Bill Clinton now says that he "opposed Iraq from the beginning." Now that the war has fallen out of favor, did you expect something different from this world-renowned liar? Bill Clinton vocally supported the Congressional authorization of force against Saddam Hussein's regime, and in 2004 told Time: "That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. So I thought the President had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks."

I take offense to Clinton's attempt at re-writing history in a way that I don't think I took offense at so many of his past attempts to re-write history to suit his needs. "I didn't inhale" was comical. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" was pathetic. I "opposed Iraq from the beginning" enrages.

I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. I did so by voicing my opinion prior to the war on the O'Reilly Factor and Donahue, before college audiences, and on talk-radio shows. I did so in venues that were in no mood for my view and at a time when opposition to the war was unpopular. Witnessing the movement I served for more than a decade support, in lockstep movement fashion, George W. Bush's nation-building war of choice alienated me from what essentially had been my calling from the early 1990s onward. My position had costs. Some were minor annoyances, like the time a cable network revoked its invitation to appear on a discussion program (that wasn't about the war) after finding out I opposed the war. Others were more personal, such as the discovery that so many of the people with me in the conservative movement were more into being part of a movement than being conservative. Of course, none of this compares to the deadly costs to American servicemen and Iraqis civilians as a result of this war. That's why I am not laughing at President Clinton's latest lie. Playing politics with issues of life and death is vulgar.

Bill Clinton, who would have suffered no political fallout for saying he opposed the war--particularly within his own party--nevertheless went along, like he has always done, with the polls. Now that the polls have swung in the other direction, Bill Clinton has too. He is a scoundrel whose politics serve his interests, and not the interests of his country. If you doubt this, why on earth would he proclaim support for a war that he now says he all along was against?

It's okay to change your mind. I wish even more people would do so on Iraq. It's not okay to make your reversal of opinion retroactive. This is particularly true when your opinion, as President Clinton's does, matters. He could have made a difference. Instead, he was complicit. He could have shattered the bipartisan delusions that brought out the worst in both parties. Instead, he contributed to them. He could not have stopped the war. But he could have persuaded his many admirers, including his wife[?], that the war was wrong. He didn't. Instead, he said it was right.

We don't know if Bill Clinton was against the war then or if he is for it now. We don't know because his words frequently don't correspond to the truth. Alas, his successor, in stubbornly pursuing a wrongheaded course, presents an altogether different set of problems.

Clifford E. Clark just did what others think about but don't have the guts to do. Putting his .30-06 to good use, he took aim at a camera above a traffic light. His aim was true, killing the robotic paparrazi that had issued 6,798 tickets since last year. Unfortunately, Clark was arrested. Fortunately, robo-cops did not make the arrest. Common sense has not regressed as quite as quickly as technology has progressed. But give it time.

Massachusetts sports the largest collection of cosmopolitan rubes on this side of the Atlantic. Born and raised, and currently a resident, I know this first hand from too many discussions with fellow denizens who, amoeba-like, have absorbed the prevailing attitudes. It's not just that so many of my fellow Bay Staters are outright fools. It's the lack of self awareness. Bay Staters view themselves as the beneficiaries of a superior political mindset as the policies of their state are the laughingstock of the rest of the country. Proximity to Harvard University, Puritan forebears, and home delivery of the Boston Globe hardly inoculate one against political idiocy. Rather, these and other Bay State peculiarities insulate residents from ideas beyond the tiny liberal fiefdom.

Earlier this month, a middle-school principal in Winchester cancelled a previously-approved voluntary student trip to see a theatrical performance of "Miracle on 34th Street." As local writer Chris Connely put it, "Evander French Jr. has done what the judge in Miracle on 34th Street would not do--go against Santa Claus." Since Christmas is not for everyone, the reasoning[?] goes, Christmas cannot be for anyone. A nurse from my hometown has coaxed a state lawmaker to introduce legislation banning spanking in Massachusetts. "Are they going to start legislating that you can’t raise your voice to your kids?," asks Charles Enloe, who was arrested for spanking his child in 2005. "That you can't tell them when to go to bed? We'll be communists then." On election day in Cambridge, where I was born, the city pulled donation boxes placed at polling places by the Boy Scouts to collect materials for troops serving in Iraq. The city manager claimed the boxes were "political statements." They weren't, but banning them was.

