and "metrics of progress." If only America's borders could be as impenetrable as our speeches.

Last year, Chertoff promised a major reorganization of the sprawling department. Judging from Thursday's speech, sprawl is winning. Chertoff outlined a five-part mission:

#1: Look out for "dangerous people."

#2: Look out for "dangerous things."

#3: Resist an attack if we fail to stop dangerous people with dangerous things.

#4: Respond to disaster if we fail to prevent an attack by dangerous people with dangerous things.

#5: "Unify the department into a seamless whole, one in which people are both parts of proud components with real legacies, but also working together to build a visionary new 21st century government organization." In other words, look out for dangerous departments who are supposed to protect us from dangerous people with dangerous things.

Chertoff lavished praise on most of his agency. But like Cinderella's cruel stepmother, he berated his unhappy stepchild, FEMA. "We have to make sure that FEMA does not become so enmeshed in its own bureaucratic processes sometimes that they lose sight of the need to have simple common sense," Chertoff said. "We've embarked on a very ambitious program of retooling FEMA to make it a 21st century response organization."

Chertoff has it backwards: FEMA's whole problem is that it was swallowed up by the bureaucratic processes of a 21st century response organization. Back in the late 20th century, when FEMA was independent and capable, director James Lee Witt could call the White House about an impending disaster and speak directly with the president. After FEMA was swallowed by the DHS whale, director Michael Brown's calls to the White House might as well have been forwarded to a call center in India. Or as Chertoff would say, "a 21st century response organization."

The trouble with DHS is that its primary mission is now responding to its own size. Something is wrong when the need to "unify the department into a seamless whole" is as urgent as the need to "protect Americans against dangerous people." If Osama bin Laden runs out of caves in Afghanistan, he might try hiding in a cubicle at DHS.

The sheer size of the department suggests that our survival strategy is modeled on the way the penguin masses endure winter storms in Antarctica – huddle together by the thousands, then move those at the outer edges to the middle when they've been exposed for too long.

Chertoff touted 20 new "intelligence fusion centers," which for a mere $380 million will bring us "embedded DHS analysts in state and local offices and also state and local analysts at DHS, improving the flow of two-way information and fusing our intelligence - not only horizontally across the government, but vertically at all levels, as well." We have embedded the enemy, and it is us.

On the same day Chertoff spoke of his dream of a seamless whole, the Government Accounting Office released a survey of the 1,800 agricultural specialists who became DHS employees as part of the merger with Customs. Earlier this year, the GAO issued a report on the ag specialists entitled, "Management and Coordination Problems Increase the Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Foreign Pests and Disease."

In this week's report, the agricultural experts complained more about the domestic pests they're embedded with at DHS. The GAO asked the specialists what was going well. Their second most frequent response was, "Nothing is going well."

DHS has succeeded in streamlining one mission: handing out contracts. A tab on the front page of the DHS website declares, "Open for Business." Presumably, that message is meant for prospective contractors, not terrorists, but the jury is still out. Chertoff's speech was overshadowed by this week's decision to ditch a costly system to track the departure of foreigners at U.S. borders. Since 2004, the program has recorded 61 million foreigners entering the country, and only 4 million people leaving. That means DHS spent $1.7 billion to lose track of 57 million foreigners in two years. In the Bush administration, these are called metrics of progress.

Sadly, all his organizational jargon makes Michael Chertoff sound more and more like Michael Scott with a really big branch of "The Office." At least the Scranton branch of Dunder-Mifflin doesn't pretend to be a seamless whole. When it comes to shaking things up at DHS, Michael Scott's management philosophy might make him the better choice as Secretary:

"I'm friends with everybody in this office. We're all best friends. I love everybody here. But sometimes your best friends start coming into work late and start having dentist appointments that aren't dentist appointments, and that is when it's nice to let them know that you could beat them up." 12:02 P.M. (link)


Thursday, Dec. 7, 2006

Snowflakes on Falling Leaders: Donald Rumsfeld's last memo enjoyed quite a run, from lead story in Sunday's New York Times and Washington Post to Slate Hot Document to welcome harbinger of a leaky new era. Amid all that attention, one aspect went overlooked: After half a century in the nation's service, Donald Rumsfeld still can't write a memo to save his political life.

Rumsfeld is not alone—for a variety of reasons, most Cabinet memos aren't very good. Cabinet secretaries are busy people, so their memos are often written by committee. A Cabinet member's world revolves around his or her agency; a memo is an attempt to make the president feel the same way. As a result, Cabinet memos are almost always too long. No president could read 20-page memos from two dozen Cabinet members, but the Cabinet churns them out anyway—and the White House staff secretary dutifully boils each down to a one-graph summary.

Two other flaws plague the Cabinet memo genre. First, White House advisers usually have a better idea what the president needs to learn from a memo, because they spend more time with him—and hear back from him whenever their efforts don't measure up. Cabinet members often have to guess what the president knows or thinks and, unless they really screw up, rarely hear an honest appraisal of what he thinks of their work.

Second, White House advisers can afford to be candid. Their advice is privileged, they can't be hauled before Congress to testify about it, and internal presidential memos rarely leak unless the White House does so on purpose. A presidential memo from a Cabinet member is privileged, but an agency's internal memos are less protected. At a more basic level, the White House hates Cabinet memos because they are usually unsolicited and always a risk to leak. That's a deadly combination, and not unrelated: the less the White House wants a memo in the first place, the greater the chance they'll see it on the front page.

Aside from the leak, Rumsfeld avoided some of these problems. His memo is short, and written in his own pull-up-your-socks tone of voice. But it's still a lousy memo, and a telling one. If, as the Duke of Wellington once said, the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, the war in Iraq may have been lost on the memo pads of the Pentagon.

Consider another famous "leaked" Rumsfeld memo, which made headlines in October 2003. That memo didn't exactly sneak out the secretary's door; as USA Today reported, Rumsfeld sent it to top defense officials and handed it to congressmen. In the span of 13 paragraphs, the memo asked 16 often-unrelated questions, including this impenetrable gem: "Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?" I don't begin to understand the question, but I'm pretty sure the answer is "no."

"Memos have one purpose in life," according to the award-winning Online Writing Lab at Purdue University, "Memos solve problems."

As a former White House chief of staff, Rumsfeld should know that most basic of rules. Presidents don't read memos for pleasure; for that, they have Albert Camus. A memo reaches the president only when the stakes are high, the choices are difficult, and all other means of resolution have failed.

That makes Iraq a good topic for writing the president. But the Rumsfeld memo doesn't do the one thing a presidential memo is supposed to do—help the Decider decide. Instead, Rumsfeld's "recommendations" are more confusing than the Iraq debate itself.

The Post called it an "unusually expansive memo," but national security adviser Stephen Hadley's term—"laundry list"—seems more on point. Rumsfeld offers 15 "Above the Line" options, and six "less attractive" ones. He says many of the above-the-line options "could and, in a number of cases, should be done in combination with others"—but he doesn't say which ones, or why. He doesn't make a case for the above-the-line options, or against those below the line.

Not only does the memo fail to give the president any clearer idea what to do in Iraq, it doesn't give a clear idea what the secretary of defense thinks. Rumsfeld's memo is a blue-ribbon commission report gone bad—the septuagenarian without the executive summary.

In contrasting Rumsfeld's memo with "the lawyerly memo" from Hadley, the Times says:

At the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld has been famous for his "snowflakes"—memos that drift down to the bureaucracy from on high and that are used to ask questions, stimulate debate and shape policy.

Fortunately, his successor appears to understand that secretary of defense is not a snow job. If you can't help the Decider decide, a blizzard of memos only leads to drift. ... 1:55 P.M. (link)


Friday, Dec. 1, 2006

Belly of the Beast: Last year, the big rage was sudoku. These days, the most popular Japanese craze in Republican circles is seppuku—the "belly-cutting" ritualistic suicide better known as hari-kiri.

Republicans have been practicing all week long. On Iraq, James Baker has generously offered to hold the sword; all President Bush has to do is fall on it. Bill Frist changed his mind about doctor-assisted suicide, pulling the plug on his presidential bid rather than pretend a miracle would revive his chances. Yesterday, it was RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman's turn, in a speech to GOP governors about how Republicans had offed themselves in the midterm elections.

Mehlman is a master of apologies. Last year, he told the NAACP how sorry he was for Republicans' divisive, racist Southern strategy of the last three decades: "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong." In yesterday's speech, he was so busy atoning for Republican losses, he forgot to apologize for the divisive, racist Southern ad that helped Republican Bob Corker hold the Senate seat in Tennessee.

As Bush's former campaign manager, Mehlman was careful to honor his role as presidential apologist. He praised the Republican ground game for winning 13 of the 22 closest races, even though the dismal performance of the president and Congress deserve most of the credit for making what should have been cakewalks so close.

Mehlman also repeated the White House line that they'd beaten the historical spread: "Since the 1860s, the party of the incumbent President has lost an average of 45 House seats and five Senate seats during the second midterm." Don't despair, Mr. President: Ulysses S. Grant lost 96 seats in his sixth year, but he still got to be buried in Grant's Tomb.

But after running through the customary excuses, Mehlman made a damning admission: "If 2006 taught us anything, it is that a good ground game alone cannot be depended upon to push us over the top. We need to remember … all of us … that it is good policy that makes good politics." From a longtime disciple of Bush and Rove, that is the ultimate denunciation of the Bush administration and Rovism: Bush and the Republicans lost because their policies didn't work.

Mehlman claimed that Democrats, not Republicans, are supposed to be the ones who think government is the answer to every problem: "We Republicans don't believe that … but sometimes, over the last few years, we've behaved as if we do. What does that lead to? It leads to defeat, and it leads to temptation, and it leads to a government that is bigger and more intrusive than any of us would like."



The saddest part of Mehlman's speech, in fact, was his struggle to name a single Bush accomplishment worthy of Republicans' own mythical tradition. Reagan, he says, made Republicans "the party that would change government, not sustain it." Gingrich offered "a detailed list of congressional and governmental reforms that took power away from the smoke-filled rooms and returned it to the people."

And what has Bush done to make Republicans the party of reform? Mehlman's answer:

"President George W. Bush reorganized our entire security system, creating the Department of Homeland Security."

No wonder Republicans feel like killing themselves. The only hope their own chairman can give them that they're not the party of government is that Bush created the largest, costliest new federal bureaucracy in American history.

When the GOP's cheerleader thinks a bloated bureaucratic nightmare with 170,000 employees is a shining example of "limited government" and "our Party at its best," even Republicans seem to be saying sayonara to conservatism. Stick a sword in it—it's done. ... 1:48 P.M. (link)


Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2006

Traitor to His Class: As they survey the ruins of the conservative movement, Republicans ponder what might have been, if only Bush hadn't blundered so often and Congress plundered so much. A study in today's New York Times provides shocking evidence of the latest conservative betrayal. According to the latest available IRS data, the richest Americans have fared worse under Bush than any other income group.

If the Republican revolution promised anything, it was that after years of oppression and neglect, rich people would finally have the chance to get ahead. But the Times reports that life is tough on Easy Street:

"Incomes after 2000 fell the most among those at the top of the income ladder. The top one-tenth of 1 percent, about 130,500 taxpayers, reported their average income fell almost 17 percent, to just under $4.9 million each in 2004."

Even Bush's harshest critics would have to concede that the president has done everything in his power to help the rich. He cut tax rates for the upper brackets. He cut the capital gains rate from 20 percent to 15 percent. He gutted the estate tax and virtually eliminated the tax on dividends.

From 2001 to 2004, Bush gave the rich a new tax cut every single year. Yet as the Times points out, even with all those trillion-dollar tax cuts, the richest Americans saw their after-tax incomes plunge by 12.1 percent.

In his 2004 campaign, John Edwards called Bush's economic theory "the most radical and dangerous economic theory to hit our shores since socialism a century ago." It's now clear that for the very rich, even socialism might have been a better deal.

This is shattering news for Democrats and Republicans alike. What is the point of supply-side conservatism if it can't even make the rich richer? For that matter, where is the joy in railing against it? Supply-side economics never made any sense to begin with, but now its logic isn't worth the napkin it was written on. Trickle-down theory turned out to be no trickle, just down.

President Bush is famous for setting big goals and failing to meet them. Now we know he can't meet the easiest of goals, either. The rich have been getting richer for centuries. Moreover, in contrast to its other pursuits, the Bush administration's efforts to help the rich were a model of persistence and consistency. No pesky resistance tried to stop them; no clumsy Rumsfeld botched the execution. They did their best, yet still they failed.

In response, the rich are voting with their feet—or perhaps their footmen. In 2004, Bush carried voters with incomes above $200,000 by 63 percent to 35 percent. This year, the Republican margin shrunk 20 points, to 53 percent to 45 percent. That was the sharpest Democratic gain of any income category. More and more rich people are coming around to Bill Clinton's view that "if you want to live like a Republican, you have to vote like a Democrat."

While the very rich keep seeing their incomes go down, the cost of being rich keeps going up. The PNC Christmas Price Index, which tracks the price of everything from 12 drummers drumming to a partridge in a pear tree, reported this week that the cost of the 12 days of Christmas has jumped to an all-time high of $18,920. PNC says that a tight labor market means wages for piping pipers and other skilled workers are up, while the burst in the housing bubble "has dampened demand for luxury goods, such as gold rings."

Ronald Reagan used to say that in the 1960s, Democrats fought a war on poverty, and poverty won. In this decade, Republicans fought a war on rich people's poverty, and poverty won again.

Once upon a time, the United States was the world leader in making people rich. Not anymore. The annual World Wealth Report keeps track of High Net Worth Individuals (HNWIs), otherwise known as millionaires. According to the 2006 report, South Korea, India, and Russia are producing new millionaires three times faster than we are. Last year, the United States even fell behind Canada.

By examining "how much it costs HNWIs to live extremely well," the World Wealth Report shows just how hard it can be to keep up with the Gateses:

"HNWIs around the world have two things in common: a deep concern about preserving their wealth and an abiding desire to ensure growth of their wealth for the benefit of future generations and benefactors. … The 'admission and maintenance charges' to a life of privilege cannot be overlooked when discussing impacts to HNWI wealth."

While the gap has shrunk in the past two years, the report says that in 2003, the inflation rate for luxury goods was 5.5 percent higher than the Consumer Price Index. The report monitors an annual basket of luxury goods—including "5-star hotels, spa visits, and boarding school tuitions." As a percentage of wealth, rich Americans pay 60 percent more to live like Paris Hilton than Asian-Pacific millionaires do.

As they look toward 2008, that gives Republicans a new mantra: Stop the class warfare! Let Democrats whine about the middle-class squeeze. The upper-class squeeze—now that's an issue that Bill Frist and Mitt Romney can run on. ... 4:33 P.M. (link)


Thursday, Nov. 23, 2006

Crystal Ball: Move over, Mort Kondracke. You heard it here first: as predicted, Flyer and Fryer held on to defeat Plymouth and Rock, 27 percent to 22 percent, in this year's White House turkey naming contest. Corn and Copia, the other food item on voters' menu, finished third with 21 percent, ahead of deserving founder Ben and Franklin at 18 percent. Washington and Lincoln ended up first in war, first in peace, and last in the turkey standings, with 12 percent.

In what may be an early glimpse of a kinder, gentler Bush, the president dispensed with his annual neck-and-neck joke. He has given up pretending the election was close. Instead, Bush joked that it was probably better to be called Flyer than Fryer. He said the turkeys' owners "did a fine job raising these birds," then petted Fryer's neck and called it "a fine-looking bird."

Bush also revealed that although Barney had enjoyed chasing Flyer around the Rose Garden, his favorite toy is a soccer ball. That makes the president an honorary soccer dad, too late to win back any suburban swing voters.

Bates Motel: Flyer and Fryer have flown off to greener, Barney-free pastures in Disneyland. They don't know how lucky they are. With no help from Washington, some states are finding their own ways to reduce the turkey retiree burden. The Montgomery Advertiser reports on Alabama's solution: coyotes.

Every November, Bill Bates, a leading Republican who runs the largest turkey farm in the state, brings the best bird from his flock of 20,000+ to Montgomery for the governor to pardon. Bates, who has been doing this since segregationist days, doesn't need an online naming contest. He gives his best bird the same name every year: Clyde.

While a pardon may be the dream of every turkey worth his salt, the Advertiser's account suggests it's not easy being Clyde. The paper reports that many of Bates's prized turkeys "ate so much and got so fat that they had a hard time even waddling around the farm." Others apparently "have been known to drown during storms when they lift their beaks to the open sky."

But the pardon of Clyde '05 proved to be the cruelest hoax of all. After being honored by the governor, Clyde '05 went on display at a farmers' market in Montgomery. PETA complained about his shabby treatment, so Bates brought him back to the farm. A few months ago, a coyote got into his pen and had an early Thanksgiving dinner. "Poor Clyde never had a chance," Bates told the paper. "There wasn't much left but feathers and bones."

Since then, Bates has installed a new security system—barbed wire. But if more coyotes had time to read blogs, they might have left Clyde alone and followed this hot tip from Huffington Post: Tofurky. Made with "organic, non-genetically engineered soybeans," Tofurky has been "America's Leading Turkey Alternative Since 1995."

The 2007 "Gobble the Vote" naming contest is 364 days away, but we already have a frontrunner: Tofurky and Clyde. You heard it here first. … 1:27 A.M. (link)


Tuesday, Nov. 21, 2006

Fed and Up: As soon as he sets foot on American soil, President Bush will get back to the people's business: Wednesday's annual Rose Garden ceremony to pardon the Thanksgiving turkey. Last year at this time, the White House was thick with turkeys looking for pardons. This holiday season, it's the president who needs one, and neither the country nor his party is in a forgiving vein.

Every Thanksgiving, the president actually pardons two turkeys—the official Thanksgiving Turkey, who poses for the cameras in the Rose Garden, as well as an alternate, who remains in an undisclosed secure location, ready to take over if the Thanksgiving Turkey is eaten by terrorists. The two turkeys then retire to the Elysian Fields of Disneyland, where they will serve as Grand Marshals for Disney's Thanksgiving Day parade, and be free to volunteer as mascots for California Rep. Duncan Hunter's 2008 presidential campaign.

A few years ago, Bush aides launched an online contest to name the turkeys. That was back in the days when the Bush White House enjoyed elections.

The turkey naming contest has been more successful than other administration experiments in democracy, like Iraq. But like the administration itself, the contest may be fading away for lack of interest.

In 2004, nearly 20,000 people voted, lifting the names Biscuits and Gravy to a 27 percent to 22 percent win over Patience and Fortitude. Last year, turnout dropped by a third, to a mere 12,726 voters, as Marshmallow and Yam beat Wattle and Snood by only 27 percent to 26 percent. The Wattle and Snood campaign is still whining that with a shift of just 65 votes, Marshmallow would have been stuffed and the press would be writing about a Wattle comeback.

This is an election year, so turnout ought to be higher. But the choices in this year's "Gobble the Vote" contest won't help. Each year, the race attracts four types of candidates: Famous Founders (Lewis and Clark in '03, Adams and Jefferson in '04), enduring values (Stars and Stripes and Hope and Glory in '03, Patience and Fortitude in '04, Democracy and Freedom in '05), turkey parts (Gobble and Peck in '04, Wattle and Snood in '05), and Thanksgiving favorites (Pumpkin and Cranberry in '03, Biscuits and Gravy in '04, Marshmallow and Yam in '05).

The race usually comes down to a choice between food and values, and food almost always wins out. Stars and Stripes won on a values mantle in 2003, when the nation was still in shock from 9/11. But Pumpkin and Cranberry finished second that year, while Biscuits and Gravy and Marshmallow and Yam won the last two contests. Turkey parts nearly pulled an upset last year with Wattle and Snood—but without exit polls, we'll never know how many voters thought those were Republican values, nor how many regions consider those parts prized holiday fare.

This year, the White House faces the same challenge in naming turkeys that it had defending them in the midterms: No values are on the ballot. The Founders have three candidates: Washington and Lincoln, Ben and Franklin, and Plymouth and Rock. The other two entries are Fusion candidates: the Food/Founder hybrid Corn and Copia and the Turkey-Parts/Food combo Flyer and Fryer.

Even lifelong political bird-watchers don't know how to handicap this race. Washington and Lincoln, who dominate the nation's currency, will have a tougher time with turkey voters, who have never given a Founder more than 10 percent. The same bias against historical figures will hurt Ben and Franklin, despite their namesake's impeccable credentials as the father of Thanksgiving and champion of the turkey as the national bird.

For once, the Founders may have a contender in Plymouth and Rock. Unlike Lewis and Clark and all those ex-presidents, it actually reminds people of Thanksgiving. Of course, if Plymouth could carry the top of the ticket, Lee Iacocca would have won the presidency in 1988, and we could have avoided a pair named George and George W. Bush.

While nobody ever lost money betting against the Food candidates, this year's entries are more kitschy than appetizing. Like Wattle and Snood, Corn and Copia will leave many voters scratching their heads—although a holiday built around birds stuffed with bread and drenched in cranberries is enduring proof that Americans will eat anything.

Flyer and Fryer is another candidacy built on confusion—two appealing ornithological concepts ill-suited to this particular species. If Corn and Copia sounds like a Bushism, Flyer and Fryer sounds like the Bush Doctrine. Maureen Dowd is drooling at the chance to write up the father-son symbolism of a Flyer and Fryer win, as World War II flying ace Bush 41 sups with third-degree-electoral-burn-victim Bush 43.

Judging from the few open threads on the issue, the White House would have been better off entering the joke President Bush makes every year about the closeness of the race: Neck and Neck. If voters could write in, their choices would probably be None and Of the Above. MousePlanet shows the deep, unmet desire for Food nominees: Get In and My Belly, Lunch and Dinner, White Meat and Dark Meat. Although high elementary-school turnout could boost Plymouth and Rock, such a hungry electorate will probably save Flyer and Fryer down the stretch.

But if the president heard the voters on November 7, he would use Wednesday's Rose Garden event to usher in a long overdue era of belt-tightening. Like the holiday, the twin-turkey program is an apt symbol of national bloat. We don't need to pardon that extra turkey, and we'll pay for it later. It's only a matter of time before the population of retired turkeys will dwarf the number of working turkeys left to support them. Now that scientists have discovered anti-aging, anti-obesity compounds in red wine and peanuts, every bar in southern California will be overrun by drunk turkeys who think they have a get-out-of-jail-free card from on high. Mel Gibson, take a number. ... 4:59 P.M. (link)


Friday, Nov. 17, 2006

Cats: Democrats in Congress would do well to forget the last 100 hours and get back to work making the case for their "100 Hours Agenda." According to a new poll by the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans are not only glad Democrats won, but eager for them—not Bush—to take the lead in setting the agenda.

With such a welcome audience, the next month is a crucial time for Democrats to explain their ideas. Most Americans will like the Democratic agenda but don't really know what's in it. On Election Night, my 11-year-old son may have spoken for much of the country when we were half-listening to CNN crosstalk about Democrats putting caps on prescription-drug costs. In the spirit of Emily Litella, he asked, "Why do the Democrats want to put cats on prescription drugs?"

It sounds like a pretty good idea to me. But I'm a dog person.

Dogs: Yesterday's House leadership contest confirmed that the big winners in the midterm elections were the Blue Dogs. Other dogs were big losers.

Republican attack dogs had a bad year, led by New York Senate candidate John Spencer, who used his 15 minutes of fame to accuse Hillary Clinton of having undergone plastic surgery. Rick Santorum's overwhelming defeat in Pennsylvania suggests that the man-on-dog issue has no future, either.

The only things faring worse than attack-dog politics are actual attack dogs. Mel Martinez, take heart—at least you're not taking over the pit-bull-rights movement. Just before the election, pit bull owners marched in six cities to oppose "breed discrimination"—in other words, bans on pit bulls. An organization called ROVERlution sponsored the nationwide protest, its "second annual Luv-a-Bully March."

