Former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards once claimed that the only way he could lose office is if were found in bed with a live boy or a dead girl. Florida Rep. Mark Foley wasn't found in bed with a live boy, but he did send him some peculiar text messages. He resigned from Congress today. Had Foley been a Massachusetts Democrat instead of a Florida Republican he would have had a better shot at waiting out the scandal.

Who is Jimmy Carter to lecture any president about bringing "international disgrace" upon America? Hostages in Iran, Russians on the march in Afghanistan, the Panama Canal give away, and aiding the Sandanistas in Nicaragua were just a few of the unfortunate foreign policy occurences during the disastrous presidency of Jimmy Carter. America sunk to its weakest point in the postwar era when the Man from Plains came to Washington. Is that why he is so popular outside of the United States and so unpopular in it?

Who is toughest? This Russian dude who takes on two ne'er-do-wells? This basketball-court Ali who needs but one punch to repel his nemesis? The Dee-Snyder look-a-like who shows bullies that he's not gonna take it? Cast your ballot in the comments section.

Wayne Sash and myself posted 9-4-1 records on route to becoming week three co-champs of the AYRFSF pool. Congratulate for last week as you speculate on this week. All survival pool participants--Ralph, Wayne Sash, Dennis, Potato Man, DocMcG, and myself--with the exception of Fudgie D. Whale, who went down in flames with the Patriots, survived. The regular pool is open to everyone.

Home teams are in caps. All picks are against the spread. Here are your co-champion's selections: Colts -9.5 over JETS, Chargers -2 over RAVENS, BILLS -1.5 over Vikings, TITANS +9.5 over Cowboys, CHIEFS -7 over Niners, PANTHERS -7.5 over Saints, FALCONS -7.5 over Cards, Dolphins -4 over TEXANS, RAMS -6 over Lions, BENGALS -6 over Patriots, Jaguars -2.5 over REDSKINS, Browns -3 over RAIDERS, Seahawks +3.5 over BEARS, and, on Monday Night Football, Packers +11 over EAGLES. Make your picks in the comments section.

Survival Pool Pick: Atlanta Falcons.

A remake of All the King's Men, winner of 1949's Academy Award for Best Picture, has just been released starring Sean Penn. Acclaimed films, and Pulitzer Prize-winning books for that matter, get remade with regularity. My sense, however--which will be affirmed or refuted upon actually seeing the movie--is that something more is at work with Penn selecting a 57-year-old film for reinterpretation.

All the King's Men is not-so-loosely based on Louisiana governor Huey Long. It tells the story of a demagogue politician and how dangerous it is for a republic when the masses to fall for such a figure. Eventually, the man of the people becomes a man against the people. The Kingfish character becomes a dictator. Is Penn trying to make a subtle statement--that he has made in more overt ways--about George W. Bush? In case audiences miss the message of his portrayal, he invokes in interviews the president by name in relation to the character he plays.

Beyond its perceived contemporary relevance, All the King's Men was selected by Penn, I suspect, for another reason. Robert Rossen, who directed, produced, and wrote the screenplay for the original All the King's Men, was, like Sean Penn's father, a Communist. But then, at least from the perspective of the Hollywood Left, Rossen went bad. Does Penn forgive Rossen? Is Rossen even in need of forgiveness?

John Howard Larson, of Hollywood Ten fame, worried that audiences might interpret the main character in Rossen's film not as Huey Long, but as Joe Stalin. He rounded up a posse of Hollywood Communists, who as a group denounced Rossen. Others had folded under such peer pressure. Rossen was cut from a different cloth. Instead of acquiesing, Rossen shouted: "Stick the whole party up your ass!" That was his way of saying he was no longer interested in membership in the Communist Party.

Though Communists like to portray the postwar years as a time of intolerance against anyone left of center, Robert Rossen's multiple Academy Awards--presented just a few weeks after Joseph McCarthy launched his crusade against Communist infiltration of the government--gives the lie to this myth. Robert Rossen was a Communist. Far from being shunned by Hollywood, Rossen received Tinsel Town's highest honor. Communists, on the other hand, exhibited less broad-mindedness. They attacked Rossen, and chased him from their ranks.

In 1951, the House Committe on Un-American Activities hauled Rossen, as they did Sean Penn's father, before them to testify about Communist influence in the film industry. Initially, Rossen, like Penn, invoked the Fifth Amendment. He didn't name the names of people who chose to hide their political affiliation. The House Committee treated Rossen more respectfully than John Howard Lawson's ad hoc Hollywood Committee had treated him, and Rossen's response--invoking the Fifth Amendment--proved less alienating than his graphic response to the badgering of the Hollywood Committee.

But invoking the Fifth Amendment regarding the activities of acolytes of a foreign power--especially when a satellite of that power was then at war with the United States--neither sat well with filmgoers nor the Hollywood businessmen who financed the films that they flocked to see. Communists, and even former Communists who refused to reveal the covert affiliations of their friends, found commerical impediments to landing work.