Massachusetts has a rich history but an impoverished present. It doesn't take an MIT rocket scientist to figure out why, in contrast to the population growth in the rest of the country, Massachusetts continues to witness a massive jailbreak of inmates escaping south, west, and even north to Maine and New Hampshire.

Did gun-control zealotry help to kill Washington Redskin star safety Sean Taylor? After copping a plea agreement with Miami-Dade prosecutors over brandishing a gun against the alleged theives of his SUVs in 2005, Taylor was left to defend himself, in his own home, with a machete on Sunday night. As they say in the movies, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

First and foremost, Sean Taylor's death is a tragedy, not a political issue. He was 24, a father, and on his way to becoming the best free safety in the National Football League. Let's leave the gun-control debate for another day. The issue that arises from this tragedy isn't necessarily political, but attitudinal--the cultural smugness of journalists toward athletes who, for issues that should be obvious to everyone in light of this tragedy, carry firearms.

It's hard not to look at Taylor's death without wondering what connection the first headline grabbing incident, and the anti-gun moralism that ensued among sports journalists, had with the tragic second headline grabbing incident. It's also hard not to juxtapose the very different outcomes of two nearly identical gun incidents involving Miami Hurricane free safeties. The lesson? Perhaps there are sensible reasons why a successful athlete living in, or coming from, a high-crime area would arm himself. The media's refusal to consider this puts athletes between a rock and a hard place, between the harsh condemnation of the Fourth Estate and the deadly reality of the streets, between getting portrayed as a thug and getting killed by a thug.

I don't know that Taylor's Second Amendment rights were revoked by the courts. I do know that athletes "caught" with weapons have their Second Amendment rights revoked, in effect, by the media. The bad publicity athletes receive by merely owning firearms, or brandishing them in appropriate situations, can result in the loss of lucrative endorsement deals, a drop in placement on draft day, and stalking bad publicity. I don't know if Taylor's past run-in with the law resulted in him not posessing a firearm when an armed intruder invaded his bedroom Sunday night, but it's certainly worth asking. Don't count on the mainstream media to inquire, though.

Consider the response to Taylor's University of Miami teammate Brandon Meriweather's appropriate use of a legal firearm. Meriweather played on the same team, played the same position, and was involved in an almost identical situation with a burglar firing a gun. When a shooter opened fire on Meriweather and a teammate, shooting the friend in the buttocks, Meriweather shot back. The assailant fled. Good job Brandon, right? One scribe wondered, "why in the world a college student would be packing heat on the regular." A CBS Sportsline writer, for instance, noting Meriweather's unsportsmanlike stomp of an opposition player in a brawl and his discharging a weapon at a criminal, joked: "If the Patriots' new pick could have only thrown in a little armed robbery during his Miami Hurricanes days, he would be the ideal NFL triple threat." But why group the legitimate use of a firearm with a thuggish on-field assault? The writer continued: "A teammate being shot in the ass, and another returning fire, was met with casualness from fellow Hurricanes at the time. Former Meriweather teammate Kyle Wright told the media that at least Meriweather didn't 'bring a knife to a gunfight.'" CBS mocks Wright's statement, but in light of the tragic loss of Sean Taylor, the writer's words mock himself.

Miami Hurricane free safety Brandon Meriweather is alive for bringing a gun to a gun fight. Miami Hurricane free safety Sean Taylor is dead for bringing a knife to a gun fight. Meriweather now brags that he doesn't own a gun. Journalists applaud this as a sign of maturity. I view such a public profession as a sign of stupidity. Alas, assuaging the gods of political correctness can be a dangerous business.

Many professional athletes come from bad neighborhoods. Their success and affluence is a magnet for jealous and greedy predators. Moving might be an option for some. But even most professional athletes can't afford to move extended families, who often are a determining factor in where someone decides to live. Even when athletes move out of the ghetto, trouble often follows. NBA stars Eddie Curry and Antoine Walker, for instance, both have been victimized by home invasions this past year. Would they have been considered bad guys had they fended off the robbers with guns?

Gun ownership is nothing to be ashamed of. It's the choice of free men in a free society and the want of oppressed men in oppressive societies. For good reason, many professional athletes own guns. It's reckless, irresponsible, and without perspective for sports journalists living in suburban affluence to castigate athletes from the ghetto because they decide to carry legal firearms. This will not be a lesson of the Sean Taylor tragedy, but it should be.