Dr. Paula Terifaj, who calls herself the packleader of ROVERlution, put candidates everywhere on notice: "Dog owners comprise 48 percent of the voting population, therefore politicians need to be aware of policies that affect us in a negative way."

If the marches are any sign, the ROVERlution has about as many true believers as the Gingrich Revolution has left in Congress. The Colorado Springs Gazette counted "about 15" marchers, in a state that has led the way in imposing urban pit-bull bans.

Still, every revolution has to start somewhere. Pit bulls may be an even tougher sell these days than George Bush and Tom DeLay. But Frank Luntz could have written the ROVERlutionists' Contract with America, the "Dog's Bill of Rights":

1. The Right To Have Their Lives Cherished and Protected

2. The Right To Social Integration

3. The Right To be Trained Humanely

4. The Right To a Fair Share of Public Resources

5. The Right To Act Like Dogs.

That fifth point cost Republicans the Congress. But the first four points are actually better than the House Republican agenda. Democrats have long argued for a Patient Bill of Rights to guarantee emergency room care. A pit-bull bill of rights might be the quickest way to get there. ... 1:37 P.M. (link)


Thursday, Nov. 16, 2006

One Dog, No Vote: For the next week, President Bush will be on a forced march through the capitals of Asia, playing dress-up at the Asia-Pacific Economic Conference and trying to forget his troubles back home. As if he didn't have enough problems with his conservative base, this year Bush and the other leaders will be wearing silk Vietnamese dresses called ao dai.

The dress may be all Bush has to show for his talks in Singapore, Hanoi, and Jakarta. If he really wants to salvage the last two years of his presidency, he should make a brave, surprise side trip to Beijing to take on the latest threat to global freedom: China's new policy to limit families not only to one child but to one dog.

Americans have been remarkably patient with China's emergence as a budding superpower. We've run a huge trade deficit to help fuel China's double-digit annual economic growth. We've saddled our children with nearly a trillion dollars in national debt that will go to make Chinese children better off. We bear their babies for them, then let China take those American-born away from us to spend the rest of their lives behind Communist bars.

While the United States was never thrilled with the one-child policy, we looked the other way, especially once we figured out that 30 years from now, China will have a far worse worker-to-retiree ratio than we will. But we have rolled over and played dead long enough.

As the Washington Post reported this week, China's new policy imposes a limit of one dog per household, prohibits owners from taking their dog to the park, and bans dogs from being more than 14 inches in height. Here in the greatest dog nation on earth, we simply cannot stand by and let a totalitarian regime restrict its people to one dog, and a tiny breakfast dog at that.

The ostensible purpose of the one-dog policy is to curb rabies, but the big-dog ban suggests darker motives. A bureaucrat told the Post that dogs more than 14 inches tall "make those who don't own dogs psychologically afraid." China is one of the most oppressive governments on earth, the largest authoritarian regime in human history—and it's worried that border collies make people quiver in fear?

According to the Post, the policy is the product of an aging ruling class that has lost touch with China's emerging middle class. Much of the old guard clings to the Maoist notion that dogs are a bourgeois symbol of corruption. Maybe that's what John Murtha meant when he pooh-poohed corruption as "crap."

China's action has split the American animal-rights community. Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society, makes the sensible argument that vaccinating dogs for rabies would do far more good than limiting each household to one (unvaccinated) dog. By contrast, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk's only objection is that there should be a "grandfather clause so that people who have more than one dearly loved dog don't now have to kill them." PETA's position doesn't sit well at dogpolitics.com—"The Political Blog for Dog Owners"—which attacks Newkirk for sending China the message, "Kill 'em but just don't eat 'em."

For Bush, the domestic politics of jerking China's chain on this are irresistible. The Pew Research Center reports that 39 percent of American households have dogs (only 23 percent have cats), and they're disproportionately the same middle-class families who ran away from Republicans last week.

No PETA sympathizers in that crowd; they're all hard-liners. Just look at the recent survey of 1,000 dog owners by a group called My Dog Votes. The group says "a startling 94.3% of dog owners ranked dog laws and policies as being an even more important concern than even property taxes." More to the point, the survey found that 97.9 percent of dog owners oppose size restrictions, 99.6 percent oppose limiting access to parks or downtown areas, and 92.9 percent "would cross party lines in a local or state election to preserve the right to own the dog of their choice." We're not in China anymore, Toto.

Bush told Bob Woodward that he would stay the course in Iraq even if Laura and his dog Barney were the last ones left to support it. Whatever Laura and Barney tell the Baker Commission, they'll never waver on China. For Barney, it's personal. Dog manuals list Scottish terriers' height as 10 to 11 inches, but that's just to the shoulders. Barney's adorable head and ears stick up another 6 inches—which would make him banned in Beijing. The Bushes have a second dog, so if the Chinese policy were in effect here, they'd be Drowning Miss Beazley.

Dogs have played a role in some of the great comebacks in American political history—from Nixon's Checkers speech to FDR's warning not to pick on his dog Fala. If George Bush wants to retrieve his presidency, he should follow the same foreign policy doctrine as Teddy Roosevelt: Speak softly and throw a big stick. ... 1:53 P.M. (link)


Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2006

Open Season: A week after 9/11, Pres. Bush made headlines around the world when he proclaimed that Osama bin Laden was "Wanted: Dead or Alive." A week after the 2006 midterms, conservatives are applying the same phrase to the Bush presidency—except for the "wanted" part.

John Podhoretz weighed in first in last Wednesday's New York Post under the headline, "Lame Duck Bush Is Left Crippled by a Crushing Vote of No Confidence." Insisting that "the presidency of George W. Bush ended last night," Podhoretz said Bush is done as an activist and will now be at best a caretaker.

In the view of many on the right, Bush isn't just a lame duck, but a Roboduk—a motorized decoy despised by purists. By constantly spinning their wings to seem authentic, Roboduks lure real ones to an untimely, unsporting, and unethical demise—just like the Republican Congress. According to the outdoor-sports section of the New York Times, the decoys come in such models as "The Wobbler," "The Thrasher," and "The Torpedo"—the very names now applied to Bush in conservative circles.

In the Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes counters that Bush "intends to be a very live duck in his last two years in the White House." Barnes says that as president, Bush still "has an unmatched set of political tools": He's still in charge of foreign policy, still has the bully pulpit, and will finally learn to use that veto pen.

That's all true, although as Bush has discovered, those tools don't work as well as they once did. The pulpit is far less bully for an unpopular president. If Democrats have their way, Bush will be using that veto pen to kill popular proposals, not pork-laden spending bills. Being in charge of foreign policy is what cooked Bush's goose in the first place. Bush may not like being sent to his room over the issue. But he'll be better off if he takes the voters' advice and shares the national security burden.

Far from uncovering any convincing signs of life, even Barnes seems to find what Thomas Nast once illustrated in a cartoon about Andrew Johnson—"a brace of dead ducks." Barnes rules out progress on entitlements, energy, or education. He says immigration reform will happen only if Democrats give Bush his guest-worker program. He expects Bush to cave to Democrats' demands on the minimum wage. His leading proof that this White House is alive and kicking is that Bush "instantly changed the story line from an Election Day repudiation of his presidency to his removal of Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld."

Of course, if Bush had fired Rumsfeld and accepted a minimum-wage increase before the election, Republicans might never have lost their majority. So, it might be more accurate to say the Bush presidency is alive and kicking itself.

Barnes is right that no matter how lame, the presidency is always relevant. But if Bush wants to be a live duck, not just a relevant one, his presidency needs a genuine rebirth. When Democrats lost Congress in 1994, Clinton still had a significant advantage: Voters had punished Democrats for not enacting the agenda they'd been promised in 1992, such as welfare reform. The 1994 election emboldened our White House to let Clinton be Clinton.

This White House can't simply let Bush be Bush, because being Bush is his biggest problem. Letting Bush be Gingrich won't work, either. Conservatives have been quick to point out that the 2006 election was a rejection of Bush, not of 1994-style conservatism. They neglect to mention that Bush's own election in 2000 was itself an explicit rejection of Gingrich-style conservatism. If Bush hadn't promised to be a different kind of Republican, voters never would have given him the chance to prove he wasn't one.

That leaves the White House only one real option: Let Bush be Arnold. Schwarzenegger tried Bush's way for the first two years of his term, but gave it up when he flopped at the box office. For his new role, he made a Democrat his chief of staff, charmed Democratic leaders, and embraced Democrats' agenda. Voters loved it and signed him to do a sequel.

Bush would be smart not only to copy Arnold's playbook, but to join the California governor in making climate change his new favorite issue. Schwarzenegger signed a Democratic bill that for the first time caps a state's greenhouse-gas emissions. For Bush and his party, endorsing a nationwide carbon cap might feel like finally giving that concession speech he owes Al Gore. But the country and the world would cheer for the first time in a long while.

Bush owes his sole truly bipartisan accomplishment, the No Child Left Behind Act, to a similar strategy. He took a good Democratic idea (education reform), added his own wrinkle (annual tests), and charmed leading Democrats into writing most of the bill. But once it became law, Bush couldn't take the heat from conservatives who oppose national support for education. He promptly broke his promise to provide the funds to make reform succeed and gave up on bipartisanship altogether.

That's Bush's problem in a duckshell: He can only reap the benefits of bipartisanship if—like Schwarzenegger—he throws himself into the role with gusto. Unfortunately for the president, his base now wants him to be more conservative, not less. If he tries to placate them, any Bush reclamation project will be doomed from the outset.

Conservatives may be wasting their time debating whether Bush's duck is alive or dead. If the president is too weak to stand up to his base, he might end up looking like the lamest duck of all: a girly one. ... 11:12 A.M. (link)


Friday, Nov. 10, 2006

One-State Strategy: Now that Republicans have won lost houses of Congress, the political totem pole is clear: Rovism may beat Shrumism, but it will never beat Schumer-Rahmism.

But take heart, Karl! The good news: Rovism is not dead, after all. The bad news: The only state where it still works is Idaho.

While red-, purple-, and blue-state Republicans were falling everywhere else Tuesday night, Idaho Republicans enjoyed a historic night. They held both congressional seats and the governorship with ease and won every statewide office for the first time since the Hoover landslide in 1928. Rove has a bright future out there, and if he needs help getting his foot in the door, I'd be happy to make a few calls.

The rest of America may be hungry for common-sense centrists who'll change the tone and solve the country's problems. But in Idaho, voters looked at the extremism of the last six years and said, "Bring it on," "Stay the course," and "Full steam ahead!"

Kipling once began an ode, "If you can keep your head when all about are losing theirs." Idaho is out to prove that the converse is also true.

For all those despondent right-wingers who think the GOP lost Tuesday because Bush and the Republican Congress weren't conservative enough, we've got a fresh face who will never let you down. Congressman-elect Bill Sali had to overcome a vicious smear campaign—from fellow Republicans, who attacked him as mean, wacky, and none too bright. But he still won a majority, 50-45 percent.

One Republican called Sali "an idiot's idiot." When Idaho's other Republican congressman, Mike Simpson, was House speaker in the state legislature, he once got so angry with Sali for mouthing off that he threatened to throw him out of a third-floor window in the state Capitol.

Idaho voters decided that's just the breath of fresh air Washington needs. "I can't keep my mouth shut and neither can Bill Sali," one supporter told the Associated Press. Sali boasts that he's one guy who'll have the backbone to stand up to Nancy Pelosi. Visitors might want to avoid the Capitol grounds beneath her window.

Across the country, Republican candidates bent over backward to look reasonable and still lost. Maryland Senate candidate Michael Steele ran one ad of himself saying, "I like puppies," and another of a woman defending his stem-cell position and insisting he cares about sick people: "I should know. I'm his sister, and I have M.S."

When Mr. Sali goes to Washington, you won't see him running around with his tail between his legs. He's famous for bringing a breast cancer survivor to tears by insisting that abortion and breast cancer are linked. If an ad firm ever calls your puppy in for an audition, make sure it's with Michael Steele and not Bill Sali.

Several members of the class of 1994 bit the dust on Tuesday, so Sali could rapidly emerge as the most colorful wingman in the Republican caucus. His official campaign biography on the Government is Not God Political Action Committee looks promising. Over the years, he has performed in a number of successful local rock bands: "Willard and the Rats," "Cimarron," and "Idaho the Band." The last one appeared on national TV in the finals of TNN's True Value Hardware Country Showdown. Sali has won awards from Oliver North, pro-life groups, and his late predecessor, Congress member Helen Chenoweth, the gold standard of beyond-the-pale conservatism.

If Sali wants to be in Chenoweth's league, the rookie will have to prove he can hold his own on a national stage crowded with Ann Coulters. But already, the craziest congressional district in America has kept its reputation intact—and the Black Helicopter Caucus can count on at least one member. ... 12:52 P.M. (link)


Thursday, Nov. 9, 2006

Thumper on the Right: At Wednesday's news conference, President Bush took responsibility for Tuesday's defeat, then generously shared it with Republicans in Congress. He explained not once, but twice, that the election was "close" and that voters had given him a "thumping." On Thursday afternoon, the Washington Post ran two headlines side by side: "Bush Urges Bipartisanship" and "Bush Makes Push for Approval of Bolton."

If this seems like erratic behavior, get used to it. The White House is in shock, and it may take awhile for the president to find his bearings.

All eyes are on Bush to see whether after six years of partisan shock-and-awe, he can chart a new direction for himself, if not America. His side says, no problem—he loved working with Democrats in Texas, he always wanted to be a uniter, not a divider, and he's glad to finally have the chance to change the tone in Washington. Soon the White House will be telling us that when the president said last week that a win for the Democrats was a win for the terrorists, that was just the campaign talking. He meant to say a win for Democrats is a win for bipartisan cooperation.

Across the aisle, Democrats say they'll try to work with Bush but doubt that he will ever stop being a my-way-or-the-highway man. His party won't let him break with conservative orthodoxy, and he won't be able to bring any votes with him if he tries.

The political world will have to stay tuned, because we won't find out the answer any time soon. The president and his White House scarcely know what hit them. They must feel like they've been losing a house of Congress every day this week.

What makes the blow even harder for the White House to take is that the election was such a personal rebuke of the president. In 1994, voters were upset about what Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress had (and hadn't) done together. This time, the fault lies almost entirely at Bush's feet.



Two years ago, Bush's approval rating in the exit polls on Election Day was 53 percent, and Republicans won 53 percent of congressional seats. This year, Bush was at 43 percent, and Republicans won 46 percent of congressional seats. That would be tough medicine for anyone to take—and it can't be easier for a man who can't think of a mistake, doesn't believe in do-overs, and remembers happier bullhorn moments after 9/11.

As someone who worked in a White House that grieved over the loss of Congress, I feel Bush's pain—although, admittedly, not as much as I enjoy it. The president watched a number of friends fall on the political battlefield on Tuesday, many solely because of their ties to him. For many of them, their political careers are over—and his will be soon, too. There's not much he can do to make it up to them.

When Democrats lost Congress in 1994, we were able to channel our grief and frustration into finishing the job we had come there to do and helping the Democratic Party recover to fight another day. Within a year, Clinton had knocked Republicans back on their heels. A year after that, he became the first Democratic president to be re-elected since FDR. And in both 1996 and 1998, Democrats made back a good deal of lost ground. By 2000, with a strong economy and a winning governing formula, the majority was ours to lose—which Democrats promptly did.

It's too late in Bush's presidency for such a rebound. Instead, all his options look like Iraq, trying to keep things from going from bad to worse.

Considering all that's on the president's shoulders, we should give him the space to grieve. With only two years left in his presidency, it doesn't matter how Bush feels about do-overs. He doesn't get one. ... 4:59 P.M. (link)


Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2006

The Botcher-in-Chief: While a majority in the Senate may hang on recounting Jim Webb's victory in Virginia, the worst numbers for Republicans are not subject to recount. National exit polls provide graphic detail of what happened Tuesday to Karl Rove's dream of a Republican majority: The middle fell out.

In 2004, the GOP had the Democratic Party on the ropes. Democrats lost people over 30, high-school grads, college grads, and voters in every income category over $30,000. The Democratic coalition was down to two groups with nothing else in common: dropouts and post-docs.

What a difference two years make. In 2006, Democrats won or tied every age group, every education level, and every income group below $100,000. Nearly half the electorate identified themselves as moderates, and Democrats won them by a whopping 61 percent to 38 percent. After a long, six-year vacation, the voting bloc Democrats have always needed to be a majority party—the middle class—finally came home.

That translates into roughly a 53 percent to 45 percent margin in the national vote. As Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues must have thought waking up this morning—quite a majority, Madam, if we can keep it.

Will Democrats recognize what it takes to hold onto that middle-class majority? Will Republicans recognize that it's gone missing? For both sides, that's harder than it looks, and more important than many on either side will want to admit.

For Democrats, the first crucial step is that while millions of Americans on Tuesday bought a Democratic House (and maybe two), voters bought it on spec. Democrats will need to post two good years—in the Congress and the presidential race—in order to close the deal.

Democratic leaders in Congress got off to a good start Tuesday night and Wednesday morning in doing what an overreaching White House keeps failing to do: defining their mission and giving clear benchmarks for success. Michael Kinsley may find Democrats' campaign agenda wanting—he should read the book instead!—and Jacob Weisberg is right that too many Democrats have forgotten that the United States can't create jobs without trade. But the Democrats' 2006 agenda has one great virtue: It tries to promise a handful of sensible steps (ethics reforms, a minimum wage increase, pay-as-you-go rules, the 9/11 Commission recommendations) that a new majority can actually deliver. Each of those promises is an opportunity to make a modest repayment on the trust that has just been given them.

For Republicans, 2006 can be a crushing blow—or, under the circumstances, the best thing that could have happened to them. As a governing philosophy, Bushism has been doomed to failure from the outset. The math never worked, because you can't keep spending the same money you're giving away, especially when you never had it in the first place. The theory never worked, either. Bush promised to be a reformer with results, but you'll never be serious about reform or results if you're not serious about government in the first place.

All that kept Bushism alive was the illusion of political expediency—and Democrats' willingness to walk into the traps Karl Rove was setting. In the long run, Republicans are better off finding out that their failed governing theory is a political flop, too. This election will force them to go back to the drawing board and try to come up with a plan that is good for the country, not just a couple elections.

In contrast to Democratic leaders, who succeeded in striking measured tones at their post-election press appearances, President Bush's news conference didn't do much to contain yesterday's damage. To escape being pinned, he probably needs to follow Schwarzenegger's lead and pursue bipartisanship with gusto. Today wasn't even a half-Arnold.

The president even stumbled when he tried to tell John Dickerson's joke about Democrats and their drapes, blowing his chance at self-deprecation by rushing the punch line. Last week, John Kerry said botching a war is worse than botching a joke. Now Bush has really hit bottom: He has done both. ... 5:20 P.M. (link)


Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2006

Painkiller: Going into tonight, Democrats had celebrated a grand total of three truly happy Election Nights—1986, 1992, 1996—in the past three decades and three truly miserable ones in this decade alone. So, for Democrats, an election in which we were destined to win back the House and a majority of governorships for the first time in 12 years is more than a good night. It's a new lease on life.

On Election Night six years ago, my long-suffering wife and I stood in the rain in Nashville. I had just broken my shoulder playing touch football, but that was what hurt the least. Two years ago, we stood in the freezing cold in Boston. I'd just lacerated my wrist but had to share all my painkillers with the Kerry-Edwards staff. This year, we skipped the emergency room and spent the evening at the happiest place in town—the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's victory party on Capitol Hill. No painkillers necessary: Democrats were partying like it was 1992.

After six years during which the Democratic Party lost two straight presidential elections it should have won, lost the Senate, and lost ground in the House, tonight's triumph felt like the weight of a giant Rovian albatross finally being lifted off our necks. Democrats are so accustomed to having the football snatched away at the last minute, this year we actually ran a congressional candidate named Charlie Brown—and we still can't believe we finally get to watch the other side kick the dust and mutter, "Good grief."

For a party that had been on such a cold streak, tonight's victory provided clues to two of political life's eternal questions: How come we won this time? And what can we do to make sure it happens again?

In one sense, the answer to the first question is easy: Democrats never had a chance to blow this election because Republicans blew it first. Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel won't thank Bush by name, but they could. The president and his party have dedicated his entire second term to electing a Democratic Congress, from Iraq to Katrina, Schiavo to Miers, Ney to DeLay. It now looks like Bush, not Iraq, is the one who's just a comma—a presidency that was on the brink of failure before 9/11 and in the voters' eyes has now officially found its way back there.

But give Democrats credit. Apart from a foolish summer fling with Ned Lamont and a late Laugh-In cameo from John Kerry, Democrats did just about everything right and ran their best campaign in a decade. Field marshals Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer ignored the virtual industry of self-help nonsense that has paralyzed Democrats' chattering classes and went back to a simple, proven formula: From the suburbs to the heartland, elections are won in the center.

Emanuel and Schumer went out of their way to recruit candidates that could put the party's best face forward in otherwise-hostile territory. Despite pressure from various interests, they refused to impose ideological litmus tests. The result? Democrats did the opposite of what Republicans have been doing (and what losing Democratic campaigns usually do). Instead of shrinking their tent, Democrats made their big tent a lot bigger.

Winners like Heath Shuler of North Carolina, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, and Gabby Giffords of Arizona are straight out of centrist casting—candidates with broad appeal who have put Democrats back on the map in red districts that the party hasn't won in years. With mainstream Democratic candidates who weren't vulnerable on values and weren't afraid to hit back when attacked, Republican social issues were the wedge that didn't bite.

Against Bob Casey, Rick Santorum spent more than $20 million to lose a swing state by almost 20 points. (Santorum did, however, get one of the biggest cheers of the night at the DCCC party—for his concession speech.)

In fact, the best news of the 2006 elections is the opportunity it gives Democrats to earn the lasting support of the independents and disgruntled Republicans whose votes just dropped in our laps. Tuesday was the death knell for Rovism—the quaint and now fully discredited theory that majorities are built not by expanding support with ideas that work but by mobilizing extreme minorities with ideas that aren't meant to be enacted and wouldn't work if they did.

Ever since watching Rove's success in 2002 and 2004, some on the left and in the blogosphere have been trying to persuade the Democratic Party to follow suit and develop our own smashmouth politics aimed less at persuasion and more at motivating our base. As Lamont discovered, that approach wins primaries—but as Joe Lieberman showed him, that's no match for pragmatic problem solving in a general election.

Today's elections, fought in territory where the Democratic Party needed to expand its reach, showed how many swing voters there are—enough to turn districts, states, and even entire houses of Congress. As Republicans found out the hard way, the elections also proved that parties can't count on any American's vote if they can't solve the country's problems. That's the most important lesson Democrats learned this year: It is better to beat Rove than to join him. ... 11:58 P.M. (link)

Webb Up Early in Virginia: Last Friday, the New York Times made one of the safer election predictions of this cycle. The article, "In Virginia, Women Make the Difference," went out on a limb to say, "This exceedingly tight contest, one of a handful that will determine control of the Senate, may be decided by how women vote." May be decided? Unless a million Virginia women stay home and let the men do all the work, how women vote seems likely to be, if not the deciding factor, at least one of the top two.

This just in: Slate has exclusive exit poll results from Virginia. A Democratic poll worker in northern Virginia emailed the numbers: "My early exit poll after doing visibility for Webb—14 middle fingers and 35 thumbs up." That means Webb is above 70 percent in northern Virginia, and winning among women, hands down.

The other early return from Virginia is less promising for Democrats. In his 2006 Crystal Ball predictions, famed University of Virginia pundit Larry Sabato is predicting that Democrat Larry Grant will defeat Republican Bill Sali in Idaho-1. Sabato makes clear that he's mainly gambling on the race for the thrill of beating history's long odds. But the fact that an Idaho Democrat is now favored to win a House seat suggests that expectations have gotten seriously out of hand. Grant's only hope is that it comes down to how women vote. Sali, the Republican, likes to tell women that breast cancer is their own fault. ... 2:29 P.M.