When HCUA called again in 1953, Rossen no longer hid behind the Fifth Amendment. He identified nearly five dozen former comrades. Was Leo Penn one of those names? That's a question I'd like to know the answer to.

Hollywood Communists devoured their own. The ghosts of former comrades came back to haunt them. As Ronald and Allis Radosh's Red Star over Hollywood notes, "The party was to find that the bitter fruit of reading people out of its ranks was disillusionment and eventual vengeance."

"Truly, many wicked things have been written on today's sky, worse than things written on New York's subway cars. Certainly many millions of Americans pine in their perverse pleasures, glutted with narcotics, pornography, and insane sensuality. A good many people fret themselves over the rather improbable speculation that the earth might be blown asunder by nuclear weapons. The grimmer and more immediate prospect is that men and women may be reduced to a sub-human state through limitless indulgence in their own vices--with ruinous consequences to society generally."
--Russell Kirk, The Wise Men Know What Wicked Things Are Written on the Sky, 1988

A Reuters article picked up by CNN.com reads: "Scientists attribute this rise [in temperature] to human activities, notably the release into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases--notably carbon dioxide--which let in sunlight and trap its heat like the glass walls of a greenhouse." Scientists? All scientists? Not Bill Gray, a recently retired meteorologist at Colorado State University, who dubs theories blaming mankind for climate change "a big scam." If global-warming theories rest on such solid scientific ground, why are its partisans so afraid of acknowledging the existence of scientists who reject such notions?

Mel Gibson. William F. Buckley. Pat Buchanan. Milton Friedman. Ron Paul. George Will. Will the last conservative who still believes in the big-government, nation-building campaign in Iraq to enforce a United Nations resolution on weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein did not possess please turn off the light?

Those doubting my repeated claim that the decade we live in--the oughts--closely resembles the 1970s might want to reconsider after encountering this startling piece of evidence supporting my theory: Bob Seger has the number four album in America on Billboard's chart. Bob Seger? Yeah, that Bob Seger.

Bill Clinton doesn't want to be known as the guy who let Osama bin Laden get away. Already known as a childish man who pursued college-aged interns while heads of state and cabinet secretaries waited on him to keep late appointments, Clinton sees current events dictating how the future will view his past. That's why he angrily lectured Fox News's Chris Wallace and blasted his successor instead of taking ownership of his own failures.

Clinton has always viewed politics as a popularity contest. Unlike the current commander in chief, Clinton was preoccupied with polls. Now that he's out of office, he's preoccupied with history. He wants people to think of him as a great president. Caught between the Cold War and the War on Terror, Clinton's presidency is in a sense a victim of bad timing. At best, he can be considered an apt caretaker. Perhaps many would prefer living under an apt caretaker than a historymaker. But the latter category is the one with which historians are infatuated.

Terrorism is a major concern. It was not during Clinton's presidency. Because Clinton did not anticipate events, and instead focused on such innocuous fare as school uniforms, today we view him as a puerile president. Indeed, even in listing his accomplishments Clinton's lack of an imprint on history is apparent. Contrasting the powers of the president with the powers of an ex-president, Clinton told Chris Wallace that as president one "can simultaneously be trying to stop a genocide in Kosovo and, you know, make peace in the Middle East, pass a budget that gives millions of kids a chance to have afterschool programs and has a huge increase in college aid at home." That's Clinton's laundry list of presidential accomplishments. It's not only weak, but he didn't "make peace in the Middle East" and he didn't stop a "genocide in Kosovo" because there wasn't one to stop.

In his defense, Clinton is hardly the only one who failed to foresee the coming crisis. The 1990s were a silly time when Americans were preoccupied with Tonya Harding, O.J. Simpson, and Princess Diana conspiracy theories. It was perhaps fitting that with the public's interest increasingly oriented in a tabloidish direction that the president injected himself into the tabloids. An unserious people got an unserious president. Don't blame Bill. Blame the people who elected him. Alas, the people who elected Clinton expect more from their presidents than they do from themselves.

Jackass 2 is the number one movie in America. How? People can't get enough of the firehose rodeo, anaconda ball pit, and the gauntlet. I haven't seen number two, but here's the best FlynnFiles-suitable clip from number one.

Every once in a while, Bill Clinton reminds decent people what was so off-putting in him occupying the same office that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan had once held. Bill Clinton's indignation at suggestions that he didn't do enough to neutralize Osama bin Laden and his followers displays two problems Clinton has always had. 1. He does not take responsibility for his actions. 2. He blames his political opponents for his failures.

"George Bush is the President of the United States and represents the entire country," responds Rep. Charles Rangel to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez calling George W. Bush "the devil." "Any demeaning public attack against him is viewed by Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans, as an attack on all of us." There is a certain logic to this. Isn't Chavez on one level accusing the American people of electing Satan president? If Bush is the devil, what does that make us? House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also jumped in the fray, calling Chavez a "thug" who "demeaned Venezuela." He is, and he did.

