The White House today released a plan to win the war in Iraq. Read National Strategy for Victory in Iraq in HTML, or read it in PDF format here. We are fortunate that our enemies neither know how to read nor have Internet access--lest they learn about the plan. As its media promotion suggests, National Strategy for Victory in Iraq is more public relations than military blueprint. But at this point, Americans and not just Iraqis need to be won over. The mere existence of a plan, more so than its actual substance, is encouraging. And encouragement, amidst a lot of discouragement, is I suppose the point.

Have you heard of Howard Zinn's play Marx in Soho? It's been making the rounds at some unusual theater sites: UC-Santa Cruz, Rutgers, the University of Vermont, Brown, etc. Tonight, Mount St. Mary's University in Maryland stages a production. Kirkus Reviews calls the play a "vivid portrait of Karl Marx as a voice of humanitarian justice." Say what? Forgive me for being skeptical of Marx in Soho. Anyone would be who saw Marx in Phnom Penh, Marx in Havana, Marx in Pyongyang, or Marx in East Berlin.

Wm. Clement won in dominating fashion in week twelve of the AYRFSF pool. Clement's gutsy road picks of the Falcons, Broncos, Rams, Saints, Chargers, Bears, Giants, and Jags helped him to a 12-3-1 record on the week. Clement, in fact, picked eight of nine road winners. Visitors sported a 9-6-1 record, while favorites went 12-3-1. Home dogs? 0-6-1. Ouch! Losers: sing Wm. Clement the lyrics to The Karate Kid's You're the Best. Winner: celebrate by reenacting Daniel LaRusso's balanced-on-one-leg kick to defeat the Cobra Kai in the All-Valley Karate Tournament. Pat Morita, RIP.

Every once in a while it's a good idea to stop talking about politics and start talking about hot looking girls. If you don't do this occassionally, it's a sign that you should tell your parents that you are gay or perhaps it just means that you are a hot looking girl yourself. And if you fit either of these categories, speak up. Some readers of this site, I suspect, have never talked to a real, live, gay person, while others, I'm fairly certain, have never talked to a girl--hot looking or otherwise.

The impetus for the abrupt change of subject stems from my recent subscription to digital cable, which has bestowed VH1 Classic upon my television. The older videos reorient my thinking somewhat on the use of sex to sell a song. It was, in the words of Dean Acheson's autobiography, present at the creation. Videos from two decades ago could be every bit as racy as videos shown today. Dwarfs sexually attacking a transvestite (Van Halen's "Pretty Woman"), pre-Britney schoolgirl fantasies (J. Geils Band's "Centerfold,"), and men hunting a woman as if she were prey (Duran Duran's "Hungry Like the Wolf") prove this. The primary difference between then and now is that whereas, perhaps, 1 in 12 videos during MTV's golden age contained strong sexual content, the fraction has certainly increased to more than one half. In other words, the sexual content may not be much more over the top today; there's just a whole lot more of it.

What constitutes a video vixen has changed over the years. Early-'80s videos prefer the coked-out anorexic look. Rod Stewart's "Tonight I'm Yours" provides an excellent example of this. As the decade progressed, silicon and bleach took over (I'm sure many of these models did coke too). Billy Idol's "White Wedding," Motley Crue's "Girls, Girls, Girls," and AC/DC's "You Shook Me All Night Long" come to mind. Videos became respectable enough for real models to appear in them in the late '80s and early '90s. It helped when the lead singer of the band--The Cars, Guns n Roses, Whitesnake--dated the model. George Michael, in his "pretend" years, had several videos ("Freedom," "Too Funky") featuring only the superest of supermodels. This was perhaps the golden age of the video vixen. If you didn't know who Alicia Silverstone, Tawny Kitaen, or Paulina Porizkova were before you saw them on MTV, you did afterward.

For those who don't find Skeletor attractive, and agree with Sir Mix-a-Lot ("silicon parts are made for toys"), current developments in music television--women with some meat on their bones, non-Caucasian women, natural-looking women--are welcome changes. Check out Kanye West's "Gold Digger" to see what I'm talking about. Caliente. Some rap videos, to say nothing of the audio, are terribly offensive. Rap's use of women is very similar to the use of women by hair-metal acts. Both genres poured heavy amounts of flesh into their videos, and both genres, despite producing some truly awful "music," dominated MTV's airwaves for multi-year periods. Grunge killed hair metal. I'm still waiting for rap to get what's coming. But hey, we can't say that we weren't warned. MTV laid out the gameplan in its very first minute on the air by playing "Video Killed the Radio Star."

The most conspicuous change in the use of flesh to sell a song is also the most depressing. Eye candy has gone from ensuring an audience for a visually-challenged yet talented act (ZZ Top, AC/DC) to becoming the act. I object more to the assault on my ears than to the corruption of my eyes. Britney Spears, Ashlee Simpson, and The Pussy Cat Dolls have no talent. But people watch, and the numb then buy their albums. What uglier but more gifted acts are denied the airwaves because of the sonic horror that is Hillary Duff? It's truly an open question whether Meatloaf, Aretha Franklin, Mama Cass, Janis Joplin, or the five ugliest guys to ever grace a stage, the Rolling Stones, would land a contract at a major record company today. This uncertainty demonstrates the destructive influence of MTV (not to mention the decline of independent radio and the consolidation of the recording industry into a handful of companies).

At least there's mute for The Pussy Cat Dolls. There's no button to push to hear the music that MTV, and their copycats on the FM band, won't play.

No one bribes officeholders to cut government programs. They bribe them to make government bigger, to divert funds from one program to another, to spend where spending isn't necessary. The taxpayer loses money on the deal. The Congressman pockets a Congressman's ransom. The business interest pockets a King's ransom.

Today, Randy "Duke" Cunningham tearfully admitted taking millions of dollars in bribes. In exchange, the eight-term Republican House member directed defense contracts towards the interests that paid him. And paid him they did. Cunningham pocketed at least $2.4 million. Who knows what the business interests pocketed or what taxpayers lost? U.S. Attorney Carol Lam nailed it when she explained: "He did the worst thing an elected official can do--he enriched himself through his position and violated the trust of those who put him there." Cunningham is (was?) regarded as a conservative, having scored a 95 lifetime rating on the American Conservative Union's system (N.B. Those scores sometimes tell us more about the group issuing the rating rather than the rated politician). Since electing uniformly honest men has always eluded the electorate, the best safeguard against bribery is smaller government. This requires conservatives to govern as conservatives--to make government smaller.

One thinks of the oft-quoted Federalist #51: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." One such precaution against the Duke Cunninghams of the world is smaller government. With so few dollars at stake, why would any businessman chase? Discerning the honest from the dishonest seems beyond the grasp of the mass of voters. Demanding a government more in accord with the limitations on government laid out in the Constitution is within the power of the electorate. But it may not be within the interests of the elected. Big government pays. Just ask Duke Cunningham.