Worry Beads: Most of my Democratic friends planned their Election Day weeks ago: vote; knock on some doors; then spend the rest of the day worrying about electronic voting machines. Some went to the polls early so they could inspect the Diebold dragon firsthand; others voted absentee so they could free up an extra hour to worry about it.

Last month, the Miami Herald tried to stir up similar anxieties on the right by pointing out that the third-largest manufacturer of U.S. voting machines is a Venezuelan company staked by the government of supreme Bush-hater Hugo Chávez. Palm Beach County, which wrecked the 2000 election with its infamous butterfly ballot, is using Venezuelan technology this time. For all we know, these machines could flash a subliminal devil next to Republican candidates and emit readings of Noam Chomsky in high-pitched tones only the subconscious could hear.

Alas, conservatives shrugged. While Democrats tend toward the latest in fashionable paranoias, right-wingers' taste in anxiety is more traditional. Conservatives worry about old-fashioned mainstays like the mainstream media. Even their helicopters still wear black.

Democrats aren't buying the Chávez conspiracy, either. We'd rather fear the devil we know than the devil-caller we don't know.

Based on my own experience at the polls this morning, tonight we will find out that the real voting-machine conspiracy is to deprive a weary nation of much-needed sleep. There were only five people trying to vote in my D.C. precinct at 7:30 a.m., and two of them were my underage children. But election workers said the fancy new electronic machine was already broken, and it was clear the three of us might have to stand in line for hours. We decided to vote with a number-two pencil instead.

In a boon for conspiracy theorists, one state has courageously resisted the modern era and held onto its punch-card voting machines: Idaho, where 13 counties will be vying to ensure that Katherine Harris's memory outlasts even her mascara. In elections past, Idahoans counted votes only out of civic duty, not because the outcome was in doubt. But this year, the House and governor's races could be close enough to come down to a few hanging chads. The state's old slogan: "Idaho Is What America Was." New slogan: "Idaho Is What Florida Was."

While Diebold and Chávez vie to steal higher profile races in places like Ohio, Tennessee, and Virginia, vote counters in Idaho are as honest as the state is long and can't imagine why something as unappealing as a seat in Congress would be worth stealing, anyway. If Republicans keep the House and the Democrat wins Idaho's 1st Congressional District, we'll know the Diebold conspiracy is for real.

After the Republican candidate for governor in Florida snubbed the president yesterday, the poor, confused voters of Palm Beach may once again not figure out how to cast their anti-Bush votes. But if Hugo Chávez is elected governor of Florida, we'll have solid proof that the devil is in our midst. ... 12:35 P.M. (link)

Tsunami or Not Tsunami?: Perversely enough, the nearer we get to finding out the actual election results, the more we obsess about the latest poll results—and as today wears on, the more we will wish we had exit-poll results we know will get it all wrong. In the same way, the closer we come to that blessed moment at 8 p.m. PST when we can put these campaigns behind us and once again watch TV in peace, the more we think each late-breaking campaign tactic matters, even though a few hours from now we'll find out in almost every race all those tactics didn't.

The spin we hear from all sides in the closing days of a campaign is like a bad poll that oversamples two demographic groups: people who have no idea what's going to happen, and people who wouldn't tell you if they did.

In recent weeks, one of Karl Rove's last sustaining hopes has been that unlike Democrats in 1994, Republicans in 2006 had a chance to prepare because they could see the tsunami coming. Whatever tonight's results, the GOP's preparation spin is wrong on two counts: That's not what cost Democrats in 1994, and it hasn't done the GOP much good in 2006.

To be sure, even now, many Democrats can't believe Republicans took Congress in 1994. On Sunday, David Broder passed along the recollections of Leon Panetta, the former congressman who was President Clinton's chief of staff in 1994:

"We knew the Senate would be close, but we thought we had enough margin in the House [258 seats, 40 more than a majority] to withstand anything -- and it had been ours for 40 years. The first we knew we might lose it was early on Election Day, when George [Stephanopoulos] got the early exit polls and said, 'We're in trouble.' "

Panetta described three stages of reaction -- something that may be a clue to what the Bush team will experience. "First," he said, "there were a few days of complete shock, glazed eyes, slow reactions -- what you saw in people after Hurricane Katrina. Then there was a period of anger, people asking, 'Why wasn't it anticipated? Why wasn't something done?' "

"And then," he said, "you get to the real question: How the hell do you make it work now?"

Panetta is right about the stages of grief that Democrats went through. Yet while both sides of the aisle were surprised by the magnitude of the Republican wave, Democrats had known all along that an ugly year was brewing. For one thing, a fierce anti-incumbent tide had been swirling for the past few cycles, stirred up by the House banking scandal and anger over congressional pay raises. Congress' low job-approval, which had been masked by Clinton's victory in '92, plunged lower in '94 when it went home empty-handed on political reform and health care—the way the current Congress went home empty-handed on the issue it deemed crucial, immigration.

Perhaps most important, and most forgotten, a huge number of Southern and red-state Democratic incumbents who had survived for years in hostile territory by steering clear of the national party had nowhere to go in a nationalized electoral downturn. Those members didn't get beat because they had gone fishing or forgot they had opponents. Most of them went into every campaign knowing it could be their last.

By mid-October of 1994, I knew plenty of Democrats who thought a Republican sweep was possible. But as the Bush crowd has learned this year, seeing a national wave on the horizon was no consolation when the principal political weapon in the White House arsenal is of little use—the ability to nationalize issues and elections.

There's one other way we knew a tsunami was coming, well before we got the network exit polls: We read about it in the newspaper. For example, here's the Page-One lede from the New York Times on the Monday before the 1994 election:

Republicans are poised to win more seats in the House of Representatives than they have held since Dwight D. Eisenhower was President. Indeed, after a strong campaign they could end 40 years of Democratic control in the House, history's longest period of one-party dominance there.

So much for the element of surprise.

The other reason to discount Rove's spin is that while a White House can do much over the long run to make a wave, it can do very little in the short run to break one. All fall, pundits have expressed surprise that the president and vice president are just as bad at disaster management on the campaign trail as in office. David Corn recently went so far as to wonder whether Bush and Cheney were losing on purpose.

But whatever the results tonight, it's not the Republicans' campaign that did it. They won or lost this election a long time ago. If they hold onto the House, it will be because the redistricting levees Republicans built over the past six years were strong enough to withstand the backlash their failed policies have built over the past six years. If they get ousted, it will be for running the country into the ground.

We'll find out soon enough whether Hurricane Anti-Bush is a Category 3, 4, or 5 storm, and whether it lost any force passing by last week's temporary low, John Kerry. If Republicans survive the storm, it won't be because they saw it coming. If they lose, it will be because they had it coming. ... 2:35 A.M. (link)


Saturday, Nov. 4, 2006

Term's Up: According to the New York Times, Republicans are feeling blue about their chances on Tuesday, and "increasingly steeling themselves" to losing the House after 12 years. GOP strategists describe the midterm outlook as "grim," "dreadful," and "the worst political environment for Republican candidates since Watergate."

Chin up, Republicans! Losing isn't all bad. In time, the conservative base, which never liked Congress to begin with, will be glad to be rid of it. From the president on down, Republican leaders will no longer have to resent Karl Rove for taking all the credit. Any surviving GOP members of Congress can stop worrying about going to jail for selling their vote, because nobody will want to buy it.

For Republicans from the famous class of 1994, here's the best consolation of all for losing the House this time around: You will finally have kept your promise.

The most powerful issue for the Republican revolution in 1994 was congressional term limits, which made voters think the 104th Congress would bring fundamental change to Washington. One of the early signs that the revolution was not on the level came in late March 1995, near the end of Newt's first 100 days, when the new House of Representatives failed to pass a constitutional amendment to put a 12-year limit on congressional service. Forty Republicans crossed over to help defeat the measure, which fell 60 votes short of the required two-thirds majority.

Most of the class of 1994 voted for the term-limits amendment. Had it passed, they would be out of a job after this Congress, anyway. So, in truth, voters are just helping them honor their original parting wishes.

At least a dozen Republican members who are in tough races this time voted for 12-year term limits in 1995. Half are members of the class of 1994: Steve Chabot of Ohio, Charlie Bass of New Hampshire, J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, Gil Gutknecht of Minnesota, Barbara Cubin of Wyoming, and Sue Kelly of New York. That's not counting Mark Foley and Bob Ney, for whom the House was a 12-year program that led straight to a 12-step program. Those two were so honor-bound to keep their term-limits pledge, they were willing to take the law into their own hands--and much, much more.

Others look like whiners by comparison. Last month, Kentucky Rep. Ron Lewis ('94) denied that he had ever promised to limit his term in Congress, even though he had written his constituents a letter in 1998 explaining why he wasn't keeping that promise. Lewis' opponent tried to run an ad accusing him of lying "when he put his hand on the Bible and took an oath to serve only three terms." The local FOX affiliate rejected the ad, claiming there was no proof the pledge was that length or that Lewis had put his hand on the Bible when he said it.

If Tuesday looks so bad, Republicans should stop cursing their luck and start claiming it as their destiny. In the minority, Gingrich used to complain that government programs never went away. By that standard, the vanishing Gingrich revolution wasn't a failure--it was a sweeping triumph! On Tuesday, the Republican class of 1994 should declare victory for finally doing what it came to Washington to do: go home. ... 11:59 P.M. (link)


Friday, Nov. 3, 2006

Unsecured Undecided Location: Dick Cheney went hunting for votes in my hometown last night. The first vice president in history never to change his mind didn't try to change any Idahoans' minds, either. Republicans decided it was too risky.

In 2004, Republicans won raves for micro-targeting—using modern marketing techniques to identify potential Republican voters based on what magazines they read and what purchases they make. This year, the GOP has been forced to use those same techniques for a less impressive purpose: to limit election rallies to true believers.

The White House has long kept presidential and vice-presidential events to the party faithful. Cheney's Idaho visit posed a special problem—Idahoans don't register by party. To make sure that all 2,000 tickets for last night's event went to diehards, the local party used micro-targeting to develop a countywide screening list.

According to the conservative local paper, the Coeur d'Alene Press, a small businesswoman and lifelong independent named Melodee Watt who wanted to attend the Cheney event was turned down when her name was rejected by the party database. "I thought, 'What? I've never been arrested or anything,'" Watt said. Her crime: the Republican voter vault had her pegged as a possible Democrat.

The GOP county party chair staunchly defended using the voter vault to screen out independents: "It's our party and that's what we want to do." Watt told the paper she thought that as an undecided businesswoman, she was exactly the voter Republicans would want to target. "No wonder there's so much division in the country," she said. "When did it become us versus them?"

It's hard to tell which is the greater sign of Republicans' desperation—that four days before an election, they had to send Dick Cheney to Idaho, or that they had to use sophisticated software to find anyone happy to see him. When I used to knock on doors for Democratic candidates in Idaho, we had our own system of micro-targeting. If a person came to the door in Birkenstocks or with a walker, there was a chance they might be a Democrat or at least undecided. Everyone else: Republican. If they came to the door with a twin-gauge or a Doberman, there was a good chance I was about to be micro-target practice.

The Cheney rally took place in an airplane hanger outside the small town of Hayden, the most conservative precinct in North Idaho. For years, Hayden was home to the infamous Aryan Nations compound of the late neo-Nazi evangelist, Richard Butler, until a hate-crimes suit by civil rights leaders put him out of business. I'm not sure how the GOP voter vault ranks the magazines Butler's gang of skinheads subscribe to, but most of them couldn't come to the Cheney rally—they're back in prison.

It's just as well Melodee Watt didn't get to hear the vice president, because he said nothing to sway an undecided voter's mind anyway. He attacked "Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi" and predicted a "clean Republican sweep in Idaho next Tuesday." The only thing Cheney failed to do to play to the base was to ditch Air Force Two and arrive instead by black helicopter.

Even the party faithful don't feel on safe ground anymore. A Republican in the crowd yelled to Cheney, "Take us with you!"

The day after Cheney's visit, two more polls came out showing Republicans in deeper trouble than ever. In the race for governor, Democrat Jerry Brady has opened up a five-point lead over Republican Congressman Butch Otter, 41 percent to 36 percent. In the First Congressional District, Democrat Larry Grant now leads Freaking Idiot Bill Sali, 38 percent to 34 percent.

Apart from the Democratic leads, what's most striking about both polls is that contrary to the usual pattern, the number of undecided voters keeps growing as the election approaches. An astonishing 25 percent haven't made up their mind in the congressional race, which makes Idahoans the most undecided voters in America.

If Democrats win in the reddest of red states, it will be because the undecided have nowhere else to go. In Idaho and across the country, the Republican Party has already let undecided voters know: They're not invited. ... 1:37 P.M. (link)


Thursday, Nov. 2, 2006

Buttersticks: The National Zoo in Washington doesn't get as much attention as its sister institution across town. But in recent years, the zoo has done its best to match Congress scandal for scandal: lax oversight, multiple cover-ups, millions of taxpayer dollars squandered, ruinous mismanagement and neglect, a pattern of botched mating attempts with the whole world watching.

Last month, the zoo opened a new Asia Trail designed to showcase its most bankable asset, the giant pandas, in their 40,000-square-foot Fujifilm Giant Panda Habitat. The $53-million project is part of an ambitious facelift by the zoo's new director, who wants to build "the world's finest zoo."

When the new trail opened, the Washington Post cooed over the antics of Fujifilm Giant Panda cub Tai Shan, the first surviving panda cub to be born at the zoo, who has been its top attraction since his birth last year. The Post reported that Tai Shan sparked a $1.6-million jump in merchandise sales in the first half of 2006, and the paper's eyewitness reporting showed why: "The cub snuffled through the underbrush as he hunted for a carrot, which he then devoured, licking his lips, as camera shutters whirred. Afterward, he climbed a cork tree and hugged it."

In the very next paragraph, however, the Post dropped a bombshell in what may be Washington's biggest and most ominous scandal yet:

"As part of an agreement with China, which lent Tai Shan's parents to the zoo, the cub is set to be returned to that country this summer after his second birthday."

In other words, this proud nation of ours—once master of its own destiny—is now renting itself out to have a rich totalitarian's babies.

For decades, millions of panda lovers have held their breath through the pandas' unpredictable and star-crossed attempts to mate. Time after time, thousands of schoolchildren wept when a surprised mother panda would give birth to a tiny cub, only to watch it die days later.

Thousands more voted in the zoo's suspiciously undemocratic Internet contest to choose the name Tai Shan ("Peaceful Mountain") from a list of five prescribed alternatives, each sanctioned by the China Wildlife Conservation Association. That list included two virtually identical and unappealing duds—Sheng Hua ("Washington China") and Hua Sheng ("China Washington")—and left out the cub's adorable American nickname, Butterstick ("Little Tub").

The zoo's website didn't bother to tell those young American stooges—most of them taking part in democracy for the first time—that they would all be invited back in 2007 to watch as the U.S. puts the cub on a Swift Boat to China.

According to the Post, "Zoo officials hope that they can breed the parents again this spring and that the roomy new habitat will increase chances for a second cub." The article doesn't say whether China will get to steal that young panda as well, in flagrant violation of its own one-child policy.

Of course, America's youngsters might as well get used to shipping their prized possessions off to China, because thanks to the current administration and Congress, that's what they're likely to spend the rest of their lives doing. In the past month, China's foreign-currency reserves topped $1 trillion, most of it invested in U.S. Treasury bonds to finance the Bush deficits. It's no crowd-pleaser, but the Bush White House and Congress have built their own Asia Trail: the Fujifilm Giant National Debt.

Fiscal disciplinarians have struggled to find a way to capture the nation's imagination about the Bush debt and America's looming indentured servitude to China. At last, we may have our chance. Get ready for this simple and devastating 30-second attack ad, "Butterstick":

"It's bad enough that President Bush looks the other way while illegal immigrants flock to America. Now the White House is letting China steal babies born in America and force them to spend the rest of their lives behind bars on Communist soil. This time, it's a cute and cuddly panda cub. But the way Republicans keep running up debts to China, your cute and cuddly 2-year-old could be next. That's wrong. Little ones made in America ought to stay in America. It's time to tell Republicans in Washington to get their paws off our children. If China wants babies, they can go make their own."

Lou Dobbs has already agreed to do the voiceover. … 12:21 P.M. (link)



the music club
The Year in Music
Our critics discuss the sonic highs and lows of 2006.
By Jon Caramanica, Ann Powers, Jody Rosen, and Carl Wilson
Friday, December 22, 2006, at 6:12 AM ET



From: Jody Rosen
To: Jon Caramanica, Ann Powers, and Carl Wilson
Subject: Here's My Top 10

Posted Saturday, December 16, 2006, at 9:24 PM ET

Hi Jon, Carl, and Ann,

All right, show of hands: Who's listened to the High School Musical soundtrack? When I last checked with Soundscan a few days back, High School Musical was still the No. 1 album of 2006, half a million up on the next-best seller, Rascal Flatts' Me and My Gang. And let's not forget Disney's The Cheetah Girls, or the Hannah Montana soundtrack, which crushed next-generation rock gods My Chemical Romance's opus The Black Parade when both records were released back in October.

It feels tacky to start our discussion of the year in pop with sales stats, but Topic A in '06 was the continuing slow-motion collapse of the record business, a process that was accelerated this year by YouTube and MySpace and online leaks and peer-to-peer mischief, and dramatized by the triumph of Disney pop. What does it mean for popular music when 7-year-olds are the most reliable record buyers? I'm certainly no expert on this stuff, but you can tease out some interesting demographic trends from the Billboard charts. Pop and hip-hop album sales are way down (just ask Janet Jackson); country album sales are up; the only rock band that is really selling big is Nickelback (whose audience and aesthetics might warrant some discussion here).

So, who's buying albums? Little kids (or, rather, their parents), not-so-wired red staters, boomers who just have to hear Rod Stewart tackle the Bob Seeger songbook? Meanwhile, downloads of individual tracks continue to boom—at the mega-pop level at least, the long-forecast death of the album may well be nigh. I had a fascinating discussion a few weeks back with a major label A&R guy, who glumly told me that big pop stars have realized that records themselves are no longer a significant revenue stream—that the CDs are just promotional tools to help move the real moneymaking product: the ringtone, the key chain, the concert T-shirt, the clothing line, the reality TV show. I'm not sure how all this industry tumult is going to affect the music I love, from Usher to scruffy little local bands here in Brooklyn. I have a sneaking suspicion that anything bad for a music exec is by definition good for a music fan. But I do know that I'll miss shopping at actual record stores.

Biz talk aside, my verdict on 2006 is: not half bad. I probably listened to more music this year than any previous, but the sheer volume of the stuff available—if not at Tower Records, then certainly at the click of a mouse—has punctured even the vaguest feeling of confidence in surveying the year. It's not just that I've slept on some important records this year—I've missed whole genres. Resolutions for '07: must listen to more metal, more dancehall, more, um, "freak folk," and more of der elektronische Tanzmusik.

Anyway, for those keeping score, here are my top 10 albums and, because I couldn't narrow it down, top 25 singles of 2006.

Albums

1. Justin Timberlake, FutureSex/LoveSounds (Jive)

2. Joanna Newsom, Ys (Drag City)

3. Bob Dylan, Modern Times (Sony)

4. Lil Wayne, Dedication 2 (Gangsta Grillz)

5. Mary J. Blige, The Breakthrough (Geffen)

6. Clipse, Hell Hath No Fury (Re-Up Gang/Zomba)

7. Arctic Monkeys, Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not (Domino)

8. My Chemical Romance, Welcome to the Black Parade (Reprise)

9. Matmos, The Rose Has Teeth in the Mouth of a Beast (Matador)

10. Willie Nelson and the Cardinals, Songbird (Lost Highway)

Singles

1. Gnarls Barkley, "Crazy"

2. Justin Timberlake featuring T.I., "My Love"

3. Ne-Yo, "So Sick"

4. Keyshia Cole, "Love"

5. T.I., "What You Know"

6. Christina Aguilera, "Ain't No Other Man"

7. Aventura, "Los Infieles"

8. Mary J. Blige, "Be Without You"

9. Lupe Fiasco, "Kick, Push"

10. Chamillionaire featuring Krayzie Bone, "Ridin' "

11. Beyoncé, "Irreplaceable"

12. Amerie, "Take Control"

13. Julie Roberts, "Men & Mascara"

14. Nelly Furtado featuring Timbaland, "Promiscuous"

15. Panic! At the Disco, "I Write Sins Not Tragedies"

16. Tego Calderon, "Los Mate"

17. I'm From Barcelona, "We're From Barcelona"

18. Eric Church, "Two Pink Lines"

19. Corinne Bailey Rae, "Like a Star"

20. The Pack, "Vans"

21. The Klaxons, "Gravity's Rainbow"

22. Tony Matterhorn, "Dutty Wine"

23. Peter, Bjorn, and John, "Young Folks"

24. The Rapture, "Whoo! Alright Yeah ... Uh-Huh"

25. Todd Snider, "You Got Away With It (A Tale of Two Fraternity Brothers)"

My best albums list is, I'm afraid, a bit predictable, although some of the obvious biggies aren't there. (I admired but couldn't bring myself to love the ballyhooed albums by TV on the Radio and the Hold Steady.) Actually, my list isn't exactly representative of my taste. I spent lots of time listening to country in '06 (the Nashville kind, not alt-), and the unkindest cut on my albums list was Dierks Bentley's Long Trip Alone, nipped at the finish line by Willie Nelson and his gravitas. Long Trip Alone is a great big slab o' hokum—Dierks spins a lot of grizzled talk about the open road and compares himself to a "worn-out pair of boots"—but it has everything that I love about current Nashville country, which, in case you haven't noticed, is really old-fashioned melodic pop-rock with better words. If you like loud guitars that crash between minor chords, sing-along choruses, smart narrative lyric-writing, and have a higher-than-average tolerance for the purple stuff, CMT is heaven.

For me, '06 was above all the Year of Timberlake and Timbaland—especially the latter, since I also loved Nelly Furtado's album. (I know some hip-hop headz have complained that Timbaland's new stuff is wack, but I don't hear it.) As far as Justin is concerned, I'm impressed by how he's really gone for the brass ring: aping Michael Jackson and Prince, putting himself out there emotionally (with the "soft," lovey-dovey lyrics) and artistically (with the visionary future-funk sounds). FutureSex/LoveSounds is a lesson for those of us who would dismiss High School Musical out of hand—yesteryear's kiddie-poppers do sometimes grow up to be artistes. Honorary Mention in this category goes to another former Mouseketeer, Christina Aguilera, whose double CD Back to Basics was an admirably ambitious—completely nuts, actually—attempt to smash together old soul and "jazz" with club beats and Linda Perry-produced Sturm und Drang balladry. It was a total mess, but there was one fantastic single, and you had to respect the marketplace-be-damned perversity of the effort. (Clive Davis must have had a fit.) Songs like "Hurt" suggest that Aguilera may yet turn out to be the Streisand of her generation—I don't think I need to tell you guys that I mean that as compliment.

Some other trends: If you listen to hit radio, you can't help but conclude that R&B—particularly female-fronted R&B—is the closest thing we have to a national music at this point. Which I suppose makes Beyoncé the Queen of America. (I liked B'Day a lot when I first heard it. I love it now.) This was also a good year for mainstream American rock, particularly for the emo/pop-punk kids who are growing up and getting weirder. I still can't quite get my head around the sprawling cancer soap opera that is My Chemical Romance's The Black Parade—perhaps because of the aesthetic generation gap that Ann discusses in her very smart review—but I love the vigorous sound. I'm also a big fan of those absurdly verbose neo-emo dudes in Panic! at the Disco and Cute Is What We Aim For. Consider some of the Morrissey-goes-mall-rat song titles: "I Put the 'Metro' in Metronome," "The Only Difference Between Martyrdom and Suicide Is Press Coverage," "There's a Good Reason These Tables Are Numbered Honey, You Just Haven't Thought of It Yet." The language is overwrought, not nearly as smart as these guys think it is. But it feels real, like it was cut-and-pasted straight into the songs from an IM session—a white, suburban answer to that other very wordy genre, rap. And the swift, catchy music suits the lyrics, hopping all over the place and racing through funky meter changes.