Did the bad publicity that Sean Taylor received from previous gun charges result in a defenseless home? Did the terms of his probabtion preclude the ownership of a firearm? Would Sean Taylor be alive had he fended off the invader of his home with a gun instead of a machete? Had Taylor shot the gun-slinging intruder, as his teammate Meriweather did, would he have been cast as a villain, as his teammate Meriweather was cast?

Ralph is the champion of week twelve, with a 12-4 record. Give props. Get your picks in early for the THURSDAY NIGHT GAME. All picks are against the spread. Home teams are in caps. Here are my selections: COWBOYS -7 over Packers, RAMS -4.5 over Falcons, Bills +6 over REDSKINS, Lions +3.5 over VIKINGS, TITANS -4 over Texans, Jaguars +7 COLTS, Jets +1 over DOLPHINS, Chargers -5 over CHIEFS, EAGLES -3 over Seahawks, PANTHERS -3 over Niners, SAINTS -3 over Bucs, CARDS +1 over Browns, RAIDERS +3 over Broncos, BEARS +2 over Giants, Bengals +7 over STEELERS, and, on Monday Night Football, Patriots -20.5 over RAVENS. Make your selections in the comments section.

I was asked by a student a few months back what I made of whispers of Hillary Clinton partaking in gay affairs. She's not fun enough to be a lesbian, I responded. Might I have underestimated Bill Clinton's effect on women?

A few weeks later, I heard on, of all places, JT the Brick's overnight sports show, the allegation reported to a national audience. I Googled Hillary's alleged paramour. Friends, Hillary has better taste in women than Bill does.

That's if you believe the rumors. I've been around politics long enough not to automatically believe the graffiti on the bathroom wall. Evidence, not gossip, persuades. But I'm just not sure this is the type of story that hearing the evidence will be all that healthy--for Hillary Clinton, for her close friend, or for the country.

The English press reported the rumours over the weekend, which Drudge repeated on his website. The cycle has begun. The genesis of this story, appearing on blogs, in foreign news outlets, on Drudge--all before a mainstream U.S. press outlets took a crack--reminds me of another sex scandal involving a famous politician (also named Clinton) and a female underling.

And like that other sex scandal, Republicans would be unwise to carp on this. The prinicpal effect of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was to place on the national stage obscene sexual material. In other words, the publicity surrounding the scandal spotlighted on stage what should operate in the shadows off stage. It's not that Bill Clinton did something defendable. It's not that the scandal merely involved sex. And it's not the Republicans can be blamed for the litigious culture and maze of sexual harrassment laws which ironically ensnared a politician of Bill Clinton's outlook. It's that a debate over such a coarse topic only serves to make the nation more coarse. It served as a massive advertisement for oral sex. "What's the big deal?," one middle-school student caught up in the post-Lewinsky fad explained to her parents. "President Clinton did it." The cultural change in sexual mores that undoubtedly took place during the 1990s stemmed in large part from the Clinton sex scandal dominating newspapers, television, radio, and internet for more than a year.

People who might otherwise have found such behavior between the fiftysomething boss and his college-age intern vicious, because of their passion for Clinton or the Democratic Party, put themselves in the position of defending or downplaying Clinton's bad behavior. They rationalized, and, in effect, gave license to the tens of millions of spectators watching the prolonged national debate. Like Senator Pat Moynihan, they, in the words of Pat Moynihan, participated in "defining deviancy down." Clinton's behavior, and the publicity it received, more than any piece of legislation he signed or executive action he took, altered America. And it did so for the worse.

Like the Monicagate scandal, the primary effect of the Lesbian Bomb, should crude operators choose to detonate it, would be to generate sympathy for Hillary Clinton. People who find lesbianism abhorrent are likely to find Hillary Clinton's political positions abhorrent and people who find lesbianism cool are likely to find Hillary Clinton's political positions cool. With no blue dress forthcoming, what's the point of highlighting a story that its main characters--a political candidate and a campaign worker dedicated to the success of that political candidate--will deny?

