Liberalism need not be synonymous with an "ends justify the means" mentality. Sam Allis, columnist for the Boston Globe, calls himself a "process liberal"--apparently a term of derision applied by gay activists to supporters of gay marriage who nevertheless object to the authoritarian manner in which it has been instituted. Allis supports gay marriage, but supports codifying it by Constitutional means. He admits that the Massachusetts legislature's unconstitutional blockage of a traditional marriage initiative "smells bad."

Allis quotes some non-process liberals, i.e., ends-justify-the-means liberals, in his piece: Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, maintains: "What we stand to lose is so significant, and it's so unfair for our supporters to expect that we should just lie down and say, 'It's OK, the process is more important than our rights.' " "It's not a matter of following the constitution," says John Reinstein of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts explains. "It's following the constitution down the drain."

Say what? An ACLU state leader demanding that elected leaders ignore the Constitution? A barker for "rights" demanding that everyone's rights be discarded for a few people's "rights"?

"Say for the sake of argument that the ballot initiative would embed in the constitution the right of gays to marry and that the Legislature dodged a vote on it," Allis writes. "Isaacson and Reinstein would, in righteous dudgeon, demand that legislators honor their oath of office to obey the state constitution." Alas, the shoe is on the other foot, and process liberals, such as Sam Allis, are few.

President Bush refuses to call the violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq a "civil war." U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan says there is "almost" a civil war in Iraq. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell calls the Iraq situation a civil war. Thousands of Iraqis have been killed by other Iraqis this year. If it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck, call it a pigeon--that seems to be the attitude of those conducting the occupation in Iraq.

"There is, indeed, a very close analogy between words and coins, both quintessentially human creations. A word, when fresh-minted, has the objectivity and innocence of a legal penny. Handled by men, it is soon subjected to the process of inflation or deflation, and acquires moral or immoral characteristics."
--Paul Johnson, Enemies of Society, 1977

DocMcG repeats as champion, boasting an impressive 11-5 record in week twelve. Bow down fools! Meanwhile, both survivors--DocMcG and myself--survived.

ALERT: THERE IS A THURSDAY GAME THIS WEEK. Home teams are in caps. All picks are against the spread. Here are my selections: BENGALS -3 over Ravens, BEARS -9.5 over Vikings, STEELERS -8 over Bucs, RAMS -6.5 over Cards, Colts -7.5 over TITANS, DOLPHINS -1.5 Jaguars, SAINTS -7 over Niners, REDSKINS -1.5 over Falcons, BROWNS +5 At Chiefs, PATRIOTS -13.5 over Lions, BILLS +6 over Chargers, Jets -1.5 over PACKERS, GIANTS +3.5 over Cowboys, RAIDERS -3 over Texans, BRONCOS -3 over Seahawks, and, on Monday Night Football, Panthers -3.5 over EAGLES. Make your picks in the comments section.

Survival Pool Pick: St. Louis Rams New England Patriots, Indianapolis Colts, Miami Dolphins, Atlanta Falcons, Carolina Panthers, Dallas Cowboys, Seattle Seahawks, Chicago Bears, New York Giants, Denver Broncos, Kansas City Chiefs, San Diego Chargers.

Article four, section four of the U.S. Constitution guarantees "to every state in this union a republican form of government." My home state of Massachusetts is in violation of this part of the U.S. Constitution. Massachusetts's elected officials, and a few of the unelected ones, are in violation of the state's constitution as well.

Almost three years ago, the state's supreme court voted four to three that the Massachusetts Constitution, the oldest (allegedly) operating constitution in the world, contained a right to gay marriage. It doesn't. Such notions somehow eluded John Adams and the men who wrote the document 226 years ago. But what did they know about rights, huh? Gay marriage also failed to garner support in any of the many amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. The courts ordered the legislature to pass a law granting homosexuals marriage rights. Instead of telling the court to mind its own business, the legislature allowed the four unelected usurpers to dictate. They caved as cowards.

Opponents of gay marriage, using the provision for ballot initiatives in the state's constitution, have collected the greatest number of signatures ever collected for a ballot measure in the history of the Bay State. The process dictates that if the citizens collect the necessary number of signatures, as affirmed by the attorney general and then the secretary of state, then the state legislature must consider the petition by "yea" or "nay" vote. The state legislature has refused to do this. After collecting 170,000 signatures, all the ballot-initiative organizers have to do is to get about 50 state legislators to vote "yea" on their ballot measure. With more than 200 legislators voting in a Constitutional Convention, gaining the support of 50 or so state legislators--even in Massachusetts--is not that difficult a task. The proponents of gay marriage know this, so they have blocked a vote--a vote that the state's Constitution demands.

The Massachusetts Constitution clearly states that, ultimately, the "legislative action in the joint session upon any amendment shall be taken only by call of the yeas and nays." It doesn't say may be taken. It says shall be taken. As if anticipating interpretive shenanigans, the document says that the up-or-down vote is the "only" course available. There are no options, only a command.

A bare majority of the legislature has voted to not vote on this matter (as if they had a choice). Because the state constitution demands that this process of approval be repeated in two successive legislative sessions, blocking the vote forces the proponents of the initiative to start the process all over again. And the longer gay marriage is on the books, the harder it will be to get it off the books.