There's lots more that I'd like to discuss, including all the fierce post-Katrina political pop music I heard this year. It's not the macro-trends, though, but the little moments that make a fan's year in pop. In '06, some great vocal performances did it for me: Keyshia Cole's electrifying ululations in the chorus of "Love" (and Regina Spektor's cute little hiccups in the chorus of "Fidelity"); the beautiful falsetto singing of Anthony "Romeo" Santos, the Dominican Aaron Neville, in Aventura's hit "Los Infieles"; and the tender quietude of Corinne Bailey Rae's "Like a Star," whose inclusion on my top singles list, I know, brands me as a hopeless wuss. (Barista, make that chai latte a double.) Then there's the heart-melting bit in Mary J. Blige's "Be Without You," when Mary moves from her own romance to care-taking everyone else's: "Well, let me see you put your hands up/ Fellas, tell your lady she's the one/ Put your hands up/ Ladies, let him know he's got your love/ Look him right in his eyes and tell him/ We've been too strong for too long, and I can't be without you baby." Ahhhhhh: Feel the love.

OK, y'all, your turn. Who and what knocked your socks off in '06? Did Lil Wayne snatch Jay-Z's crown this year, or what? Most importantly, whose "Crazy" cover was worse: Bryan Adams' or Billy Idol's?

Cheers,

Jody




From: Jon Caramanica
To: Ann Powers, Jody Rosen, and Carl Wilson
Subject: When It Rain, I Be So Fresh

Posted Monday, December 18, 2006, at 12:00 PM ET

Jody, Carl, Ann,

Let me get this out of the way since it's going to come up sooner or later: I find Gnarls Barkley annoying. Further exposition upon request.

Moving on—I'll take the Timbaland bait, largely because Timbaland was the most important force in pop this year, and for some of his least compelling work. There were rumblers, sure—Young Jeezy's post-Star Wars "3 a.m." and Justin's "My Love" featuring T.I., which sounded like a late-'90s New York techno superclub literally shredding into pieces. But much of the rest of Tim's work for J.T. felt undercooked, and he steered Nelly Furtado, an artist I consistently try (and fail) to find reasons to like, into far deeper water than she's capable of navigating, and he wasn't even trying that hard. Too much time in the gym, maybe. Am I wrong to miss him doughy and regional and not yet so preoccupied with people stealing his ideas that he shifts sounds every couple of studio sessions?

Speaking of throwback Virginia Beach memories, the Clipse returned with an album full of two-to-four-year-old Neptunes beats which, considering that was the production duo's heyday, still sound a couple of years ahead of what everyone else is doing at the moment. Hell Hath No Fury was practically willed into existence by rap critics and bloggers for whom technically advanced rap no longer means Aesop Rock. (The fan base might end there—first week sales were 78,000. I had 86K in the office pool—someone owes me a Snickers.) About four or so years ago, the hip-hop backpack underground hit a creative rut, as stylistically beholden to familiar tropes as anything on BET. This year was the one where mainstream rap not only took the popularity high road, but took back the complexity high road. At the moment, no one in America is rapping better than the Clipse, Cam'ron (who had two shockingly great, and largely tasteless, singles this year: "Suck It or Not" and "Weekend Girl") and Lil Wayne, who gets better the more material he puts out and the less he seems to fuss over it. There was Lil Wayne on the mixtape bruiser "Cannon (Remix)," Lil Wayne on that Lloyd single that rips off PM Dawn/Spandau Ballet, Lil Wayne upstaging Outkast on their own record, Lil Wayne indicting the president about his post-Katrina blunders, Lil Wayne freestyling over a Jay-Z beat better than Jay's written verses, and then Lil Wayne saying in an interview that he's better than the former king, and being correct.

Maybe Jay's been listening to too much My Chemical Romance of late. (The Kingdom Come conversation will have to wait for now, but … collaborating with Linkin Park, singing along with Third Eye Blind, getting produced by Chris Martin, checking out the Bravery and the Killers, and getting flicks taken with Louis XIV: The great Jay-Z-and-rock blog post has yet to be written.) As for re: MCR, though, can you blame him? They've figured out how to make scarily intimate music in a profoundly public context, and even though The Black Parade isn't their best album, it was easily the best major-label rock record of this past year, mostly otherwise notable for the lack of a Fall Out Boy record. Somewhere, Dashboard Confessional's Chris Carrabba is in a Sephora, trying on eyeliner to see where he went wrong.

I'm running out of time, and want to save all my country musings for later this week, but one last bit before I go. I appreciate you bringing up Aventura, Jody. A song I couldn't shake from my iTunes this year was "Un Beso," which was released in '05 but charted early this year and is one of the most sublime pop ballads since "I Want It That Way." Also not to be overlooked: "Ella y Yo," Aventura's collaboration with Don Omar; "Noche De Sexo," the slightly ridiculous Wisin y Yandel song that features Aventura's Romeo; and former Aventura backup singer Toby Love's "Tengo Un Amor." This is what American pop music will sound like, or have been influenced by, 50 years hence. This, or Akwid and Yolanda Perez, depending which coast and/or immigration pattern dominates. Can you imagine what High School Musical 24 will sound like in Spanglish? (And for the record, Miley "Hannah Montana" Cyrus, daughter of Billy Ray, was easily the most vibrant star at the Academy of Country Music Awards this past May, but I get ahead of myself …)

Folks, I'm off to Enter the Daughtry. Wish me godspeed.

Jon




From: Carl Wilson
To: Jon Caramanica, Ann Powers, and Jody Rosen
Subject: Will the Real Justin Timberlake Please Stand Up?

Posted Monday, December 18, 2006, at 3:48 PM ET

Hi, Jody, Jon, and Ann:

Greetings from the godless North.

There's no such thing as a bad year for music. Not even a bad week. There is always some young asshole-genius somewhere wrenching newness out of the same old notes. But if forced to plot the passing year on a tentative pop-historical bell curve, I'd come out on the flip side of Jody's cautious optimism: 2006 was a half-bad year for pop music.

Mainly it was a year of etceteras: More solid one-off singles from rappers, R&B, and pop singers, using producers often named Timbaland. There were standout exceptions, such as the Clipse, Ghostface, and Lupe Fiasco, but none of them, as usual, is spawning any movements. I hold out my habitual foolhardy hope for the Nas album. And I share everyone's awe at Lil Wayne, but his ultra-casual virtuosity seems like an isolated case, unless I'm just too white and nerdy to make more of him. (By the way, does anybody have a theory about what it means when Weird Al has a banner year?)

Out of Nashville, aka the only robust part of the music business for grown-ups without AARP cards, there were fine narrative and love ballads on a bygone model of songcraft. Currently it's a polished variation on 1970s, Outlaw-era country-rock—complete, as a friend recently pointed out, with a spate of lover-man tunes in a leering Conway Twitty mode from the likes of Josh Turner.

But behind the singles, with rare exceptions, have been full-length letdowns. The creeping death of the album that Jody mentioned is being countered by many artists who, whether from nostalgia or marketing, are trying to make their sets more integrated wholes. But that didn't help many former hit makers this year, such as Jay-Z, the Dixie Chicks, Outkast, and Christina Aguilera. Of that echelon, Beyoncé is the only one still looking, er, irreplaceable.

Well, except for the maturing Mouseketeers. Despite the Magic Mountain-style plunge in quality between Xtina's lead single and her unlistenable album, it can be excused as an awkward stage between teen and adult careers. Likewise for Justin Timberlake's not-quite-convincing persona as savior of sex. Timba's tracks, of course, sound fantastic, and I like Justin's Prince even better than Justin's Michael Jackson (even more than the real Prince's own 3121, though I liked that, too). But I'm still waiting eagerly to hear Justin's Justin.

It's tempting to call 2006 the start of pop's lame-duck term, when the winners of the first half of the decade just pork-barrel the days away until new voices displace them.

But instead of dubious political parallels, I'd like to chase Jody's demographic discussion further: Back when Disney, pop-rap, and nu-metal ruled, I argued that it was a phase generated by the big population bulge generated by the kids of the boomers, who then were mostly tweens. I compared it to early-'60s bubble gum: Pleasurable as it was, it was thin fare. But in a few years, they'd be older adolescents, with more sophisticated appetites. And pop music would change with them.

Timberlake's and Aguilera's growing pains punch one square on my get-one-free card at the prophecy counter. But so do the Killers, the Arctic Monkeys overseas, and especially My Chemical Romance, who have taken the place holder angst of emo-rock and deepened it with the richer, more complex fucked-up-edness of late adolescence. While I find MCR's contradictions fascinating, too, they're being overrated because they herald a new breed. I'm more curious about what comes next—in, to be politically tendentious, 2008.

To stand up for the maligned indie world, the gestures coming out of MCR or Panic! at the Disco, from the grand thematics and cathedral-choir-sized sounds to instant-message verbosity, were done there first and smarter (though, of course, in a more insular way). Which may bode well, because now you see the indie scene itself opening up to a more cosmopolitan set of tastes, eating up Baltimore club sounds with Spank Rock, Brazilian art-party music with Cansei de Ser Sexy, or Scandinavian electronic experimentalism with the Knife. So, I look forward to the coming mainstream emo-reggaeton-fusion wave.

What's more, the echo-boom kids themselves, when they're not busy creating do-it-yourself culture on YouTube (one of the brightest spots in 2006), are starting bands with a pop-history savvy that can only be attributed to the instant-music-collection effect of the Internet. In my own area, around Toronto, there are tons of new bands with members still in high school—and according to the Times, the teen-band boom is also happening in New York and elsewhere.

So, as down on 2006 as I may be, I'm bullish on the future. And I haven't even gotten to the great heavy-metal resurgence this year, or my own favorite records, which mainly seem to involve harps, violins, garbled Postmodern poetry, and/or electronic sampling of found objects. Don't blame me: I plead Canadian.

Carl




From: Ann Powers
To: Jon Caramanica, Jody Rosen, and Carl Wilson
Subject: Shakira = the New Elvis?

Posted Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 6:12 AM ET

Hello erudite pals,

Posting last in this conversation is hard. So many interesting thoughts compelling me to jump for the rebound. But that was the year in general—Jody's right on, it seems inevitable that a working critic will miss entire genres. Hell, I'd never even listened to the Knife until two days ago, and now I'm hooked to their little electronic beaks!

My New Year's resolutions are twofold: get a handle on country, and return to exploring world music. It's funny, one of those genres is, as Carl sez, the only commercially robust scene going, and an obsession of many New York critics, while the other seems to have receded in the discourse. Last year we had Amadou and Mariam (whom I saw this year in Hollywood, what beaming joy) and Konono No. 1; this year, there was Ali Farka Toure's introspective final album, but what else? And where is the critical interest in Middle Eastern music right now? Isn't that something we should all be tracking, in the name of cultural diplomacy, if nothing else?

Perhaps we're all just more preoccupied with what's at our own borders. In Los Angeles, that's obviously narcocorridos, Tijuana rock, and whatever's hot on 96.3 FM ("Proud to Be Latino!") on a given day. Learning Spanish, finally, is my other huge resolution; in the meantime, I groove the totally awesome bilingual loca motion of Los Abandoned and await next year's long-coming Ozomatli release. Curious what on-the-ground multiculturalism is flowering in all of your outposts.

I'm preoccupied with localism in general not only because this year I moved from one incredible music city to another (and BTW, Carl, you wanna see a grassroots teen scene? Check out Seattle's incredible all-ages action, city-funded no less!), but because it seems the deepest ontological division affecting music fans right now is the split between the virtual and the physical.

It's endemic to the pop experience, based around the complementary pleasures of listening to "records" (or whatever we call them this epoch) and rocking out/rocking it live. As we spend more time connecting across cyberspace, what happens to our beat- and noise-craving bodies? I get a lot from the blogosphere, but for me there's still nothing like a roomful of people united in connection to sound moving through space.

My favorite music moments this year happened in tiny clubs, dusty old theaters, and popcorn-scented basketball arenas, as I returned to the exhausting, inspiring beat of a daily newspaper critic. I basked in the warmth of New England's adorable neo-hippie collective Feathers as they spun out iridescent meditations one late night at the El Cid, rotating instruments every number. I got swept up in Comets on Fire, the Bay Area's absolute meltdown of a rock band, who played the very last set of the Arthur Nights Festival in downtown L.A.—I know it's old-fashioned, but I'll never stop loving that testosterone surge of boys rocking out transformationally, just blowing each other's minds. (Thanks to Jay at Arthur for both of those experiences, BTW—Jody, wanna get in touch with psych-folk, start there.)

I decided Shakira was the new Elvis after seeing her command the Staples Center stage with no back-up dancers, no stupid skits, and no shout-outs to celebrity friends. And I knew Barbra was the old Elvis after seeing her use all of those old tricks (well, that's if you consider the casually strident himbots of Il Divo to be dancers), and making me think about none of it but her still-glorious voice.

And then there was Joanna Newsom. Last week, she played the El Rey theater with a band that reconfigured her exquisite compositions for some kind of raggle-taggle gypsy dream, with Ryan Francesconi's tambura subbing mightily for Van Dyke Parks' swoony strings, and vigorous harmonies plumping out the Elfin One's sugar-dusted singing. Best of all, drums! I love Ys, it's my album of the year, too, but boy, with a beat, do those opuses rock. And "Sawdust & Diamonds" is pure sexy, I mean Emily Dickinson-level sexy.

I love live music. I also love record stores. Am mourning Tower, of course—as a baby music nerd stamping price tags on Springsteen box sets, that's where I learned about musical eclecticism (I still have my imported On-U Sounds reggae vinyl and Brian Eno box set) and also where I first met the big hearts who'd devote their lives to pop even if it meant working some shitty minimum-wage-plus job. (My obit for the chain is here—and I have to say, it hit some chords. I got about 20 letters from fellow Tower lovers.) At the same time, as a working mom I'm so hungry for convenience that I don't even like downloading that much—give me a music stream! If most people are as lazy as I am, it seems inevitable that within a few years, the only record store with regular customers will be inside a cell phone.

Oops, as usual I've written long and barely begun. Let me just add my voice to the chorus of Lil Wayne admiration, foreshadow Carl's thoughts on metal by raising my metal horns and yelling, "MASTODON," and be gone until the next round.

Ann




From: Jody Rosen
To: Jon Caramanica, Ann Powers, and Carl Wilson
Subject: My Vote for the Worst Song of the Year

Posted Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 11:08 AM ET

Hello all,

Boy, did Ann deepen my grief at having missed Shakira's Madison Square Garden show this past September. In 2006, the Colombian-Lebanese firecracker seemed more unstoppable than ever. Miraculously, she made Wyclef Jean almost tolerable, and her music, more than any other superstar's, is pointing the way to pop's globalized future: blithely genre-mashing, Spanish accented but proudly polylingual, intensely rhythmic. The only comparable figure is Manu Chao, the Spanish-born, Paris-bred global nomad whose performance this summer in Brooklyn's Prospect Park was the best I saw all year. At the pre-show press conference, Chao fielded questions in four languages, sloganeering and shouting out Joe Strummer and Subcomandante Marcos like a lefty of the old school. But the concert proved that what's really radical about Chao is his Creolized music, which toggles between tongues, jumps from Europe to Brazil to North Africa, and, with its steady reggae pulse, tugs fiercely at your hips—the place, as Shakira points out, where truth resides. Virtually any song by these two great rootless cosmopolitans makes a far better world-is-flat argument than a thousand windy pages of Tom Friedman.

Speaking of worldly world music: Ann's right that no international album registered on the rock-critical radar like Amadou and Miriam's Chao-produced breakthrough did in 2005. But I still heard lots of great stuff. To name just three: I loved Brazilian art-rock demigod Tom Zé's Estudando o Pagode (a time-traveling samba-and-electronica-tinged feminist rock opera, no less!); the rock-raï star Rachid Taha's collection of old French and Arabic pop ballads, Diwan 2; and a totally revelatory reissue of Gypsy torch songs by Dona Dumitru Siminicã, a Romanian with an eerie, angelic castrato-style voice a bit like Jimmy Scott's. One of the greatest things about the Internet, though, is how it cuts out the middleman for an American interested in foreign sounds. Why wait for Nonesuch to package up a CD for tidy yuppie consumption, when, with a Google search or a simple a click on the "Radio" button on your iTunes menu, you can tune in streaming broadcasts from the four corners of the earth? To begin the exploration of Middle Eastern music that Ann wonders about, try the "Persian Pop" and "Dance Party" channels on Iranianradio.com. Live from the Axis of Evil: love songs and dope beats!

Moving back to the home front, a word or two in defense of Timberlake and Timbaland. I think I know what Carl means when he says he's waiting for Justin's Justin, as opposed to Justin's Michael or Prince. (Incidentally, the best Prince song I heard this year was neither Timberlake's nor Prince's, but Ciara's.) Personally, though, I think Justin's Justin est arrivé. Everyone makes fun of "SexyBack," but what makes it compelling are the lines, "You see these shackles, baby, I'm your slave/ I'll let you whip me if I misbehave/ It's just that no one makes me feel this way." You might hear a lame Prince sex-freak impersonation there; I hear it, too, but also some seriously lovelorn masochism. From the creepy psycho-sexual breakup ballad "Cry Me A River" to "Love Stoned/I Think That She Knows" and "What Goes Around..."—aka, The Britney Chronicles, Part II—– Justin's has made a specialty of flaunting raw hurt, pinning his flayed heart to his Yves Saint Laurent sport jacket for the whole world to gawk at. That kind of male sexual vulnerability is, in fact, sexy, and rather unusual, at least in R&B and hip-hop. So Mr. SexyBack isn't just blowing smoke.

Re: Timbaland. I'll grant that Justin and Nelly Furtado haven't inspired him to the heights he reached with erstwhile muses Missy Elliott and Aaliyah. But seriously, what records of the past decade are as good as "Get Ur Freak On"? (I'm holding my breath for Timbaland's collaboration with Björk, his first meeting with a musician of equal genius.) By my lights, "Love Stoned/I Think That She Knows" (with that gorgeous, very indie rock guitar coda) and Furtado's noirish "Afraid" merit a place in Tim's Best Of, along with "My Love" and "What Goes Around... ." Jon, I agree that Furtado sounds a bit out her depth playing the sexpot, but, for me, her awkwardness is charming and funny. (I place "Promiscuous" in the tradition of comic R&B duets like Otis Redding & Carla Thomas' "Tramp." I love Timbaland's skeptical wink at Nelly's image makeover: "I'm curious about you, you seem so innocent.") On the other hand, while Furtado's rapping scores cuteness points, the phenomenon of wack rapping by pop "divas" is one of the most irksome of 2006. I'm sure that Kelis, Gwen Stefani, et al. embraced this mode after realizing they couldn't possibly hang, pipes-wise, with the big girls. But it's not a pleasant sound—nearly as annoying as 50 Cent's singing. As for the execrable Fergie: I have a dream in which Beyoncé sends her toppling off of London Bridge into the green, gulping Thames with one strategically aimed high C.

Running out of space, but I did want to ask if I'm wrong in sensing a trend in the return to ginormous symphonic pomp of My Chemical Romance, the Killers, and even the synth-symphony stylings of T.I.'s "What You Know"? Also noteworthy along these pop-classical lines: "Lacrymosa," the huge mash-up of Mozart's Requiem by Evanescence, whose frontwoman, Amy Lee, is a fascinating new star, speaking to and for a long-neglected audience of mainstream girl rockers. And then there's Ys, the symphonic song-cycle masterpiece by brave and wise Joanna Newsom, whose poetry blew away even Bob Dylan's and Lil Wayne's, and whose once creaky voice has matured into one of music's most beguiling sounds.

And talking of timbre: Thanks, Carl, for bringing up Josh Turner's smooooooth basso profondo, a tone you hear a lot among the country's big-hat set, providing cover for some of the more astonishingly sentimental songs this side of turn-of-the-century parlor ballads about dead babies and mother talking on the wireless from heaven. Interesting, isn't it, that another group of guitar-wielding balladeers—James Blunt, Damien Rice, Keane, and all those other Brits and indie troubadours who turn up on The O.C. and Zach Braff soundtracks—have embraced just the opposite sound, singing their treacle in the falsetto quaver that they learned from Thom Yorke by way of Chris Martin?

Still so much to get to, including protest music; my spunky indie faves of '06; Tego Calderon and Don Omar, reggaeton stars who made excellent albums that broke out of the genre's production sameness; and the Axis of Idol, which much to Faith Hill's horror, tightened its grip on the biz this year. But I think I'll leave you with a surprising revelation: The worst song the year was not, I repeat not, "You're Beautiful," by the rabidly loathed James Blunt. (I'll bet you can guess his cockney rhyming nickname.) No, that distinction belongs to another No. 1 U.K. hit, which I mention here because of its special interest to rock critics. It's Sandi Thom's debut single, "I Wish I Was a Punk Rocker," an earnestly intoned lament for " '77 and '69 … [when] revolution was in the air," which zips past "Old Time Rock 'n' Roll" and "Musicology" straight to the top of the All-Time Rockist Anthem hit parade. More sample lyrics: "Oh I wish I was a punk rocker with flowers in my hair … / I was born too late into a world that doesn't care … / When music really mattered and when radio was king/ When accountants didn't have control/ And the media couldn't buy your soul." Egads—somebody get this gal a Be Your Own Pet CD, stat!

Jody




From: Jon Caramanica
To: Jody Rosen, Ann Powers, and Carl Wilson
Subject: Blond Hair and Blue Eyes—I'm Getting Back With a Vengeance

Posted Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 2:21 PM ET

J, A, C,

Oy, the R-word.

I'm beginning to wonder if rockism is even much of a useful metric anymore, what with the constant mutability of taste afforded by Last.fm and imeem and iTunes playlists or just the sheer volume of MP3 blogs (many offering full-album downloads) that have been popping up and making it incredibly easy to hoover up any and all sorts of music. Kids, at least, don't trouble themselves much with the divides we do, I think, at least not until peer pressure forces them to choose a subculture (and with album sales on the decline, in addition to the unlikely arrival of artists who in other decades might have been relegated to the "120 Minutes" ghetto and now hobnob with Leno, everything feels like a subculture, no? Even Justin has been remixed by the DFA. Vive la différence.)

Still, if rockists are still rockisting, how come they don't much ride for actual rock ("rawk" spelling optional)? I'm not just talking about Wolfmother or the Darkness or the Pigeons of Shit Metal or whichever Silverlake shaggy boys think it's heeelarious to shred this week. Rather, where is the embrace of Daughtry, of Hinder, of Nickelback (hell, even the Foo Fighters, America's least imaginative band, put out a good record this year)—bands who argue for the potency of rock 'n' roll with astonishing brute force, single-soundedness, and lack of humor.

And, sometimes, a good song. I'll say it—the Daughtry kid can sing, as he made abundantly clear on Idol last season. He's got one facial expression, one vocal idea, and one way to hold the mic stand … and he's sticking to them. His strong debut isn't The Crane Wife, but had it come out, say, before The Chronic, he might have had a shot at being something more than a pop culture curio, a museum piece brought to life, an Encino Man for our time. As for Nickelback, they'll forever live under the shadow of "How You Remind Me," one of the great rock singles of the 2000s—their recent hits (namely "Savin' Me") are mere variations on the theme. But the reason these Canadians succeed where, say, Puddle of Mudd failed, is because the pain in Chad Kroeger's voice is perfectly ambiguous, rejecting meaning. He's not gut-wrenched or angsty or bitter; instead, he sounds raspy and dull, with a dash of exhaustion, and what's not relatable about that? (Somewhere, Brandon Flowers is in a Harvey's, trying to figure out where it all went wrong. Be on the lookout, Carl.)

Don't worry—I won't try to defend Hinder, even just to prove a point. (Though if anyone can explain to me why MercyMe has the spirit kids so enthralled while Seventh Day Slumber continues to languish in anonymity, I'm all ears.)