Unlike the Monicagate scandal, where Clinton's enemies had their facts right, the Hillesbian story may turn out to be like a lot of stories peddled about the Clintons. Remember Clinton running drugs out of the Mena, Arkansas airport? Clinton's hit on Commerce Secretary Ron Brown? The illegitimate black child he spawned with a Little Rock prostitute? All this and more happened in the imaginations of Bill Clinton's enemies. Clinton haters allowed their hatred to cloud their judgment just as Friends of Bill allowed their love for the man to cloud theirs. Passion, which the Clintons evoke in friends and enemies, has that effect on people.

Taking the bait on the Hillary "lesbian bomb" story will likely have similar negative consequences. First, by focusing on one candidate's sex life, as they did during the late 1990s, Republicans will distract the party faithful from their lack of a conservative direction and toward some external devil figure, in this case, that, that, that lesbian! In doing so, it will mainstream a subject that, outside of MTV, shock-jock schlock, and magazines like Club and High Society, is still outside of the mainstream. In delegitimizing Hillary Clinton through the "lesbian" issue, Republicans may desensitize the nation to homosexuality, ushering in even more special "rights," "hate" laws, and other such nonsense. Is that what they really want?

Of course, there is as little evidence to substantiate this rumor as there is evidence to suggest that national Republicans seek to make this an issue. I don't think they are that stupid, but some lone officeholder certainly is. Less than a decade after Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston made Bill Clinton's infidelities (and lying and obstruction of justice) the issue, and within a year or so of Mark Foley and Larry Craig becoming the issue, making a big deal of Hillary Clinton's alleged affair with a woman would be a colossal mistake. As with most matters involving politics, Republicans would be wise to follow the course they should have followed with Iraq and the economy: laissez faire, leave it alone.

"He who says he supports Chavez but votes 'no' is a traitor, a true traitor," Hugo Chavez declared to a packed arena of uniformed supporters. "He's against me, against the revolution and against the people." True traitors conflate self with nation, party with nation. The megalomaniac Chavez's picture should appear next to the definition of "cult of personality." He is a self-obsessed dictator seeking to usurp even more power by suspending aspects of Venezuela's constitution. "It's black and white--a vote against the reform is a vote against Chavez," Chavez, characteristically referring to Chavez in the third person, said in an interview of Chavez conducted by Chavez's state media. Chavez.

So mesmerized by charismatic socialists are leftists that their professed ideals of civil liberties and democracy fly out the window at first sight of a fist-pumping, podium-banging despot. But to the Left, at least in real time, such despots aren't despots at all. After the fact, the example of the red-flag-flying National Socialists comes to mind, socialist oppressors get transformed into right-wing oppressors. No leftist, to a leftist, is capable of such abuse of power.

It's easy to identify tyrants in history. Identifying them in the present proves more difficult. Even ones who award themselves panjandrum titles, don military garb, and engage in histrionics that would make Mussolini blush escape the "tyrant" designation by progressives who imagine themselves always at a point in history too "advanced" for all that. A socialist tyrant, because of the ideological affinity to foreign leftists, is, apparently, no tyrant at all. From a leftist's perspective, it's as if "tyrants," "despots," and "dictators" exist exclusively outside the Left--in the same way that "coups" always seem describe rightist power-grabs and "revolutions" leftist power grabs.

No tyrant calls himself a "tyrant." According to most tyrants, their power comes from "the people," a modern source for legitimacy that is to dictators what "God" was for kings. This rhetorical appeal to democracy, however crude and simplistic a parlor trick, magically convinces large numbers of people that the enemies of liberty are its friends.

It's not as if the American Left is reluctant to employ such terms as "fascism," "oppression," or "dictatorship." The abusive language the Left promiscuously hurls at Republican presidents apply more easily to the foreign dictators they so foolishly venerate. Don't count on Hugo Chavez receiving the George Bush treatment from American radicals anytime soon, though.

What's today? Thanksgiving? Yes, but it's also the thirty-first anniversary of one of the most famous concerts in rock history. Kinda. The Band performed their "last waltz" at the Winterland Ballroom in San Francisco on Thanksgiving night November 25, 1976. Showing up to lend support were Van Morrison, Bob Dylan, Muddy Waters, Ringo, Dr. John, and, strangely, Neil Diamond, who, in my opinion, just stuck out like a sore thumb. The concert was immortalized by Martin Scorcese's film, "The Last Waltz," which captured great music, boasted beautiful cinematography, and, alas, featured some underwhelming interviews of some interesting characters like the late Richard Manuel and the singing southern drummer, Levon Helm. Anyhow, let's let the music do the talking. Here are my five favorite performances from The Last Waltz:

The Band--The Shape I'm In
Neil Young--Helpless
The Band--The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down
Bob Dylan--Forever Young
The Band w/The Staple Singers--The Weight

"Pop" Staple's voice on "The Weight" is a must-hear. It is smooth and effortless. Enjoy.