There are two ways of looking at this. One perspective sees the reactions as orchestrated, artificial, cynical, the work of political advisors looking to score points on an issue--patriotism--the Democrats have been allergic to. Another perspective says "bravo," "better late than never," and "three cheers for bipartisanship."

This may be the Congressional Democrats "Sister Souljah" moment. Remember Sister Souljah? The rapper who suggested that blacks take a day off from killing each other to kill whites instead? Bill Clinton positioned himself as a voice of moderation by taking on Miss Souljah. Clinton angered the Left, who were going to vote for him anyhow, but opened up opportunities with more mainstream constituencies. Pelosi, Rangel, and company did something similar here. Perhaps Democrats finally get this elementary point: Americans don't like anti-Americanism. Was their response to Chavez election-year posturing? Probably. But who cares? That type of response, the Left policing the irresponsible words of the Left, is bound to create a more healthy dialogue. Sure, it would be better if they meant it (I'm tempted to believe Korean War vet Charlie Rangel did, but didn't he once call Bush "Bull Connor," which in Harlem is akin to calling a politician "the devil"?). But that they said it is enough for now. Baby steps.

Politicians do things for all sorts of cynical reasons. Sometimes we should be happy when they do the right thing even if for the wrong reasons.

Congratulations to Ralph and Billiam, co-champions of week two's AYRFSF pool. They sailed to victory on 11-5 records. Offer your congratulations while making your picks. Congrats also to all remaining survival pool participants--FDW, Ralph, Wayne Sash, Dennis, Potato Man, DocMcG, and myself. We all survived.

All picks are against the spread. Home teams are in caps. Everyone is invited to play. Pick the team you think will beat the spread for each game. Here are my selections: Jets +6 over BILLS, Bengals +2 over STEELERS, COLTS -7 over Jaguars, Titans +11 over DOLPHINS, TEXANS +4 over Redskins, VIKINGS +3.5 over Bears, Panthers -3 over BUCS, Packers +6.5 over LIONS, BROWNS +6.5 over Ravens, CARDS -4.5 over Rams, SEAHAWKS -3.5 over Giants, Eagles -6 over NINERS, PATRIOTS -6.5 over Broncos, and, on Monday Night Football, SAINTS +4 over Falcons.

Survival Pool Pick: MIAMI DOLPHINS

Eight years ago, Columbia University kicked off campus a conference I had organized featuring John Leo, Dinesh D'Souza, Reginald Jones, and Ward Connerly. Their reason for violating a contract? They said they couldn't guarantee our safety. We had to hold the event outside in an alcove overlooking Morningside Park while protestors shouted down speakers. Today comes word that Columbia University has invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak. Something tells me the university community will treat the leader of a terrorist state more courteously than they treated conservatives.

California has filed suit against six corporations for producing automobiles that emit pollutants. The company that makes the Flintstones cars escaped the litigation. What happened? Did the personal-injury-type attorney general get sick of suing tobacco companies? Was Bill Gates not available for a proposed court date? Did the AG get bored taking on Smith & Wesson?

The Killers are poised to become the biggest rock band in the world. Catch this YouTubed bootleg of their new single, When You Were Young, and you'll understand why their forthcoming album, Sam's Club (buy it here), is going to be gargantumungus.

I'm not sure if Venezuelan head of state Hugo Chavez believes in God, but I am now certain that he believes in the existence of the devil--and one who not only now roams the earth, but thinks of himself as "the owner of the world." There is something disturbingly similar between George W. Bush's most ardent fans, who believe him heaven sent, and George W. Bush's most steadfast foes, who believe him sent from a much hotter place. There is nothing supernatural about George W. Bush. He is actually rather ordinary. Hugo Chavez, on the other hand, is a cartoon character.

"The difficulty with the position of absolute pacifism is that it makes the pacifist morally responsible for the evils that an intelligent use of force may sometimes prevent."
--Sidney Hook, Out of Step, 1987

The Democrats seem to be counting on the "let's give the other guys a chance" factor this November. They don't do or say anything to merit majority party status, but, because of the ineptness of George W. Bush and the Congressional Republicans, they expect to win by default. But government isn't like a batting order, in which everyone gets a turn. It's more like a boxing match, in which the challenger really has to beat the champion to take his belt. After a horrible, horrible outlook for the GOP in Election '06, things have started to turn around in a big way. George W. Bush's approval rating stands at 44 percent (it had been in the low '30s), and a USA Today poll shows that in a generic Democrat/Republican Congressional ballot, voters are split. From racial preferences to a punish-the-successful income tax, Democrats seek to erode merit and enhance leveling. Elections don't work that way. Every adult gets an opportunity to vote. Not every adult gets an opportunity to govern. If the Democrats want to govern, and not just pick up some seats here and there as they inevitably will, then more is needed than simply being against George W. Bush.