All of this is to say, not only is race embedded into this discourse (I'd be thrilled to see rockists ride for, I dunno, TV on the Radio, but that seems unlikely) but also class and geography. Those interested in keeping the genre alive and predominant should look no further than mainstream country, which does post-Eagles smooth guitar-rock better than anyone else. I mean, don't tell me Rascal Flatts ain't rock—on tour this summer, they covered "Hotel California" and "You Shook Me All Night Long." They even cut a version of "Life Is a Highway" (not as good as Chris LeDoux's) for the Cars soundtrack. (Take that, Shooter Jennings.)

Listening to frontman Gary LeVox, I sometimes get confused as to whether he's from the South or from, like, Long Island (the truth—he's from Ohio, which explains a lot). R.F. are the most regionally ambiguous country act going—more so than even Aussie Keith Urban—so the fact that they scored the highest opening-week sales number of the year is little surprise, except maybe to the Dixie Chicks. And Jay-Z. But if either of them had recorded a song as emotionally draining as "What Hurts the Most," they might have had an argument in their favor. Even though I've listened to the song and watched the video maybe 100 times, I've still got no idea what it's about, but it's oozing regret, something country boys found themselves doing lots of this past year. See Dierks Bentley's please-don't-break-up-with-me-just-yet plea, "Settle For A Slowdown," a holdover from his last album, and Jason Aldean's "Why," a stunningly raw rendering of hard masculinity melting under hot interrogation lights. While Ryan Adams was busy sparking life into ol' Willie, Tim McGraw went and cut one of his more intimate numbers, "When the Stars Go Blue," outright stealing it in the process. Even savvy lunk Toby Keith played faux naif with "Crash Here Tonight," cuddling up to Heather Locklear in the video, and starring in a film, "Broken Bridges," in which he reconnected with a daughter he never knew. If only newcomers Heartland had been in the loop, they could have landed their unreasonably treacly hit "I Loved Her First" on the soundtrack. An occasionally creepy, slightly petulant wrist-slap from father to son-in-law, it's in the vein of Lonestar's 1999 pop crossover "Amazed"—clean, wimpy, big and tacky, which is to say, pretty perfect.

There I go, being popist again. As for Ann's call to talk multiculturalism, it sometimes seems that, in our set, interest in country is on par with interest in, say, tejano, and lesser than the interest in the music of Mali. Mystifying and bizarre and seemingly without remedy, Big & Rich be damned. Forget the genres you overlooked individually—what are we missing as a whole, and why?

Jon




From: Carl Wilson
To: Jon Caramanica, Ann Powers, Jody Rosen,
Subject: Waking Up New

Posted Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 10:49 AM ET

J-Car, A-Pow, and Lil Jo':

I became sure 2006 would be "the day the rockism died"—to trump Jody's list of lame anthems—the moment a brilliant young Torontonian who helps run one of the world's best indie labels told me what he was currently into: early Hall and Oates. (I'm setting aside their new Xmas album for him.)

This is what SoulSeek, iTunes, and their kin have wrought. Along with the existing music industry, what's vanishing are the genre prejudices, sham distinctions between fake and real, and other myths that have been brain-sucking parasites on rock talk since the 1970s.

A decade ago, would you have found even two, let alone four critics in this kind of exchange who'd praise in the same breath an aesthete like Joanna Newsom, a sweaty popthlete like Justin Timberlake, and a whole lot of quick-witted make-believe drug dealers? Now anti-rockism writers reign at most credible publications. Even indie juggernaut Pitchfork has shed some blinders. It's the age of anything goes: When a blogger last spring joked that the Magnetic Fields' Stephin Merritt would be collaborating with Snoop Dogg, I got e-mails from friends who couldn't wait to hear the track.

But Jon, I think this chat is showing that the anti-country sneers of blue-state rock critics are fading, too. If anything, it's alt-country that's now more prone to get spanked: Who talked about Richard Buckner's great 2006 album? The alt-twang 1990s traits, like genre fusion and intermittent class consciousness, have long since moseyed back into official Nashville, ever since 2004, the Year the MuzikMafia Broke. (This year, Willie Nelson teamed with alt-brat Ryan Adams on that album Jody loved, though I preferred Willie's Cindy Walker and Brokeback Mountain tributes.)

Granted, country is still hampered by regional and political barriers. Poor white Southerners remain one group you can slander freely—Michael Richards' N-bombs notwithstanding, "white trash" is a bit of hate speech never effectively reclaimed or defused. But now more of those kids listen to rap, and country has moved to the exurbs. That's a better explanation of its rise than the idea that it's turned into rock. Rock is in there, but so is bluegrass; country is more old-school than it was 10 years ago.

Either way, absorbing withered pop styles has been Nashville's game since forever. In the 1970s, they copped moves from 1950s crooners. Country's brand of escapism is permanently nostalgic; it doesn't jones for the novelty jolt that other pop styles do. Nashville evolves while pretending not to believe in it.

Then there's the equally stigmatized heavy metal. It was tracked as remedial hesher rock since its inception, with rare hall passes for overachievers like Metallica. Now the class average has shot up faster than an arpeggiated power solo. Has the phrase "hipster metal" ever been invoked as much as in 2006? Or at all? It may have started with artsy stompers such as Sunn0))), but the effect stretched from Ann's faves Mastodon (though I liked 2004's Leviathan more than the new Blood Mountain) to chart metal such as Lamb of God and even the outer reaches of grindcore.

And it ran both ways: Metal mag Decibel enshrined 63-year-old avant-crooner Scott Walker's harsh, but not exactly shredding, The Drift among its top 30 extreme albums of the year ... right where it belongs. Metal and its spittin' cousin, hardcore, now blur into the big bouncy young noise underground, which may be the closest thing there is to a 1980s-style alternative scene, with its brash oppositional ethos (even inspiring a hoax marketing-ploy scandal early in the year).

Some credit also might go to John Darnielle, who's long stumped for metal as a critic— his current series "Thirty Short Poems About My Favorite Black Metal Band" deserves a Pulitzer—but is a beloved indie songwriter as the Mountain Goats. Then again, his latest album, Get Lonely, is his least thrashin' ever, a whispery coda to last year's landmark The Sunset Tree. (It does include my personal totem single of the year, Woke Up New, with which I stake my claim to out-wuss Jody.)

So mainly, metal can thank plastic and silicon for its head-banging good health.

So, as Jon asks, is there anything that really isn't on critics' collective playlist? Well, the aforementioned noise scene trades in volume in more ways than one—its CD-Rs, vinyl and cassettes come in avalanches we seldom bother to sift. Which may be their intention. I also see little discussion of breakcore, the beats-and-blats clusterfucks conducted by the Cock Rock Disco label (best band name: Duran Duran Duran) or my countryman Venetian Snares.

I'd also count jazz and improvisation as underserved genres. Ornette Coleman's comeback, Sound Grammar, was my pick there this year, but I must nod to the disc on my top 10 least likely to make anyone else's—Black Vomit, a historic live set that united high-profile noisicians Wolf Eyes with sexagenarian egghead-jazz composer and born-again-noise-fan Anthony Braxton. Shape of things to come? (Either way, I have to rate it high: I requested its release.)

As ever, American critics mostly overlook new European dance sounds, such as this year's maturing dubstep/"hyperdub" movement in England. Check out Skream, Burial and Kode9 & the Space Ape, whose Memories of the Future is like Linton Kwesi Johnson doing the chicken noodle dance with Philip K. Dick.

And overall, critics' international tastes just seem fickle. We chase the next exotic rush. Last year, it was Congotronics and Rio Baile Funk, this year it's Swedish pop, Brazilian this-and-that, Balkan brass bands (partly due to the great Borat and the regrettably named Beirut) and, in half-answer to Ann's current-affairs concerns, Turkish psychedelic reissues. Blame downloading for that distractibility, too.

Still, Ann's right—the main absence in the disembodied-music age is the body. What we overlook are real human beings in real places. And not just at shows, but in locally specific scenes and communities, which frankly mattered more to me this year than any disc or mp3, and will in 2007, too. More on that next.

Carl




From: Ann Powers
To: Jon Caramanica, Jody Rosen, and Carl Wilson
Subject: Learning To Love the Dixie Chicks

Posted Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 1:37 PM ET

Before I get to Southern California, my locale now—and thank you, Carl, for aiming us local, because it allows me to posit that our little panel reps the only slightly yesterday, today, and tomorrow of rock 'n' roll (if not poptimism …). But first, I have to get to a few issues raised:

Daughtry: Good on that, Jon. I wrote a little half-paean to Chris myself recently, mostly on the tip that he's the only one of these Home Depot-rock dudes who isn't a blatant misogynist. Nickelback's Chad does have that sensitive ring in the baritone, but I'm not forgiving him for that line about wanting her pants around her ankles. And Hinder … don't get me started. Their well-meaning publicist sent out the band's "Holiday Wish Lists," and virtually all of them involved back-door action and/or threesomes. It's like Nirvana never happened.

But Daughtry, whatever he might do in his personal life (it's always different than the persona implies), wears his commitment and caring beautifully. The drama of his American Idol fall vaulted to the stratosphere when his wife, Deanna, had an emergency hysterectomy the week he got voted off, and his post-Idol triumph is all tied up in the saga of their relationship, now immortalized in dull, fatally compressed modern-rock songs played by the most generic band on earth. (Best lyric here.) Snobs were shocked when Daughtry charted so high out of the box, better than any Idol debut since the Claytonator; people forget that 38-year-old moms of teenagers like to rock, too.

Those moms adore Idol because it's family entertainment that still slips in a few "outlaw" moments that feel like, if not classic rock, at least a superficially naughty night in (or out, if you attend one of the Idol tours, whose audience is entirely made up of 8-year-olds and their guardians). You gotta love a show where the lech is a woman, where the tears of middle-aged dads of contestants constitute emotional porn, where the final three include a would-be Sarah Brightman, a nice Jewish boy with horrendous teeth, and Bill Clinton. I mean, seriously—do the MySpace antics of Fall Out Boy have anything next to the sublime tackiness of this?

I know way too much about Idol because I'm a daily music critic in Los Angeles, where music execs matter way more than writers, and smart, powerful people really care about the cultural mainstream. (More so, dare I say, than in New York, no matter how many poptimists hold the top critics' chairs.) It was in Los Angeles, too, that I learned to love the Dixie Chicks, partly because, as my colleague Geoff Boucher has pointed out, they're an L.A. band now, but also because they made a great record this year, one likely to make as few critics' best-ofs as that Hinder CD.

It's their fourth studio album since Natalie joined the band, and Rick Rubin doesn't make a whit of difference: It's as country, and as exurb, as the last one. But what makes Taking the Long Way great is the story it tells, not of defiant politicos riding out Operation Shit Storm, but of the regular sorrows women over the age of Carrie Underwood endure. Infertility, marital stress, ailing parents, the loneliness of not conforming when you're no longer young enough for it to be cute—that's what these songs communicate. And, open adoption advocate that I am, how could I resist one of the only songs I've ever heard told from a birth mother's point of view?

As for Carl's comment that alt-country is what really takes the boot from us these days, I totally agree and mostly kick along. But I must note that women working in this genre are still breaking ground, personally, if not on some grand, convention-shattering scale. I wasn't as hot on Neko Case's latest as my husband and many year-end listmakers (including Amazon) were, but I admire the beauty of "That Teenage Feeling" and am just delighted that this former upstart is growing up so gracefully. My crush is on Jenny Lewis, whose "Rabbit Fur Coat" started the year off smartly with a set of songs not quite as perfectly Costello-esque as her last round for Rilo Kiley but still stunning in their clear-eyed craft and unpresuming insights. The title track plays for melodrama, but even after a year of listening, its story of mother-daughter fatalism haunts me. But then, I have a tiny one in my house who prefers her alt-country from Sally Timms of the Wee Hairy Beasties, so no wonder mama-baby stuff slays me right now.

But wait—localism. Southern California. Oh dear, maybe next post, but let me just tantalize with a tidbit: At one point in making my year-end calculations, I realized that it was possible that with no plan whatsoever, I might be constructing a list consisting entirely of Californian artists. Maybe it really does matter where you live, after all …

Ann




From: Jody Rosen
To: Jon Caramanica, Ann Powers, and Carl Wilson
Subject: Algorithms and Blues

Posted Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 6:44 PM ET

Friends,

You want localism? There's nothing quite like a having a music-obsessed 2-and-a-half-year-old in your house to snap you out of your pop critic's myopia and put you in touch with some fundamental questions—i.e., what song will soothe a child back to frigging sleep at 3:30 in the morning? I sang more in 2006 than any year in my life, usually lullabies at ungodly hours, but sometimes during the day at my son's request and only rarely in tune. (Randy Jackson would call my singing "pitchy." Simon would be blunter.) Needless to say, I now have much deeper respect for American Idol contestants and for the legions of YouTube amateurs whose videos Carl rightly points to as one of the year's highlights.

My vocal misadventures aside, it's been fascinating witnessing the formation of a musical consciousness, watching my little boy sponging up songs, from "Wheels on the Bus" to "I Have a Little Dreidel" to the "grown-up" records I play him in my lame attempts at indoctrination. (I felt vaguely sinister the day that I sat him down to listen to Lefty Frizzell's "Mom and Dad's Waltz.") Among other things, this experience has convinced me that in 2007 and beyond, music writers should pay more attention to science—to the exploding field of biomusicology, with its revelations about the role that music played in human evolution and the formation of language, and especially to neuroscientists who are literally mapping musical pleasure, discovering the neural centers that ignite when we hear a beautiful tune. If all this seems a little removed from rap and rock and the Billboard charts, consider the increasing reliance of the record industry on companies like Platinum Blue, which has developed an algorithm—a "spectral deconvolution software" program—for determining the likelihood that songs will be hits. It's amazing and terrifyingly dystopian at the same time, and it gives a music critic pause: The new hit-song science is telling us that our vaunted musical preferences may well be hard-wired and mathematically quantifiable. And just guess which 2006 song, according to Malcolm Gladwell's recent New Yorker piece, scored a whopping 755 in Platinum Blue's hit-grading system? Why, "Crazy," of course. Jon, you might find Gnarls Barkley annoying—I do, too—but I promise you that your temporal lobe likes that one damn song a lot.

Of course, having a young kid takes its toll on the other, sweatier kind of localism: Daddy did not get out to the clubs as much as he would have liked in 2006. It's true, there's no substitute for being there, in the places music is made and people move their bodies, and that's one reason why it's hard for stateside critics to get behind the "new European dance sounds" that Carl mentions. There's no pop more context-dependent, more resolutely regional, than dance music. I suspect dubstep makes far more sense in a South London nightclub than it does anywhere else.

But you don't need to be a club habitué to soak up your town's local musical flavors. One reason I've been grooving on Latin music in '06 is that I hear so much of it on the street in my Brooklyn neighborhood. (Reggaeton is always blasting out of an apartment building up the block—lately Wisin y Yandel's "Pam Pam" is the jam of choice.) At the cafe around the corner, the whitey hipsters have Brooklyn's own Grizzly Bear on heavy rotation, and that band's busy, burbly psychedelia is starting to speak to me. (Do they count as freak-folk?)

My favorite New York group is still Brazilian Girls. They released a strong second album this year, less lounge and more garage than their debut, and thus more in tune with the ferocious dance party they throw when they play live. I did mange to catch them a couple of times in 2006, and it's at those shows that I felt the surges of musical uplift and civic pride that a great hometown band can give. For me, Brazilian Girls embody a peculiarly New York kind of romance and cosmopolitanism—because of the melting pot punk-meets-house-meets-Kurt Weill sound and the lyrics in five languages, to be sure, but most of all because of the festively polyglot audience they attract, and the way everyone's differences seem to dissolve in the dance-floor scrum. Ann thinks that New York represents the rock 'n' roll past—but it sure doesn't feel that way when Brazilian Girls lean into "Jique" in a packed club. Plus, no one is repping wacky downtown fashion better than singer Sabina Sciubba, who is waging a personal campaign to out-freak Björk and her swan dress.

So much more to discuss, but it's time to wind down. So, I guess I'll have to skip my riff on Daughtry (no thanks) and Elliot Yamin (yes, please); my praise songs to Sugarland's super-charismatic Jennifer Nettles and to Stargate, the Norwegian production collective responsible for Beyoncé's "Irreplaceable" and Ne-Yo's "So Sick"; my further country thoughts, including the suggestion that blue-state secularists looking to challenge their preconceptions about red-state religiosity should check out Trent Tomlinson's touching and tuneful "One Wing in the Fire"; my apology to the readers who've been e-mailing, chastising me for ignoring the Decemberists and Belle and Sebastian (sorry, but: zzzzzzzzzzzzzz); and my fond hope that the Neptunes and other underperforming hip-hop producers learn to turn down work every now and then instead of doing three crappy tracks on every B-lister's album. Instead, I want to say a quick word about protest music.

Something tipped this year, and musicians reclaimed the territory that for several years had been ceded to comedians. The combination of Iraq fatigue and, especially, Katrina, prompted eloquent, furious, and funny musical responses, and not just from the predictable scruffy guitar-bard types—listen to Nashville hunk Darryl Worley's singing about "a land where our brothers are dying for others who don't even care anymore" in "I Just Came Back From a War." But rappers like Lupe Fiasco and New Orleanian Lil Wayne made the most powerful protest songs. My favorite is Killer Mike's "That's Life," in which the rapper digs into the subject that dare not speak its name in American political discourse or in most hip-hop—poverty: "George Bush don't like blacks/ No shit, Sherlock/ And his Daddy's CIA flooded the hood with rock/ And his mama said the women oughta feel at home/ Getting raped in the bathroom in the Superdome/ The comment Kanye made was damn near right/ But Bush hate poor people, be 'em black or white."

Jon, Carl, Ann, it's been a blast—here's hoping we'll do this again sometime. For now, I'm gonna make like OK Go, hop on my treadmill, and glide on out.

Jody




From: Jon Caramanica
To: Ann Powers, Jody Rosen, and Carl Wilson
Subject: Left the Game on a High Note/ Flow Opera

Posted Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 4:37 PM ET

Good people,

I think the haters in the Fray are right, Jody—what with all this pop talk, we're doing a disservice to some of music's lesser-appreciated lights. Let's talk about some real victims, some artists who are facing adversity in this cruel climate for artful, high-minded, craft-oriented song.

Let's talk about Jay-Z.

Not only did he invent a subgenre this year—post-social-climbing adult-contemporary rap—he was its only member. Like the Dixie Chicks, he made an album about middle-age and personal growth and settling comfortably into a new set of roles that, even five years ago, would have seemed unattainable and possibly undesirable. He was rewarded with the biggest opening sales week of his career.

Unfortunately for him, though, he's not a country group lambasted for leaning left. He's a rapper who always seemed to be getting away with something whenever he boasted of improbable wealth and power. Now he's arrived, comfortable, unimpressed. He doesn't seem to be striving for anything, a pose that's more crucial to hip-hop than political rabblerousing or street-corner swagger or free-for-all abandon. He also seems to have largely forgotten how to rap—and, unlike his late-year rival Jim Jones, he's got no idea how to use that as an asset. Telling Baba Wawa that he was pretty good at selling drugs and kicking it with Ellen DeGeneres while the missus is out shilling for her own play for grown-up respectability only confound further. The result: an 81 percent drop-off in sales the second week (an almost unheard-of figure) and some vivid vitriol.

Meet Jay-Z, underdog. Paradoxically, by releasing the worst album of his career, he's created the circumstances for just the sort of hunger that's always been his best motivation, and his continued appeal to ever-younger generations of fans, even as he aged out (and priced himself out) of the demographic. (Jim Jones taunted: "You say 30's the new 20/ But you're 40, I'm 30, so who's 20?") In other words, Jay had to fail. If that's the case, Kingdom Come is quite possibly the greatest performance art project of our time.

Even at his worst, though, Jay goes platinum easily, a feat that's looking more and more impressive. This year, not counting the recent spate of major-label fourth-quarter Hail Mary tosses (Jay-Z, the Game, Young Jeezy), only one rap album went platinum: T.I.'s King. For almost everybody else, gold is the new standard, and I don't mean Nas' Sphinx-laden dookie rope. Used to be, earnest, straightforward, pop-averse groups like Gang Starr were the only ones for whom selling half a million records was something to strive for. This year, everyone from Diddy to Rick Ross struggled to make quota. Blame downloading. Blame an overcrowded market. Blame ringtone sales for obviating the need for, you know, actual records. None of it changes the fact that the shape of the long-player is due for a revamp, to say nothing of the price (funny how people lament Tower's demise only once CD prices dip into the single digits—how they lasted as long as they did sticking with $18.98 list prices is a mystery for the ages).

Really, it's time for diversification. Just being a singer or a rapper or a guest horn player on a Stars side project isn't going to cut it moving forward. I'm excited about performers who are also crafting niches in other spaces. TV on the Radio's Dave Sitek barely sits still, producing for Massive Attack, Celebration, and the Liars in between band commitments. Ne-Yo released a strong album this year but has also been responsible for writing several other people's hits, some of which (Rihanna's "Unfaithful," Beyoncé's "Irreplaceable") are bigger than his own ("So Sick," "Sexy Love"). He's basically killed emo (and not just the time he actually killed emo). These artists are developing into stealth brands, most notable for their flexibility. Not a new phenomenon, but certainly an exciting one that holds out hope that true polymaths might be the ones running the show in decades to come.

Quick hits on maligned genres:

As for alt-country, quelle snore (a nod, though, to the sly solo debut from former Jayhawks drummer Tim O'Reagan), but bluegrass certainly seems to be getting more interesting and diverse—the Duhks, Cherryholmes, Rhonda Vincent, and the decidedly weird moments on the Yonder Mountain String Band album all gave me cause for excitement.

Agree with Carl that the new Mastodon doesn't quite hold up to the last one. Same goes for Lamb of God and also Killswitch Engage. But for all the settling at the top end, bizarre and elegant things are happening in the nooks and crannies, particularly in U.S. black metal, not long known as a hotbed of innovation. Two of the most beautiful records I heard this year were Nachtmystium's Instinct: Decay and Agalloch's Ashes Against The Grain. That's black metal from, respectively, Chicago and Portland, folks. Norway, take note.

Quick hit on maligned critics:

Carl, I definitely agree that the fact that we all like Clipse and Justin and Joanna is some sort of progress. Nevertheless, it still sounds a lot like consensus to me; sometimes it seems like we're all looking over each others' shoulders. Jody, your smart introduction of the science of music appreciation into this conversation makes me fear, though, that maybe we're all just wired the same way. Coupled with who-knows-what genetic predisposition toward obsessive listening and chest-puffing exposition, canons are born.

Still, consensus is a slow death—let's all disagree a little more next year. I've enjoyed this thoroughly, and hope we get the chance.

Yours,

Jon

P.S. To start that off, here's a list (finally!) of 10 artists who made their debut (or debutish) in 2006 and show even more promise for 2007.

Young Dro, Best Thang Smokin' (Grand Hustle/Atlantic): Grossly underserved by his club-oriented debut single, "Shoulder Lean," Atlanta's Dro revealed himself as one of hip-hop's most kinetic and frankly bizarre MCs on his debut album. Some call him the Southern Ghostface.

Taylor Swift, Taylor Swift (Big Machine): She's just turned 17, and already she's country music's biggest cynic, with a debut single, "Tim McGraw," that practically doubles as contextual advertising.

Earl Greyhound, Soft Targets (Some): Widely lauded and rightly so. The Brooklynites are shameless in their pillaging of '70s arena rock, but they never play it for laughs or lean on conceit over attitude.

T. Duggins, Undone (Thick): I've never been much for Chicago's unsubtle Celtic punk band the Tossers, but the solo debut of frontman Tony Duggins felt small and spare and all the angrier for it.

Traxamillion, The Slapp Addict (Slapp Addict): The Bay Area's hyphy scene is hip-hop's most consistently innovative from a production perspective, a tradition upheld on this collection of eccentric beats backing a who's who of the region's rap royalty.