With Thanksgiving ushering in the holiday season, I draw your attention to my two books, Why the Left Hates America and Intellectual Morons. Either one makes an excellent Christmas present for a conservative relative. This site is free, devoid of pop-ups, and without public-television style funding appeals that bore. One way to support the site is to purchase products through the links that appear in the righthand column. Your support is especially appreciated when you purchase one of my books. So, if you're having trouble coming up with a gift idea, click on the above links to my books and make the buy. I will thank you for it and the recipient will thank you for it. Merry Christmas!

Newsweek's fawning cover story on Charles Darwin scratches the surface on some facsinating trivia concerning the relationship between the English scientist and religion.

Of great interest is Newsweek's explanation of how Darwin traveled from belief to unbelief. "Although Darwin struggled with questions of faith his whole life," Newsweek explains, "he ultimately described himself as an 'Agnostic.' But he reached that conclusion through a different, although well-traveled, route." That route included anguish over the suffering God allowed. Slavery, for instance, horrified Darwin, and "the suffering of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time" suggested to him an indifferent God, which he could not accept. "In any case," Newsweek concludes, "it all changed for him after 1851. In that year Darwin's beloved eldest daughter, Annie, died at the age of 10—probably from tuberculosis—an instance of suffering that only led him down darker paths of despair." In other words, sentimental, not scientific, reasons led Darwin to agnosticism. His journey to disbelief, fueled as it was by a personal tragedy, was not all that different from the journey to belief of countless Christians.

The piece also notes that Darwin studied to become a clergyman. Specifically, at Cambridge University's Christ College Darwin became a disciple of botanist John Stevens Henslow, an Anglican reverened. Another reverend, Adam Sedgwick, recommended him for his journey on the HMS Beagle. Darwin himself is buried in Westminster Abbey. All of this suggests that evolutionists who use Darwin as a brickbat to beat religion are omitting some rather important information. First, Christians have been more tolerant of Darwin, as his place of burial indicates, than Darwinists have been of Christians. Second, without the Christian institutions that schooled Darwin and the Christian ministers who mentored him, there would be no On the Origin of Species or Descent of Man.

The religious education was so broad that it gave the educated the tools to attack religion. Jesuits educated Voltaire, for instance, and Galileo studied for the priesthood. Evangelical atheists, who relish the consequences (real and imagined) of a Voltaire, Galileo, or Darwin, ignore their personal histories. It is hard to condemn Christianity as an incubator of intolerance when its earthly servants educated such men as Galileo, Voltaire, and Darwin.

"I was the one who took football off the back pages and put it on to page one," George Best once bragged. This was good for football but bad for George Best. Scandal and crime, not sport, reigns on page one. Best was David Beckham before David Beckham. Except instead of Posh Spice at his side, picture Best with all five Spice Girls--and, of course, he played soccer, as his name indicates, better than Beckham. Pelé, who knows something about soccer, called Best the greatest player he ever saw. In turn the playboy Best jested, "If I had been born ugly, you would never have heard of Pelé."

I had only vaguely heard of Manchester United star George Best before his death this weekend. Blame Pelé, or if you must, Best's good looks. Best was one of those characters who manage to make self-destruction seem amusing. He once quipped, "I spent a lot of money on booze, birds, and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." Best loved life too much to love his own life. He destroyed two marriages and one liver. The blood transfusions following his liver transplant inspired this Bestism: "I was in for 10 hours and had 40 pints--beating my previous record by 20 minutes." Despite the new liver, Best couldn't shake old habits. He kept on drinking that which had curtailed his soccer career, landed him in jail, shrunk his bank account, destroyed his health, and ended his marriages. "George, where did it all go wrong?," a bellboy famously asked Best upon seeing him in bed with Miss World, twenty-thousand pounds in gambling chips, and a bottle of champagne. Looking back on George Best's life since that moment in a hotel bed, we better understand the bellboy's once-derided perspective. But instead of asking that saddest of all questions--What might have been?--soccer fans are rightfully remembering what was. "What was" was a man of common vices and uncommon talents. George Best, rest in peace.

I blog from Boston, where officials have renamed the city's giant Christmas tree a "holiday" tree. The tree's donor is bothered. "I'd have cut it down and put it through the chipper," Donnie Hatt, the Canadian logger who felled the tree, is quoted in the Reuters piece as saying. "If they decide it should be a holiday tree, I'll tell them to send it back. If it was a holiday tree, you might as well put it up at Easter." Secularism creeps. The Christmas tree is a more secular symbol of Christmas, than say, a nativity scene. The nativity scene that I remember seeing in my hometown as a kid is long since gone. It offended an atheist. Now that the nativity scenes are mostly gone, evangelical atheists have gone after Christmas trees. What's next?

The Puritans came to America for their own religious freedom. Investors subsidized the project for their own financial gain. Thus, Christianity and capitalism, two cultural traits that today separate us from the Europeans whose ancestors came here, were present at the creation. But America could have gone another route.

Hostile Indians, sandy soil, harsh winters, drought, malaria--any number of threats stood to do in the Pilgrims, who arrived at Plymouth Rock in December of 1620. One malady of man's making--communism--made the first years of Plymouth Plantation particularly rough. The endeavor's financial backers foolishly insisted on what was labelled a "Common Course and Condition" to prevent the settlers, beyond their reach across the ocean, from siphoning profits. The Puritans derived their necessities from a common stock and worked common land. This had the effect of fostering laziness, eliminating profits, and helping to create near-starvation conditions.

"For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense," William Bradford, the longtime governor of Plymouth Colony, observed. Bradford explained that the strong resented the weak, the old resented the young, and neighbors resented neighbors. More importantly, people didn't eat--at least not much and not well.

In 1623, the Pilgrims, like Eastern Europeans 366 years later, had had enough of Communism. They introduced reforms. Pilgrims worked private plots of land. Women and children, lured by the prospect of keeping what they earned, flocked to the fields. As Bradford explained in Of Plymouth Plantation, "This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious." Previous problems disappeared when communism did. Bradford would explain that the communistic experiment demonstrated the falsity of "that conceit of Plato's and other ancients," that communism creates happiness and prosperity. Communism's failure to do just that so early in our history, Americans should give thanks, contributed to its failure to gain traction on a national level later in our history.

"The KU faculty has had enough," religious studies department chair Paul Mirecki, defiantly proclaims. What they've had enough of is the idea that God created the universe. To the end of discrediting that notion, Mirecki offers for the spring semester the course "Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies," which starts with the assumption that Intelligent Design and Creationism are myths. So much for the academic values of balance, diversity, and open mindedness! Intellectuals, understandably, don't want religion taught in science classes. That they don't want religion taught in religion classes is where they overreach.