"We are trying to kill teams. We're trying to blow them out if we can."
--Tom Brady, 11/20/07, WEEI

The opening line of the Patriots-Eagles game was 23 1/2. That is the largest spread on any game in the history of the National Football League, save for a game that pitted the Super Bowl champion Steelers against the expansion Bucs in 1976. To put this in perspective, here's Rick Gosselin from earlier this season in the Dallas Morning News: "In 2003, the largest betting line in any one game was 14 points. In 2005, there were only three teams favored to win by as many as 16 points (Indianapolis twice, Seattle once). In 2006, there were just two (Chicago and Indianapolis, once apiece)." Since 1980, just five teams have been installed as twenty-point favorites or more. I've been wondering when some Vegas casinos would take Patriots games off the board. Apparently, a few have gone that route. The house isn't the business to give away money.

Is Philly that horrible? No, they're a .500 team in a tough division. They put 56 points on the board earlier this season. Remember: These two franchises played in the Super Bowl just three years ago. Donovan McNabb is "questionable," but there's been no announcement that he will not play. So why the humongous spread? The Patriots are that good. They've scored 411 points this season. Only one other team in the NFL has scored 300. Just two teams have given up fewer points. They're humiliating opponents by outscoring them by an average of 25 points. Why not a 23 1/2-point spread when the Pats regularly beat teams by that amount? As John Avello, who operates Wynn's sports book in Las Vegas, says, "You just don’t see these kind of numbers in the NFL."

Vegas has amazingly posted 1:3 odds on a bet for New England to win the Super Bowl. If the Super Bowl were next week, those kind of odds might not seem so abnormal. But there's a lot of football to play. There are twenty or so teams who still have legitimate playoff hopes. Yet, Vegas says that New England is such a better bet than the field that you will have to lay down $3 to win $1 if you pick them right now to win the Super Bowl.

"Here, alas, is something NFL fans have never seen before: One team playing an entirely different game from all the others," writes Gerry Callahan in the Boston Herald. Callahan points out something that anybody tuning into the Patriots regularly already nows: "You're watching the best team ever." "How many times have we heard that one before?," isn't the right question. "How many times have we heard that one before when it hasn't been hyberbole?"

The Patriots are that good. But there is a fine line between perfection and punchline, and losing a game at the wrong time will make them the latter instead of the former. Hear many fans talking about the 2005 Colts or the 1998 Vikings?

But who will pin a loss on the Patriots? They've already beaten the NFL's runner-ups, Dallas and Indianapolis, on the road. The teams in competition with the Patriots now are the likes of the '85 Bears, '72 Dolphins, and the '94 49ers.

GET YOUR PICKS IN. THERE ARE THREE THURSDAY GAMES THIS WEEK. Congratulations to Billiam, whose impressive 10-4-2 record was best in week ten. All picks are against the spread. Home teams are in caps. Here are my selections: LIONS +3.5 over Packers, COWBOYS -14.5 over Jets, FALCONS +11.5 over Colts, BEARS -2.5 over Broncos, BENGALS +1 over Titans, JAGUARS -7.5 over Bills, CHEIFS -5.5 over Raiders, BROWNS -3.5 over Texans, RAMS +3 over Seahawks, GIANTS -7 over Vikings, PANTHERS +3 over Saints, BUCS -3 over Redskins, CARDS -10 over Niners, CHARGERS -9.5 over Ravens, PATRIOTS -23 over Eagles, and, on Monday Night Football Point Dolphins -16 over STEELERS. Make your selections, RIGHT NOW, in the comments section.

Ron Paul has separated from the pack in New Hampshire and now trails only Rudy McRomney. According to a CNN/WMUR poll, Paul now garners the support of eight percent of likely primary voters. Already he is ahead of where the naysayers thought he'd be--dead last. But beating the competition and not expectations is the task at hand. New Hampshire, with its quirky, Yankee libertarianism, is tailor made for a candidate such as Ron Paul. Pat Buchanan, a candidate whose positions were less in tune with prevailing Granite State attitudes, won the state in 1996. Eight percent is encouraging, but Paul must do better if he wants to be more than a protest candidate.

Similarly, Mike Huckabee has made major strides in Iowa, a state where Pat Robertson finished second in 1988. He currently runs second in most polls of likely Iowa caucus goers. Ric Flair, Ted Nugent, and Chuck Norris, a trio whose superpowers include the figure-four leg-lock, the 300-m.p.h. crossbow, and the roundhouse kick, have endorsed Huckabee. One celebrity, I am told, does not concur.

The script wasn't written this way. The approved candidates are Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain. They posted early name recognition, showed capacity to raise money, appeared on magazine covers, and, most importantly, never dared express contrarian opinions. Support another candidate and GOP opinion makers will look at you as if you were Yoko Ono, or O.J., or their secret child. Do as your told, Republicans. Vote for Rudy McRomney or Fred. No thanks, the voters are saying. They want more choices then the ones shoved down their throats. Huckabee and Paul have ideas (one's quite different than the other's). They have personality. They have neat histories. Because of this, their candidacies have shown the most positive movement.

It would reinvigorate our democracy if either of these guys won a primary or caucus, or gasp, made a run at the nomination. Elections, voters would be reminded, aren't decided by money or media a year in advance.

Detroit is the most dangerous city in America, so dangerous, in fact, that its officials have lashed out at the organization issuing the ignominious ranking. "It really makes you wonder if the organization is truly concerned with evaluating crime or increasing their profit," police chief Ella Bully-Cummings reacted to the Congressional Quarterly report. "With crime experts across the country routinely denouncing the findings, I believe the answer is clear." Less public relations, more police work, please. One wonders when the civic (mis?)leaders of St. Louis, Flint, Oakland, and Camden, other cities making the bad end of this list, will follow suit with the blame-the-messenger routine.

By next year, "Muhammed" will likely overtake "Jack" as the most popular name in Great Britain. The cultural transformation is startling. Imagine how Saudi Arabians would react to "Jack" overtaking "Muhammed" as the most popular name in their country. America is undergoing a change, albeit one not as dramatic as Britain's turn toward Islam. The Social Security Administration announced that "Garcia" is the eighth most popular surname in the United States. "Rodriguez" is the sixth most popular. "It shows we're getting stronger," reacted one Miami Hispanic. "If there's that many of us to outnumber the Anglo names, it's a great thing."

In my research, I frequently come across material, wholly irrelevant to my project, but terribly interesting, if only as historical curiosities. The following comes from the New Harmony Gazette, publication of the Owenite Communists, circa 1827:

"A schoolmaster from Harvard [Massachusetts] lately expelled a scholar 18 years of age, from school, on his refusing to pray, when requested, the scholar alleging that he did not come to school to be taught to pray.

"The schoolmaster was indicted for an assault and battery before the court of common pleas at Worcester [Massachusetts], but the jury, without leaving their seats, found a verdict of 'not guilty,' on the ground 'that a schoolmaster has a right to resort to expulsion as one more of punishment, and that the custom of the country sanctions prayer as an exercise in schools."

Massachusetts, juries, our understanding of the First Amendment, and teachers have all changed dramatically in the last 180 years.

Congratulations to Homer J. Fong, the champion of week ten. He notched a 9-4-1 record. All picks are against the spread. The home teams are in caps. Here are my selections. JAGUARS -3 over Chargers, Chiefs +14.5 over COLTS, Raiders +5.5 over VIKINGS, RAVENS +3 over Browns, Steelers -9.5 over JETS, Bucs -3 over FALCONS, BENGALS -3 over Cards, EAGLES -10 over Dolphins, Patriots -16 over BILLS, COWBOYS -10.5 over Redskins, Saints +1 over TEXANS, PACKERS -9.5 over Panthers, LIONS +3 over Giants, Rams -2.5 over NINERS, SEAHAWKS -5.5 over Bears, and, on Monday Night Football, Titans +2 over BRONCOS. Make your pigskin prognostications in the comments thread.

"No more Department of Education. No more Federal Reserve Bank. No more Medicare or Medicaid. No more membership in the United Nations or NATO. No more federal drug laws. And, no more U.S. troops in Iraq -- or anywhere else on foreign soil.