Catfish Haven, Please Come Back (Secretly Canadian): Utterly plain and yet oddly impactful amalgamation of indie-rock styles—garage rock played with roots influences and just a touch of 50s harmony. (I prefer this EP to their later-in-the-year full-length, Tell Me.)

120 Days, 120 Days (Smalltown Supersound/Vice): Somewhere amidst the hype over the Knife, Norway's 120 Days got lost, in spite of songs that sprawl and float and unfurl into blissful synth-rock.

Lavender Diamond, The Cavalry of Light (Lavender Diamond): This EP technically came out in '05, and threatens to be unforgivably precious, but singer Becky Stark has a healthy pop ear to go along with her airy vocals and chamber-folk backing.

Gyptian, My Name Is Gyptian (VP): 2005's devastating "Serious Times" was a Jamaican hit, and even though his proper Stateside debut was more love-oriented, it showcased his alluringly sweet singing voice, which is best when put to work enlivening grim subject matter.

Professor Murder, Professor Murder Rides the Subway (Kanine): Punk-funk with a much-needed sense of humor. Plus, they've clearly been following my work.




From: Carl Wilson
To: Jon Caramanica, Ann Powers, and Jody Rosen
Subject: Northern Lights

Posted Friday, December 22, 2006, at 6:12 AM ET

Hi again, clubhouse gang,

If nothing else this week, as Jon noticed, going by readers' comments in the Fray, we've given a shot of ground rhino horn to the public's collective hate-on for music critics. One minute, we're celebrating the apparent death of rockism and its rigid, artificial distinctions; the next, someone is saying (I paraphrase), "Clearly they have no interest in real artists who write their own songs."

It's healthy that we're available for bashing—just as Nickelback does the culture a service by providing, in these fractious times, a common enemy against whom to unite. If I had a dollar for every conversation I had this year that included a Nickelback joke, perhaps I could buy back my country's sullied reputation.

But still, Canada had a fine year. With Nelly Furtado, we actually eked out a couple of nonhumiliating pop songs that charted internationally. That's never really been the country's specialty. As a second-banana republic, we excel at bedroom-poet eccentricity—our postage-stamp saints are Leonard Cohen, Joni Mitchell, and Neil Young. (Who, speaking of political songs, Jody, spent 2006 putting his adopted American identity to good use. The succinct opener, "Let's impeach the president for lying," is one sound clip I'll carry away to help sum up this year.)

Their heirs are apparent in the likes of Vancouver's Dan Bejar, aka Destroyer, who, after years of unheralded masterpieces, broke through to a wider audience with his opus, Destroyer's Rubies. He also made a "supergroup" album—a form he knows well, as a guest member of the New Pornographers—as Swan Lake, with his fellow Pacific Northwest visionaries Spencer Krug (of Wolf Parade and the promising Sunset Rubdown), and Carey Mercer (of Frog Eyes, whose forthcoming record is one to track in 2007).

Both albums, but Destroyer's Rubies especially, are like particle accelerators, bombarding their subjects (from romantic nostalgia to the status hierarchies of contemporary art) at every turn with polymorphous rhetoric, while never settling into a single point of view. Along the way, Bejar throws out musical references ("Have I told you lately that I love you?/ Have I failed to mention there's a sword hanging above you?/ Those who love Zeppelin will soon betray Floyd/ I cast off these couplets in honor of the void") as well as casually indelible licks and melodies, as if they were accidental byproducts of the mental friction and speed.

This is the game Dylan invented in the mid-1960s. Bejar even has parallels as a singer, with limited pipes but meticulous, detailed intelligence as an interpreter, twisting the sounds of words to suit his cross-purposes. Like a great rapper, he's got tremendous, albeit perverse, flow. That's a quality I prize about Joanna Newsom's recitative style on Ys, too, and one way to get past knee-jerk reactions to both voices. (It's not true of many of the other indie-rock "yelpers," whose mysteriously panicked stylings make me worry, "Exactly how desperate are these times?")

When I listen to Destroyer, I'm hearing one of the few people ever to have the nerve not only to borrow those Dylanesque techniques, but to keep advancing them as if his life depended on it. I'm afraid that's not what I get when I listen to Dylan's own Modern Times, a lovely but wool-gathering set of saloon-crooning numbers elevated by their welcome sense of humor. All I feel at stake there is the 21st-century Bob's campaign to consolidate his legacy, of a piece with 2001's (far better) Love and Theft, his 2005 memoir, and the Scorsese documentary ... oh, and his new XM satellite show, Theme Time Radio Hour, which was actually Dylan's greatest contribution to 2006—go scour those file services for bootlegs.

In honoring what Canada does well, the big step this year was the Polaris Music Prize, designed as our answer to the Mercury in the U.K. I had the honor of sitting on the final jury, which, in a surprise upset (in a field that included Broken Social Scene, Wolf Parade, Quebec's Malajube, and Canada's best new hip-hop artist, Edmonton's Cadence Weapon), went for a violin-playing savant named Owen Pallett, who records as Final Fantasy. He's better known as a part-time member and string arranger for the Arcade Fire (yes, we do band together here), but Owen's solo work is extraordinary.

Like Newsom, description doesn't do him justice: He's classically trained, his new album is called He Poos Clouds, it prominently features harpsichord and a string quartet, and it's loosely based on the schools of magic in Dungeons and Dragons. But what emerges is not some geek-intellectual exercise, but a tragi-comic exploration of magic as a metaphor for emotional experiences in everyday life, of family and death and real estate and unrequited longings, in combinations of inspired rawness and sophisticated music that would make Sufjan Stevens go sulking home to his pastor.

Pallett has shared stages with one of my proudest discoveries of the year, Toronto's Laura Barrett, whose Christmas-themed Robot Ponies got the nod from critic Douglas Wolk this week in the PaperThinWalls.com year-end wrap-up. Barrett plays the kalimba (African thumb piano) and, like Pallett, writes impossibly imaginative songs informed by the sensibilities of video games and instant messaging, and she will break your heart. Newsom fans owe it to themselves to watch for her debut full-length in 2007.

Pallett's also donated much of his $20,000 Polaris prize to his fellow members of the aforementioned Blocks Recording Club, an indie label structured as a workers' co-op that is poised to put out a half-dozen killer albums in 2007. Blocks is part of a "think locally" answer to the problem of indie music now—with the dimming of the old music-industry model, indie has morphed into its own industry and has no particular spine but self-importance, no ideology but smug superiority, which is served by the alt-business model of MP3 blogs. That's why my best live experiences in the past several years happened in abandoned warehouses, grassroots festivals, and people's living rooms, where the profit and/or buzz-status models were way off the table, and something about the idea of music for its own sake was rescued. That's an aspect of the geographic diversification of rap that, for all its many benefits, I mourn: As "Houston" becomes a recognized idiom, it is less and less Houston in itself.

That's one sense of the embodied politics I've mentioned. Another is incarnated in my second-favorite record of the year (my whole list is on my Web site), which is Matmos' The Rose Has Teeth in the Mouth of a Beast. Here's a San Francisco duo, better known as collaborators with Björk, who take electronic music back to the physical level, paying tribute to a series of intellectual heroes by using sampling as a form of fetishization, so that gay disco pioneer Larry Levan is toasted with a dance-mix concoction of sequins, while late punk idol Darby Crash (subject of an upcoming biopic) gets his due with a track that's built on the sound of a cigarette burning flesh (in homage to the notorious "Germs burn") and the buzz of clippers shaving someone's head. It's all made more than a parlor game by their sharp ears for rhythm and texture, which transform their experimentalism into a series of notions under a groove. In keeping with their art-world roots, it's also one of the most sumptuously beautiful packages to hold in your hand of any CD in 2006, which has always been a major reason to buy records, even if you can't easily roll a joint on it.

I'll close by noting one political record I don't think anyone has heard as such: Howe Gelb's 'Sno Angel Like You, which the Arizona-based alt-rock veteran (head of Giant Sand and progenitor of Calexico) recorded with—surprise!—Canadian artists in Ottawa, including the Voices of Praise gospel choir. Rather than the language of protest, Gelb turns to a mode of introspection that is transformed by the choral background into a kind of revival meeting for secular people at risk in an era of falsehood and despair. The meld is uncanny, much more a realization of the mashup sensibility than anything on the Girl Talk album, which, like DJ Danger Mouse's place in Gnarls Barkley, feels like an old party trick compared to the revelations of true cultural collageists (look up DJ/rupture). Surely, the mashup is about leveling barriers rather than nudging and winking at the familiar. It needs to be the same useful myth we were told by 2006's genre blur: that technology fails if it becomes a way to shore up our differences and rides around shining when it is a hot link to the better angels of our nature.

Jon, Ann, and Jody, it's been an enormous privilege to share a pew with angels like you this holiday season, and I hope all the promise of 2006, not just musically but in every way, finds a voice to sing to you in the coming year.

Carl



the zeitgeist checklist
Zeitgeist Checklist, Earmark-Free Edition
What Washington is talking about this week.
By Michael Grunwald
Saturday, December 16, 2006, at 7:59 AM ET



Sadr Every Week

Iraq. With violence escalating, and his approval ratings dwindling to the low 30s, President Bush finally agrees to seek a diversity of opinions about Iraq, as long as they all coincide with his. Bush apparently plans to send even more troops to Iraq, and if that doesn't get him down to single digits, he plans to ask Mark Foley to send more text messages to congressional pages.



We Also Care About Justice Stevens

Illness. Republicans and Democrats send their best wishes to Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., whose condition after brain surgery may determine control of the Senate. They all insist that they're not even thinking about politics, that they only care about Sen. Jackson, or Johnston, or whatever his name is. After watching a videotape of the patient, physician and outgoing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., issues his diagnosis: The GOP lives!



Who's Disappeared Now?

Death. Gen. Augusto Pinochet, the corrupt dictator renowned for making dissidents disappear, dies before he can face trial. The Zeitgeist has a feeling Pinochet is going somewhere that won't be so Chile.



Sign of the Apocalypto

Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hosts a conference for people who think the Holocaust never happened—not that there would have been anything wrong with that! Afterward, he insists he never said that Israel should be destroyed, never served as a consultant to James Baker on the Iraq Study Group, and never warned Mel Gibson to watch out for Jews on the California Highway Patrol.



Failure of Intelligence

Democrats. Incoming Senate appropriations chairman Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., stuns his colleagues by accepting a one-year moratorium on earmarks. It will be known as the Robert C. Byrd Earmark Moratorium, and scholars will study it for decades at the Robert C. Byrd Center for Earmark Analysis. Meanwhile, incoming House intelligence chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, flubs a quiz on Iraqi sects. Here's a quick primer, congressman: The Sunnis hate the Shiites. The Shiites hate the Sunnis. And they all hate us.



Political Football

2008. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., appeals to male voters with a guest spot on ESPN's Monday Night Football. Expect Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., to appear soon on Oxygen or Lifetime, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, to show up on the SciFi Channel. Kucinich proclaims himself a serious candidate for the Democratic nomination, but refuses to explain why his campaign slogan remains "Just Here for the Bud Light."



"I loved it!" – Mel Gibson

Middle East. Former President Jimmy Carter defends his best-selling new book, which blames most of the problems in the Middle East on Israel. He's now planning a sequel, which blames most of the problems in Ishtar on some assistant producer named Mordecai Rabinowitz. In other news, Ahmadinejad insists he's never worked as a presidential ghostwriter.



The Unkindest Cut

Health. A new study suggests that circumcision may reduce HIV transmission rates by as much as 50 percent, the first evidence that removing the foreskin can prevent sexually transmitted diseases. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation immediately funds the fledgling relief group Mohels Without Borders.



Did Hillary Want Fashion Advice?

Royalty. Revelations in British tabloids about the Clinton administration wiretapping Princess Diana turn out to be false. Right-wingers who seized on the breathless reports to attack the Clinton family swiftly and profusely apologize for fanning the flames of a bogus scandal. After which the Redskins win nine straight, Baghdad becomes a popular tourist destination, and Mel Gibson founds a Malibu chapter of B'nai B'rith.





Backdoor Cut and Run

Sports. NBA Commissioner David Stern ends his league's disastrous experiment with a lousy new synthetic ball, admitting his mistake and bringing back the old leather ball. His PR strategy is dismissed by Bush, who thinks Stern should stay the course with the lousy ball and force his successor to make the choice to ditch it, and by Ahmadinejad, who thinks Stern should insist that the new ball never happened.



today's blogs
Shifty Allegiances
By Laurel Wamsley
Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 5:58 PM ET

Bloggers wonder if it's possible that there's good news from Iraq, following reports that a top Shiite cleric supports a coalition government. They also handicap Rudy Giuliani's chances at the presidency, and pick sides in a nasty spat between Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump.

Shifty allegiances: The New York Times reports that top Shiite cleric Ayatollah Sistani has "tentatively approved an American-backed coalition of Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties that aims to isolate extremists." This move suggests a desire to isolate Muqtada Sadr, a powerful Shiite militia leader. Bloggers are cautiously optimistic.

Former Marine officer Westhawk notes that Sistani vetoed this same proposal last spring. He hopes that a coalition could shuffle the warring factions: "It would realign it into a moderate versus extremist fight. This would be Iraq's last best hope for political reconciliation, something which still seems to be a long shot. This coalition would also likely be Iraq's last best hope for a unified state."

But Seth Weinberger, a political science professor, believes that this coalition will cause more fighting, not less. "[T]he US leadership must prepare itself and the American public for the inevitable results of this new strategy: increased violence," he writes at Security Dilemmas. "Splitting the Shiite ruling bloc and challenging the militias will lead to much higher and more intense levels of fighting, especially when the US troops take on al-Sadr's Mahdi Brigade directly."

Aaron Banks at the progressive NDN Blog hopes "the President and his advisors are … paying attention to all facets of the Iraqi politicians they are counting on to make up this new, moderate coalition. If the White House is only considering the private comments that Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders make in meetings with the President, then their is a very real chance that the Bush administration will revert to form and wind up completely divorced from reality, yet again."

Read more about shifting alliances in Iraq.

Rudy 4 prez: The Giuliani camp's announcement that the former mayor of New York City will head to New Hampshire at the end of January has stepped up speculation about his odds of winning the Republican nomination. Bloggers know that Rudy's popular, but aren't sure that he's conservative enough to win a Republican primary.

At ElephantBiz, a blog about the business end of the GOP, Bill Hobbs has more faith in a Giuliani machine. "No one doubts Giuliani, a rock-star on the speaking circuit, can pull in the bucks. He's also got a personal connection to Wall Street, which certainly will help him raise serious cash fast," he writes.

But Monday Morning Clacker at Vermont's GreenMountainPolitics1 doubts that Rudy will really make a run for it. "One reason for Giuliani's hesitation might be his love of dressing up in drag, which can be seen here in this YouTube clip: That shit don't play in South Carolina son…. However, if Hiz Honnor was to run, he would need to have a dynamite showing in the New Hampshire Primary. Why? …[M]ostly because New Hampshire favors "maverick/independent" candidates … If Giuliani can't win in New Hampshire he isn't going to win the nomination. And everybody knows it."

And some alert surfers note that the biography on Giuliani's exploratory committee Web site fails to mention his previous marriages and his children. "It looks like he threw his kids overboard to polish up some of rough spots on his family values score card," DM wrote in his tip to lefty hangout TPM Café. "Can't get married in '03 and have teenage to adult children without some 'splainin to do."

Read more about Giuliani's great expectations.

Tiaras and snake oil: On Wednesday's episode of The View, Rosie O'Donnell railed against Donald Trump's defense of Miss USA Tara Conner after she was spotted drinking underage, and tossed in a few accusations of Trump being a bankrupt "snake-oil salesman" for good measure. In rebuttal, Trump threatened to sue and said that if he were Barbara Walters, "I would look right in that fat ugly face of hers and say 'Rosie, you're fired.' "

Atlanta-based ColeTrain at Tales From The Dark Side thinks Donald is right on the money: "Given that self-control is not something that is often taught to young people these days, it is truly an honorable option for Mr. Trump to give Tara Connor and the other one a second chance."

Commenting at VH1's Best Week Ever, FernLaPlante disagrees. "Donald is the one who is disgusting inside and out," she writes. "He is a liar (he has been bankrupt several times) and he doesn't understand the meaning of some words like: 'failure'. He said Rosie's talk show was a failure (even though it was #1 for years until SHE decided to stop it) Meanwhile The Apprentice tanked after season 2."

B forged a third path at TV Squad's play-by-play: "I don't know where to stand on this issue, because I hate both Trump and Rosie. I think I'll just stick with my original position of supporting the right hot 20 year olds to get drunk, party and make out with other hot 20 year olds."

Read more about the spat between Rosie and the Donald.



today's blogs
"We're Not Winning"
By Michael Weiss
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 5:10 PM ET

Bloggers are unimpressed with the president's first acknowledgement that the United States isn't winning the war in Iraq. They're also, on the whole, appalled at a New Jersey public-school teacher's efforts to preach the Gospels in history class, and glad that pro-Nazi historian David Irving is getting out of jail.

"We're not winning": For the first time, President Bush has admitted that "we're not winning" the war in Iraq (his second clause was, helpfully, "we're not losing"). Also vowing to add as many as 70,000 new troops to an exhausted military, Bush has, in the eyes on the TypePad brigade, experienced an epiphany that's two years late and billions of dollars short.

The conservative blogger at Uncommon Misconceptions thinks the president is hardly crying uncle: "Look, we have not succeeded in controlling the violence in Iraq. We *did* oust the vile Hussein regime, we *did* create a democratic system, we *did* shepherd the Iraqis through the formation of a somewhat coherent government, and we *are* building up the Iraqi security forces. Militarily, we *did* succeed in marginalizing Al Qaeda to the point where it was not a significant player in the political process, but Al Qaeda finally succeeded in igniting the sectarian violence that has plagued the country since March."

However, Michael Stickings at The Moderate Voice is having none of the voodoo semantics. He writes: "[I]t beats the 'we're winning' nonsense that you spewed before the midterms … . Of course, your spin raises the question of the meanings of 'winning' and 'losing,' but you can't possibly convince me that the meanings of 'winning' and 'losing,' as well as the line between the two, are what you imagined them to be back when you were rushing to war and then celebrating mission accomplished. How can being stuck in a quagmire not be losing?"

Responding to Bush's claim that November's midterm elections signified a popular desire to alter the war strategy, liberal Steven Benan at the Carpetbagger Report grumbles: "[T]he electorate just isn't where he thinks it is. 70% of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of the war, not because people want a different strategy, but because Bush rejects the one strategy with majority support—get the troops out of Iraq."

"When John Kerry called during the 2004 campaign," notes lefty Steve Soto at the Left Coaster, touching a common cyberspace plaint, "for an increase of 40,000 in our force levels, and specifically a doubling of our Special Forces to fight the global terror war, the White House and GOP Senate hacks … belittled Kerry. … It has only taken two years and countless deaths and injuries to our troops for Bush to come around and admit that Kerry was right all along."

Read more about Bush's "we're not winning" milestone.

We, the saved: Kearny, N.J., public-school teacher David Paszkiewicz has come under fire for evangelizing in his 11th-grade history class on the U.S. Constitution. A student recorded Paszkiewicz saying things like, "If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong"—and his doesn't refer to Thomas Jefferson.

Jeremy Leaming at First Amendment blog the Wall of Separation indicates, "Paszkiewicz is not a science teacher, yet he railed against evolution and the Big Bang and claimed that dinosaurs traveled on Noah's Ark—a standard creationist canard. Why was he even discussing these topics? Paszkiewicz needs to stick to the subject at hand. A discussion about religion's role in history is fine. Running a Sunday School class is not."

"Rev. Dan" at eccentric religion blog Outchurched has a fast and easy solution: "The appropriate response to this situation would be for Kearny High School to have an immediate opening for a competent History teacher. What do dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, the Christian Monopoly on Heavenboundness, Evolution, or the Big Bang have to do with the Constitution of the United States?"

Ed Brayton at science, law, and religion blog Dispatches From the Culture Wars agrees. "[P]erhaps if he spent less time preaching and more time teaching history, his students would know that the free exercise clause does not protect the teacher's expressions as a government employee. He is free to believe whatever he likes, of course, and he is free to tell his youth group that Muslims are going to hell at the church. But at the school, during class time, he represents the government and as such he cannot use that time to preach or to expound on his religious beliefs."

Read more about classroom proselytizing in New Jersey.

Irving freed: British historian David Irving, who was convicted in Austria last February for the crime of Holocaust denial, has been granted probation by a Viennese appeals court. Score one for free speech, even if the speaker is thoroughly unsavory.

The conservative behind Out From Under applauds the Austrian magistrate's decision, even though "Irving is clearly a complete twat and a deeply unpleasant man … . Anti-semitism is disgusting. Wherever it is found it should be argued against. But jailing people who are guilty of it only serves to give them unnecessary publicity and turns them into martyrs."

Zayed on multipurpose blog WALEG observes that Irving's imprisonment was questionable even under the terms of the Austrian statute: "[Irving] didn't deny [the Holocaust]. What he said was that most of those who died at Nazi concentration camps like Auschwitz died of diseases such as typhus rather than being executed by the Germans."

Read more about David Irving's release.



today's blogs
Surge 'n' Generals' Warning
By Christopher Beam
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 5:41 PM ET

Bloggers consider what a troop influx would do to Iraq. They also flog Sen. Brownback for trying to block a federal judge nomination and weigh accusations of anti-Semitism against Judith Regan.

Surge 'n' generals' warning: Tensions are rising within the Bush administration over whether to send more troops to Iraq. Proposals to increase troop levels by 15,000 to 30,000 have met with unanimous opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Bloggers wonder if Bush is even listening.

Brij Khindaria at The Moderate Voice fears that adding more troops would only play into the insurgency's hands: "[T]he Mahdi fighters will melt away before superior US forces and reappear soon after the Americans leave. … The fact that a Baghdad slum militia armed with light weapons foiled the mighty US and its protégés will bring endless encouragement to other enemies around the world." Kindaria's TMV colleague Shaun Mullen wonders how a leader can resist a unanimous recommendation: "In some if not many other countries, the continuing intransigence of a national leader in the face of such an unmitigated disaster would lead to calls for his ouster or even a putsch. Why not in the U.S.?"

Conservative columnist Jules Crittenden takes issue with the generals' opposition: "[T]he chiefs are worried a short-term surge will create an al Qaeda magnet and lead to more U.S. deaths. Stats indicate that troops surges have had the opposite effect, driving down casualty numbers."

As "surge" replaces "stay the course" as sound-bite-of-the-week, liberal John Emerson at Seeing the Forest picks apart another catchphrase: "I don't know where the slogan 'one last push' came from—from the media or from the administration—but the word 'last' is a dead giveaway. It cues you to ask 'And after that, what?' (To my knowledge, no one in the administration has disavowed the 'one last push' meme)."

Former CBS producer and liberal blogger Barry Lando notices a "jolting irony" in the assumption that more troops will help: "[W]hile the conflicts in Iraq (and Afghanistan) have been a recruiting dream come true for radical jihadists, they've created an enlistment nightmare for the American military. Though the U.S.army claimed they had met manpower targets for 2006, they managed to do so only by offering 700 million dollars in retention bonuses; and spending $300 million more for their recruiting drive."

Liberal Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly's Political Animal doesn't envy Bush's tight squeeze: "If the Chiefs stand their ground, it will be very difficult for Bush to buck them. But if he gives up on the surge, what possible alternative can he offer that even remotely seems like a serious change of direction? Rock, meet hard place."

Read more about the proposed troop surge.

Brownback's backtrack: Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., will allow a confirmation vote on a federal bench nominee who attended a same-sex marriage ceremony. He originally tried to block it. Brownback had also proposed a "compromise," suggesting that the judge, Janet Neff, recuse herself from cases involving same-sex marriage.

Conservative Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters argues that Brownback's compromise is "not just unprecedented, it's ridiculous": "Can you imagine the outrage had Ted Kennedy demanded that Samuel Alito recuse himself on all cases involving abortion? How about if Pat Leahy insisted that Janice Rogers Brown recuse herself on all affirmative-action cases? Conservatives would have had fits—and rightly so."