After the state's top court violated the people's rights to a republican form of government by ordering a law, the state legislature has again violated the people's rights to self-government by dismissing the Constitution's dictates in favor of the gay lobby's. Court-made law derailed republican government in the Bay State. Lawless legislators, who are blocking the process by which the people can unmake that law, are sending democracy further off track. "My prediction is that when we in Massachusetts vote on this--and we almost certainly will in 2006--the reality will have overtaken the fears," Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank claimed in 2004. It hasn't yet, which is why they won't let the people vote.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them."
--William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 1650

The new Russia, since the departure of Boris Yelstin, has increasingly resembled the old Russia. Sure, there's a major difference in scale. But critics of Putin, like critics of Stalin, have a peculiar way of ending up dead--or near dead. Who poisoned former KGB spook Alexander Litvinenko? One needn't be a secret agent to solve that "mystery." Who did it? The same people who poisoned Ukrainian presidential candidate, and now Ukrainian president, Viktor Yushchenko; the same people who gunned down Anna Politkovskaya; the same people who put a contract on Pope John Paul II. Vladimir Putin told a gathering of former KGB agents last year: "There is no such thing as a former KGB man." I guess not.

Congratulations to DocMcG. Gobble, gobble, gobble. His 11-5 record topped last week's AYRFSF pool. Give praise to your new champion. Gobble, gobble, gobble. DocMcG and I survived in the survival pool (by making the fashionable pick: the team that plays Oakland). Gobble, gobble, gobble.

REMEMBER: This week's slate starts on Thursday. Gobble, gobble, gobble. Get your picks in early. Home teams are in caps. Here are my--gobble, gobble, gobble--picks: Dolphins -2.5 over LIONS, Bucs +11 over COWBOYS, Broncos -1 over Chiefs, BILLS +3 over Jaguars, JETS -6 over Texans, RAVENS -3 over Steelers, BROWNS +3 over Bengels, VIKINGS -6 over Cardinals, RAMS -5.5 over Niners, Saints +3 over Falcons, Panthers -4.5 over REDSKINS, PATRIOTS -3 over Bears, COLTS -9 over Eagles, TITANS +3.5 over Giants, CHARGERS -13 over Raiders, and, on Monday Night Football, SEAHAWKS -6 over Packers. Make your selections in the comments section. Gobble, gobble, gobble.

Survival Pool Pick: San Diego Chargers New England Patriots, Indianapolis Colts, Miami Dolphins, Atlanta Falcons, Carolina Panthers, Dallas Cowboys, Seattle Seahawks, Chicago Bears, New York Giants, Denver Broncos, Kansas City Chiefs.

Henry Kissinger has some advice for George W. Bush: the Iraq war is unwinnable, but don't let the soldiers come home. Better policy advice comes from the grave from Kissenger's old boss: Vietnamization Iraqization.

If winning the war in Iraq meant deposing Saddam Hussein, then victory was never in doubt. If winning the war in Iraq meant exporting the habits of the Swiss cantons into Iraq, then the war was doomed before it started. It is this utopian design, expressed most (in?)coherently in President Bush's second inaugural address, that sealed the fate of this war. Cultures are not for export.

Henry Kissinger, who knows something about losing a war, says that America can't win in Iraq, if one defines victory as bequeathing an orderly, democratic government to the alleged nation. Even though the former secretary of state has given up hope on this mission, he believes that America shouldn't withdraw. And if it does, America will have to go back. "A dramatic collapse of Iraq--whatever we think about how the situation was created--would have disastrous consequences for which we would pay for many years and which would bring us back, one way or another, into the region." We should stay, and if we leave we should go back. Say what? Some people just want American troops in the Middle East no matter what.

The land of the free makes for a poor garrison state. But some would rather the latter in place of the former.

Rep. Charles Rangel, the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, vows to reintroduce legislation reintroducing a draft. He says the measure would make it harder for presidents to start unnecessary wars. Maybe so. But so would Congress reasserting its power to declare war. Congress's control of financing such operations, too, can act as a curb on reckless presidents. Those constitutional safeguards against an out-of-control executive don't seem to interest Rangel.

Why the draft? Conscription is popular with statists. As distant as it seems now, the draft was a reality faced by American males for about a third of the twentieth century. Woodrow Wilson forced young men into the military in World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt, when America was "neutral" in 1940, instituted the draft again. Harry Truman, again in peacetime, brought back conscription in 1948. It stayed with America until 1973, when Richard Nixon did away with the draft, and the self-centered protestors who evaporated once it was gone. Is it Charlie Rangel's hope to bring back the demonstrators with the draft?

Freedom and force don't mix. If not for this reason, then a draft should be opposed for the deleterious effects it would have upon the armed forces.

One of the best things about being in the military, unlike say high school, was that everyone wanted to be there. Or, perhaps more accurately, everyone who was there made a conscious decision to sign up. Shirkers who went AWOL feared the military tracking them down and forcing them to live up to their committment. I did too. Who wants to engage in such a dangerous job with irresponsible people whose heads are somewhere else? Let them go. Punishing them in that way would be punishing us. I often joked with other Marines what the Corps would be like if random civilians were forced to join. Parris Island isn't magic. It can only transform so many blue-haired delinquents into U.S. Marines. There was a sense that we had it better in the all-volunteer force of the 1990s than our Marine ancestors had it in the forced force of the 1960s.