"The Internal Revenue Service would be history in the first week that Ron Paul sits behind the desk in the Oval Office. And the dismantling of the above-mentioned entities and relationships -- plus a long list of others -- soon would commence.

"Think that sounds eccentric, strange, even crazy?" Why, no. It sounds like a start.

Thus begins an excellent article on Ron Paul's candidacy in the Chicago Tribune entitled, "Paul: A Seller of Ideas." The article, unlike so much that passes for political journalism, focuses on the candidate's--Personality? No. Fundraising? No. Popularity? No.--ideas. What a novel idea, a political article about ideas. What a novel idea, a political candidate with ideas.

Massachusetts has expanded its no-free-speech zone around abortuaries from eighteen to thirty-five feet. Holding signs, handing out pamphlets, and conversing with clinic entrants, among other activities, is banned by law. "Women in the Commonwealth have the right to obtain medical care free from violence, harassment or intimidation, and this new law will guard that right," reacted Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. "By widening the buffer zone around reproductive clinics we will protect patients from the harassment that so many have encountered as they seek care." But violence, harassment, and intimidation was already banned under existing law. In fact, statute protects citizens from such illegalities whether they're entering Dunkin' Donuts or Planned Parenthood. But protection from pamphlets, placards, and protest? That's only for Planned Parenthood and friends.

The National Right to Life Committee endorsed Fred Thompson for president. Judging from Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, they could have done a lot worse. Wanda Franz, the president of NRLC, reasoned, "Our endorsement is a testament to Senator Thompson’s long-standing pro-life record, his commitment to unborn children, and our belief in his ability to win."

Look past the first two rationalizations and focus on the last one. The NRLC wants to be on the winning team, not the home team. There are plenty of solid pro-life candidates in the race. I am supporting one, Ron Paul, an ob-gyn who has delivered several thousand babies and aborted none. Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, and John McCain, from what I understand, also have solid pro-life voting records.

Fred Thompson? He opposes the Human Life Amendment. When he ran for Senate in Tennessee, he told a local abortion group that he would favor governmental funding for the abortions of rape victims and that he had voted to fund "family planning" programs. There are also allegations that he lobbied for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association in 1991. This last point, if proved true, would be a disqualifier, though I understand the federalist reasoning of Thompson's stand against Roe and against a Human Life Amendment. It's just that the National Right to Life Committee doesn't hold Thompson's position against a constitutional amendment, and neither do several worthy candidates who the NRLC could have endorsed.

Candidates used to seek endorsements. Now endorsements seek candidates. In the process used by the NRLC endorsers, electability trumped principles. The NRLC wanted to attach itself to a "respectable" candidate, even at a time when two dark horses--Paul and Huckabee--who come closer to the NRLC's platform are besting Thompson in the polls in key states. Thompson is no Giuliani on abortion, and it is certainly a defensible endorsement. It's just a curious one considering both the direction of Thompson's campaign and the questions surrounding his pro-life commitment.

When the single-minded people dedicating their lives to stopping abortion are so seduced by compromise, they shouldn't be surprised when the politicians they seek to attach themselves compromise too. One expects softness from politicians. When activists go soft, it just gives politicians license to go even softer.

Has there been a more embarrassing counterexample to George W. Bush's utopian Second Inaugural Address delusions than Pakistan? Bush proclaimed that "the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time" was supporting the growth of democracy. Yet, in the name of America's security, he doles international welfare out to a dictator. There is a flaw in the logic of Bush's second inaugural, and his policies toward Pakistan highlight this. For America's sake, it's a good thing that his actions do not match his rhetoric.

George Bush says democracy defeats terrorism. Pervez Musharraf says democracy inhibits fighting terrorism. He has suspended rights, he says, to uproot terrorists. Unfortunately, the people whose rights he has curtailed include the woman who seeks to take his place as leader of Pakistan.

For the second time this week, former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto has been placed under house arrest by Musharraf. She sought to hold a protest, which is pretty standard fare for political activity. But if even milquetoast political activity is verboten in the lead up to an election, how can the election be fair? There will be an election in Pakistan. There won't be democracy, or at least what has been conflated with democracy: liberty, rights, etc. The right to vote people into power isn't the key question. The limitations on the power of the elected is.