"Creationism is mythology," Mirecki explained to the Associated Press. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not." But religious studies isn't science, either, no matter how much Professor Mirecki wants it to be. The Kansas State Board of Education's sensible decision to allow the teaching of critiques of scientific theories alongside the mandatory teaching of those scientific theories generated an international controversy. The University of Kansas's decision to launch an advocacy course--in religious studies, no less--dedicated to attacking Intelligent Design and Creationism won't cause a peep. There is something startlingly amiss about defending science while attempting to mute critics.

Week 12 arrives early. Remember: get your picks in before the two Thanksgiving contests or you will forfeit those games. All picks are against the spread. Home teams are in caps. Here are my selections: LIONS +3 over Falcons, COWBOYS +1.5 over Broncos, Patriots +3 over CHIEFS, BENGALS -9 over Ravens, BILLS +4 over Panthers, BUCS -3 over Bears, Chargers -3 over REDSKINS, VIKINGS -3.5 over Browns, TITANS -7.5 over Niners, Rams -4 over TEXANS, CARDINALS +3.5 over Jaguars, RAIDERS -7 over Dolphins, SEAHAWKS -5 over Giants, EAGLES -3.5 over Packers, JETS +1.5 over Saints, and, in the Monday-night matchup, COLTS -8 over Steelers. Make your picks in the comments section below.

General Motors plans to layoff 30,000 workers in North America. This represents almost a quarter of its unionized employees in North America. The drastic move raises many questions. Is GM any more of an American company than Toyota or Audi? Whatever happened to waiting until after the holidays to wield the ax? Does the same free market that allows for American prosperity also dictate that companies will move labor from America to where it is cheap? Have unions ever been weaker in the past hundred years? Is "Made in America" an anachronism? Would Charles Wilson still believe that what's good for General Motors is good for the country?

ASDF and Wayne Gro are your week eleven AYRFSF champions. Gro and ASDF went with the homedog Bears, Titans, Niners, and Ravens--and it paid off. The winning duo posted 11-5 records on the full slate of NFL games. Underdogs bested favorites nine to seven, while home teams covered in nine of sixteen contests. Players, congratulate your betters and remember: to dethrone them you must play the new board of games (look for it today) early this week due to Thursday games. Victors: jump back, kiss yourselves.

God told Abraham, "If I find in Sodom fifty just within the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake." Forty-five? Forty? Thirty? Twenty? Ten? "I will not destroy it for the sake of ten," he tells a worried Abraham. Would man spare 988 for the sake of one?

Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, 989 convicted murderers have been executed in the United States. What if 988 of these convicted murderers committed the crimes they were charged with and one did not? The judge, defense, prosecution, and head juror now question the justice of the trial of Ruben Cantu, a Texan who was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death in 1985 and executed in 1993. The Houston Chronicle presents disturbing evidence, such as an eyewitness recanting his damning testimony and an accomplice confessing that Cantu wasn't with him at the murder scene, that raises doubt regarding Cantu's guilt.

Condemned men have murdered while awaiting (and awaiting, and awaiting) their executions. Thousands of murderers never face justice; thousands of other murderers eventually gain release. Weak punishment undoubtedly fosters future crimes. There are multitudinous acts of unjust leniency. There are few acts of unjust punishment. But just one of the latter can ensure exponentially more of the former. Contemplating the execution of a non-offender leaves us, like Abraham, wondering whether it might be better to spare the rotten lot if it results in saving the lone innocent.

Did you ever wish you could vote yourself a $3,100 pay raise? Congress did just this over the weekend. That Republicans allowed this in the midst of calling for needed cuts elsewhere proves two points: 1. The Republicans really aren't serious about spending cuts; 2. The majority party has a tin ear and doesn't know what's about to hit them. Can you visualize the ads? The Republicans voted themselves a pay raise while they cut Medicare and school lunches. The Republicans voted themselves a pay raise while they rejected an increase in the minimum wage. The Republicans voted themselves a pay raise while the deficit ballooned. You get the picture. The inaccuracy of such ads will matter little next to their effectiveness. It doesn't matter that Democrats went along. It doesn't matter that such pay raises are generally automatic. It doesn't matter that the pay raise is not great as a percentage of current salaries. What matters is that as the ruling party Republican incumbents will get blamed for this by crafty challengers. This will be exploited.

Fifty years ago, National Review vowed to stand "athwart history, yelling Stop." Fifteen years ago, I stood athwart other Bay Staters and stopped when I came upon an issue of National Review. I turned to the back page for Florence King. NR's "For the Record" updated me on political developments in the days before the Internet. If Joe Sobran, Jeffrey Hart, or John O'Sullivan appeared in the table of contents, I rushed to read the article.

I haven't read an issue of National Review for several years. I understand the criticism that it has become a Weekly Standard-lite, but I think the arrival of the Internet (and my preference for books over magazines and newspapers) has more to do with my recent aversion to, as its writers are wont to call it, dead-tree NR. I don't rush to read National Review, but I don't rush to read any magazine. I do follow NR's successful online offshoot NRO, and generally click when I see the name Jonah Goldberg, John Derbyshire, or Kathryn Lopez. Byron York does some excellent reporting, which is something that I don't recall NR doing way back when.

If 17-year-old kids aren't rushing to read National Review the way I and so many others did, National Review can blame the Internet, but it may be wiser to blame National Review. As its inaugural editorial pointed out, "Unlike Vienna, it seems altogether possible that did NATIONAL REVIEW not exist, no one would have invented it." It should be added that since someone did invent National Review, Young Americans for Freedom, the Goldwater campaign, conservative non-profits such as Heritage and Free Congress, Rush Limbaugh, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and so much more followed. Conservatives have more choices than National Review in no small part because of National Review. The publication is a victim of its own success.

I had the pleasure of meeting National Review's founder, who turns 80 next week, once. As executive director of Accuracy in Academia, I helped organize a lecture William F. Buckley gave at the University of Chicago. The undergraduates wanted Buckley to keynote the conference, and I promised that I would make an attempt. I was skeptical. I lowballed, and to my great surprise he accepted. Upon meeting Buckley at O'Hare Airport, I was struck by how down to earth he was. He was gracious. Later at dinner, he took time to indulge students who clearly viewed him as a cross between Jesus Christ and H.L. Mencken. Perhaps he indulged me when I confessed I did not know what calimari was (Forgive me, I grew up outside that landlocked, one-stoplight town called Boston.). He was a great dinner companion, and showed why so many had so much goodwill towards him. As I wrote last year, "some of [the students] occassionally behaved towards Buckley as Chris Farley's jittery-interviewer character acted towards Paul McCartney on Saturday Night Live ('Re, Re, Remember when you were in the Beatles? That was awesome.')." But Buckley took it all in stride. Why wouldn't he? He's William F. Buckley, after all, and discomforting fawners have approached him a thousand times.