Rangel's dream, thankfully, is a pipe dream. But even pipe dreams sometimes get realized. It's important that even when a bad argument doesn't pose an immediate threat that it's rebutted before it does. If not for the freedom of American men, then for the character of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines should America embrace its all-volunteer armed forces.

Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist and key influence on leaders in the United States, Chile, and the United Kingdom, is dead at 94. His PBS special Free to Choose, his brief, readable Capitalism and Freedom, and his willingness to take stances on political topics--such as his opposition to the Iraq war and his support of drug legalization--made him an accessible figure to a mass audience despite the complicated nature of the ideas he advocated.

I read Capitalism and Freedom in the summer of 1996 at Camp Pendleton, California. It proved far better reading than the training manuals on Light Armored Vehicles. In 200 or so pages, Friedman makes the case for capitalism as an integral component of freedom. Friedman advanced ideas that later grew in popularity, such as school choice and monetarism, in the 1962 book.

Around the same time, I had heard Friedman on NPR. He was cantankerous and sharp. He had little patience with his interviewer, a liberal woman young enough to be his granddaughter. When the premise of a question revealed some liberal cliche the questioner had picked up along the way, a bothered Friedman would respond, "No, no, no," and proceed to lecture the young woman why she was incorrect. I sensed that at the outset of the interview the woman believed that she was dealing with a senile octogenarian. At its conclusion, she knew she was dealing with a Nobel-Prize winning economist and way over her head. Smug became meek very quickly when dealing with Milton Friedman.

They don't make 'em like Milton Friedman anymore, rest in peace. Thank God we still have him in used bookstores, and on YouTube (Check out his concluding statement, pointing out the strongest argument for free enterprise.). Enjoy!

Conservatives have become "unserious," writes Austin Bramwell in The American Conservative's cover piece that excoriates both the conservative movement and the magazine that has long served as its flagship publication, National Review. This latter target is surprising given Bramwell's association with the magazine as a trustee, director, and occasional writer. But it's not as surprising as Bramwell's ostensibly offhand mention that William F. Buckley, after appointing him just two years ago, asked him to resign as a director and trustee of the magazine. It's the sort of inclusion that begs to be investigated.

The "movement's mainstream," Bramwell writes, "has increasingly ostracized its brightest minds." In place of those minds are conformists. Bramwell observes that the conservative movement elevates entertainment over substance, rewrites its own history when history doesn't cooperate, adopts sloganeering to identify "insiders" from outsiders," and genuflects to a hierarchy or leaders rather than to principles.

On this last point, Bramwell offers that Iraq "furnishes a telling example. In the run-up to the invasion, leading conservatives announced that conservatism now meant spreading global democratic revolution. This forthright radicalism—this embrace of the sanative powers of violence—became quickly accepted as the ineluctable meaning of conservatism in foreign policy. Those who dissented risked ostracism and harsh rebuke. Had conservative leaders instead argued that global democratic revolution would not cure our woes but increase them, the rest of the movement would have accepted this position no less quickly. Millions of conservative epigones believe nothing less than what the movement’s established organs tell them to believe." It's tough to argue with that, particularly given the '90s conservative rhetoric blasting "nation building" and America acting as "world policemen." Times have changed, and so have principles.

The article has its flaws, many of which are detailed in this friendly critique. My one major criticism is that the piece really has nothing good to say of conservatism. How does one rally real conservatives by shoveling on the negative so heavily? Perhaps the author's point is to speak the truth (which is a worthy pursuit) and leave the movement building to others. That's fair enough. But complaining, a favorite pasttime of mine, won't build a new movement on the ashes of the old one.

"Whatever its past accomplishments, the conservative movement no longer kindles any 'ironic points of light,'" Bramwell concludes. "It has produced fewer outstanding books even as it has taken over more of the intellectual and political landscape. This trend will only continue. Worse, no reckoning will be made: they hope in vain who expect conservatives to take responsibility for the actual consequences of their actions. Conservatives have no use for the ethic of responsibility; they seek only to 'see to it that the flame of pure intention is not quelched.' The movement remains a fine place to make a career, but for wisdom one must look elsewhere."

Ouch! Honer J. Fong limped to victory on an 8-8 record. A non-winning record winning the pool is a first in the three-season history of AYRFSF. Alas, a win is a win. Bang a gong/Congratulate Fong/Bang a gong. The week also proved difficult for the remaining survivors: two did not survive. Nice knowing you Dennis and Ralph. All that's left is DocMcG and myself. Good luck McG. You will need it. (Cue the sinister laugh).

All picks are against the spread. Home teams are in caps. Here are my picks: CHIEFS -10 over Raiders, Colts -1.5 over COWBOYS, SAINTS -3.5 over Bengals, BROWNS +3.5 over Steelers, Titans +13 over EAGLES, RAVENS -4.5 over Falcons, PANTHERS -7 over Rams, TEXANS -2.5 over Bills, Patriots -6 over PACKERS, Redskins +3.5 over BUCS, Bears -7 over JETS, DOLPHINS -3.5 over Vikings, CARDS -2 over Lions, NINERS +6.5 over Seahawks, Chargers +2.5 over Broncos, and, on Monday Night Football, JAGUARS -3.5 over Giants. Make your selections in the comments section. Everyone is welcome.