Does anybody remember that book Dow 36,000? I'm sure its authors would prefer that we forget it. The oughts--that's the fancy way of saying the decade we are currently living in--have been a horrible time for the stock market. The Dow Jones reached its height, 11,723, on January 14, 2000. That's almost seven years ago. Two months after the Dow peaked, the NASDAQ hit its high, 5,133. It has dropped about 60 percent since.

If all goes well, the Dow will reach its all-time high this week. What took you so long?

Dorothy, we're not in the 1980s anymore--or the '90s for that matter. Instead, we are living in economic times (and in some ways, political times) that resemble the 1970s. Sure, inflation, to borrow a Gerald Fordism, has been whipped, and unemployment is low. But gas prices are still high (though dropping), interest rates are rising, the housing market has fallen, and the stock market is anemic. Deja vu all over again?

Check out this chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average since the market crash of 1929. Notice anything? Yeah, it generally goes in the right direction: upward. But, beginning with the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency and extending through George W. Bush's presidency, the chart dips and flatlines. In the nearly seventy-seven years chronicled on the chart, there is one period--the 1970s--that especially resembles the period in which we are living.

That's not a good thing.

Ed King, Massachusetts' governor from 1979 to 1983, has passed away on the eve of the state's Democratic primary to choose its next governor. King's slogan, "Make It in Massachusetts," became an omnipresent, and annoying, advertising jingle in my youth. I still can't get it out of my head. The slogan represented the pro-growth, anti-tax policies of King, which allowed him to unseat fellow Democrat Michael Dukakis from the governorship in 1979 (Dukakis would return the favor four years later), and helped usher in the state's landmark proposition two-and-a-half tax rebellion, which limited local property taxes, in 1980. Ronald Reagan labeled Ed King his favorite Democrat governor, and King returned the favor by endorsing President's Reagan reelection. Reagan carried Massachusetts in 1984 (as he had four years earlier). Before his life in politics, King played guard for the Buffalo Bills and Baltimore Colts. Ed King, the first politician I shook hands with, is dead at 81. The species King belonged to, the conservative Democrat, died off years earlier.

Maine parents whose nineteen-year-old daughter became pregnant allegedly "tied her up with rope, gagged her with duct tape, and put her in the family Lexus and drove her across state lines, intent on forcing her to have an abortion," according to the Boston Globe. The daughter escaped and called the police before reaching a distant abortuary that her parents apparently believed would perform an abortion under duress. Would you like to be a fly on the wall at the family reunion? "Hi, we're your grandparents. We love you even though we tried to kill you."

One possibility why so many in the Islamic world are so upset about the pope's lecture is that they didn't read it. Or, perhaps more precisely, they couldn't read it. Two of five can't read in Egypt, one in five can't read in Saudi Arabia, and half can't read in Pakistan. If one is going to throw a fit about words it always helps to read the words first. Doing so usually prevents the fit, or at least produces a more enlightened rioter.

The Who are the greatest rock band ever. To my regret, I passed on an opportunity to see them--or at least the two surviving members--for the fifth time on Saturday. Instead, I sat in my apartment and watched this incredible video on YouTube of The Who's Real Good Looking Boy over and over and over again. I was nearly brought to tears, though I don't know if it was from missing the concert or from the emotional tug of seeing the video-montage reminder of just how awesome The Who were. Or, perhaps I should say how awesome The Who are: Real Good Looking Boy was released just a couple of years ago, and a new album--their first in twenty-four years--arrives next month. The song is about Pete Townshend's first vision of Elvis, and imagining himself as him--until his mom breaks the news that he doesn't resemble Elvis. In fact, he's an "ugly boy" she tells him. After a lifetime of adjusting to his ugliness, Townshend realizes "God gave him a face" but "He gave me something above/God gave me grace/And sweet, sweet, sweet love." Do yourself a favor and watch the video--over and over and over again. If you are not a Who fan, you will become one. And if you are ugly, pay attention to the lyrics and rejoice.

The pope gave a talk about Greeks and self-obsessed Muslims imagined it was about them. Here's the text of the pope's controversial lecture to give everyone context.

Muslim leaders demand apologies in a very loud manner when a non-Muslim says something they perceive as offensive. But when Muslims behead captives, hijack planes, and bomb pizza shops, apologies and condemnations from their coreligionists are hard to come by. "God," Pope Benedict noted in quoting a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, "is not pleased by blood--and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature." Nor, one supposes, is God pleased by self-righteousness, double standards, and vehement reactions against what in essence was a plea for peace.

Mexico, through U.S. federal agents, had Dwayne "Dog" Chapman arrested for apprehending an American rapist hiding out south of the Rio Grande. Who ever said that the feds, or the federales for that matter, weren't concerned about over-the-border lawbreaking?

Congratulations to Christopher Doyle (11-5), winner of week one's AYRFSF pool. Pay homage as you're attempting to dethrone him. Congrats also to survival pool participants Fudgie D Whale, Wayne Sash, DocMcG, Ralph, Potato Man, Dennis, and Me. We survived. Make your survival pool pick after your regular picks. ASDF and Homer J Fong: you did not survive. Just play the regular pool.