But liberal Columbia Law professor Michael Dorf flips Morrissey's hypothetical on its head: "Suppose an otherwise qualified judicial nominee had attended a ceremony that we liberals find offensive: Perhaps a judge attended a family friend's graduation ceremony in the Ku Klux Klan. (Humor me in assuming the Klan holds graduation ceremonies.) Even though attending in a 'personal' capacity, wouldn't this act send a sufficiently alarming message about the nominee's views on civil rights to warrant further investigation before confirming him to a seat on the federal bench?"

Bryan J. Scrafford at liberal Ambivalent Mumblings parses Brownback's argument and concludes that "the senator would also have to argue that anyone who has attended a wedding shouldn't be confirmed. Why? Because if a person who attended a same-sex commitment ceremony would be partial to one side, then Brownback's argument would also lead you to believe that a person who attended a heterosexual marriage would also have a preconceived bias."

Read more about Brownback's reversal.

If she said it …: A spat between recently fired publisher Judith Regan and News Corp. grew more heated as accusations surfaced alleging that Regan made anti-Semitic comments. Regan's lawyer said that even if she did call her detractors a "Jewish cabal," he "wouldn't be offended, as a Jew."

Rachel Sklar at the Huffington Post's media blog Eat the Press gives a comprehensive run-down of the players but still comes away wondering about Regan: "Why [is] the New York Times refus[ing] to say either way whether Regan is Jewish. The NYT reported that the controversy drew 'attention to the fact that her boss and others involved in the controversy over the aborted O. J. Simpson project were Jewish.' Oh, 'others involved in the controversy'—like, say, the speaker?"

Yid With Lid speculates that Regan's firing was probably "all a big ruse. Now that she has interviewed OJ Simpson, I bet she wants to snag a bigger killer: Iran's President Ahmadinejad."

Read more about Judith Regan's alleged remarks.



today's blogs
You're It!
By Sonia Smith
Monday, December 18, 2006, at 3:23 PM ET

Bloggers balk at Time's selection for "Person of the Year," deliberate on the split of the Episcopal Church, and weigh in on an opera that depicts a decapitated Muhammad.

You're it!: Time magazine's annual "Person of the Year" issue hit newsstands today, declaring you the winner. That is, if you're a content creator on the Internets. Hype-weary bloggers were largely unfazed by the award, despite being winners.

"That's right—You, over there, with the face. … this has to rank as the most squishy, opportunistic pick ever," New York-based gossip purveyor Gawker whines. "How long until some Yale undergrad lists this on his resume?" commentator ellagood quips in response. Pat Cleary at business blog ShopFloor will not be bringing out the bubbly tonight: "If this doesn't shake your faith in every other cover story they do, we don't know what will."

Conservative Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters thinks Time missed the proverbial boat: "Eh. So this is the year for the great huddled masses? Wouldn't that have been 1989, when the momentum of freedom and liberty felled an Evil Empire and tore down a wall in Berlin?" he asks. "The entire point of a Person of the Year is to acknowledge that some people play larger roles in history. Naming all of us may make us feel good about our anonymity, but in the end it's either pandering to millions of readers or a refusal to take a stand on anyone. Choosing everyone is an abdication on the entire purpose of the project."

Russell Shaw of the Huffington Post is irked: "To me this thinking is condescending, patronizing, marketing-driven hooey," he opines. But Pajamas Media is not phased: "This must mark the ultimate in an orgy of diversity."

Not everyone is upset by the award. Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine is pleased that content creators are finally being acknowledged. "[I]t's wise of Time to pick many people. That's the way the world really works. There are many worlds within our world and many leaders in them. So if Time were doing its job properly, it would highlight a million people of the year. But, of course, it can't. The form doesn't allow it. And the form is what led to massthink. But mass is over. And I see this as Time's admission of that. And so for that, I applaud them." Engineer Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard is earnest in his response. "Time … may be on to something whether they meant it to be so or not. The world is changing. One pixel at a time."

Powerblogger Daniel Radosh finds humor in the Chrysler ads running alongside the feature: "Until a few hours ago, the folks at Chrysler's ad agency, who of course would not know the content of the Time story until it appeared, must have been very happy with the clever campaign they'd devised: 'You might not be Time Person of the Year. But you can drive like you are.' " He has screenshots.

Law professor and blogatrix Ann Althouse is already pleading for a moratorium on You jokes: "Do not—do not!—do not make the joke Time Magazine is trying to get you to make. Do not let them succeed in their attempt to use you—to use 'you'—to go viral. And since you probably already did, please stop now. You dork!"

Read more about Time's "Person of the Year."

Episcopal schism?: Alarmed by the Episcopal Church's increasing tolerance of homosexuality, seven Episcopal parishes in Virgina have moved to split from the rest of the American branch of the Anglican Church. Two north Virginia parishes hope to represent the more conservative Episcopal Church of Nigeria, whose head condones harsh punishments for homosexuals.

Casual Catharticism's Michael Skena previously attended one of the churches in question: "As a member of The Falls Church and only a recent member of an Episcopal congregation, I feel saddened by this decision. I fully understand the deep theological divisions that exist between the Episcopal Church leadership and more conservative congregations. It is a difference that is not going to be resolved," he writes.

Clark at DefCon Blog accuses the parishes of "rejecting progress:" "The news that a group of Episcopalian Virginia parishes have split with the U.S. church over its progressive (i.e. tolerant) position on homosexuals alone is incredibly disappointing, however the aggressively intolerant Episcopalian archbishop they have chosen to align themselves with is shocking."

But at Zwinglius Redivivus, Baptist pastor Jim West supports the decision to split: "Behold, what wonders are wrought when wrong-headed bishops elect inappropriate candidates to Northeastern Bishoprics," he writes.

Read more about the Episcopal split.

Severed heads and opera: In Berlin, Hans Neuenfels' new interpretation of Mozart's Idomeneo will include decapitated versions of Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, and Poseidon. Security will be accordingly tight, or, in modern parlance, "airport-style."

Commenting at The Lede, Ray Hall is pleased Deutsche Opera stood its ground: "If the god of Islam is so timid and weak that mere mortals have the power to diminish his standing then he is indeed weak and unworthy of support."

"I wonder if they will be serving ham sandwiches and danish blue cheese during the intermission?" Mr. Bingley jokes at the Coalition of the Swilling.

Read more about the latest interpretation of Mozart's Idomeneo.



today's papers
Murder They Charged
By Daniel Politi
Friday, December 22, 2006, at 5:09 AM ET

The New York Times and Washington Post lead, while the Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox, with military prosecutors charging four U.S. Marines with murder relating to the deaths of 24 people in the Iraqi town of Haditha. Four officers were also charged with failing to investigate the killings. The Los Angeles Times leads locally but off-leads the charges.

USA Today leads with an analysis of Census estimates that show more than half of the country's population growth in the last year took place in southern states. The estimates also reveal 219,563 people left Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina, which is the largest annual decline in any state since World War II. Arizona became the fastest-growing state, a position that had been held by Nevada for the last 19 years. Additionally, North Carolina pushed New Jersey out of the list of the 10 most populous states.

Everyone notes the military charges, in particular against those accused of failing to investigate the killings, are unusually aggressive. "I definitely think the Marine Corps is sending a message to commanders … that they better pay close attention to the activities of their subordinates to ensure that there was no wrongdoing," an expert tells the NYT. To recap: On Nov. 19, 2005, a Marine was killed in an ambush and members of his unit then proceeded to attack a car and three nearby houses. In total, 24 people were killed, including several women, six children, and an elderly man in a wheelchair. The Marines initially said the deaths were the result of a bombing and a gunfight. The military only began to investigate after Time published a story in March questioning their version of events. Both the LAT and WP credit the role of Time in breaking the story, something the NYT and USAT fail to mention.

The Marines were charged with multiple killings. Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, faces 13 counts of unpremeditated murder. According to the LAT, prosecutors said Wuterich allegedly gave the order to "shoot first and ask questions later." The WP includes some discussion on why the Marines were charged with unpremeditated murder, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. "I think they know they can't prove premeditated murder, because you need to prove intent," an expert said. Defense lawyers insist the Marines were merely following the rules of engagement and that mistakes were made in the heat of the moment.

The WP goes inside with word that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told Defense Secretary Robert Gates U.S. generals should decide whether there ought to be a "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq. The Iraqi defense minister said he could be open to the idea. "I did not say no to an increase in the number of U.S. troops … if we need it, we need it." Everyone notes Gates met with a group of enlisted soldiers and asked for their opinions. They all said more troops should be sent to Iraq.

Everyone notes a suicide bomber killed 15 police recruits in Baghdad yesterday. In addition, the U.S. military announced the death of three more U.S. service members.

Also in Iraq yesterday, cleric Muqtada Sadr announced he was ending a three-week boycott and is allowing his supporters to return to their positions in the Iraqi government.

The LAT interviewed Iran's ambassador in Baghdad, who said there is no need for his country to talk to the United States about ending the violence in Iraq. The ambassador says Iran is already going ahead with plans on how to stabilize the country. "We have our own well-defined polices about Iraq. We have never waited for a Mr. Baker or someone else to offer talks," he said.

All the papers mention the unexpected death of Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan's authoritarian president. The gas-rich country is essential to European energy supplies and the succession is being watched closely by the industry. In what is being characterized as the early signs of a power struggle, officials announced they were opening a criminal investigation against the speaker of the parliament's lower house, who, according to constitutional rules, should become acting president. In the WP's op-ed page, Masha Lipman characterizes Niyazov as a "tyrant par excellence."

The NYT fronts word that Democratic leaders are lavishing special attention on the newly elected members of Congress who won by a small margin in districts where President Bush did well in 2004. It is all part of an "incumbent retention program" that is giving these members of Congress good committee assignments, sponsorship in important bills, and an early start on fund-raising for the 2008 election. Democrats are taking special care of these members to try to make sure they don't lose the majority in 2008.

Incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is planning four days of celebration surrounding her swearing-in on Jan. 4, reports the Post on Page One. The WP is quick to emphasize it will all be "more than just a party." It will be a chance for Pelosi to show the new face of her party and start shaping the Democratic image for the 2008 elections.

The WP notices Raul Castro told university students in Havana they should debate "fearlessly," raising questions about how much Cuban politics will change after the death of his brother. Raul emphasized Fidel is "irreplaceable" and noted the need for a "unified command" but also said "that doesn't mean that discussions can't happen."

The LAT fronts word that many seeking asylum in the United States are having their petitions rejected because of a law passed after the Sept. 11 attacks that denies anyone who ever provided "material support" to terrorist groups. And it makes no distinction on why this support was provided. For example, Liberian women who were forced to cook and clean for rebels, are seen as having provided material support even though they might have been raped and their family members killed.

Earlier this week, Flynt Leverett, a former CIA analyst who was a senior director at the National Security Council, complained that the White House was trying to silence his criticism of its Iran policy by saying an op-ed piece he had written with his wife contained classified material. Today, the NYT publishes the piece, but, unusually, decides to show readers what sections of the op-ed were redacted by the White House. In an accompanying piece, the authors insist there is nothing classified in their piece and put up links to several articles to show that what they said in the redacted portions was already in the public domain. The authors argue the United States was able to work successfully with Iran on Afghanistan but the Bush administration failed to capitalize on this good will by "targeting the Islamic Republic for prospective 'regime change.' " The authors think it's important for the United States to engage Iran and insist there is a limited window of opportunity.

The approaching end of the year means the papers are publishing their lists with the memorable moments of 2006. Today, the LAT amusingly takes a look at the worst in movies, television, and music. The WSJ lists the best and worst ads of the year.



today's papers
Looking Back
By Daniel Politi
Thursday, December 21, 2006, at 5:13 AM ET

The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times lead, while the Wall Street Journal tops its worldwide newsbox, with President Bush's end-of-year news conference, where he called 2006 a "difficult year," gave a harsh assessment of the situation in Iraq, and insisted he is still considering several options on how to proceed.

The New York Times leads with another story in its energy series that looks at how a United Nations-backed program to limit global warming is inefficient and enriches a select few. USA Today leads with the heavy snowstorm that hit Colorado and has delayed thousands in the middle of a record-breaking travel season. Denver International Airport closed down, and more than 1,000 flights were canceled through Thursday. Some highways and roads were also closed. The airport set up cots as they predict some could be stuck for several days.

The Post's lead story focuses on reading between the lines and gives big play to Bush declaring that he won't necessarily listen to military officers on the question of whether more troops should be sent to Iraq. In the past, the president had emphasized that any decision on troop levels would have to be made by the generals on the ground. Yesterday, however, Bush insisted that while "the opinion of my commanders is very important" he hinted that ultimately he would be the one who will be making the decision on troop levels. The WSJ mentions how Bush acknowledged Iraq hasn't gone exactly as planned and stated that "additional sacrifices" will have to be made. He also said the military would have to expand in order to carry out these sacrifices.

The LAT focuses on Bush's harsh assessment of the Iraq situation but the president also emphasized the mission to create a "free and democratic Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, and is an ally in this war on terror" hasn't changed. Bush said he would not make any changes to Iraq policy without first talking to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who is currently in Baghdad. Democratic leaders said the president's news conference shows he doesn't understand the need for more urgent change in Iraq.

The Post's Dana Milbank sees symbolism in the fact that the news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room. The room was once used as a reception room for the Navy and "it had stars on the ceiling for navigation, a compass in the center of the floor and other devices used by those who have lost their way."

After he met with Gates, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, declared he's not "necessarily opposed to the idea" of raising troop levels. Retiring Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, has frequently spoken out against sending more troops to Iraq but yesterday said "all options are on the table." Abizaid also insisted his retirement "has nothing to do with dissatisfaction."

The United Nations-backed program allows businesses in rich countries to pay to reduce greenhouse gasses from poorer nations, in order to stay within the limits of how much pollution they can create themselves. These deals usually end up being more expensive than merely cleaning up the original offender. For example, a factory in China could buy an incinerator that costs $5 million to clean up one particularly harmful gas. Instead, foreign companies will end up paying approximately $500 million for the incinerator, with much of the money going to lawyers and factory owners. The companies go ahead with these costly propositions because it is still cheaper than cleaning up their own act.

The LAT uses President Bush's signing of the last major piece of legislation passed by the 109th Congress to highlight some of the most outrageous earmarks that were added in middle-of-the-night meetings. The bill was merely supposed to be an extension of existing tax cuts and credits, but in the end some industries won big. Although the paper is quick to emphasize "there have been more outrageous end-of-session bills," it does note this one came soon after an election that emphasized ethics and corruption issues.

The NYT fronts news that the United States and Britain will move more warships into the Persian Gulf, in order to display military prowess toward Iran. Although U.S. officials acknowledge the move might be seen as a provocation, they want to send a sign they can still keep an eye on Iran, despite the growing problems in Iraq.

The LAT goes inside with a grim landmark: The bodies of 76 unidentified people were recovered in Baghdad yesterday, which is a one-day record. Additionally, 26 Iraqis were killed around the country yesterday. Two U.S. soldiers were also killed by roadside bombings.

The papers go inside with news from Iraq, where American forces handed over control of Najaf Province to Iraqis. Najaf became the third province to be turned over to Iraqi forces, and the first handover of a province that was controlled by U.S. troops. The LAT focuses on and the NYT mentions, while the WP ignores, the strange handoff ceremony that involved Iraqi commandos displaying their bravery by eating almost-live animals. Iraqi forces took bites out of frogs, and one cut open a rabbit and proceeded to sink his teeth into its still beating heart. This is apparently common in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein's special forces frequently performed these sorts of displays with all kinds of animals.

Briefly mentioned at the end of a NYT story is news that President Bush signed a bill extending the mandate of the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction until 2008.

The WP fronts another in its series of stories about federal farm subsidies, that contends the image of "the struggling family farmer," used to justify billions in government payments, is all pretty much a myth these days. Most of the nation's food comes from large, modern farms. Congress touts the farm subsidies as a way to protect the small family farm, but, in fact, these payments could be accelerating their downfall. Large farms receive most of the subsidies, which then gives these big operations more cash to expand, buy out more land, and further marginalize the small farmer.

The WP notes inside that Saudi Arabia has chosen a familiar face to become its new ambassador to Washington. Adel al-Jubeir should be recognizable to many American television viewers who have seen him in news shows since Sept. 11 defending Saudi Arabia's policies.

The LAT and USAT front the results of a new study that reveals obese people have a particular mix of bacteria in their digestive systems, which could make them more likely to gain weight. The bacteria present in obese people are more efficient at getting the calories out of food. When researchers gave lean mice the bacteria from obese mice, the thin ones started gaining weight. If confirmed, these results could bring about new ways to fight obesity.

As gift-giving season is under way, USAT tells the story of a Marine who survived two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, only to have to rush to the hospital this summer when he tried to open a package that contained a printer cable. Apparently, as packaging is becoming more complex, this is a common problem and "the week after Christmas, emergency rooms across the nation are flooded" with people who had some sort of accident opening up gifts. If it happened to a Marine, it could happen to any of us, so USAT publishes some tips on ways to open up gifts and minimize the risk of injury.



today's papers
Binge and Surge
By Ryan Grim
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 4:58 AM ET

Three Washington Post reporters sat down with President Bush and the nation's papers wring much of their front-page ink from the 25-minute chat. The Post leads big with President Bush's admission that the United States is "not winning" the war in Iraq. The L.A. Times and New York Times lead space goes to a write-up of the Post's interview with Bush; both papers highlight his plan to increase the size of the military rather than his admission. The story also tops the Wall Street Journal's World-Wide news box. USA Today leads with an FDA proposal for warning labels on over-the-counter pain relievers but has the Bush talk above the fold.

For the first five grafs, The LAT sources its story to an anonymous senior administration official who may have simply read a transcript of the Bush interview on the Post's Web site. The paper does eventually give credit where it's due; the NYT acknowledges the Post much higher.

The Post points out quickly that Bush's admission is a "striking reversal" from his pre-election declaration: "Absolutely, we're winning." Bush also confirms to the Post in the "wide-ranging" Oval Office discussion that he is considering the "surge" option in Iraq—sending thousands more troops for a short period—and that he interpreted the midterm elections not as a call to withdraw troops from Iraq but rather to do something different there. (The piece doesn't specify what the mission of the extra troops would be.) Bush concedes, as the other papers highlight, that he's heard people say the military is "stressed." He calls for increasing its size. That's another reversal, points out the Post.

Below the Iraq piece, the Post reports that Bush sees "opportunities" to work with Democrats on Social Security and immigration, but he stops short of saying that the midterm elections were a repudiation of his leadership. Instead, he says, voters were upset about Iraq, Jack Abramoff, and Mark Foley: "Look, you've got a guy using earmarks to enrich himself; there was sex and all kinds of issues that sent the signal that perhaps it was time to give another group a chance to lead."

The L.A. Times fronts the news that the general who is not winning the war in Iraq has filed retirement papers and will be gone by March.

Remember Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani? He makes an above-the-fold comeback today in the NYT, reportedly expressing support for the formation of a governing coalition of moderate Shiite, Sunni Arab, and Kurdish parties. The plan would isolate Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who would probably be felled by the power shift, expressed skepticism but will meet with Sistani to discuss it. The Times notes that the split would increase tensions between clashing Shiite militias; that'll make Sen. Trent Lott's job of telling the warring parties apart all the harder.

The Post fronts a report by the National Arbor Day Foundation finding that Washington's warm winter weather is now more similar to a Southern climate. "You could say D.C. is the new North Carolina," said Bill McLaughlin, a curator at the U.S. Botanic Garden on the Mall.

The NYT has a long narrative that begins below the fold about life as a Mexican immigrant "sin papeles"—without papers—for one woman and her family in Texas.

A front-page WSJ piece details the straits electronics retailers find themselves in, as competition has led to a 40-percent drop in flat-screen-TV prices. Some retailers are selling them for less than cost.

The paper goes inside with the record-breaking year for Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs' CEO, who raked in about $54 million in 2006. His Wall Street firm saw $9.54 billion in profits this year, which would make for an average quarter at ExxonMobil. TP wonders if that means Exxon's CEO is worth $216 million.

WSJ also fronts a long piece on the conflict in Swaziland between traditional values—such as the one that says condoms are "un-Swazi"—and the fight against HIV/AIDS. The "values" appear to be winning: One in three Swazis between 15 and 49 are infected.

The Post wraps up its Oval Office conversation coverage with an A14 analysis of a president who "bluntly dismissed the suggestion" that Americans have signaled they have tired of the Iraq war. "There's not a lot of people saying, 'Get out now.' Most Americans are saying, 'We want to achieve the objective,' " says Bush.

"The comments were another strong indication of the president's determination to chart his own way forward on Iraq, no matter the election results nor any amount of free advice from senior statesmen of past administrations," analyzes Michael Abramowitz, who quotes incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer as "pointedly" saying Democrats have no plan to allow him a free hand to indulge his firm resolution.

Ya don't say … USA Today has two head-slapping polls on its front page: The top one says that "almost all" Americans have premarital sex, despite millions of federal dollars spent to prevent the act. Below it, a poll shows people are wary of Taco Bell after the recent E. coli outbreak.



today's papers
Surging Debate
By Daniel Politi
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 5:06 AM ET

The Washington Post leads with word of an intense debate brewing within the Bush administration over whether there should be a surge of troops in Iraq. Some officials at the White House are promoting the idea of an increase, while the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously disagree with that strategy. The New York Times and Los Angeles Times lead with the latest quarterly report on Iraq by the Pentagon that said violence in the country reached its highest level on record. It also concluded the biggest threat to progress in Iraq is the Shiite militia loyal to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and not al-Qaida. The Wall Street Journal includes news of the report in the top spot of its worldwide newsbox but focuses on how it was released on the same day as Robert M. Gates was sworn in as the country's defense secretary.

USA Today leads with news that officials from the United States, Germany, and Russia successfully secured and moved almost 600 pounds of Soviet-made material from a former East German lab to Russia. There was concern the highly enriched uranium could be a target for terrorists. The effort was part of an initiative to help Russia recover nuclear material that was left scattered around the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Under the agreement, Russia can use the uranium for power reactors but not for military purposes. Officials expect to finish emptying out nuclear material from all the sites in 2007.

According to the Post's sources, the joint chiefs think the White House is pursuing the idea of a surge because there are few other possible options. Meanwhile, they are adamant that increasing the number of troops in the country would create more problems than it solves for the U.S. troops in Iraq. The only real option on the table regarding any kind of surge, would have to involve a specific timeline and mission, which military leaders worry could be exploited by insurgents. The chiefs are allegedly taking a firm stance because they believe the current review of the Iraq situation will lead to the most important decisions since the invasion. Meanwhile, the Post talks to an unnamed senior administration official who insists the question hasn't really started a fight between the White House and the Pentagon. The same source contends military officers have not directly opposed a surge and have merely asked questions about it. It is still unclear which way Bush is leaning.

The Pentagon report found there were an average of 959 attacks against Americans and Iraqis every week from August until November, which amounts to a 22 percent increase. "The violence has escalated at an unbelievably rapid pace," the director of strategic plans and policy for the joint chiefs told reporters. The report goes on to say one of the main reasons why Shiite militias have become so deadly is they have received help from some inside Iraq's security services. While confidence in the Iraqi government is decreasing, Sunni and Shiite militias have gained legitimacy among the people by protecting neighborhoods and providing relief supplies.

Gates vowed to travel to Iraq soon and said he will provide his honest opinion on issues after urging commanders to give him "unvarnished" advice. He also warned the United States can't afford to lose in Iraq. "Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility, and endanger Americans for decades to come," Gates said.

The NYT fronts a dispatch from Baghdad that says the city has been pretty much isolated from all outside electricity supplies for the past six months. The towers that support many of the lines are frequently bombed, and when crews go to carry out repairs, they are often attacked and sometimes killed. Baghdad is now mostly dependent on a few power plants that are inside the city. The Iraqi electricity minister says he has asked for help from American and Iraqi troops to protect the electricity lines but they have mostly ignored his pleas. According to recent U.S. figures, which many characterize as optimistic, Baghdad has an average of 6.6 hours of electricity per day, while nationwide the figure is 8.9 hours.