Survival Pool Pick: Kansas City Chiefs New England Patriots, Indianapolis Colts, Miami Dolphins, Atlanta Falcons, Carolina Panthers, Dallas Cowboys, Seattle Seahawks, Chicago Bears, New York Giants, Denver Broncos.

"Their pathos is that not even the Communist ordeal could teach them that man without God is just what Communism said he was: the most intelligent of the animals, that man without God is a beast, never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness. 'Er nennt's Vernunft,' says the Devil in Goethe's Faust, 'und braucht's allein, nur tierischer als jedes Tier zu sein'--Man calls it reason and uses it simply to become more beastly than any beast."
--Whittaker Chambers, Witness, 1952

Democrats sound different now that the election is one week in the past instead of one week in the future. Senator Barbara Boxer vows "a very long process of extensive hearings" on global warming. "We might do away with it," says Congressman Bennie Thompson, incoming chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, on the border fence being constructed. He suggests the possibility of "A virtual fence rather than a real one," whatever that means. "Health care is coming back," Hillary Rodham Clinton promises. "It may be a bad dream for some." Might it be a bad dream for Hillary, who, more than anyone but her husband and Newt Gingrich, exiled Congressional Democrats into minority status after attempting to push her bureaucratic nightmare of Hillary-care? The costume party is over; the disguises are off. The real faces are a lot scarier than their masks.

"There may be occasions where, for a Christian, compassion will override the 'rule' that life should inevitably be preserved," maintains an official paper of the Church of England, written by Bishop Tom Butler of Southwark. The policy would give the church's imprimatur to doctors who allow disabled newborns to die. Before Christianity, the Greeks and Romans called this "exposure." It was one of the horrific practices in antiquity that Christianity outlawed. The ten commandments aren't that difficult to understand. The one that forbids murder is the easiest to grasp. For Christian lay people, it's a rule. For CofE scholars, it's merely a "rule."

Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control Rudy Guiliani has made it official: He's running for president. Alright, alright, he's just "testing the waters"--as his Federal Election Commision filing puts it. The same phony conservatives who have pretended that George W. Bush is a conservative will pretend that Giuliani is one too. He's not. That doesn't make him the devil. He's a good man, an able leader, and an experienced politician. He just doesn't share my values or embrace my ideas. He's not my choice for president. Giuliani's entry into the 2008 presidential sweepstakes might, strangely, prove to be good news for conservatives. With Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and George Pataki splitting the votes of liberal and moderate Republicans, a dark-horse conservative candidate could easily fill the rather large void on the Right. Primary voters are from the Republican wing of the Republican Party. Rudy Giuliani, clearly, is not.

If there's not enough Who on The Who's first album in twenty-four years, it's because there's not enough Who left. Drummer Keith Moon has been dead for almost as long as he was alive. John Entwistle, a casualty of the party deathstyle as well, is missed on Endless Wire even more than the post-Moon Who of Face Dances and It's Hard missed Moon. There's just Pete Townshend, a near-deaf guitarist who generally opts for acoustic over electric these days, and Roger Daltrey, a once raging, now aging, lion whose roar has been weathered by too many "Won't Get Fooled Again" screams. Somehow it works.

The two Who isn't trying to be the old Who on Endless Wire. Townshend and Daltrey are comfortable with who they are now, even if they find moments to memorialize who they were then: a cribbed Baba O'Riley intro, Tommy-style doves on the album art, a "People died where I performed" lyric. As Who fan extraordinaire Eddie Vedder told the New York Times, "After 20-plus years of not recording new Who material, they didn't pick up where they left off -- it's where they are now." That's what feels right about the record. If one listens to Endless Wire expecting Who's Next II, then one will be disappointed. If one listens to Endless Wire anticipating something we haven't had for twenty-four years--a new Who album--then one will like what comes out of the speakers. It's worthy.

The first half of Endless Wire consists of nine stand-alone tracks. The second half is a rock opera called Wire & Glass that is loosely based on Pete Townshend's story, The Boy Who Heard Music, which seems loosely based on Pete Townshend's story. Beyond that I can't make much sense of it as a story, but the music sounds great.

Part one is spotty, shining with Mike Post Theme, a carefree, offbeat ode to the creator of the intro music to The A-Team, The Rockford Files, and The Greatest American Hero, but slumping with the inclusion of a few songs that wouldn't have surfaced as B-sides in the old Who. Too many introspective, mandolin/piano based songs lacking drums, a power chord, and Roger Daltrey's voice makes one wonder, at least on a few tracks, if Endless Wire is really a Pete Townshend solo album under the Who label.

The Who hit a groove in the second half. The Wire & Glass songs suggest possibilities, but their brevity makes a mystery of just what possibilities. A few of the tracks run less than two minutes. The inclusion of extended versions of We've Got a Hit and Endless Wire--one of the album's strongest tracks--as bonus tracks, shows that more could have been made of the snippet songs that largely make up Wire & Glass. Alas, a good rule of show business is to leave the audience wanting more. Wire & Glass is strong and satisfying. The band closes the show on a triumphant note. Mirror Door is a bombastic celebration of music with Daltrey turned up to eleven, and Wire & Glass's coda, Tea & Theatre, plays as a thinly-veiled eulogy of The Who: "All of us sad--lean on my shoulder now/The story is done--it's getting colder now/A thousand songs--still smoulder now/We played them as one--we're older now." Daltrey's sand-papered vocal chords express not weakness, but strength--the strength of someone who has survived. Curiously, that aging Daltrey voice adds something (character) that the youthful Daltrey voice could not have brought to Tea & Theatre, an end-of-life look back at a fictional band in which two members survive.