Okay, here we go. All picks are against the spread. Home teams are in caps. Here are my picks. RAVENS -11.5 over Raiders, COLTS -13 over Texans, Browns +10.5 over BENGALS, DOLPHINS -6.5 over Bills, BEARS -8.5 over Lions, Panthers -2 over VIKINGS, EAGLES -3 over Giants, FALCONS -5.5 over Bucs, Saints -2 over PACKERS, Rams -3 over NINERS, SEAHAWKS -7 over Cards, Patriots -6 over JETS, Titans +11.5 over CHARGERS, Chiefs +10.5 over BRONCOS, COWBOYS -5.5 over Redskins, and, on Monday Night Football, JAGUARS EVEN over Steelers.

Survivor Pool Pick: Indianapolis Colts.

On the eve of Air America's launch, I debated Julianne Malveuax on CNN about the fledgling liberal talk radio network. She thought it a success in the making. I thought it redundant and therefore doomed. Thirty months later, I have won the debate.

"'Why are you trying to impose your values on the rest of us?' Among too many raised in the Judeo-Christian tradition, that taunt has engendered a moral disarmament and political paralysis. But the underlying premise is that a democratic society may be constructed upon values and beliefs found in the books of Rachel Carson, Ralph Nader, Betty Friedan, and Alfred Kinsey, but not upon the values and beliefs found in the Pentateuch and the New Testament. To accept that argument is to permit ourselves to be driven permanently from the public square. Someone's values are going to prevail. Why not ours?"
--Patrick Buchanan, Right From the Beginning, 1988

I recently caught two documentaries on rock music, or as the cool kids say, rockumentaries, on two of the best bands of the past few decades.

I Am Trying to Break Your Heart (2003) documents the making of Wilco's critically-acclaimed album, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. In the process the band loses its drummer Ken Coomer, guitarist/keyboardist/songwriter/nerd Jay Bennett, and its record label, Reprise. One is supposed to come away damning the corporate mentality that led Warner Brothers's Reprise to drop Wilco, but the fact that they paid for the making of their record, and the irony that another subsidiary of Warner Brothers, Nonesuch, eventually signed Wilco for more money and released Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, leaves viewers rebelling against the director's intentions. The corporation that leaves the viewer with a bad taste is Wilco. Band leader Jeff Tweedy's dismissal of Bennett raises the question if Wilco itself is a more heartless institution than the corporate lords who dropped them. The Bennett-less follow-up to Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, A Ghost Is Born, proves that not all downsizing pays dividends.

In contrast to cult-darlings Wilco, The Police were the rock band that everybody knew. In their short, five-album, seven-year career, they briefly carried the banner biggest-rock-band-in-the-world before they retired on top after their Syncronicity album. Throughout the climb from obscurity to stardom, drummer Stewart Copeland caught it all on film. More than two decades later, he's showing off his home movies through Everyone Stares: The Police Inside Out (2006). The film, getting airplay on Showtime, details that climb, but not the summit, that the trio enjoyed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. From low-budget video shoots, to dodgy train rides, to tour-stops in Egypt, Japan, and points beyond, Everyone Stares documents a club band becoming an enormodome band and, as the title instructs, everyone stares. By leaving on top, the Police abided by rule number one of show business wisdom: leave your audience wanting more. The documentary leaves the audience wanting more, but not in the good way that The Police did. Conspicuous in its absence is any hint of the legendary friction between Sting and Stewart Copeland. Copeland certainly annoyed Sting more than Jay Bennett annoyed Jeff Tweedy, but no lineup changes ensued there (On the other hand, The Police broke up and Wilco hasn't.). As a drummer, Copeland has few peers. As a filmmaker, Copeland has many. Diehard Police fans, however, won't be disappointed. Any dull moments in the film are made up for by the concert clips, which demonstrate the trio at the height of their live prowess.

The Police ruled the world in the early 1980s but gets memorialized through Super-8. Wilco struggles to get radio play but receives an artsy, black-and-white, high-quality film treatment. Go figure.

The high point of George W. Bush's presidency came at America's low point of George W. Bush's presidency. Bush's moment in the rubble of the World Trade Center, comfortably surrounded by firemen and rescue workers, ranks above anything in recent presidential history in the dramatic category. That magical moment probably explains much of his stubborn support. All the gray, cloudy times simply get outshined by that glorious, uplifting one. In direct, simple, impromptu language, Bush showed that he got it: "I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people--and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" Five years later, Bush's words show that he doesn't get it. In his 9/11 anniversary speech, Bush mentioned Iraq and Iraqis more than a dozen times but found room for only two mentions of Afghanistan and no mentions of the nations the 9/11 terrorists hailed from. On the fifth anniversary of Pearl Harbor, what would have happened had an American president obsessed over, say, the Mongolians, only to mention Japan a couple of times?

I was inclined to denounce all art as dog mess until I encountered Headwindow.com Invite your boss and all of your co-workers to your desk. Turn up the volume on your computer. Click the link. And then say: "Hey everyone, do you like the project I've been working on these last few weeks?"

Five years gone, but 9/11 memories remain fresh. Will it ever be otherwise?

Banal occurences become unforgettable when history is at work. Like every other day of my life, I overslept on 9/11. That's where the every-other-day paralells ended. I uncharacteristically commuted--less than one block--via car that day to work to hide my parking-permitless vehicle from the DC parking enforcement in the underground garage beneath Accuracy in Academia's offices (only to remove it when the attendent left for the night). On the one-minute commute to work, the tone of radio announcer's voice indicated something seriously had gone wrong in the world. One report talked of a bombing at the State Department, which turned out to be false. Other reports referenced a plane possibly headed for the White House or the Capitol. Rumors and false information abounded. I rushed upstairs to see on Don Irvine's office television the shocking truth: both World Trade Center towers on fire. Instinctively, I knew they were coming down. My senses also told me that the body count would reach 50,000 or so. Thankfully, I was wrong on that.

I had missed seeing the second impact live, but instant replay showed me, and everyone else in the world, what we had missed...over, and over, and over again. Those images, seen so many times in the first few weeks, are rarely glimpsed these days--save for anniversaries--but when they are, flashback rage, recalling the initial response to the horrific images, accompanies them.

For weeks, I couldn't stop watching the news. I can't recall another time when it was acceptable for whole offices to stop what they were doing and watch television. American productivity probably reached historic lows that week. Even when I escaped the television to read on my porch, current events followed--the noise of fighter jets, the sight of ominous military helicopters. Though one couldn't escape the military presence, DC was not, as exaggerated reports had it, a city locked down. I was in London a few weeks after 7/7, and it was far more a city locked down (havoc at the airports, a random search of my bags at a restaurant) than DC ever was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. A kinder city, rather than a terrorized city, is what I experienced in DC. A few weeks after 9/11, I went to Henderson Hall near the Pentagon to pick up some Marine gear. To my surprise, smoke still emanated from the building and fire hoses still flowed. Jet fuel, apparently, is really, really flammable.

When tragedy touches thousands, it touches everyone. One conservative activist I was acquanted with escaped one of the buildings minutes before it came down. A Marine friend, a lawyer whose office was in the World Trade Center, arrived at work late only to be turned away. He left the scene dust covered. He lost three suits, his diplomas, and other items one might keep in an office, but walked away with his life.

I learned of his story weeks later when my unit mustered for drill. I didn't expect to see him. His contract had expired months earlier. But this Marine, like several ghosts of Marines past, showed up, in a surreal scene, for weekend training despite having been out of the Marines for some time. Where did all these faces, some I hadn't seen for over a year, come from? Why they came was more understandable. Most were told to go home. But this Marine, perhaps because his contract had only recently expired, perhaps because his personal connection to 9/11, perhaps because his superiors never wanted him to leave, was let back. We all suspected to be going to Afghanistan. We waited, and waited, and waited for the call. But it never came. After eight years in the Marines, I got out the following March. If we weren't going to be mobilized for the biggest event in our lives, what, exactly, was our purpose? A little over a year later, the lawyer/Marine, along with the rest of my reserve unit, deployed to Iraq. His familiarity with the events of our times are more intimate than most.

I have never experienced more national unity, seen more expressions of patriotism, or been reminded to value loved ones more so than in those months that followed 9/11. Something really simple, like hearing "God Bless America" from Yankee Stadium during the seventh-inning stretch, served as a national catharis and a reminder of our shared American identity. Those were some of the few positive outcomes of that horrible day. That unity, that love of country, and that gratitude to be alive is mostly gone. So too are 3,000 Americans, two iconic structures from the New York City skyline, and a peace that America had enjoyed for decades. It was black, bad day.

"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able," Brad Pitt tells Esquire about his relationship to Angelina Jolie. Everyone? How about this trio? Angelina and her brother? Mister Ed and Wilbur? Everyone? Really?

Liberals defend fictionalized news but attack fictionalized dramas. What up wit dat?

Unsatisfied with pressuring ABC into altering its upcoming miniseries The Path to 9/11, Democrats now want ABC to cancel it. "The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest," a press release from five U.S. Senators ominously tells ABC.

And if ABC doesn't cave, the Democrats can always call in Sandy Berger to stuff the network's copy of the movie in his pants, or jam their signal, or edit the movie to depict a caped Clinton saving the day at the end (with a captured bin Laden growling to Sheriff Janet Reno and Super Clinton, "I'd have suceeded in my evil plan if it wasn't for your meddling, Clinton!").

Not having seen The Path to 9/11, I can't comment on its accuracy. Having read the 9/11 Report, I can comment on the accuracy, or lack thereof, of one of the criticisms that The Path to 9/11 is receiving. The 9/11 Report contains numerous examples of squandered opportunities, and bureaucratic obstacles, to kill Osama bin Laden during Bill Clinton's watch. "I'm sure we’ll regret not acting last night," the report quotes a frustrated CIA operative named "Mike," who blasts the Clinton administration for calling off strikes for fear "that some stray shrapnel might hit the Habash mosque and 'offend' Muslims."

That's one example of a derailed operation. There are others. If you want the truth, the raw information in the report certainly will provide that far better than any made-for-TV movie. And the actual report may be more unflattering to Clinton than the drama that is partly based on it. While President Clinton can bank on Americans not reading the report, he has no such peace of mind with regard to a dumbed-down miniseries. Thus, the controversy, the press releases, the demands, etc.

No word yet if liberals want ABC to change the 9/11 villains into Nazis out of concerns over racial and religious sensitivity.

What is "drunk"? There is a legal definition, but since it differs from country to country and from state to state, might we assume that it differs from person to person? Police arrested Paris Hilton for drunk driving last night. She apparently registered .08 on the breathalyzer. In 1989, any Californian blowing a .08 would not be arrested for drunk driving. Had she been driving seventeen years ago under the condition she was in last night, Paris Hilton would have been guilty merely of driving while eight and not driving while drunk. In Washington, DC the law empowers police to arrest anyone registering above a .01 on a breathalyzer. In other words, don't drive after gargling Listerine. With notorious deficiencies in such gadgets, the law becomes criminal and places innocents in jail. Because a gizmo guessed a blood alcohol content in Paris Hilton of .08, the police arrested her. Had it registered .07, she might have been let go. Had she been driving in 1989, she might have been let go. Such is the arbitrariness of drunk driving laws. Oh, the humanity! The injustice of it all! But if you have enough money to hire a chauffeur every night, maybe you should be arrested for driving at all.

Hollywood shouldn't write history, but because too many people won't open up a book it does. Bill Clinton understands this, which is why he seeks to alter an ABC drama that depicts him as getting too distracted with Monica Lewinsky to properly respond to terrorism and his administration calling off a counterterrorism operation that might have resulted in bin Laden's death. The 9/11 Report contains examples of the latter, and it seems perfectly reasonable to assert that the Lewinsky scandal distracted Bill Clinton. After all, it distracted the rest of the country and we weren't directly involved. The Nero-fiddled-while-Rome-burned characterization is a tough one to live down, but it's hard to look back on the unseriousness of the Clinton years--calls for school uniforms and sex scandals dominating the news cycle--and not think such thoughts. In Clinton's defense, even if the American public demands that their presidents see the future, they can't. Al Qaeda had killed a few dozen Americans prior to 9/11. As was the case with the pre-9/11 George W. Bush, al Qaeda was not priority one with Bill Clinton. He should stop reacting aghast when anyone, including the makers of a television miniseries, suggests this rather obvious point.

"Reaction is the most radical of programs; it aims at cutting away the overgrowth and getting back to the roots. A forward-looking radicalism is a contradiction; it aims at rearranging the foliage."
--Allen Tate, I'll Take My Stand, 1930

Is it not obvious to everyone that Pakistan has played the United States for a sucker? Five years after 9/11, and several billion dollars in foreign aid later, a Pakistani general states what cynical minds have long suspected: Pakistan wants our money but won't do anything to disturb Osama bin Laden's sanctuary. So long as bin Laden behaves as a "peaceful citizen," he will "not be taken into custody," explained Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan to ABC News. Who knows for whom he speaks? But the actions, or better yet the passivity, of Pakistan is consistent with his words. The fact remains that the Taliban, and al Qaeda remnants, have found a sanctuary in Pakistan. With Pakistani nukes, a powderkeg along the Indian border, and the threat of a takeover by Islamic fruit loops, a military incursion to round up the "evil doers" in Pakistan might be expecting too much. But shutting off the money spicket is a no brainer.

The AYRFSF pool is back with week one of the NFL season. Join in if you haven't participated in years past. Home teams are in caps. All picks are against the spread. Make your picks, before Thursday night's kickoff, in the comments section. The winner will be announced to much fanfare next week. Here are my picks: STEELERS -1 over Dolphins, RAMS +3.5 over Broncos, TITANS -2.5 over Jets, PATRIOTS -9 over Bills, BUCS -3 over Ravens, Bengals -2.5 over CHEIFS, Seahawks -6 over LIONS, PANTHERS -6 over Falcons, TEXANS +4 over Eagles, Saints +3 over BROWNS, JAGUARS -2.5 over Cowboys, PACKERS +3.5 over Bears, CARDS -7.5 over Niners, GIANTS +3.5 over Colts, and, in the Monday-night matchups, Vikings +4.5 over REDSKINS and RAIDERS +3 over Chargers. Make your picks in the comments section below.

SURVIVAL POOL UPDATE: In addition to the regularly scheduled AYRFSF pool, I am adding, at a reader's excellent request, a survival pool. How does it work? You pick one, just one, winner each week. That team merely has to beat its opponent. Unlike the AYRFSF pool, no spread is involved. But once you select a team, you can never select that team again. The following week, you can select any team except a team you've already selected. Once a team you select loses, you are out of the pool. My week-one survival pool selection is New England. Make your survival pool pick, along with your AYRFSF picks, in the comments section. We should have a survival pool winner--the sole survivor--by mid season. Good luck players.

No marketer worth his pay launches a product in August. Summer is behind us and the electorate, presumably, is paying attention. Campaign 2006 begins now. It's an off-year election, and one in the president's second term at that, so it's assumed that the party out of power--that would be the Democrats--picks up seats. So how to determine who wins the election? My own barometer tells me that the Democrats need to win back the House of Representatives, return to their camp with some big-name scalps, and pick up more than three seats in the Senate to claim a true victory. Those aren't unreachable benchmarks, are they? The Republicans pulled off a 54-seat House swing in 1994 and the Democrats pulled off a 48-seat House swing in 1974. Those are clear victories. All signs are pointing to a Democratic victory this year. But there's a reason why votes, rather than polls, determine elections.

Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin died off the coast of Australia when a stingray impaled his heart. "He died doing what he loved best," a friend noted. He did. But what he loved best was a death sentence. Did anyone doubt Irwin would go out any way but this way? Anyone who remembers old PBS animal documentaries knows how dramatically Irwin revolutionized wildlife programs. Once detached observer, man is now an active participant. Viewers feel as though they are watching something dangerous. And Irwin's death proves that they are. Irwin leaves behind his wife, two children, and an entertained world. Should we feel guilty for being amused?

UPDATE: The last line of this post has apparently led to misunderstanding. "Should we feel guilty for being amused?" refers to being amused by Irwin's dare-devil animal show, not by his death--which is about as far away from amusing as something can be. In other words, did our--fans of Crocodile Hunter--voyeurism indirectly lead to Steve Irwin's death, and should we feel guilty for fueling the risky behavior of Irwin. Had there been no audience for Irwin's dangerous stunts, there would have been far fewer dangerous stunts by Irwin. He would probably be alive today had he not been busy trying to entertain us. Most comments indicate that readers generally got what I was saying, but a few of the comments derived a very different, and to me quite horrifying, meaning from my words. My apologies for not writing that last sentence in a manner that would have cleared up any ambiguity.

Mel Gibson drinks Tequila. Maurice Clarett gotta get his goose on. Hillary and John McCain went shot-for-shot on vodka. All of this talk of alcohol got me to thinking: What's the best (and worst) of the big five? The last weekend of summer is here, and so is this all-important, worst-to-first, big-five booze list:

5. Tequila--Don't drink the water. Don't drink the tequila, either. My remarks from an earlier post stand: Tequila tastes as if Jose Cuervo and all of his cousins vomited in the back of your mouth. Gentlemen prefer rubbing alcohol.

4. Gin--It's kind of like vodka's underacheiving cousin. It's disgusting straight, but finds redemption when combined with tonic water for one of the best-loved bar drinks. It's a hard alcohol enjoyed by many refined, functioning alcoholics, I find. One gentleman I know goes through several 1.75 litre bottles of Gilbey's a week. Tanqueray is preferred.

3. Whiskey--Like the people who drink them ("I drink alone/I prefer to be by myself"), Jack Daniels and Jim Beam don't play well with others. Blended whiskey (Seagram's 7, Crown Royal) goes down well with Coke or ginger ale, but the Jim Beams and Jack Danielses of the world--the single malts--are a bit too strong and overpower any mixed drink. On the other hand, the single malts go down better straight while the blended whiskeys can't seem to make it solo. In other words, whiskey isn't a utility player. It plays one position--straight or mixed--but never both. Also, Southern Comfort probably has more sugar and sweeteners in it than a pack of Sweet Tarts. Southern Comfort is a vomit bomb waiting to go off. UPDATE: I'm informed that SoCo is an imposter whiskey, which is something I considered but foolishly rejected before writing this post. My apologies to the hick whiskey drinkers who read this site.

2. Vodka--The beast from the east mixes well with just about anything--orange juice, Coke, ginger ale, cranberry juice, and, especially, other liquors. It is probably found in more mixed drinks than any other member of the Big Five. The people who make it--Fins, Russians, Swedes, Poles--know something about drinking. Whiskey is better straight. Vodka is better mixed. One's preference for mixed or straight largely determines one's preference for vodka or whiskey. The Communists banned vodka in the initial years of the Russian Revolution, but even the mighty hammer and sickle couldn't stamp out the even mightier potato booze. The Russians conquered and reconquered the Poles. The Poles conquered Russia just once, by inventing Vodka, and have never been rebuffed.

1. Rum--What's not to like? It can be imbibed straight or with concoctions. My preference is for Coke, but a rum highball is a good drink too. Like vodka, rum mixes well--particularly clear, light rum--and is found in a great many complicated drinks where the alcohol tase is neutralized. Pirates are notorious rum enthusiasts. I'd like to turn over the person responsible for the Captain Morgan advertisements to al Qaeda.

Don't like my list? Make up your own, preferably with some reasons, in the comments sections.