In truth, Buckley had some help in founding National Review. The Freeman had virtually collapsed, and there was but one conservative weekly: Human Events. Willi Schlam pressed Buckley. Businessmen poured money upon the recently graduated Yalie. However godlike Buckley appears now, he was a thirty-year-old kid in 1955, and readers most certainly went for Max Eastman, Whittaker Chambers, and Russell Kirk before they tackled Buckley's writings. But to the last man standing goes the credit, and for holding National Review together for decades as it bled money, Buckley deserves the credit. Leftists have had Appeal to Reason, The Nation, Mother Jones, The Call, and scores of other publications. For conservatives, there is (there was?) National Review. Despite the influence of, say, Appeal to Reason or Mother Jones, none of their readers (I hope) became president. Ronald Reagan did. Has there been a more influential American magazine of opinion than National Review?

While it is true that conservatives existed before National Review, it's hard to make the case that much of a conservative movement existed. Why would a conservative movement exist? What we call conservatism, up until the turn of the last century, was the default position. No one reacted to Calvin Coolidge taking the oath of office in the same hysterical manner as some reacted to Ronald Reagan becoming president. John T. Flynn, Albert J. Nock, and others carried the conservative torch prior to World War II. But it wasn't until after Franklin Roosevelt mounted his attack on the status quo that conservatives, who initially didn't know what hit them, organized. We are reactionaries, after all.

Buckley admits that in the magazine's infancy, he hoped to divorce Dwight Eisenhower from the conservative movement. In NR's first issue, the editors fantasized about dumping Richard Nixon from the 1956 Republican ticket in favor of the more conservative William Knowland. I can even recall attacks on Ronald Reagan for going soft. It is that iconoclastic NR that I miss. It comes back occassionally, as it did in this reality-check editorial on the strengthening "Wilsonian tendency...in conservative foreign-policy thought," but not enough for me. What would Russell Kirk, James Burnham, or Frank Meyer make of George W. Bush? Alas, we live in more advanced, chronologically speaking, times. It is enough to make one stand athwart history yelling stop.

A day after Rep. John Murtha introduced a resolution calling for the removal of American troops from Iraq, House Republicans countered by agreeing to take a vote on the withdrawal resolution. Murtha raised. Republicans called. We'll find out who is bluffing, and who holds the best hand, tonight. Politics is more exciting than any card game because the stakes are so much greater.

UPDATE: It turns out the Republicans folded before the cards were dealt. The withdrawal resolution the House will be voting on will not be Murtha's, which calls for troop removal "at the earliest practicable date," but a Republican strawman, which demands that "the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." Murtha, appearing on Hardball today, was furious and called the imitation resolution "ridiculous" and "reprehensible." It is and it is.

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised," Democrat John Murtha said Thursday. "Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME." This was not Henry Waxman speaking. Murtha voted against abortions at military facilities, against an International Criminal Court, in favor of repealing the District of Columbia's gun prohibition, and in favor of the Iraq war authorization. Murtha served in the Marine Corps for 37 years, rising to the rank of colonel. He's a Vietnam vet. He represents blue-collar America in Western Pennsylvania.

Rod Dreher noted on NRO's Corner that while listening to Murtha's emotional speech, "I could feel the ground shift." "If tough, non-effete guys like Murtha are willing to go this far, and can make the case in ways that Red America can relate to--and listening to him talk was like listening to my dad, who's about the same age, and his hunting buddies--then the president is in big trouble," Dreher opined. "I'm sure there's going to be an anti-Murtha pile-on in the conservative blogosphere, but from where I sit, conservatives would be fools not to take this man seriously." Some fools have already started. A site called Chapomatic rails about Murtha's "lack of spine." Michael Fitch labels Murtha "some pansy politician." If only Murtha were a war hero like the president and vice president, then Bush camp followers wouldn't be so quick to characterize him as a spineless "pansy."

"Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors," Warren Community College professor John Daly emailed freshman Rebecca Beach. The hate-filled missive came in response to Beach's role in organizing an on-campus speaking event featuring Lt. Col. Scott Rutter, a veteran of both Iraq wars. Daly labeled Beach's promotional literature "fascist propaganda" and "extremely offensive," and promised to "boycott" her event. "I am also going to ask others to boycott it," Professor Daly added. The lecture takes place at the New Jersey college tonight, with or without the presence of Professor Daly, who issued a final threat to Miss Beach: "I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your won't dare show their face on a college campus."

Writer Michael Kinsley labeled the Roe v. Wade decision "constitutional origami." Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe wrote that "the substantive judgment on which [Roe] rests is nowhere to be found." Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized Roe v. Wade before her elevation to the court. "Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict," she wrote in 1985. In a devastating collection of more than a dozen quotes from prominent liberals, Tim Carney demonstrates that pro-choice advocates, in moments of candor, recognize that Roe v. Wade invented, rather than found, rights in the Constitution. When Samuel Alito wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," he wasn't saying anything different than Richard Cohen, Alan Dershowitz, Cass Sunstein, and other honest pro-choicers who cheer the ends but lament the means of Roe v. Wade.

No more bye weeks. The season before the postseason has arrived. Make your picks in the comments section. Home teams are in caps. All picks are against the spread. Here are my picks: Panthers -3 over BEARS, Jaguars -4 over TITANS, BENGALS +4.5 over Colts, PATRIOTS -10 over Saints, RAMS -9 over Cardinals, FALCONS -6 over Bucs, Raiders +6 over REDSKINS, Lions +8 over COWBOYS, GIANTS -6.5 over Eagles, Dolphins +2 over BROWNS, NINERS +12 over Seahawks, Bills +10 over CHARGERS, BRONCOS -13 over Jets, Steelers -4.5 over RAVENS, Chiefs -6.5 over TEXANS, and, on Monday Night Football, PACKERS -4 over Vikings. Enter your selections below.

On China, George W. Bush is not his father's son. Remember George H. W. Bush's tepid condemnation of China's crackdown in Tiananmen Square? President Bush's subsequent support of "Most Favored Nation" trading status for China? Today, on the eve of his visit to China, the son of Richard Nixon's envoy to China pointed to Taiwan, the free island coveted and claimed by the totalitarian mainland, as a model that China might aspire to become. "By embracing freedom at all levels," George W. Bush declared from South Korea, "Taiwan has delivered prosperity to its people and created a free and democratic Chinese society." He then challenged Red China to become more free, more open, more democratic. George W. Bush's challenge to the Chinese may be more displeasing to the ears of party bosses than the rhetoric of past U.S. presidents, but it's not like he didn't warn them that 43 was different from 41--and 42, 39, and 37 for that matter.

Pressure, from Main Street to Capitol Hill, is building for U.S. forces to leave Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wants to stay in Iraq until Iraq can sustain a democracy. He explained Tuesday, "We must be careful not to give terrorists the false hope that if they can simply hold on long enough, that they can outlast us." Making a similar point, Majority Leader Bill Frist proclaimed yesterday that America doesn't need an exit strategy in Iraq, America needs a victory strategy. Rumsfeld and Frist seem to be saying that the attainment of a clear objective, rather than an arbitrary box on the calendar, should be the deciding factor regarding when it's time to end a military campaign.

But what constitutes victory in Iraq? And does our victory depend less on the performance of American soldiers than it does on the good citizenship of Iraqis? These are important questions. I don't know the answers. I'm hoping that the readership does--or at least has some ideas on the subject.

What is your threshold for victory in Iraq?
A. We already achieved victory when we ousted Saddam Hussein's government
B. Victory will be achieved if a regime that is friendly to U.S. interests remains in power
C. Victory will be achieved if we establish a free, stable, and democratic Iraq
D. Both B & C
E. Victory will be achieved if we cripple the terrorists within Iraq and set up a beachhead of democracy in Iraq that spreads throughout the region
F. Fill in your own answer

Alaska's Ted Stevens vowed to resign from the Senate if that body "decides to discriminate against our state." He added, "I don't kid." According to the Sierra Club, the Senate Appropriations Committee has removed funding provisions for two "bridges to nowhere" that Alaska's senior senator was so exercised about. One of the bridges, which would have cost about $300 million and rivaled the Golden Gate Bridge in size, would have connected a few thousand people to an island of fifty people. Now, it seems, the bridge to nowhere truly is a bridge to nowhere. I hope Senator Stevens is a man of his word.

Dan Flynn (that's me!), Morris, and Homer Fong are the threeway winners of week ten's AYRFSF pool. The champs sported 10-4 records. The underdog Packers, Texans, and Niners did it for me. Fong benefited from the underdog Vikings, Niners, and Cowboys. Morris rode favorites to victory, including road favorites Denver and New England. Home teams and visitors split at 7-7 on the week, while favorites posted an 8-5 record (Bucs-Skins was a pick 'em) over the underdogs. Losers: pay homage to Flynn, Morris, and Fong. Morris and Fong: sing your victory song.

President Bush declared "mission accomplished" in May 2003. Thirty months later, there are 159,000 American troops still attempting to accomplish the mission in Iraq. "We have no interest in occupation," President Bush told the world in May 2004. It's November 2005, and U.S. troops still occupy Iraq. In June 2004, President Bush transferred certain governing powers to the Iraqis. Nine months ago, Iraqis elected a government. Last month, Iraqis established a Constitution. Progress is being made, but many Senators, who authorized a war to rid Iraq of WMD and Saddam but not to conduct a multi-year nation-building campaign, want Iraqis (preferably the good Iraqis) to take control of Iraq.

Senators from both parties say that Iraqis must resume responsibility for the security and governance of their country. But the plans they offer to make this happen are all talk and no action. Just as Congress had the power in 2002 to prevent the war by not authorizing it, Congress has the power in 2005 to stop the occupation by defunding it--gradually, suddenly, or otherwise. But, as in 2002, legislators prefer to posture than to exercise their constitutional powers. This profile in cowardice will result in more obituary-page profiles in courage. What's more, sovereignty, stability, and democracy--stated reasons for our continued presence--can't come to Iraq until Iraqis run Iraq. The time is near to take the training wheels off.

"We do not rule out that Mr. Cohen is serving someone's political order designed to present Kazakhstan and its people in a derogatory way," Yerzhan Ashykbayev, a spokesman for the Kazakh government, said yesterday. "We reserve the right to any legal action to prevent new pranks of the kind." The Mr. Cohen he refers to is comedian Sasha Baron Cohen, aka Staines, UK-based white rapper Ali G, aka Austrian homosexual club kid Bruno, aka Kazakhstani state-television reporter Borat. It is this last character, who depicts Kazakhstan as a backwater of sibling rape, anti-Semitism, and political killings, that has the Kazakhstan government upset.

While Ali G has landed interviews with international figures such as Boutros-Boutros Ghali, Borat has caused an international incident in enraging Kazakhstan. So which one of Sasha Baron Cohen's alter-egos rules the world? Ali G, who once asked Buzz Aldrin what it was like to walk on the sun? Borat, who displayed peculiar pictures of himself and his sister to a pair of Old South wine connoisseurs? Or, the dark horse, Bruno, who coaxed a group of college muscleheads on spring break to take their shirts off and get rowdy for the cameras only to reveal that he worked for Austrian Gay TV? Cast your votes.

Conservatives were worried that Harriet Miers held the same beliefs in 2005 that she held in 1985. Liberals should be worried that Samuel Alito holds the same beliefs in 2005 that he held in 1985. Alito's impressive job application for deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration shows why conservatives now want to hire him for the job of Supreme Court justice.

Pat Robertson quipped that the citizens of Dover, Pennsylvania, who voted out pro-Intelligent Design school board members, might try praying to Charles Darwin instead of Jesus Christ should a disaster strike the town. Richard L. Cravatts, who teaches at Boston University and Tufts University, compares proponents of Intelligent Design to Holocaust deniers. Both sides of this debate have their share of hyperbole, zealotry, and demonization, which leaves little room for actual science.

Darwin's theory of evolution is a theory of evolution, but some of its proponents treat it as a religion of evolution. In doing so, they play the role of dogmatist that they project upon their opponents. Consider the argument of Dr. Cravatts, who writes: "The intelligent design adherents, as well as their creationist predecessors, have aggressively attacked evolutionary theory as being no more valid a set of answers than their own explanation of the origin of life; in fact, they contend that evolution is merely a theory, not scientific fact, and therefore open to vigorous debate and scholarly inquiry." What are Darwinists so afraid of that they would close off "vigorous debate" about, and "scholarly inquiry" into, the theory (there is that inconvenient word again) of evolution?

So insecure are the Darwinists that the Kansas State Board of Education's rather sensible decision to introduce materials into the curriculum critical of the theory of evolution, which, in the board's own words, "do not include Intelligent Design," became a target of attack. "We're becoming a laughingstock," board member Janet Waugh lamented, "not only of the nation but of the world." The Washington Post, the Seattle Times, and other news outlets incorrectly reported that the Kansas board mandated the teaching of Intelligent Design, which it clearly and explicitly does not. "Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution," the board states, "the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory." In other words, the board mandates teaching evolution but does not mandate teaching Intelligent Design. Any number of news reports lead readers to believe the opposite.

Whereas Darwinism contains some holes punched by its critics, Intelligent Design is one big hole. The universe may have been designed by a Supreme Intelligence, but there is no scientific evidence saying this is so. Forget the damage done to science in Intelligent Design's name. By holding matters of faith to scientific standards, Intelligent Design stands to erode belief. Will some Christian next present the scientific case for Jesus walking on water or Moses parting the Red Sea? Just as Darwinists should reflect on the meaning of the word theory, creationists should reflect on the meaning of the word faith.

Supporters of Intelligent Design demote faith to science. Darwinists elevate science to faith. Both camps would be best served by staying within their own realm.

If you didn't catch President Bush's Veterans Day speech, here is the abridged version: I didn't lie about Iraqi WMD. I was just really, really wrong. But so were many Democrats and Europeans, so why are y'all blaming me. Sup wit dat?

To paraphrase Dr. Phil: take ownership of your mistakes, President Bush. Sure, Bill Clinton and German intelligence may have believed that Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. But they didn't invade his country based on this mistaken belief. You did. And since when did incompetence become a virtue? It's hardly vindication to be wrong instead of a liar, particularly when the contested point centers around a war that's resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.

The Wisconsin Innocence Project of the University of Wisconsin Law School helped spring Steven Avery in 2003 after he served 18 years in prison for a rape that he says, and a court ruled, he didn't commit. Now the police are questioning Steven Avery about the murder of photographer Teresa Halbach, whose keys were found in Avery's bedroom and whose charred remains were found in the scrapyard owned by Avery's family. Wow.

Did the law, a la precognition in Minority Report, coincidentally catch up to Avery two decades before Halbach's murder? Could this be, as Avery's brother suggests, "a big setup" in revenge for Avery making the cops look bad? Given that in Avery's exoneration a third-party's pubic hair cancelled out a hair "consistent" with the victim found on Avery and fingernail scrapings genetically consistent with Avery found on the victim, might this be further affirmation of Adam Smith's aphorism: "mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent"? Shouldn't the Innocence Project get a new posterchild for their good work? Did Avery's time in jail for a crime he didn't commit ironically turn him into a man capable of such monstrosities? Might Steven Avery just have really, really bad luck? If Avery really is guilty of this murder, and innocent of the earlier rape, did the law students who helped free him do a good thing? Too many questions. Too many questions. This case makes my brain hurt.

Congress would rather bash oil executives for doing their jobs--increasing profits--than remove barriers to cheaper oil. In an earlier life, when I participated in Republican politics, I worked a primary fight against Charlie Bass, the leader of the 25 House Republicans who killed the provision to allow drilling in the Arctic tundra. In that New Hampshire contest, the conservatives spilt the conservative vote, Bass squeaked by, and he subsequently defeated a sitting congressman. Now, more than a decade later, he has killed one of the few sensible measures government can take to reduce gasoline prices in the long run. Ideas have consequences and elections do too. If only I had stuffed a few more envelopes, delivered a few more lawn signs, or made a few more calls. Oh, well. Economics 101: A greater supply means a lesser price. Politics 101: It's better to bash rich fat white guys than it is to offend hemp-clad ablutophobes who have lots of time on their hands since Jerry Garcia died.

Week ten is here. The pool welcomes first timers and encourages them to make picks. Home teams are in caps. All picks are against the spread. My picks are as follows: Chiefs +2.5 over BILLS, BUCS even over Redskins, Patriots -2.5 over DOLPHINS, Niners +13 over BEARS, GIANTS -9.5 over Vikings, LIONS -3.5 over Cards, JAGUARS -7 over Ravens, Texans +17.5 over COLTS, PANTHERS -9 over Jets, RAIDERS +3 over Broncos, SEAHAWKS -6.5 over Rams, Packers +9.5 over FALCONS, STEELERS -7.5 over Browns, and, in the Monday night game, EAGLES -2.5 over Cowboys. Make your picks in the comments section below.

Happy birthday to all of my fellow Marines, past and present. Like so many great ideas, the U.S. Marine Corps was born in a barroom 230 years ago today in Philadelphia. On 10 November, Marines celebrate heroes recent and distant. In the spirit of Tun Tavern, I raise an a.m. toast to Marines in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and points beyond.

Tuesday's elections are one indicator, the latest poll from NBC/Wall Street Journal is another: President Bush isn't very popular. Just 38 percent of poll respondents approve of his job performance, the lowest mark of his presidency. A majority of poll-takers believe the president misled the nation in making the case for war in Iraq. War hawks, take heart. Large portions of the American public are regularly mistaken. Seven in ten Americans, according to a September 2003 Washington Post poll, believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11. An October 2004 Harris poll found that thirty-seven percent (which is strikingly similar to the percentage of Americans who currently support the president) of Americans believed that several of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis. Now where on earth would anyone get such ideas?

France glorifies the destructive. The patriotic Frenchman is one who celebrates the destruction of France that began in 1789. The French killed their monarchs and then their church. Now, through massive immigration, the French are content to balkanize France. France, above all nations, venerates the alienated intellectual--Michel Foucault, Jean Paul Sartre, Frantz Fanon. "The only way to love France today," French fascist Pierre Drieu La Rochelle declared between the world wars, "is to hate it in its present form." Many French intellectuals of a more fashionable ideological pedigree concur. So do Muslim youths--well, they at least concur with the hating France part. "We hate France and France hates us," one young Muslim Frenchman proclaimed to the UK's Guardian. That no Charles Martel has put an end to the Islamic trashing of France is because France no longer lionizes such multiculturally inconvenient heroes as Charles Martel. How could France given that is has invited in massive numbers of those Martel fought to keep out?

All of those gay cowboys we've been hearing about apparently decided to stay home on Tuesday. A whopping 75 percent of Texas voters approved an amendment to the Lone Star State's constitution that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. No shock: Americans have always defined marriage this way. Someone give the national media the memo: banning gay marriage is not "divisive" or "controversial." It is rare in politics to get 3 out of 4 people to agree on anything, so when such overwhelming percentages approve a measure, that measure is a unifier and not a divider. In passing a constitutional amendment banning so-called gay marriage, Texans join voters in 19 other states who have passed similar measures. No state's voters, in contrast, have approved of redefining marriage to include homosexual unions. Get a clue liberals: nineteen to nothing is not divisive. Gay marriage is.

DocMcG enters the winner's circle for the first time this season. The McG Man rode seven road favorites--the Steelers, Bengals, Panthers, Falcons, Giants, Seahawks, and Colts--to victory to complete the week with a 10-3-1 record. Home teams amassed a woeful 4-9-1 record, while favorites dominated 9-4-1 against the spread. The Bears-Saints pushed. Winner: do your best T.O. endzone imitation. Losers: abase yourselves before your new champion.

There's no "I" in team, but there were quite a few in Terrell Owens's 3 p.m. press conference. Standing beside Drew "next question" Rosenhaus, T.O. appeared saintly delivering his apology to the fans, players, coaches, and anyone else who may have been unintentionally offended by anything he may have said. Blah. Blah. Blah. Rosenhaus insists that his client wrote the apology. I hope not. After hearing T.O.'s lawyerly words of contrition, the Eagles declined to reinstate Owens. Good for them. I'm sick of T.O.'s mouth overshadowing his play--and the play of the other 1,860 players in the NFL. Shut up and catch passes. T.O. couldn't do the former so he won't be doing the latter.

Rosenhaus's arrogance was something to behold. A reporter, obviously frustrated by the uber-agent's refusal to answer questions he didn't like, asked: "What have you done for him other than getting him kicked off the team?" I'm tempted to agree, but then I remember that T.O.'s circus act predates his involvement with Rosenhaus.

Between the whistles, T.O. is a stud. His Super Bowl performance, coming less than two months after breaking his leg, proves this. But his conduct after the whistle has blown, proves that he has no class. Do you remember Owens celebrating on the "star" at Texas Stadium; running Jeff Garcia out of San Francisco; slamming Niners head coach Steve Mariucci; orchestrating a trade to the Baltimore Ravens and then immediately demanding a trade to Philadelphia; demanding a new contract a year into his contract with the Eagles; throwing Donovan McNabb, Andy Reid, and the entire Eagles organization under the bus; and conducting endzone spectacles with Sharpies, pom-poms, and other items extraneous to football?

Terrell Owens should have learned the lesson that two other star receivers (Terry Glenn and Keyshawn Johnson) from his draft class have painfully learned: football is a team sport. The Bucs deactivated Keyshawn and the Pats suspended Glenn--then won the Super Bowl. Now the Eagles, like the Pats and Bucs before them, have decided that they're better off without their number one receiver. T.O., of course, is on another level than Johnson and Glenn. But he's not on so high a level that he can repeatedly insult his coaches and teammates with impunity. No one is.

On Tuesday a court in China sent a married couple, and the wife's brother, to prison for printing Bibles. China is so afraid of God's big black book because it refutes Mao's little red book. "If God had the face of a seventy-year-old man, we wouldn't care if he was back," a Communist Party official explained in the late 1990s. "But he has the face of millions twenty-year-olds, so we are worried."

Is today a harbinger of elections to come? There are elections for statewide office in New Jersey and Virginia, a mayor's race in New York City, and a series of initiatives on the ballot in California. If current polls hold, Republicans will lose in all but New York City's mayoralty election.

Twelve years ago, New York City elected Republican Rudy Giuliani mayor of New York, Virginia elected Republican George Allen governor, and New Jersey elected Christine Todd Whitman governor. Mike Farris, then a folk hero of religious conservatives, did lose his bid for Virginia's lieutenant governor, but for the major offices Republicans posted a clean sweep in 1993. The '93 Republican storm foreshadowed the '94 Republican hurricane. Does an '05 Democrat victory mean bigger things for Democrats in '06? Probably. But they shouldn't count on a reverse repeat of 1994.

Between the '92 presidential election and the '94 elections, Democrats lost a senatorial runoff in Georgia; a Texas special election to replace outgoing U.S. senator (and incoming U.S. treasury secretary) Lloyd Bentsen; scores of officeholders, including two U.S. senators, to the Republican party due to Clinton-inspired defections; and all of the major regularly scheduled '93 off-year contests. Nothing so dramatic has occurred in the lead-up to 2006's elections. Today's elections might prove to be the first dark clouds in the GOP sky foreshadowing a huge storm. Or, they might prove to be like most off-year elections: local contests that have little bearing on people living outside of the states holding the elections.

The colonialists of the 20th century are the colonized of the 21st century. There aren't too many Frenchmen left in Tunis and Algiers. There are quite a few Tunisians and Algerians in Paris. The white man's burden of empire weighs heavy, even upon the progeny of imperialists.

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real," John Kerry forcefully declared a few months before the start of the Iraq war. "Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution."

On Sunday's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert read from this speech, in which Kerry also shared visions of Saddam using nukes against U.S. tropps, and asked Ted Kennedy to comment on on it--without revealing its author to the senator. Kennedy replied that such comments "concerned" him and were among the reasons why Harry Reid and the Democrats called the Senate into closed session last week "to get to the bottom of this investigation." "But, Senator," replied Russert, "what the Democrats stood for on the floor of the Senate in 2002--let me show you who said what I just read: John Kerry, your candidate for president. He was talking about a nuclear threat from Saddam Hussein. Hillary Clinton voted for the war. John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry. Democrats said the same things about Saddam Hussein."

And herein lies the problem of Democrats making a political issue out of bogus pre-war intelligence. Democrats fell for the same bad Iraq intelligence that Republicans fell for. This doesn't excuse the mistakes of Republicans, as some GOP camp-followers invoking golden-oldies Iraq quotes of Kerry, Hillary, and Edwards seem to believe, but it does highlight the complicity of the pre-war Democrats in perpetuating Iraq falsehoods and the hypocrisy of post-war Democrats in slamming Republicans for them.

The Republicans stood for the wrong thing. The Democrats stood for nothing. This ambiguous, pre-war Democrat position (or positioning?)--best exemplified by candidate Kerry's infamous locution, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it"--was politically calculated with the elections of '02 and '04 in mind. Democrats could have opposed the war when doing so meant something, but they chose to punt. Now, in playing the blame game 2,000 American deaths later, political considerations again rule their actions. This administration, which sold a war based on false assumptions, deserves a more principled and effective opposition.

Open-thread Friday is back. Exercise your right to FlynnFiles free speech in the comments section below.

Did you get your "Confirm Alito" lawn signs and bumperstickers yet? Not your style? Perhaps you'll find the forthcoming anti-Alito television ads from People for the American Way more to your liking. The political theatrics are tacky, but what did you expect? The campaign atmosphere surrounding judicial nominations is the inevitable consequence of a legal body usurping a political role. When judges stop acting as legislators and start acting as judges, the American people will quit treating the confirmation process like an election. Until then, get used to such vulgarities as anti-Alito thundersticks and oversized, pro-Alito, styrofoam "number one" hands.

If an adult approached your six-year-old child and asked her if she ever thought about "touching other people's private parts," what would you do? I'd personally take the violent route, but parents in Palmdale, California decided to sue--their local school district. When someone at the mall asks such disturbing questions of your daughter, the pervert gets arrested. When someone at the schoolhouse asks such disturbing questions of your daughter, the perverts win in federal court. Gross.