Man in a Purple Dress makes for an unlikely Who classic. It's quiet, but raw and biting. The longest, and best, song on the album at first listen sounds like Pete Townshend, through his spokesman Roger Daltrey, going after those who had gone after him. It is bitter, caustic, angry. It is the anthem for anyone who has faced a judge and did not enjoy the experience. "How dare you wear a robe to preside/How dare you cover your head to hide/Your face from God/How dare you smile from behind your beard/To hide the fact your heart's afeared." Alas, Townshend sounds too much the martyr, almost playing Jesus and the song comes across as self-righteous and almost blasphemous.... until a few listens reveal that it's not a song about Townshend's "persecutors," but Christ's persecutors. Man in a Purple Dress is about Jesus Christ, inspired by a viewing of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. It makes more sense that way.

The rawness of Man in a Purple Dress's words and music--Townshend's guitar, Daltrey's voice, that's it--strip The Who down to what it is right now: one guitar player, one singer. The Who isn't hiding behind a history. Man in a Purple Dress isn't The Who covering The Who, but two sixty-something rock survivors sounding a bit like one would expect The Who to sound without their bass player and drummer, in their sixties, and trying, as they have always done, to keep their music relevant and not retro.

Remember the psychobabble claiming that George W. Bush went to war in Iraq to settle the scores of his father? In a strange way, he has. Foreign policy ideologues lambasted Bush the Elder for failing to overthrow Saddam Hussein and occupy Iraq. Bush the Elder's ambitions were more limited: eject the Iraqis from Kuwait and secure the Saudi Arabian border. For more than a decade, would-be nation-builders dreamed of what might have been had Bush 41 unleashed Norman Schwarzkopf upon Bagdhad. Now we know, fifteen years later, why he didn't--and why his restraint was wise. In the wake of disaster in Iraq and disaster at the ballot box, George W. Bush turns to George H.W. Bush for advice. The current president might have saved himself, and the nation, a lot of trouble by soliciting such counsel before embarking upon his Iraq venture.

Should we ban Elton John's music completely? Or, should we just bar his songs from, say, 1980 onward? Circle of Life? Sacrifice? Can You Feel the Love Tonight? This is the kind of noise totalitarian regimes pump into concentration camps. The Elton John complete ban/ban post-1980 controversy is the debate serious people were having until Mr. Elton John-Furnish derailed the conversation. "I would ban religion completely," the singer told a British music magazine. Why? Because major religions take a negative view of homosexuality and Elton John, well, doesn't. Doesn't he watch South Park? It settled this question in earlier this month.

This is what an open thread looks like. Those other posts aren't open threads. Say whatever you want about whatever you want in the comments section.

On 10 November 1775, the greatest fighting force known to man was formed--where else--in a bar. Happy birthday to my fellow Marines serving in harm's way, celebrating with cake and a cold one, or attending the Marine Corps ball in the sky. Happy birthday Chesty Puller. Happy birthday Lance Corporal Gregory MacDonald. Happy birthday Smedley Butler. Happy birthday Steve McQueen. Happy birthday James Webb. Happy birthday Carlos Hathcock.

UPDATE: President Bush announced today that Marine Corporal Jason Dunham, who jumped on a grenade to save his fire team, will be posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Happy birthday Jason Dunham.

When a ship sets sail for the lost city of Atlantis, and after, say, three years, seven months, and nineteen days, the crew mutinies because they haven't found what they thought they would find, making the captain walk the plank only to replace him with a new captain who promises to find Atlantis with more efficience and less pain won't do at all. The prudent thing to do, at that point, is to turn the boat around and set a course--for home. Some tasks are doomed from the start no matter who captains them.

Homer J. Fong is the winner of week nine's AYRFSF pool. He posted a 9-5-1 record. All those who were wrong: give props to Fong. All so-called survivors--Dennis, DocMcG, Ralph, and myself--survived.

Home teams are in caps. All picks are against the spread. Here are my selections: Chiefs -1 over DOLPHINS, Texans +10.5 over JAGUARS, Chargers -1.5 over BENGALS, FALCONS -8 over Browns, Ravens -7 over TITANS, COLTS -12 over Bills, Saints +4 over STEELERS, Redskins +7 over EAGLES, GIANTS -1.5 over Bears, VIKINGS -5.5 over Packers, PATRIOTS -10.5 over Jets, LIONS -6 over Niners, Broncos -9 over RAIDERS, Rams +4 over SEAHAWKS, Cowboys -7 over CARDS, Monday Night Football, Bucs +9.5 over PANTHERS. Make your picks in the comments section below.

Survival Pool Pick: Denver Broncos New England Patriots, Indianapolis Colts, Miami Dolphins, Atlanta Falcons, Carolina Panthers, Dallas Cowboys, Seattle Seahawks, Chicago Bears, New York Giants.

"The man who can right himself by a vote will seldom resort to a musket."
--James Fenimore Cooper, The American Democrat, 1838

Should current totals hold, Chris Shays will be the only House Republican from New England in the 110th Congress. Democrats added seats in Vermont, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, and already controlled the fourteen seats in Rhode Island, Maine, and Massachusetts. America got bluer on Tuesday night. Specifically, Blue America became a deeper shade of blue.