Everybody goes inside with news that Iraq's former electricity minister, who is a citizen of both the United States and Iraq, escaped from Baghdad's Green Zone on Sunday. He was being held on corruption charges. The LAT gives big play to Iraqi officials who say U.S. security contractors helped Ayham Samaeraei escape, but the NYT is more skeptical and cites the denial of U.S. officials. It is unclear exactly how he managed to escape the most heavily fortified area of Baghdad, but the NYT makes clear Samaeraei wasn't exactly kept in tight security and the paper describes how he wasn't even locked up in a cell. Police officers meant to keep an eye on him didn't inform anybody he was missing until several hours later.

The WP fronts the results of a new FBI report that shows the number of robberies and murders in the United States continues to increase. This new data further illustrate violent crime is once again growing after going through periods of historic decreases. Violent crime increased nearly 4 percent in the first six months of the year, while the number of robberies increased almost 10 percent. Criminologists often see the rate of robberies as an indicator of what is to come. Last year, violent crime increased 2.5 percent, which at the time was the largest surge in 15 years. The Post emphasizes many state and local law enforcement officials have criticized the federal government for focusing too much on fighting terrorism and ignoring day-to-day crime.

The NYT fronts word from sources who say the team in the Justice Department that was put in charge of investigating accusations that civilian employees abused detainees has decided not to prosecute most of the 20 cases that have been referred to them. The group was established in June 2004 in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib. Since then, it has been overwhelmed with problems, from missing information in referral forms to a difficulty in finding witnesses and nonexistent forensic evidence, so they have been unable to bring a single indictment.

The NYT and WP go inside with federal prosecutors yesterday withdrawing a subpoena to the American Civil Liberties Union that demanded it hand over all copies of a "secret" document the group received. Many had criticized the government for improperly using a grand jury subpoena in order to get the document, which the ACLU characterized as "mildly embarrassing."

The LAT points out on Page One that for Hollywood, there is no business like repeat business. Six of the 12 biggest movies of the year were sequels and in the coming months studios are coming out with a barrage of new versions of their blockbusters. The paper says the money made from sequels this year "is all but erasing the angst of last year" when Hollywood executives worried about the biggest drop in attendance in 20 years.

Everybody notes the death of Joseph Barbera, who, along with William Hanna, created some of the most famous cartoon characters, including Tom and Jerry, the Flintstones, and Yogi Bear, to name a few. He was 95 and died of natural causes.



today's papers
Spy Troops
By Daniel Politi
Monday, December 18, 2006, at 5:31 AM ET

The Los Angeles Times leads with word from military and CIA officials that they are increasing the oversight of spying operations carried out by U.S. Special Forces teams. Largely due to Donald Rumsfeld's distrust of the CIA to gather intelligence, small groups of Special Forces troops have been sent to a number of countries, including allies, to carry out operations that sometimes duplicate agency efforts. The Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox, and nobody else fronts, the latest from Gaza, where after a day of violence that killed three people, a cease-fire was declared that has little hope of surviving. The New York Times leads with a story on how an American civilian, who was also a whistle-blower, was detained for 97 days in a U.S.-run maximum-security detention site in Baghdad. The story illustrates how disorganized the detention system is in Iraq and shows how little recourse an American has to challenge his imprisonment.

The Washington Post leads with news that at least seven Virginia Episcopal parishes voted to split from the U.S. church. This could mark the beginning of a nationwide trend that will likely lead to a legal battle over valuable property. Two of the Virginia congregations that decided to split have buildings and land worth approximately $25 million. USA Today leads with state governments struggling to meet the ever-increasing price tag of providing health-care benefits to its employees. A new accounting rule is forcing states to keep track of how much they owe for health-care benefits for retirees and in many cases the numbers were higher than most expected.

The use of Special Forces to carry out military operations will probably come under greater scrutiny when Robert Gates, who will be sworn in today, takes over the Pentagon. Although officials insist they will staunchly defend the program, many also recognized its drawbacks, including the fact that combat units in war zones are not exactly plentiful and they could use all the help they can get. Some CIA officers complain the Special Forces have sometimes carried out missions without informing the agency, and put existing operations at risk.

The gunfire in Gaza between militants loyal to Hamas and Fatah, came a day after President Mahmoud Abbas announced he would call early elections. The Post and NYT focus on the cease-fire, but the LAT notes "no one showed up at a news conference" where the agreement was supposed to be presented and shooting continued late into the night. According to early morning wire reports, fighting erupted outside the president's residence early on Monday, "dashing hopes that an overnight truce would bring quiet" to the Gaza Strip. British Prime Minister Tony Blair arrived in Israel and is scheduled to hold talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders today.

Making matters worse for the American highlighted in the NYT's lead story is that he had actually been in contact with the FBI and was acting as a whistle-blower against his employer. It took the detention officers three weeks to get in touch with the prisoner's contact at the FBI. And even after that communication, they still decided to keep on holding him, labeling him as a security threat. While detained, he had few recourses to argue against his detention, and had to wait two weeks before he was even allowed to make his first call. Of course, the harsh treatment he received and his lack of rights pale in comparison to what many Iraqis have to face in the detention system, as told by the NYT yesterday.

Everybody notes former Secretary of State Colin Powell broke his long-held silence on the issue when he declared yesterday that the U.S. Army "is about broken" and he doubts an increase in the number of troops in Iraq would help resolve the current situation. Instead, he said the United States should work to transfer security responsibilities to Iraqi forces and American troops should begin withdrawing next year.

Nobody gives much play to Sen. Harry Reid, the incoming Democratic majority leader, declaring he would be willing to accept a troop increase in Iraq if "it's part of a program to get us out of there."

The WSJ says Sen. Evan Bayh's surprise decision not to run for president, shows how much established Democrats are being affected by the excitement surrounding the big names of possible presidential candidates, especially that of Sen. Barak Obama. Helpfully, the paper has a chart that shows those who are running or strongly considering it, as well as those who have declared they will sit this one out.

The papers note gunmen kidnapped about 25 people from the Red Crescent offices in Baghdad. "We do not suspect anyone, as we are a humanitarian organization that does no harm to any bloc," said a spokesman. The WP notes the area where the kidnapping took place is heavily fortified with checkpoints and barriers because the Dutch Embassy is nearby. The site is also less than a mile away from the Green Zone, where Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who made a surprise visit to Baghdad.

The LAT notes the U.S. military announced that a roadside bomb killed three American soldiers on Saturday.

The Post off-leads word that U.S. officials are increasingly worried Somalia will become a new haven for terrorists. Al-Qaida has established a presence in the country's capital, and as the threat of war between Somalia and Ethiopia increases, there are fears more foreign fighters will flock to the region. In a taped statement released in July, Osama Bin Laden urged Somalis to prepare for a regional war.

The NYT fronts documents that seem to show how Eli Lilly encouraged primary care physicians to prescribe its drug Zyprexa to patients who did not have schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Although the drug was approved to treat those conditions, the company allegedly encouraged doctors to prescribe it to older patients with symptoms of dementia. The company denies the claim. Apparently, Eli Lilly is not alone, as the NYT notes, "nearly every company is under either civil or criminal investigation for alleged efforts to expand the use of its drugs beyond the specific illness or condition for which they are approved." Yesterday, the NYT chronicled how Eli Lilly has downplayed Zyprexa's health risks.

In the NYT's op-ed page, Ben Connable, a major in the Marine Corps who is no stranger to writing for the papers, says any talk of withdrawal from Iraq should take into account how that would affect the people on the ground. U.S. troops have withdrawn from Anbar Province twice, and each time, insurgents were quick to take over and proceeded to kill and torture many of those who were seen as friendly to U.S. interests.



today's papers
Why Can't We Be Friends?
By Barron YoungSmith
Sunday, December 17, 2006, at 7:17 AM ET

The New York Times leads with, and everyone else stuffs, a risky call for new Palestinian elections from President Abbas. The LA Times leads with Iraqi PM al-Maliki's invitation to former Ba'athists to rejoin the military, and the Washington Post leads with Dem attempts to make short work of nine massive spending bills left undigested by the outgoing Republicans.

Everyone says Mahmoud Abbas threw down in a speech "marked by anger and sarcasm," threatening to hold new elections if Hamas won't agree to a unity government. Nowhere does the constitution give Abbas that power, but he says it doesn't prohibit him from doing so either. Presumably, DoJ will send in unitary executive theorists as "advisors" if things get dicey. The NYT implies that Abbas looks a bit of a Western lackey in the eyes of "the street," noting backchannel U.S. financial support and leaning toward sources who think his ultimatum is "tantamount to a coup." The WP and LAT agnostically cite opposing "experts" on the constitutionality of his move, and the LAT seems to think he's bluffing. Hamas is defiant. Masked gunmen assaulted a Fatah camp after the speech, killing one.

Under heavy pressure to make concessions, al-Maliki said former Ba'athists can now be officers, not just enlisted men. The NYT may have missed this nuance. The paper is adamant that al-Maliki has no new ideas, that he's already asked Ba'athists to join the army, that there's no sign his speech had any impact, that he gave no useful details and that nobody important was at the conference—meanwhile the WP says Maliki made a "key concession." What's with the NYT this morning? Still, the NYT is probably right: Reliable reverse-compass Ahmed Chalabi says the offer will do wonders and that "the militias will naturally deteriorate."

Incoming Democrats will fund this year's spending bills—left unfinished by retreating Republicans—at last year's levels, stripping them of earmarks and eliminating the need for lengthy debate. The money saved will likely be spent on the new agenda. Avid earmarkers are "quietly fuming."

Nobody fronts news that Iran is offering "peaceful nuclear technology" to neighboring countries.

Conservative Episcopalian churches in Virginia are splitting with the American church, asking to "put themselves up for adoption by Anglican archbishops" in Bolivia, Rwanda and Nigeria who are less tolerant of homosexuality. The U.S. Episcopalian church wants to keep the family together. Custody battle over $27 million in property to follow.

Everyone reports that Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. will not seek the presidency. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.'s continued crypto-candidacy made Bayh feel like a "David" among "Goliaths" in New Hampshire last week. This is supposedly a plus for ex-Senator John Edwards, who plans to announce this month in New Orleans. Check the LAT for coverage of other "Davids'" attempts to differentiate themselves.

Time magazine's person of the year will be "You." The individual. Time readily admits that they just couldn't stomach naming Ahmadinejad—and they just had Bono. Maybe enough time will have passed next year.

The WP fronts a breathtakingly thumbsucky (and, come to think of it, evergreen) piece pondering whether George Bush's stubbornness is too stubborn. "At what point," the paper asks, "does determination to a cause become self-defeating folly?" It alternates analysts who say Bush is either stubborn or pragmatic. The pragmatics squint and recall times that Bush actually has made changes. Yes, yes.

Oy, no one seems to be getting along these days. All the papers report an outbreak of sectarian violence between the New York Knicks and the Denver Nuggets. "They were having their way with us," notes the Knicks' coach. Nuggets players began showing off with reverse-spin dunks, Mardy Collins "didn't want our home crowd to see that again," and the neck punches began. The NYT is relieved fans didn't join the fight. Whew. Nation-builders take note: Humiliation, not material circumstances, may be the true cause of violence.

Wrapping up today's themes: Frank Rich notes that Rove's "supposedly fool-proof" overt political appeals to homophobia have become awkward for Republican politicians. Especially those that attack gay penguins.

Lucky, then, for Republicans that the NYT has declared Penguin chic over. Upcoming films will make 2007 the "year of the meerkat." Filmmakers praise the small animals for exhibiting human behavior like "adolescent … quarrelsomeness, as well as adult jealousy, adultery and theft." The meerkat-oriented films will be like "Desperate Housewives meets Father Knows Best"!



today's papers
Life After Death
By Conor Clarke
Saturday, December 16, 2006, at 7:08 AM ET

The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times both lead with yesterday's death penalty double-header. First, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush suspended all executions in his state, citing a botched lethal injection procedure from earlier in the week. A few hours later, a federal judge in California ordered state officials to revisit how such injections are administered, citing a "pervasive lack of professionalism in the implementation." The New York Times stuffs the injections and instead leads with an update on strategy in Iraq, where the White House is considering placing at least another 20,000 troops. The Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide news box with escalating clashes in the West Bank and Gaza.

In Florida: After it took "34 minutes and a second injection" to kill a death row inmate on Wednesday, Gov. Bush ordered a medical inquiry into the incident, which eventually found that the first needle had passed through the prisoner's veins and deposited the poison in his arm tissue, causing a visible amount of pain and requiring the second dose. When this information was released, Bush halted the executions and appointed a commission to review injection procedures in the state. But Florida doesn't seem to be have much luck with capital punishment: It apparently switched to lethal injection in 2000 "after flames shot from an inmate's head during his execution by electric chair."

In California: Acting in response to a lawsuit charging that inmates feel excessive pain when lethally injected, a federal judge held four days of hearings and found the state's system unconstitutionally cruel and unusual. (The crux of the issue was whether or not the first of three drugs administered renders a prisoner sufficiently unconscious to receive the second two, which cause paralysis and cardiac arrest. The judge said it did not.) The NYT, which says the ruling "probably represents the fullest and most careful consideration" of this issue, points out the national implications: 36 other states use some variation of the same three-drug cocktail.

(The stories are also worth reading up against an article from yesterday's paper, which noted that the number of death sentences has declined 60 percent since 1999.)

The White House is asking military planners and budget analysts to provide options for a troop increase, which the Times says "indicates that the major 'surge' in troop strength is gaining ground as a part of the White House strategy review." But the article, which is chock-full of background quotes, never really tells us what the surge would look like: It could be anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 troops. The LA Times, meanwhile, files a piece on Iraq's schools, which used to be touted as "a success story in a land short on successes." Now, teachers "tell of students kidnapped on their way to school, mortar rounds landing near or on campuses and educators shot in front of children."

If you've been on the lookout for a good piece on the curious intersection of salt, intelligence, and Kazakhstan, then the NY Times has just what you're looking for. Iodine deficiency is "the leading preventable cause of mental retardation" and even moderate deficiency "lowers intelligence by 10 to 15 I.Q. points." But, after a massive public campaign, Kazakhstan has escaped this fate: In 1999, "only 29 percent of its households were using iodized salt"; now, 94 percent are.

According to the Times, putting iodine in salt "may be the simplest and most cost-effective health measure in the world." Contrast that with the subject of another NYT front-pager: the overproduction of flu vaccines in the United States. Because production is at an all-time high this year, "millions of doses might go unused." But, "somewhat perversely," says the Times, "because of distribution delays earlier in the season, this year's abundant supply has not meant that everyone who wanted a flu shot has received one."

The Washington Post off-leads with a long look at "extraordinary rendition," which refers to the United States' habit of abducting suspected terrorists and shipping them for interrogation to countries with lax torture policies. The practice stoked intense public anger in Europe, but, the Post reports, the Europeans were often in on the fun: The CIA "took part in the seizure of at least 10 European citizens or legal immigrants," and in at least five of those cases "European intelligence agencies provided direct assistance."

But detainees that end up in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may have picked a bad time to arrive: "After two years in which the military sought to manage terrorism suspects at Guantanamo with incentives for good behavior," says the Times, "steady improvements in their living conditions and even dialogue with prison leaders, the authorities here have clamped down decisively in recent months." Following a riot, several hunger strikes, and three suicides, military officials concluded that "earlier efforts to ease restrictions on the detainees had gone too far."

One group that doesn't have enough restrictions, says the Washington Post, is professional football players: At least 35 National Football League pros have been arrested this year "on charges ranging from disorderly conduct to felony burglary." The piece is short on exact figures—since no one "keeps annual statistics on arrests of professional athletes," there is "no way to determine whether there has been an increase for NFL players"—but it has some wonderful specifics: Drug Enforcement Administration officials recently learned that San Diego Chargers players "were sending large sums of money to China" in an effort to get "knockoff athletic shoes that could be passed off and sold as name-brand merchandise in this country."

Everyone notes that Judith Regan, the "firebrand" editor behind the abortive O.J. Simpson memoir, is now just plain fired.

And everyone mentions Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's farewell speech, in which he claimed that "weakness" or "the perception of weakness on our part can be provocative." Robert Gates takes over on Monday.

Finally, everyone includes an update on Sen. Tim Johnson, who is in critical but stable condition after suffering a brain hemorrhage on Wednesday.

And if you thought the drinking was out of control ...

The Wall Street Journal has a hard-hitting report on a new development in higher education: Quidditch. Many of the Harry Potter game's signature elements—such as flying around on a broom and the use of fantastic magical powers—are difficult to reproduce in reality. Still, through some combination of imagination and pluck, students at Middlebury and Marlboro colleges make do.

But the collegiate creativity doesn't end there: Students at the University of Texas at Arlington have "become famous for their love of oozeball, or volleyball played in a mud pit, as well as their annual drag races involving beds on wheels." And at Amherst College, "a dozen students recently tried competitive 'boffing,' a form of fencing that grew out of fantasy games that involve fake swordplay."



war stories
The Urge to Surge
The latest bad idea for Iraq.
By Fred Kaplan
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, at 6:18 PM ET

The hottest briefing in Washington these days is a 56-page PowerPoint slide show titled "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq," by Frederick Kagan, military analyst of the American Enterprise Institute. It proposes "surging" 20,000 extra troops to secure Baghdad as a necessary and sufficient first step to securing and rebuilding the whole country.

It's being taken very seriously in White House and congressional quarters. I don't understand why, because it's not really a serious study. Numbers are grabbed out of thin air. Crucial points are asserted, not argued. Assumptions are based on crossed fingers, not evidence or analysis.

The upshot is that Kagan's surge involves more troops than the United States can readily mobilize and fewer troops than it needs for the kind of victory he has in mind.

He proposes a classic "clear and hold" method to secure the capital. Troops sweep into Baghdad's nastier neighborhoods and clear them of insurgents and other bad guys. Some troops stay behind to maintain security, while others move on to clear the next set of neighborhoods; some of those stay behind, while others move on; and so forth. Once Baghdad is stabilized, still more troops will pour into other troubled cities. Meanwhile, security allows reconstruction to proceed.

Kagan is inconsistent on how many troops need to surge in the first place. In an article for the Dec. 4 issue of the Weekly Standard, he calculated a need for 80,000 extra U.S. troops by spring 2007 but concluded, offhandedly, that 50,000 would be adequate. In his briefing, dated Dec. 17, that number is down to 21,000, with no explanation for the difference and, as far as I can tell, no difference in the analysis. Maybe someone told him 50,000 would be completely impossible.

Either way, where are they coming from? It's worth emphasizing that Kagan calculates that at least 150,000 combat troops will be needed to secure Baghdad alone. In all of Iraq, he estimates, the United States has only 70,000 combat troops now. He proposes moving 63,000 of them into Baghdad (leaving the other 7,000—two brigades—in Anbar province). The other 87,000 would be a mix of the "surge" and of Iraqi soldiers.

The surged forces themselves, whether they total 21,000 or 50,000, would come from a change in troop rotation—pushing up the movement of troops coming in and stopping those troops scheduled to go out, i.e., keeping them from leaving Iraq. Besides demoralizing the troops, many of whom are on their third tours of duty, this would also create a logistical nightmare; supplies would be needed for twice as many soldiers; supply lines would have to be denser and more densely protected.

Kagan acknowledges that putting all these additional American soldiers on the street might trigger still-greater waves of violence, both sectarian and anti-occupation. (An intriguing chart in Tuesday's New York Times indicates that, although an increasing number of attacks are aimed at Iraqi civilians, the vast majority are still directed at U.S. forces.) Kagan's proposals for how to counter the escalation (on Pages 30-32 of the briefing) are a bit jaw-dropping:

Clear message that security operations are underway that protect all Baghdadis. Step up civil security focus of units in Baghdad. … Tell the nation and Iraq that high casualties are the effect of enemy actions, but that we are taking the fight to the enemy.

Yes, that should do it. We're so good at sending messages to the Iraqi people. And, by the way, who's this "enemy," Kemo Sabe? Is it the insurgents and sectarian fighters (all Iraqis), or is it (gulp) us?

Kagan also explicitly states that U.S. forces should focus their efforts in the Sunni and mixed Sunni-Shiite areas of Baghdad, the source of most sectarian fighting. He ignores the internecine fights among the Shiite militias. Is this intentional? Is he tacitly proposing—as Vice President Dick Cheney seems to be doing these days—that the United States take the Shiite side in the Iraqi civil war? If so, his briefing's advocates should make this clear, so the audiences know what they're getting into. If not, and we have to go clear, say, Sadr City too, do we need still more troops?

However they're counted, a lot of extra troops are necessary, because not only do they have to "clear" a neighborhood of bad guys, some have to stay there ("hold" the area) while others move on to clear the next neighborhood. (This was the problem at Tal Afar. The city was cleared, but then the troops were called to Baghdad, and the insurgents returned.)

In Kagan's plan, after Baghdad is secure, we have to go clear and hold the rest of Iraq. This means still more troops will be needed, beyond the initial surge, because the troops in Baghdad have to stay there.

Where will these troops come from? Kagan says that the Pentagon will have to expand the size of the Army and Marines by at least 30,000 a year over the next two years. However, according to some very high-ranking officers who deal firsthand with these sorts of issues, the Army can recruit, train, and equip only about 7,000 combat troops a year. This is a physical limit, constrained by the number of bases, trainers, supplies, and other elements of infrastructure.

Kagan writes, "The President must call for young Americans to volunteer to defend the nation in a time of crisis." Given the unpopularity of the president, and of this war, this seems unlikely. After the Sept. 11 attacks, when Bush was at peak popularity, and when the country was experiencing a surge of patriotism, Congress passed a bill expanding the size of the Army by 30,000 troops. Five years later, the Army has actually expanded by just 23,000 troops. It's still 7,000 troops short of that target. How does Kagan expect to attract 30,000 more in just one year, much less to do so two years in a row?

This week, President Bush announced that he would increase the "end-strength" of the Army and Marines by an amount yet to be determined. Many officers and analysts have been pushing this idea for years now. (Donald Rumsfeld, still infatuated with his doctrine of fast, lean "transformational warfare," opposed it.) But its effect will take shape over a long period. It is not, nor would any military officer claim it to be, a solution for shortfalls right now.

Meanwhile, if Kagan's advice is followed, the surged troops will have plenty on their hands. Kagan writes that they will have to fight the bad guys—and provide food, water, electricity, and other essential services. It's not as if they haven't been trying to do all that for the past three and a half years.

How long will the surged troops have to stay? Kagan writes that "the security situation" "improves within 18-24 months and we can begin going home." But given the way the numbers add up, this seems extremely unlikely. For one thing, they'll have to be replaced by Iraqi soldiers, but if all the American troops are engaged in counterinsurgency, who's training the Iraqis? Current administration policy calls for embedding U.S. advisers within Iraqi units. Kagan is opposed to that policy. He favors expanding U.S. units and having some Iraqi units tag along. He claims that those Iraqis will be trained "much more effectively" his way, "because they will be partnered with and fighting with our excellent soldiers."

This is simply wrongheaded. Indigenous soldiers are best trained by taking the lead in military operations. They gain most legitimacy in a counterinsurgency campaign if the local population sees them as being in charge, not as sitting quietly in the occupier's back seat.

One reassuring moment in President Bush's press conference today came when he said that if he did decide to surge more troops to Iraq, he would do so only if there were "a specific mission that can be accomplished with more troops." Kagan's briefing doesn't spell out that mission, doesn't show it can be accomplished with more troops, at least not with the number of extra troops that are remotely available.

There may be no good solution to the sand-dune quagmire of Iraq. Kagan's proposal is getting more attention than it deserves because officials—and the rest of us, too—are so desperate for some, for any, head-lifting way out.

Copyright 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC /