If you light up an American flag this Fourth of July, the police will leave you alone but your neighbors will go Gramercy Riffs all over you. If you light up some jumping-jacks, M-80s, and Roman candles, your neighbors will cheer you but the police will arrest you. No rights for rednecks.

"Let's examine the claim that traditional marriage lacks support in the court of public opinion," James Dobson writes in an excellent piece for CNN.com. "As it always does when conservative issues are being debated, the liberal press produced a series of trumped-up polls indicating the issue was of no interest nationally. However, there was another 'poll' that the media completely ignored. In fact, there were 19 of them. They represented the 19 states in which voters overwhelmingly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman." Though these states lie disproportionately within the Bible Belt, Michigan, Hawaii, and Oregon also have passed measures affirming traditional marriage. Even in Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal of the fifty states, "gay marriage" proponents are feverishly working to stop a ballot question on the subject from appearing before voters.

Dobson notes that the media largely ignored news of the twentieth state, Alabama, affirming marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, even as it played up a failure in the U.S. Senate to pass a constitutional amendment defending marriage as marriage, i.e., one man, one woman committing to live as husband and wife. "A search of the database Nexis revealed that not one reference to this dramatic vote in Alabama was published in the print versions of The New York Times or Washington Post," Dobson writes. "There was virtually no mention of the story in other national newspapers. Yet, each of them devoted considerable coverage to the Senate's defeat of the Marriage Protection Amendment."

"Not one state has chosen by popular vote to permit marriages between homosexuals," Dobson notes. "Support for the family has been affirmed in every instance." Yet, journalists describe the issue as divisive (it's hard to think of a more unifying issue), ignore the many defeats of homosexual activists, and highlight a lonesome failure of pro-marriage supporters in the U.S. Senate. One can't wish public opinion away. Many, with printing presses and broadcast studios, can.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
--The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America, July 4, 1776

I have never smoked a cigarette, voluntarily or involuntarily. But the surgeon general insists that I have. Surgeon General (Who's the Surgeon Colonel?) Richard Carmona claims that all Americans engage in "involuntary smoking" through second-hand tobacco smoke. Such Orwellian phraseology naturally leads to interventionist conclusions. "Nonsmokers need protection through the restriction of smoking in public places and workplaces," Carmona maintains in a new report. I'd rather protection from meddlers like Carmona. Spread the word: smoking is healthier than fascism.

When the New York Times, and other media outlets, revealed the covert CIA status of Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, Senator Chuck Schumer said the revelation "not only put an agent's life in danger, but many of that agent's sources and contacts." Former CIA agent Larry Johnson called the outing "a betrayal of national security." "Her life has been put at risk. The people that she was working with overseas who were spies, they are potentially at risk. You could potentially have people dead because of this," the spook-turned-talking-head opined. This guy, touting Wikipedia citations, states on his blog that the administration's outing of Plame "deliberately endangered national security," "greatly enhanced the likelihood of nuclear weapons proliferation," and was "a crime of incalculable magnitude." Perhaps the post also explained how blowing Plame's cover caused cancer, but I got bored and stopped reading. Now that the Times has made public other classified material, such as a classified program monitoring the terrorist money trail and classified plans to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, where are these outraged voices?

More than a foot of rain has fallen on the DC-area the last few days. A voice, sounding something like James Earl Jones, tells me to break into the National Zoo and gather up two of everything. I refuse. Instead, inspired by hackneyed FM playlists whenever skies turn gray, I come up with a list of the best "rain" songs ever.

10. Rain in the Summertime, The Alarm
9. London Rain, Heather Nova
8. Who'll Stop the Rain?, Creedence Clearwater Revival
7. South Central Rain, REM
6. Rain Street, The Pogues
5. Red Rain, Peter Gabriel
4. A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall, Bob Dylan
3. Rain, The Beatles
2. Purple Rain, Prince
1. The Rain Song, Led Zeppelin

Where did I go wrong? What did I leave out? Remember, the song must have the word "rain" in the title, so offer "Love, Reign O'er Me" at the risk of subjecting yourself to ridicule. For different reasons, offer "It's Raining Men" also at the risk of ridicule (Quick: what famous sidekick co-wrote "It's Raining Men"?).

What is the proper relationship between a republic and secrecy?

This is a tough and interesting question that will likely be the subject of debate in the wake of media exposes of U.S. war policies. If the people rule, should the people also know? Or, are some bits of information too harmful to the public's interest for popular consumption?

The New York Times behaves as though America has no secrets that it is obligated to respect. It is an information gathering (and disseminating) institution, after all, so their allegiance is to truth, as they see it, and not to nation. Sometimes the two conflict. And in the spirit of transparency, the Times has outlined a secret executive-branch program that monitors the financial transactions of people suspected of involvement with al Qaeda. "Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified," the controversial piece reveals. Elsewhere, the Times published U.S. plans for troop reductions in Iraq. The newspaper bases its frontpage story on "a classified briefing at the Pentagon" and describes the information as a "closely held secret." Not anymore. Al Qaeda, and other anti-American forces in Iraq, had no mole within the Pentagon meeting, but they now know this important classified information nonetheless.

But the American people, too, now know this information, and perhaps that is the argument the Times's editors would make in justifying the publication of war secrets: an informed public, rather than a shut-out public, better serves the interests of good government. The masthead doesn't say "all the news that's fit to print" for nothing.

But what's "fit" to print?

Should not the elected representatives of the people, rather than unelected guardians within the press, determine what war strategies should and shouldn't be out there for all to see? There is one striking parallel between the actions of the New York Times regarding the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism on the one hand, and the actions of American Communists in government during the Cold War on the other. Historians Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes, in their book In Denial: Historians, Communism & Espionage, write:

"The American people, through the Constitution and under laws enacted by Congress, invested in Presidents Roosevelt and Truman authority to share or not share the nation's secrets with our allies. They did not invest that authority in Harry White, Theodore Hall, Alger Hiss or Lauchlin Currie. These men never went before American voters to ask for this authority or to account for their actions, but arrogated to themselves the right to give secrets to a foreign power. They betrayed the American people and the Constitution. Moreover, not one of them had the courage to admit what he had done and accept the consequences. Why admire and apologize for them?"

How does this apply to the New York Times? The American people didn't vote for Bill Keller or Michael Gordon or Eric Lichtblau or James Risen. The American people have neither entrusted the Times to craft our war plans nor empowered them to declassify war strategy.

Despite calls for criminal prosecution of writers and editors of the New York Times, no journalist will go to jail for this. They caused harm? Yes. They got the story? Yes. One can fault the ethics of the former, but that the latter is the raison d'etre of journalists seems a settled question. And that is where the analogy between Times scribes and Communist infiltrators falls apart. Federal employees owe allegiance to the government. Writers owe their allegience to the truth. There are other universal allegiances--to the common good, to humanity, to country--but these are different from the loyalties peculiar to these professions.

Rather than jail writers for openly shining a light on the truth, why not pursue shady government employees who made America's secrets public, but not their own names? At least Messrs. Gordon, Lichtblau, and Risen attached their names to the publication of classified information. The government employees, past and present, who gave them that information didn't have the courage to do just that. Might that have something to do with the blatant illegality, and shamefulness, of their acts? Even those who decry secrecy find it useful.

More ways to communicate, less real communication; more porn, less sex; more time for a social life, fewer friends; transportation makes the world smaller, its people are further apart--the Washington Post provides depressing information on growing social isolation in America.

Perhaps more Bozo than bin Laden, five American and two immigrant Muslims, allegedly with dreams of taking down the Sears Tower, have been arrested in Miami. Enemies within can be more dangerous than enemies external, as the Ryder Truck bombing in Oklahoma City and the 7/7 London bombing suggest. Might we have viewed them as Bozos too had they been caught before they had performed their terrible deeds?

When it is "degraded" beyond the point of serviceability. When it "couldn't be used" for its purpose. When it is "unfilled." When it is "assessed to exist" and not known to exist. In short, a weapon of mass destruction is not a weapon of mass destruction when it cannot cause mass destruction.

Nike's advertising campaign featuring English soccer star Wayne Rooney painted with St. George's Cross has sparked an uproar. When England figures out that the cross on its flag symbolizes Christ, and a Christian martyr murdered because of his allegiance to Christ, the outrage will certainly grow! Soccer aside, there is no national religion in England. St. George's Cross is a reminder that this wasn't always so. It's also a reminder that England was once a nation.

The Nike advertisement, with Rooney's bloody, warrior pose, is an inconvenient historical allusion to the appropriation of St. George's Cross as a national symbol during the Crusades. The King of England, another pointless appendage, used to be known as the "Defender of the Faith." And sure, there's still a "Church of England," but it seems to have as much to do with Christianity as Prince Charles has to do with defending the faith. Not only does the English national flag represent the Christian faith, it represents a fighting Christian faith. Can't have that in multicultural England Great Britain, can you?

It's not that the English are afflicted with a particularly bad case of cultural amnesia. Switzerland, Greece, and all of Scandanavia incorporate the cross of Christ in their national flags. Christmas and Easter aside, does anyone go to church in, say, Helsinki any longer? These flags are relics, not unlike the Parthenon, of an earlier time, a distant faith.

According to a recent survey, a majority of the population of Great Britain reports "never" or "practically never" attending church. What, other than the past, do the crosses of Saints George, Andrew, and Patrick stand for in the Union Jack? The Cross of St. George certainly doesn't represent the people who live in England now--not the Sikhs at the airport, not the Pakistani "chippers" hawking yucky late-night snacks to drunks, and, most interestingly, not the ethnic English who have turned from the ancient faith.

But that's not all the English have turned their backs on. "I believe that when a country loses so much respect for itself that it can no longer even be identified by its historically correct name, insecurity and lack of respect filter down to its inhabitants," actress Jackie Collins wrote last year of the rage of substituting the inclusive "Britain" for the exclusive "England." Collins noted that the loss of national identity was breeding "a whole country of self-loathers." Unfortunately, when you try to make the whole world England, England becomes the whole world's homeland. Such a mish-mash of people could never stand for St. George's Cross, and the English are far too aware of manners to inject religion into mixed company. Thus, the English national flag is rarely spotted. Perhaps someday the Union Jack, which St. George's Cross is camouflaged within, will face a similar fate of obscurity, to be supplanted by insignia of national identity of all the peoples of the English Empire who now call London home.

The English are a stubborn people. They retain a monarchy without power just for the symbolism. They call themselves "England" after abolishing England as a national entity in favor of morphing together with Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland into something called the "United Kingdom" (It is neither!). And, of course, the English fly a standard--on the rare occasions (usually during World Cup time) when they do fly St. George's Cross--that doesn't represent them.

There is something pleasingly conservative in all this. Waving St. George's Cross in Notting Hill, like reading the Second Amendment in a Yale constitutional law class, makes people remember their national heritage, an inheritance that's apt to make some squeamish. Be ashamed of Cromwell. Be ashamed of the Spice Girls. But be ashamed of Shakespeare? Newton? Thomas Becket? Be ashamed of the flag that flew over their heads?

St. George's Cross gets taken out from the attic every four years to rally England during the World Cup, just as the Second Amendment gets unredacted every four years to win votes at election time. As American courts no longer recognize a "right" to keep and bear arms, the English no longer recognize the meaning of that peculiar cross on their flag. Did the universal symbol for Jesus Christ appear on their flag by coincidence? The things most obvious, like the meaning of a giant cross standing alone on a white flag, are often the things least understood.

So what would be a more fitting emblem for an English national flag? A giant soccer ball? Big Ben? Doctor Who's Tardis? A shadow outline of John Cleese doing a silly walk?

Perhaps this last one works best. The only thing sillier than a national flag for a nation-that-isn't, is a nation-that-isn't flying a flag that represents some other nation, but not their nation (that is no longer a nation anyhow).

"There is not one of them who, if he chanced to discover the difference between falsehood and truth, would not prefer his own lie to the truth which another had discovered. Where is the philosophe who would not deceive the whole world for his own glory?"
--Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Confessions, 1782

Al Qaeda appears to have taken two American servicemen hostage in Iraq. American servicemen have hundreds of al Qaeda terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Certainly you've noted that the two groups treat their captives in a very different manner? The Americans feed and clothe the al Qaeda prisoners, and provide them shelter, medicine, and religious materials. Al Qaeda murders American prisoners. Every good person hopes this fate will not come to the two U.S. servicemen captured by al Qaeda. Every intelligent person expects that it will.

The media and human rights groups treat America and its enemies differently as well. Certainly you have noticed this too? Minor indignities perpetrated by Americans against suspected terrorists, such as female interrogators brushing against prisoners, generate headlines and organizational protests. Al Qaeda murders don't elicit such sustained outrage. And, as one argument posits, that's the way it should be: we should neither expect equal things from American servicemen and al Qaeda terrorists nor would protesting terrorists in the West result in improved al Qaeda behavior the way protesting America in the West influences America's military behavior for the better. That's perhaps the best argument (there are good counterarguments) for this glaring double standard.

Another double standard deserves more discussion, and more outrage. In the Arab world, protest against America is frequent but impotent. Protest against al Qaeda, on the other hand, could be potent but is almost non-existent. If the critical introspection that is pervasive (to a fault) in every Western nation exists in the Arab world at all, it does so behind closed doors. Vocal Arab dissidents are usually Arab immigrants.

Why do Westerners often protest comparatively minor offenses while Arabs occasionally celebrate absolutely massive atrocities? Could it be that the two different standards prevail because two different religions prevail? The West, though much of it operates as if in a post-Christian age, still retains Christ's imprint: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If such a maxim exists in Islam, it carries little weight among the Arabs who follow that ancient creed. The true religion of peace is the one that embraces the Golden Rule.

It is the absence of the Golden Rule that fosters Arab indifference to beheadings, suicide attacks upon civilians in pizza parlors, and rail-station bombings. It is the presence of the Golden Rule that triggers Western offense at Abu Ghraib and other American military misdeeds.

Quick, somebody get the ACLU to sue the ACLU. The organization has proposed a gag order on its employees from discussing internal workings of the group. So much for civil liberties! New York's attorney general's office has expressed its concerns to the ACLU about the proposed anti-whistleblower policy. ACLU attorneys have defended the Ku Klux Klan, pedophiles, terrorists, and other villains. It's time for the organization to get on the side of truth, justice, and the American way and sue itself.

Cue the theme song from the Twilight Zone. Put on your tinfoil hat. Get the flowchart ready. Bobby Kennedy's kid outlines a headspinning conspiracy theory--complete with more than 200 footnotes--alleging that the GOP stole the White House in the 2004 election. "I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004," Robert F. Kennedy writes in Rolling Stone. "Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election." One gets the impression upon reading the piece, mostly inspired by the disparity between exit-poll predictions of a Kerry victory and the actual vote count awarding a Bush victory, that it wouldn't be diffucult to persuade Mr. Kennedy that any Republican electoral victory came by way of fraud.

The Left had a bad week. Not as bad a week as Ron Burgandy had when he famously uttered "milk was a bad choice," but it was pretty bad. How bad? Michael Barone details in an excellent column in the Wall Street Journal.

If crime is caused by poverty, how does one explain the strange case of Michael Pickens? Cornwall, Connecticut police arrested Michael Pickens, son of billionaire T. Boone Pickens, for burglary after finding him hiding inside a fishing store and a cache of store items outside the shop. People are poorer in New Dehli than New York and were poorer during the Great Depression than during the 1970s. The crime rate is higher in New York than New Dehli and the crime rate was higher during the 1970s than during the Great Depression. Poverty is not the cause of crime, though crime can be the cause of poverty.

"I learned a lot of things from Bill Buckley, but the best thing he taught me was how to be a Christian." Joe Sobran wrote these words in a beautiful column this week in praise of William F. Buckley Jr.

I once pulled off the coup of having both Buckley and Sobran speak at the same conference. That's about the closest (I sense) that the two have been in many, many years. After all, Buckley had bitterly denounced Sobran, fired him from National Review after 21 years, and labeled his writings "contextually anti-Semitic" (though he noted that "those who know him know that Sobran is not anti-Semitic").

For his part, Sobran labeled Buckley "insincere." "The book was written in a sort of nervously meandering prose that sounded as if the author had a gun at his head," Sobran noted of Buckley's In Search of Anti-Semitism. "It should have come with a ransom note." "His conservatism is a conservatism of image, show business, public relations, stock mannerisms; big words, anfractuous grammar, repetitious Latinisms, implying a depth that isn't there," Sobran opined of his longtime boss.

But all that, hopefully, is history. Buckley and Sobran share much in common: a religion, an infectious gregariousness, twenty years of history, a mastery of words, and the fact that wherever either one is, he is probably the smartest man in the room. How ironic, too, that in remaking National Review into a publication so utterly foreign to the National Review Joe Sobran knew, Buckley too now finds himself out of step with the fortnightly's prevailing obsessions. One waits, any day now, for when William F. Buckley's delayed criticisms of the Iraq venture will land him on NR's "Unpatriotic Conservatives" list with Joe Sobran.

Observing both men up close--Buckley for just a few hours, Sobran on numerous occasions--I came away impressed by how friendly and patient both men were with the young people who made up the audiences for their speeches. Buckley, perhaps accustomed to such treatment, handled numerous bumbling admirers with kindness and toleration. Sobran, through his cheerfulness and wit, made numerous admirers, bumbling and otherwise.

Sure, Buckley went to Yale while Sobran went to Eastern Michigan; sure, Buckley drinks French wine while Sobran smokes Dutchmasters; sure, Buckley comes from money while Sobran comes from Ypsilanti. But the formerly feuding men are alike in so many other ways. And perhaps that was the problem. When we are alike, differences become more difficult to take. We easily understand why alien people hold thoughts so at odds with our own. But when someone in the same office, fighting for the same cause, kneeling in the same church sings from a different sheet of music, take cover.

In his current column, Sobran writes about Buckley: "When I had serious troubles, he was a generous friend who did everything he could to help me without being asked. And I wasn't the only one. I gradually learned of many others he'd quietly rescued from adversity. He'd supported a once-noted libertarian in his destitute old age, when others had forgotten him. He'd helped two pals of mine out of financial difficulties. And on and on."

This is heartwarming, as the break between these two was heartwrenching. Like so many National Review readers, I admired both men. Why did we have to take sides: Buckley or Sobran?

I caught Ann Coulter on the Tonight Show. A+, home run, two thumbs up--choose whatever cliche you care to, Coulter did an outstanding job on Jay Leno's program. She was funny, intelligent, likeable, articulate, and a thousand other things without being obnoxious. Jay Leno discussed the controversy on everyone's mind regarding Coulter's lousy, meanspirited attack on a group of the 9/11 widows: "the words you've used have overshadowed the point you were trying to make." Coulter, for her part, seemed perplexed by the controversy: "I'm calling liberals 'Godless'! They're cool with that. Just don't criticize the Jersey Girls."

Coulter made the larger point that liberals choose victims as spokesmen--the Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, Christopher Reeve--so that the positions they advocate will be immune from criticism. It's a cheap trick, and it makes one wonder about the complicity liberals have in causing the pain that inevitably comes from getting thrown into such contentious debates. The larger point seemed sensible even if the controversy demonstrating it made Coulter look insensible.

Perhaps the best part of Coulter's appearance was the audience. It's the first time I remember a major conservative figure appearing on a television talk show and hearing the audience cheer enthusiastically. This wasn't the stacked, firebreathing audience of a Bill Maher or Phil Donahue. It was actually pro-Ann, or at least a vocal minority made it seem that way. Leno was critical but fair, and, in perhaps the biggest surprise of the evening, liberal comic George Carlin pretty much kept his mouth shut during Ann's appearance.

After enduring a tough week, Coulter spent Wednesday on the Tonight Show and learned that her book (buy Godless here) will be #1 on the New York Times hardcover nonfiction bestseller list this week. Had she not offered such inflammatory fodder on 9/11 widows, would the Tonight Show and the Today show have come calling? In other words, had she made her reasonable point about not using victims as spokemen in a reasonable manner no one would be talking. As talented a writer as Ann is, maybe her true genius lies in marketing.

FlynnFiles benefits from an active, intelligent, and enthusiastic readership. Want to help this site? Here are five things you can do:

1. Click on the advertisements. There are BlogAds to the east, and GoogleAds to the south. Support those who support us.

2. Buy a book, CD, or DVD through a FlynnFiles Amazon link. It needn't be one FlynnFiles has linked to for FlynnFiles to benefit. For every item you buy on Amazon through a FlynnFiles link, this site gets a cut.

3. Participate in the discussion. If you read the site, comment on the site too. FlynnFiles is at its best when readers come out of the woodwork and make their voices heard. Don't be shy.

4. Purchase Intellectual Morons or (and?) Why the Left Hates America through this site. Father's Day approaches. Someone's birthday approaches.

5. Tell five friends about FlynnFiles. Link to an item you enjoyed, and pass it on through an email. Word of mouth (or, more accurately, word of link) is the best way to generate new readers.

"But how is legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."
--Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850

In response to the Kelo decision, some humorous people petitioned the government of Weare, New Hampshire to seize the land of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who had joined court's decision that cities possess the right to confiscate private property for the purpose of transferring that property to other private parties. In the spirit of that shoe-on-the-other-foot stunt, I'd like to see a group of people dig up actress Daryl Hannah's yard and plant potatoes, corn, tomatoes, and other garden crops. When she complains, they should sue her.

Police removed Daryl Hannah from a tree on private property on Tuesday. "I'm very confident this is the morally right thing to do, to take a principled stand in solidarity with the farmers," Hannah explained over her cell phone while perched in the tree. Hannah, along with some other brain-dead and just-plain-evil types, converged on the property to protest its owner's decision to construct a warehouse on the land.

For more than a decade, Ralph Horowitz has looked the other way as squatters used his fourteen acres in Los Angeles to plant gardens. When he decided to build a warehouse--the land is in the middle of an industrial district--the squatters sued him! "I feel that the gardeners have been on the land for 14 years, almost 15 years for free. After 15 years, you say thank you," Horowitz explained to the Associated Press. But they didn't say "thank you." They petitioned the city to block Horowitz from developing the land he owns. They sued. They protested at his home and office.

Horowitz estimates that he pays between $25,000 and $30,000 a month in mortgages, taxes, and other costs associated with the land. Daryl Hannah, and the ingrates growing food on Horowitz's land, pay him nothing. "We've made, in the last three years, enough of a donation to those farmers," Horowitz told the Associated Press. "I just want my land back."

I caught the Bob Taft Club's panel discussion on the question: "Is the Conservative Movement Dead?" Panelists Don Devine and Bruce Bartlett answered "yes" and then immediately sat down. Since those gathered expected something more substantive, both graciously proceeded to give short, but interesting, talks.

Devine, whose refusal to join in a sufficient number of standing ovations during a speech by President Bush resulted in ACU chairman David Keene renouncing their friendship, opined that "the conservative movement is in much more difficult shape today than back when it started in the '60s." Devine cited limited government, traditional values, and a national-interest based foreign policy as the pillars of the conservative movement. Bush, he noted, stands for none of these things, and at best, stands against two of three. Conservatives stand for Bush. Thus, the conservative movement is no more. "It's over," Devine conceded. The best option for conservatives is to "reconstitute."

"The whole conservative movement has been reduced to a subset of the Republican Party," Bruce Bartlett observed. What makes this even worse is that the Republican Party of today has "no substance." Bartlett, who lost a $172,000-a-year foundation job for the crime of writing a book (buy it here) calling George W. Bush an "Imposter" conservative, calls the conservative movement "brain dead." There's "absolutely no intellectual leadership whatsoever." After citing Russell Kirk, F.A. Hayek, and other leading lights of postwar conservatives, Bartlett rhetorically asked, "Who do we point to today?"

What struck me is that both speakers delivering post-mortems on the conservative movement, in contrast to past critics of that movement, defend the history of that movement. They don't attack William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, or much of anything attached to the postwar conservative movement. In other words, neither Devine nor Bartlett is a professional griper. They are cheerful, pleasant people who are movement insiders--or, perhaps more accurately, were movement insiders. They just think the movement is dead, not in name but in fact. Unlike past conservatives critical of the conservative movement, Devine and Bartlett aren't "lovers scorned." They loved the movement. They helped build it. But now it is gone. They are political widowers.

Some guy who writes for Advertising Age named Simon Dumenco wishes death to Godless (buy it here) author Ann Coulter for being "rabidly hateful" and "sub-human." Pot. Kettle. Black. Coulter has made some pretty callous, irresponsible, and indefensible statements too. Perhaps Ann and her enemies share traits that neither is willing to admit. But before drawing too many parallels between Coulter and her enemies, one should take into consideration a key difference: Coulter's more outlandish quotes seem contrived, written or said for the purpose of eliciting controversy. Coulter's critics' more outlandish statements about her seem in reaction, written or said in emotional haste. Whether it's more defensible to say such things while in control or while out of control, is for others to debate.

Want to be a rebel? Than just do as all the rebels do: get a tattoo, or two. A new study claims that a quarter of Americans between the ages of 18 and 50 have a tattoo. Nuthin' against ink, but when half the NBA is doing one thing it's a sign from God that you should do something else.

Tattoos used to serve notice: I'm not like you. Now they send other signals. A tribal band or barbed wire on the arm sends the signal: I'm tough (really I am...okay, I'm not, please don't beat me up). A California license plate let's everyone know: I'm easy. A facial tattoo relays the message: I'm crazy. A shamrock reveals: I drink too much. A badly drawn tattoo declares to the world: I'm on parole.

Many of the people caught up in the tattoo craze are starting to give the real tattoo people a bad name. Or maybe a good name, which is the last thing they want. You see, tattoos were once reserved for true societal rebels: Hells Angels, San Quentin inmates, carnies. Now that everyone's got one, or rather, now that 24 percent of 18 to 50 year-olds have got one, tattoos have lost their meaning. Tattoos are more likely to say "follower," "trendy person," or "bandwagon" than they are to say "rebel."

So what's a real rebel to do?

"Is the Conservative Movement Dead?" That's the provocative question the upstart Bob Taft Club is asking at its event tonight featuring speakers Don Devine and Bruce Bartlett. Check it out if you're in the DC-area. The event takes place tonight at 7 p.m. in Arlington, Virginia at the Leadership Institute (click link for event and RSVP info).

Back, by popular demand, it's open-thread Friday! Say what you want on any subject in the comments section.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the greatest single menace to Americans (and Iraqis) in Iraq, is dead.

The World Cup, which, unlike the World Series, actually features teams from around the world, starts tomorrow. One of the thirty-two countries that fields a team in the tournament is the United States. If that, and the motivating Gatorade ad, aren't enough to get you to cheer for Team USA, this should.

President Bush suggests that immigrants learn Americanese. I kid. I kid. President Bush suggests that immigrants learn English. Before Grecians, Kosovoians, and Hispanos can make it in America, they must speak proper English.

Remember those kids from high school who took "art" and "band," wore dark clothes, wanted people to think they were suicidal without actually being suicidal, and looked like younger, thinner versions of Robert Smith? Well, they have a band. They're called The Yeah, Yeah, Yeahs. And, unlike high school, everything about them is now cool.

They have a cool name that gives props to rock's most copied lyric. They have no bass player, which, given the success of the White Stripes (they are sans bass player) and the demise of Ned's Atomic Dustbin (they had multiple bass players), seems cool these days. And they have a cool new album with a cool title, Show Your Bones (buy it from FlynnFiles), and cool cover art supplied from the winner of a mail-in fan contest. In fact, the entire album is decorated with graphics supplied by their fans.

But the coolest thing about the Yeah, Yeah, Yeahs is the music. And it has to be, given that in the MTV/looks-obsessed age, they still made it despite looking like this (a thousand apologies). A la Nirvana and the Pixies, they have the soft-loud-soft thing down. If you remember their breakthrough single, "Maps," from a few years back, then you know what I'm talking about. Show Your Bones is more polished than the charmingly raw Fever to Tell (buy it here). There are occasional keyboards thrown in and singer Karen O must have spent multiple takes perfecting the vocals to rock imperfection. But it is still loud, and leaves the listener to wonder how all that sound came from one guitarist, an amazing drummer, and a girl's voice. Show Your Bones is 39 minutes of awesome.

"Maps" is a tough song to follow-up, but the Yeah, Yeah, Yeahs have a song of the year candidate in "Cheated Hearts," which seems to be about adultery, or threesomes, or both. The music builds, appropriately, as Karen O sings: "Well I'm taka-taka-taka-taka-takin' it off/And she's taka-taka-taka-taka-takin' it off/And he's taka-taka-taka-taka-takin' it off/And we're taka-taka-taka-taka-takin' it off." A sonic explosion follows in which Karen O declares: "Sometimes I think I'm bigger than the sound." The song hits the radio as a single shortly. Other standouts include "Dudley," the quirky, rollicking, and infectious "Mysteries," and the closing "Turn Into." Are you downloading yet?

"We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man."
--C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 1952

Have you heard the canard about Iraq being safer than Washington, DC? It's brought to you by the same people who brought you tales of Saddam mushroom clouds and Iraqi stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Specifically, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) made the claim that Iraq is safer than Washington, DC, Detroit, New Orleans, and other U.S. hotbeds of crime. Blogs too numerous to list have repeated this falsehood. In the same month that King made this prepostrous claim, the Baghdad morgue received the bodies of 1,398 civilians. On Monday, kidnappers snatched 50 people in Baghdad. On Tuesday, Iraqi police found nine human heads in Hadid. Also on Tuesday, a local Baghdad politician was assassinated. Remember anything like this happening in DC this year, let alone this week? File Congressman King's claim under: truth is the first casualty of war.

Patches is back! Straight from rehab, Patrick Kennedy says that in light of crashing his auto in the darkness of the a.m., he wants to be treated just like an "African-American in Anacostia" caught in a similar situation. Yeah, and this is why he darted off to a Minnesota rehabilitation facility--just like a black guy from Southeast DC--when the heat came down on him. This is why he gave his get-out-of-jail-free line--I'll miss a vote if you arrest me--when the cops stopped him (How might that line work for a brother from the 'hood faced with a field sobriety test?). So when Patrick Kennedy orders an Arnold Palmer instead of a Cape Codder, when he scuttles off to attend a "meeting," when he chain smokes and drinks endless coffee as substitute addictions, cut the man some slack--not because he's a Kennedy, but because that's how you'd treat an African-American from Anacostia fresh out of rehab.

Should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, or, in the less likely event that a Constitutional amendment passes that overturns the court decision--in other words, should the federal government allow the states to make state law on this matter--abortionists will face ten years in prison in Louisiana. The Democrat governor of Louisiana has vowed to sign a bill sponsored by a Democrat state senator banning all abortions, save ones that might save the life of the mother or permanently danger her health. The regional divide on abortion often supersedes the party divide.

First John, then George, now Billy. Okay, okay, Billy Preston wasn't exactly an official Beatle, but his presence at the sessions for the Let It Be album loosened up band tensions and probably added a few months to the Fab Four's lifespan. Sometimes called the "black Beatle" or the "fifth Beatle," Preston was one of two outsiders--the other being fellow keyboardist Nicky Hopkins, who died twelve years ago--to play with both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. Another piece of trivia: he was Saturday Night Live's first musical guest. In addition to such Beatles tracks as "Revolution," "Get Back," and "I Want You (She's So Heavy)," Preston played on some the best Stones' songs, "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" and "Memory Motel," and arguably the best Bob Dylan album, Blood on the Tracks. His last session work appears on Stadium Arcadium, the new Red Hot Chilli Peppers' album. Preston, as his work with the Stones and Beatles proved, could rock. He proved through his own work that he could get funky ("Nothing from Nothing"), go gospel ("That's the Way God Planned It"), and get sappy (he co-wrote "You Are So Beautiful"). Billy Preston, a giant smile escaping from a giant afro, rest in peace.

A fool is said to be someone who repeats a mistake in hopes of a different outcome. The United States has offered Iran nuclear technology in exchange for Iran ceasing to enrich uranium. More than a decade ago, the U.S. was party to much the same agreement with North Korea. We built them nuclear-power plants. They built nuclear bombs anyhow.

You may own your home, but you are not your own landlord. Big Brother is, and he can evict you at whim. This has been the unlawful law of the land, imposed but not legislated, since Kelo v. New London. Of course, this means, at least from the state's perspective, that you don't really own your own property--unless you live in a locale that has reaffirmed private property rights since Kelo. From the property owner's perspective, he does indeed own his own property, which makes incursions upon it by the state for private use theft. Last night, New London, Connecticut's city council voted 5-2 to evict the holdouts from the Kelo case, and confiscate their property to make way for private development. City councilman Robert Pero, a defender of the expropriation, declared: "This was a plan that was well thought out." Lots of thefts are. Usually the most well thought out heist schemes aren't so brazen.

Did you catch the Washington Post op-ed in which a woman blames George W. Bush for her abortion? The forty-two-year-old mother/child killer concedes that "in a sudden rush of passion, I failed to insert my diaphragm." Nevertheless, because the Federal Drug Administration hasn't approved for over-the-counter sale something called "Plan B" that is designed to kill a fertilized egg prior to implantation, the woman contends that "this administration gave me practically no choice but to have an unwanted abortion." Practically no choice, huh?

The writer, identified only as "Dana L.," catalogues the inconveniences that befell her after the inconvenience of her pregnancy. In addition to the difficulty of obtaining "Plan B," Dana L. had to take a day off work, endure a 24-hour waiting period, and walk through a gauntlet of protestors to get to the abortuary. And while surfing "the Internet, most of what I found was political in nature or otherwise unhelpful: pictures of what your baby looks like in the womb from week one, and so on." Yeah, I see how that could be "unhelpful."

Is it surprising that a grown woman capable of ending her baby's life would also be incredibly callous and selfish regarding what she endured? Astounding that euphemisms for abortion, like "Plan B," suddenly become something other than abortion in the newspeak delivered by pro-choice activists? Shocking that someone who won't take responsibility for the results of sex would project the responsibility of her abortion on some distant boogeyman, in this case, the president of the United States? Astonishing, at all, that the writer refused to put her name on her article? No, no, no, and no.

"And to think that, all these years after Roe v. Wade became the law of the land," the piece concludes, "this is what our children have to look forward to as they approach their reproductive years." Yes, that's what our children have to look forward to--the ones who lived.

Whoever says young people are all mindless slackers hasn't met a College Republican. Not all of them look like H.R. Haldeman's younger brother, you know. And some of them think a bit like Abbie Hoffman's smarter brother. The "Global Warming Beach Party" and "Global Cooling Snow Cone" are two street-theater ideas whose time have come, and the College Republicans bring those ideas--when school is in session, at least--to humorless liberals on campuses across America. Bravo. When reason fails, there's always ridicule. The College Republicans aren't called "the best party on campus" for nothing.

Sex and ethnic stereotypes regarding drivers don't hold true. Geographic stereotypes about drivers, on the other hand, seem to hit the mark. Drivers in the northeast, particularly drivers near northeastern cities, cut off other drivers, won't let you change lanes, beep without reason, comandeer two lanes to make a right turn, tailgate, don't use their directionals, regard stop signs as "slow down" signs, and resort to road rage very easily. The GMAC insurance-test results lends statistical credence to my anecdotal observations. Northeastern states dominate the bottom tier of the state-by-state rankings on the test. Western and Midwestern drivers seem to know more about the rules of the road. I took the test (take it here), and barely passed with a 70. Cut me some slack. I am from Massachusetts.

Season six of the Sopranos entered with a bang but went out with a whimper. Sandwiched in between was not a whole lot of meat. This season quite literally started with a bang, as Junior Soprano shot Tony Soprano to conclude the first episode, and, quite literally ended with a whimper, as Phil Leotardo--the best living character--sobbed in his hospital bed. In between, the writers got to moralize by elevating Vito Spatafore's homosexuality to the main theme of Season Six. The season's repeated examples of how the mob destroys the "smaller" people--a credit-card scam wrecking Artie Bucco's restaurant, Eugene Pontercorvo killing himself because of the mob's grip, Adriana La Cerva's ruined mother--thankfully suggested, even if subtly, just how evil the program's heroes are. The season gave us perhaps the worst Sopranos episode ever, Join the Club, but amidst the boredom there was some excitement: Lauren Bacall getting punched in the face, A.J.'s Puerto Rican girlfriend (caliente!), Johnny Sack crying at his daughter's wedding, Christopher shooting a biker he dismissively refers to as "Grizzly Adams." But how did Janice and Bobby get a child so quickly? Where in rural America is a volunteer fire-department made up exclusively of gay men? How does Christopher marry a woman that the viewers have never really met? The Sopranos didn't always make sense in season six. Occasionally, Sopranos writers insert violence as a substitute for weak plot. That cheap trick would have been an improvement on what was less a season finale and more a set-up for the final eight episodes.

Headlines are abuzz over the Quinnipiac University poll that lists Ronald Reagan as the best post-WWII president. Okay, okay. So that's not the headline--at least at non-FlynnFiles news outlets. The headline is that Americans polled by Quinnipiac believe George W. Bush the worst president since WWII. Inspired by Quinnipiac, I've conducted my own poll, of me, to discover who I think the best and worst presidents were since World War II. There's a margin of error in the poll's sampling techniques, so I reserve the right to revise my scientific findings.

The three worst...

BAD: George W. Bush...Iraqis, campaign donors, schoolchildren...no one is safe from his meddling.

WORSE: Jimmy Carter...Would have been truly dangerous had he not been so inept.

WORST: Lyndon Johnson...Vietnam, the Great Society, what's there to like?

The three best...

NOT AS BAD AS THE OTHER GUYS: Dwight Eisenhower...Didn't have a sales gimmick featuring such words as "New," "Fair," "Deal," "Society," or "Frontier." Ended another one of those "Democrat wars." The last bald man elected president.

BETTER: John F. Kennedy...Cut taxes, got tough with the Soviets, wasn't so ambitious with domestic programs as other Democrats (perhaps because most of the bad ideas had been tried by that point). They don't make Kennedys like they used to.

BEST: Ronald Reagan...Slashed taxes, spent the Communists (at least the ones in Europe) into extinction (or at least hybernation), made "USA" chants at sporting events fashionable.

Who am I to disagree with the American people that Ronald Reagan is the best postwar president? He is.

"A choice, not an echo," Barry Goldwater supplied 42-years ago. "An echo, not a choice," Democrats and Republicans give us today. Is it time for a third party? On Iraq, immigration, government spending, and, with the controversy over the FBI raid on Rep. William Jefferson's office, even on congressional immunity from law enforcement, the two parties seem too close for comfort. Ironically--or not--as the parties grow closer together on policy they get further apart through partisanship. "The partisanship has gotten deeper as less separates the governing parties in Washington," Peggy Noonan writes in The Wall Street Journal. "It is like what has been said of academic infighting: that it's so vicious because the stakes are so low."

America is a federal republic. Some Americans don't like this, and try, from time to time, to alter the nation's institutions to make the United States more centralized democracy than federal republic. Occasionally, the enemies of federalism and republicanism succeed in their efforts. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution, revoking a state government's representation in the federal government--Senators--in favor of direct election of upper-chamber representatives from the people of the states, who already had representation through the House of Representatives (Get it? Representatives) is an example of this.

A new effort is afoot along these same lines. Activists are trying to get states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in the presidential election. States--through the electoral college--and not popular majorities choosing the executive officer of the federal government is so, so, so 18th century, so dead white male, so pre-Civil War, so federalist, so republican. Thus, in one sense, they want to do an end-around on the Constitution and, in effect, amend the document without having to go through the burdensome process of doing so. But, in another sense, since the Constitution allows for "faithless electors" and grants legislatures power in deciding electors, the move, if adopted by given states, is perfectly legal--legal, but unwise.

Like a lot of bad ideas, the idea to award electoral votes to the national winner of the popular vote, and not the state winner of the popular vote, is embraced by elected representatives in California. Barry Fadem, a leader in the Golden State drive to eliminate the electoral college, claims: "This is a bill that would allow California to be able to play a role in presidential elections." No, actually it wouldn't. Had California awarded its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote it would have awarded its votes to the candidate who actually lost the state's popular vote in 2004, 1988, and 1976. In its lame attempt to replace federal republicanism with democratic nationalism, this idea disenfranchises the people of an entire state. In negating California's vote when it clashes with the nation's vote, the plan is pro-majority rather than pro-California.

Another consideration involves the introduction of plurality presidents. In the current system of electing a president, the winner must take a majority of votes. Thus, to win the presidency, a candidate must win a majority--270 or more--of the 538 votes that matter. In a direct democracy, a candidate needn't win a majority of votes--unless a runoff system is also introduced--to win the presidency. Despite what historians might tell you about George W. Bush, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B. Hayes, and John Quincy Adams, there has never been a president elected with a minority of votes. To be president, a candidate must win a majority of votes. If the electoral college doesn't produce a majority winner, then the House of Representatives must. But, and this is key, the representatives vote to determine the presidential vote of their state. And the majority winner of the states' votes becomes president.

Even after the experience of 2000, when dolts had to have it explained to them how the president of their government gets elected, some might argue that a measure eliminating the electoral college would be more symbolism than substance. After all, there's only been a few times in history when the popular vote winner has lost the electoral college, or, in Andrew Jackson's case in 1824, lost through the House vote provided for in the Twelfth Amendment. Even if ditching the electoral college is more symbolism than substance, the symbolism would be one suggesting a singular state instead of a "state" of states, or put another way, a federal republic. It would affirm by law the unlawful, and sustained, assault on federalism that, by my count, has been going on for more than 200 years.