Sure, the Democrats added key seats in Arizona, Kentucky, and Indiana. But they added multiple seats in California, Pennsylvania, and New York--all states that went for Kerry in 2004. Dems added House seats in nine of the nineteen states that they won in 2004 and in just ten of the thirty-one states that they lost.

On the one hand, of course a party will perform better in the states where it has performed well in the past. No surprise that Democrats cleaned GOP clocks in the northeast. On the other hand, when a party nearly ran the table in House seats in a region (the northeast) the last time around, and then squeezes the few remaining seats this time around, there's no where to go but enemy (red) territory. No matter how well the Democrats do in 2008, there's only one (perhaps two) seats that they can pick up in New England.

Put another way, Democrats picked up seats primarily in the places (blue states) where they had less opportunities for pick ups. The Democrats can barely improve on their near monopoly in the northeast. If they want to more deeply entrench their majority, they will need--in a geographic reorientation of Horace Greeley's advice--to go south, young man, go south. This presents a new set of problems for the Rosa DeLauros, Henry Waxmans, and Maxine Waterses that dominate the current caucus. Expanding and entrenching the Democratic majority necessarily dilutes the liberal majority within the Democratic caucus.

In an earlier era, Democrats chased Richard Shelby, Phil Gramm, and others from their party. Will the current Democrats chase Heath Shuler and James Webb from their party once those men start casting votes in Congress? If Democrats want to govern the United States, and not just New England, they will have to expand their tent and embrace their diversity. In other words, the Democrats will have to do what they have been lecturing Republicans to do.

Seven states--Virginia, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Tennessee, South Dakota, Idaho, and Colorado--passed measures affirming traditional marriage. On a night when Republicans tasted defeat coast to coast, ballot measures defining marriage they way it's always been defined in the United States won everywhere but Arizona--where several hundred thousand absentee votes have yet to be counted. Judges and journalists aside, the American people don't want to transform marriage into an institution that confers special rights on same-sex pairs. Not only is this issue a big winner politically for conservatives, but it displays a maturity in its anticipation of the designs of judges that we could have used prior to Roe v. Wade. Feel free to laugh when liberal news readers continue to label this issue divisive. It's not. It's hard to think of any issue that could pass muster in so many diverse states. Feel free to laugh when liberal news readers continue to label these measures "gay marriage bans." The government doesn't now recognize same-sex marriage, does it? One can't ban something that never had legal standing in the first place. And it's not like the "bans" prevent homosexuals from walking into any Unitarian church and getting married. The measures simply protect the rest of us from having to recognize such unions.

The Democrats had a very good night on Tuesday. They won the House of Representatives. But the Senate, as I write, is still in play. A few thoughts and questions: Iraq, Bush fatigue, corruption, and an abandonment of core principles each played a role in the GOP defeat. But let's face it: good candidate recruitment--Jim Webb, Heath Shuler, Bob Casey--was a major factor in the Democrat victory as well. Wut up wit MSNBC projecting a 30-or-so seat pick-up for the House Dems at a point when they had only called 15 or so pick-ups? Do Bush groupies still fault Charlie Crist, who won his race for governor in Florida, for running from the president in the waning days of the campaign? Should conservatives care that Curt Weldon, Nancy Johnson, and Lincoln Chafee are no longer in Congress? How does the Air America crowd take a Ned Lamont defeat, and victories by mainstream Democrats Heath Shuler and Bob Casey? Could Michael Steele enjoy a Bob Smith moment (a George Bush moment!) at the media's expense by winning after major press organs called the race against him? Notice that Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman, elected and reelected to the Senate, aren't Democrats, meaning that even had the Democrats run the table on competitive races, they still, technically, would have been in the minority. If George Allen hangs on to win in Virginia by the coattails of the marriage initiative, will liberals finally admit what a political loser so-called gay marriage is? Winning means governing, which means taking a concrete position, which is something Democrats haven't done for a while (what's Kerry or HRC's current position on Iraq?). The Republicans deserved to lose, but only a glutton for punishment would celebrate the coming of Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Waxman, or Chairman Conyers. The elections are over. The Democrats did a good job of hiding their freaks in the attic these last months. The attic door is opening. Look out! Here come the droolers, the barkers, the captains of bumpersticker-mobiles.

Prediction? Pain. The Democrats will take control of the House of Representatives by adding 25 seats in the lower chamber. The Republicans will maintain control of the Senate, losing four seats to the Democrats. Make your predictions on today's elections in the comments section below.

After 24 years of studio retirement, The Who are back--at least the half that lives--with Billboard's #9 album, Endless Wire. Before I offer my take on the new album, I offer my take--which is subject to change daily--on the Who's ten best songs:

10. My Generation: From the calculated drug stutter (fa-fa-fa-fade away) to the most rock line in all of rock ("I hope I die before I get old"), what's not to like? It doesn't sound like a song from 1965, does it?

9. Pictures of Lily: John Lennon castigated Paul McCartney for writing "silly love songs." Pete Townshend never wrote a silly love song because he never wrote a love song. Self-love songs are another matter. He penned several odes to onanism, of which Pictures of Lily is the best.

8. Trick of the Light: Twenty-five years before bassist John Entwhistle spent his last night on earth with cocaine and a hooker, he penned this celebration of a "lady of the night." Check out Entwistle playing lead bass!

7. The Kids Are Alright: The song presents the best example of the early, popish, singles-oriented Who. It's also the title of one of The Who's three movies, but, strangely, is not played therein.

6. Naked Eye: So good that it never appeared on a proper Who album. It's also one of those songs that translates better live, so click on the link.

5. Won't Get Fooled Again: "Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss." That's about as much political wisdom one can cram into two lines. Has there ever been a better scream in all of rock? This is Keith Moon at his best.

4. Dr. Jimmy: A loud, aggressive tribute to testosterone-fueled youth that pays homage to fighting, drinking, deflowering virgins, and other pasttimes of angry teens.

3. Love Reign o'er Me: Quadrophenia's coda showcases Daltrey at his best.

2. Baba O'Riley: The hypnotizing keyboard intro, followed by the low keys on the piano, followed by the Ox's thundering bass, followed by the drums--Baba O'Riley rules, even when Yankee Paul O'Neill stepped to the plate with it in the background, even when people call it "Teenage Wasteland," even when introducing CSI: New York.

1. Who Are You: The original punk band faces the arrival of punk rock.

The verdict on ideas is not how well they perform in one's imagination, but how well they perform in the actual world. The intellectual fathers of the Iraq war refuse to rethink their core ideas. Instead, they rather ungratefully blame the only man who put their ideas into practice.

David Frum told Vanity Fair, "the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything." Richard Perle maintains: "Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad. I'm getting damn tired of being described as an architect of the war. I was in favor of bringing down Saddam. Nobody said, 'Go design the campaign to do that.' I had no responsibility for that." Michael Rubin complained to the magazine, "people trusted him, people believed him. Reformists came out of the woodwork and exposed themselves."

When Rubin finishes weeping over the poor "reformists" who exposed themselves, might he find time to shed a tear or two for the dead and wounded servicemen?

Democrats muzzled Bob Casey, Pennsylvania's pro-life governor, when he tried to speak at their convention in 1992. Fourteen years later, they begged his pro-life son to run for the Senate. Years in the political wilderness will do that to a party. Once crusaders for purity, liberal Democrats have opted for pragmatism in unseating Republicans.

In Virginia, liberals have put much time, energy, and money into replacing conservative Republican George Allen with conservative Democrat Jim Webb. They'll like Webb if he benches the former quarterback Allen. But will they like Webb if they get to see how he votes in the Senate? David Brooks noted last week on NPR that if elected Webb may not just be the most conservative Democrat in the Senate, but the most conservative in the Senate.

Heath Shuler has one of the best shots of capturing a Republican House seat. He's pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-border enforcement, and not sure whether he'll vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House. Indiana Democrat Brad Ellsworth, pro-life and against gay "marriage," runs ahead of GOP Rep. John Hostettler in polls. In Kentucky, Democrat Mike Weaver, a retired Army colonel, proclaims "Faith, Family, Freedom" as his campaign slogan. He promises not to vote for Nancy Pelosi should he win tomorrow.

America is fundamentally a conservative country. Dissatisfaction with one Republican president does not undo the inherent traditionalism and spirit of free enterprise. Deluded liberals who believe Democrat victories are tantamount to liberal victories are, well, deluded. Since Republicans are practically an endangered species in places like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey, Democrat pick-ups necessarily have to come disproportionately from places like Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee. Nine of the thirteen GOP-held districts that Real Clear Politics deems as leaning Democrat are in red states. Those Democrats, should they win, are going to reflect, more or less, the values of the districts they represent. Sure, they will be more liberal than the Republican incumbents. But they won't be as liberal as Pelosi, Kerry, Clinton, and company. If they are, they won't be there for long. Democrats already represent San Francisco, Cambridge, and Greenwich Village. Democrats elected tomorrow won't represent those places, either in fact or in spirit.

The folks who put the kibosh on the New Deal in FDR's second term, voted for the Reagan tax cuts, and defected to the GOP during Bill Clinton's tenure are making a comeback. If the Democrats win big Tuesday, the barkers and droolers will add a new enemy: the conservative Democrat. Reports of that species' death, apparently, have been greatly exaggerated. Or, perhaps more accurately put, the conservative Democrat is back from the dead.

Justice is blind. There should be no immunity for murderers who happen to rule nations. The death sentence issued to Saddam Hussein sends would-be Saddam Husseins a message: there are consequences to your actions. "Long live the people and death to their enemies," a defiant Saddam Hussein shouted to the court. "Long live the glorious nation, and death to its enemies!" Isn't that what the court said to him, too?

Seafood will be unavailable by 2048, says a group of scientists. Seafood will be available at fine restaurants everywhere in 2048, says a blogger who got a C and a B in the two science courses he took in college. Who, really, are "anti-science"? Degreed propagandists who discredit science by attaching it to wild scare scenarios that never pan out? Or, the skeptics who laugh at them?

I am the champion of week eight's AYRFSF pool. I posted a 10-4 record and left the competition in the dust. Abase yourselves before my greatness. The survival pool "survivors"--Dennis, DocMcG, Ralph, and myself--all survived.