This is who escorted Washington's most eligible bachelorette to the White House dinner in honor of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles (henceforth known as....the Duchess). Washington's second most eligible bachelorette took this turkey. Despite my proximity to the White House, I passed on the "medallions of buffalo tenderloin, roasted corn, wild rice pancakes, glazed parsnips and young carrots; mint romaine lettuce with blood orange vinaigrette, Vermont camembert cheese and spiced walnuts; petits fours cake, chartreuse ice cream, red and green grape sauce." It's no biggy, KIT from Nightrider, Rik Emmett from Triumph ("Magic Power"), Lance Kerwin of James at 15 fame, and various other totally huge megastars weren't invited either.

ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL!!! Week nine is here. Put your hands in with enthusiasm to the FlynnFiles team pile and yell "FlynnFiles" on three. 1-2-3..."FlynnFiles!!!" Alright, now that that homoerotic gameday ritual is behind us, we can get down to business. Home teams are in caps. All picks are against the spread (that means if they have a "+" next to their nickname they get to lose by less than that number, and if they have a "-" next to their nickname they have to win by more than that number). Here are my picks: Lions -1.5 over VIKINGS, JETS +6 over Chargers, BROWNS -2.5 over Titans, CHIEFS -4.5 over Raiders, SAINTS +3 over Bears, RAVENS +3 over Bengals, BUCS +1.5 over Panthers, JAGUARS -13 over Texans, DOLPHINS +2 over Falcons, NINERS +10 over Giants, CARDS +4 over Seahawks, PACKERS +6 over Steelers, REDSKINS -2.5 over Eagles, and, in a Monday-night repeat of so many previous beatdowns, PATRIOTS +3 over Colts. Make your picks in the comments section below.

On Tuesday, President Bush called for Congress to approve his $7.1 billion initiative to fight pandemic influenza in the wake of news reports about Bird Flu, which has in recent years killed exactly zero Americans. Yes, you read it correctly: it primarily afflicts animals--and non-mammallian animals at that--and has yet to take the life of a single American. But it is in the news a lot, and politicians have to act as if they're rescuing us. When you don't die from Avian Flu, be sure to send a card to President Bush thanking him for saving your life.

The state of California on Tuesday charged former pizza deliveryman and current convicted rapist Chester D. Turner killing ten women. Turner's DNA matches the sperm found in all ten of the victims. But Turner's lawyer John Tyre contends that the evidentiary handicap of his client's DNA finding its way into the bodies of ten murdered women doesn't mean he's guilty. "If it is his DNA it indicates he had sex with these women some time prior to them dying."

In Washington, DC the calendar says November but the thermometer reads summer--or Indian summer at least. The heat generated by the District's most famous industry may have something to do with the unseasonable warmth.

On Monday, President Bush transformed a draining fever into an adrenaline burst by nominating Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Advantage Republicans. On Tuesday, Democrats countered by shutting down the Senate to push for an investigation into the Iraq war. Advantage Democrats. Just as Bush changed the subject--from the 2,000th war death, a disastrous Supreme Court nomination, and the indictment of a key administration official to the nomination of a strong conservative to the Supreme Court--Democrats changed the subject from Alito to the unpopular Iraq war. What will the Republicans do on Wednesday to try to regain the momentum? We'll find out.

It's hot in Washington, and it isn't even a federal election year. How high will the mercury get next year before the congressional elections? During presidential primary season in '08? The general election? The forecast is: it's hot, and it will only get hotter.

Wayne Gro and ASDF return to the winners circle, posting 9-5 records for week eight's AYRFSF pool. Another tough week, as the NFL heavyweights Pittsburgh, New England, and Philadelphia failed to cover. Favorites and underdogs split, while home teams took eight of fourteen from visitors. Gro made gutsy calls in taking the underdog Pack, Fish, and Bills. Ditto for ASDF, who called it for DaBears, Bills, and Fish. Just one question for Gro: why didn't you make a pick in the Lions-Bears contest? What might have been, Gro, what might have been! Losers: congratulate, emulate, don't hate. Winners: pontificate, celebrate, and, if need be, regulate.

Journalists seeking comment from the 90-year-old mother of Samuel Alito reminds me of the media hounding Mel Gibson's octogenarian father to discredit the filmmaker. It goes overboard.

"Of course he's against abortion," Rose Alito explained of her son from her New Jersey home. Liberals, of course, interpret this to mean Alito will automatically vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I hope he will. I think he will. But the information passed on by his 90-year-old mother doesn't tell us so. For Sam Alito is a jurist and not a legislator, and his past decisions prove that he conducts himself as such.

Conservatives and liberals view the Constitution differently. The former reads the text; the latter acts as if it were not there. Because liberals substitute their own whims for the words of the Constitution, they imagine that conservatives do this too. Some do. But true conservatives don't. Judge Alito ruled on two important abortion cases. In each case, Alito relied on law rather than whim to guide him.

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito ruled in Casey's favor at the appellate level. He saw nothing unconstitutional about a Pennsylvania law that required spousal notification in event that a wife sought to abort her husband's child. Many disagree with such a law. No one, including Judge Alito, can find where it's prohibited by the Constitution. Several judges, including five Supreme Court justices, did find that they personally disagreed with the Pennsylvania laws regulating abortion and then constructed a chain of reasoning to justify negating the will of the people of Pennsylvania.

In Planned Parenthood v. Farmer, Alito concurred with the decision to strike down New Jersey's ban on partial-birth abortions. A Supreme Court precedent made in Stenberg v. Carhart, rather than Alito's personal view ("Of course he's against abortion"), guided his decision. Although the media has played up Alito taking the pro-life side in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, journalists have said very little about the judge's concurrence with the pro-choice side in Planned Parenthood v. Farmer. Some facts, I guess, ruin a good story.

It is clear, at least when it comes to abortion, that Alito decides based on an honest interpretation of law rather than a dishonest embrace of personal preference (I think he was wrong to value the opinion of the Supreme Court over the text of the Constitution in the Farmer case, but my side has lost that argument over precedent for now). One can't say the same for the judges lionized by Alito's Democratic critics on the judiciary committee.

Samuel Alito, I sense, will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. His personal view of abortion, as divulged by the source who knows him best, will not factor into the decision he makes. The text of the Constitution will. All of this is because he understands that he is a judge and not a legislator.

...prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's name would regularly appear in sentences alongside Torquemada and Joe McCarthy.

...we'd know the exact number of months and the exact amount of money spent on the investigation, information that would invariably be followed by the taunt: "And all Fitzgerald got was one second-tier official."

...the ACLU and other left-wing groups would be in hysterics over judges jailing journalists, and journalists revealing their sources.

...the CIA agent's meddling in a domestic political battle would be likened to the CIA's involvement in the internal politics of various Third-World nations. Words like "coup" would be loosely tossed about.

...Lanny Davis, Paul Begala, and Geraldo Rivera would be bombarding the airwaves with statistics on the infrequency of perjury prosecutions, the political motivations of the prosecutor, and why covering up a non crime--and lying to a prosecutor about a non crime--really isn't a crime.