Home teams are in caps. All picks are against the spread. Here are my selections: RAMS -2.5 over Chiefs, RAVENS -3 over Bengals, GIANTS -13 over Texans, Titans +9.5 over JAGUARS, REDSKINS +3 over Cowboys, BILLS -3 over Packers, Saints -1 over BUCS, Falcons -5.5 over LIONS, BEARS -13.5 over Dolphins, Vikings -5 over NINERS, CHARGERS -12.5 over Browns, Broncos +2.5 over STEELERS, PATRIOTS -3 over Colts, and, on Monday Night Football SEAHAWKS -8 over Raiders. Make your picks in the comments section.

Survival Pool Pick: New York Giants New England Patriots, Indianapolis Colts, Miami Dolphins, Atlanta Falcons, Carolina Panthers, Dallas Cowboys, Seattle Seahawks, Chicago Bears .

Yakov Smirnov, a controversial comedian in his own right in that he never made anyone laugh, used to make a living off the Cold War catchphrase, "America, What a Country!" Borat Sagdiyev, a fellow comedian from the former Soviet bloc, should not add the catchphrase to his act, but might want to keep it in mind. The Kazakh government has attacked Borat and Gypsies in Germany have filed a complaint regarding Borat with a state prosecutor. But the real butt of Borat's jokes laugh along with him.

"Going into the last week of the campaign," Bob Novak writes, "there is no sign of a Democratic wave or a Republican wave. It still looks like a good day for Democrats looming on November 7, but not necessarily a catastrophe for Republicans." Charlie Cook, on the other hand, offers that this "looks to be a very ugly midterm election for the GOP." Cook sees a 20-35 seat loss in the House, and at best for the GOP, a four-seat loss in the Senate. Though Cook and Novak frame their predictions differently (Novak: "not necessarily a catastrophe for Republicans"; Cook: "a very ugly midterm election for the GOP."), their forecasts are not far apart. Both see a Democratic victory in the House, and the Democrats falling just short of capturing the Senate. I see it that way too.

If the Democrats had an appealing message, instead of just counting on the poor performance of their adversaries, this election might have had the makings of an historic drubbing. After all, the president is unpopular, his war is unpopular, his handling of the immigration crisis is unpopular, and the economy isn't booming. But all the Democrats have going for them is the Republicans. The GOP had the Democrats going for them in 1994, but they boosted their prospects by offering an appealing Republican agenda to the voting public.

The Republicans may just be due for a beating. After six years, teams trade players, bands break up, and spouses file for divorce. After six years, the public has Bush fatigue. Republicans won three elections in a row, including a mid-term election that they had no business winning--at least by the dictates of historical trends. There should be a Democratic smackdown of the GOP on November 7, no? No.

What, in an historic sense, is a "drubbing," a "beating," a "smackdown"? In 1938, the Republicans added 81 seats in the House and seven in the Senate. But the Democrats retained both houses of Congress. In other words, the Democrats won the election despite losing ground. Improvement isn't victory. Eight years later, the Republicans won the election--taking 55 House seats and twelve Senate seats--even though they added fewer total seats than in '38. They won the election because they elected more Congressmen than their opponents. That's real victory, as opposed to psychological victory or moral victory. Democrat beatdowns of Republicans include 1930, when they picked up eight in the Senate and 52 in the House, and in 1974, when they picked up 49 in the House and four in the Senate.

The beatdown mid-term elections--'94, '74, '46, '30--won't add a new year to their ranks. The Democrats may capture a handful of Senate seats, and a couple dozen House seats. But their victory, should they be so fortunate, will not capture a place in the history books.

"How small, of all that human hearts endure/That part which kings or laws can cause or cure!"
--Oliver Goldsmith/Samuel Johnson, The Traveller, 1764

Senator John Kerry told college students to study hard so that they would not "get stuck in Iraq." Any questions why Kerry's name is prefaced by Senator and not President? I served in the Marines, as a reservist, for eight years. I'm not offended, just amazed that someone who so desperately wants to be commander in chief is so ignorant of those he seeks to command. I served with Marines who, in the 9-5 world, worked as engineers, CEO's of multi-million-dollar companies, government prosecutors, and intelligence officers. I was never at a loss for good conversation in the Marines. In addition to some of the best people, the Marines offered some of the smartest and most knowledgeable people I've met in life.

I joined the Marine Corps because America is a great country that deserved my service, not because I thought my prospects in life were dim. I was a few credits shy of graduation in college, but I wanted something more out of life than studies and a subsequent office job. I also thought the Marine Corps could fill the void left by the absence of sports since I got to college. I didn't join for the GI Bill, and I never benefitted from it. In fact, joining hurt my bottom line as it removed me from my fairly lucrative summer employment at Fenway Park. So many of the great men I had observed had once been Marines, so, in a calculated move at self-betterment, I walked into a recruiter's office and told him to sign me up. These were among the reasons I joined. Senator Kerry's inference of the armed forces being a receptacle for those who have run out of options fits neither my experience, nor my observations of fellow Marines.

This is not a conscript force, in which those without wealth, connections, or education are forced to join. This is a volunteer force, in which men and women enlist because they, as John Kerry did nearly four decades ago, chose to. In other words, the armed forces is not made up, as the senator's words implied, of life's losers. An unapologetic John Kerry holds that his "joke" was "mangled in delivery." Maybe so, but it was mangled at conception before it was mangled in delivery.