Should Bush crusade against Musharraf? No, because it's not in the direct interests of the United States (neither, it seems, are our bribes/aid). But his second inaugural says that he should: "So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Blah, blah, blah. It makes you almost long for the time when U.S. presidents reflected, "He may be a sonovabitch, but he's our sonovabitch." At least those real politique guys weren't hypocrites.

Another drawback to the democracy uber-alles policy is that the results of elections don't always mesh with U.S. interests. Anatol Lieven writes in the International Herald Tribune, "a parliamentary coalition could be put together against the PPP [Bhutto's party]. Such a move would be completely democratic and constitutional. It would also have to include the moderate and not-so-moderate Islamist parties. What, one wonders, would the US administration make of this product of Pakistani democracy?" In other words, be careful what you wish for. Votes can bring a Hitler into power just as they brought a Washington into power.

"U.S. justices could decide constitutionality of gun ownership," reads the headline in the International Herald Tribune. But Supreme Court justices, no matter how they rule, if at all, in the DC gun-ban case, don't determine the constitutionality of anything. The Constitution does. It says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I have heard conservatives argue that the Constitution only pertains to the federal government. I am unpersuaded. If true, this would make the Tenth Amendment redundant. Also, there is a deliberate difference in language between, say, the First and Second Amendments. The First, even though it is currently applied to the states and even localities, refers to a limitation on "Congress." The Second, even though state legislators and even Congress place restrictions on gun ownership, refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." To find that the Second Amendment allows Washington, DC's government to prohibit gun ownership is to find the Constitution unconstitutional.

"Evangelicals cursed and screamed when President Clinton had an affair in the White House, but it's clear they are willing to overlook the past marital failures of Giuliani, his fractured relationship with his children and his support for gay and abortion rights when mayor of New York," CNN.com's Roland S. Martin writes. "Those are not the family values they have beaten into the nation's consciousness for nearly 30 years." No, they are not.

Former conservative Democrat Pat Robertson's endorsement of liberal Republican Rudy Giuliani demonstrates the television preacher's devotion to power and not principle. Robertson is not a clergyman injecting himself into politics but a politician injecting himself into religion. Born into politics, Pat Robertson saw his father elected to the House of Representatives and later the Senate. Robertson, after switching his registration to Republican, ran for president in 1988. Out of the ashes of the Moral Majority, Robertson formed the Christian Coalition and picked as its executive director not an evangelical Christian leader, but Ralph Reed, a political operator best known for College Republican in-fighting. The Christian Coalition, though it did good work in energizing and educating religious conservatives, was, in essence, a political revival, as anyone attending their conventions can attest.

Pat Robertson seeks the Kingdom, but it's the one headquartered in Washington, DC. He could have boosted the campaign of a bona fide religious conservative, Mike Huckabee, or any number of pro-life candidates running. Instead, he chose the Republican candidate most diametrically opposed to his professed views: Rudy Giuliani. Why? Because this puts him closer to power. As Jeff Greenfield observes: "In many ways, Robertson's best days are behind him. The Christian Coalition is a shadow of itself, barely functioning. His own influence, eroded by comments that have brought him widespread condemnation--most especially for his apparent belief that the 9/11 attacks were a sign of God's punishment on America for its licentious ways. At a time when many other evangelicals are, to put it mildly, uneasy with some of Giuliani's views, this puts Robertson back in the political center ring."

The endorsement also demonstrates the degree to which the presidency of George W. Bush has decimated the movement of Christian conservatives. After getting one of their own in the White House, religious conservatives compromised their principles to rationalize their support for Bush. When Bush nominated to the Supreme Court a feminist who had supported abortion, Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson came to the defense of his embattled nominee. This, evidently, was a sign of things to come. Once in power, religious conservative leaders would sacrifice principles to stay there. Robertson is perhaps discarding his principles to get back into power's graces.

A third reason involves opposition to the Democrats, which has become the raison d'etre of Republicans. This stance is heightened when Hillary Clinton's name is injected into the mix. Supporting any candidate save the one who is most likely to defeat Hillary, it is reasoned, is de facto support for Hillary. This is destructive to conservatism, as this faulty reasoning always seems to find the more liberal candidate the more electable candidate. Not the promise of conservative ideas governing the nation, but the spectre of Hillary Clinton, or John Kerry, or Al Gore, serves as the rationale for going to the polls.

With abortion further entrenched, and gay marriage codified in several northeastern states, Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani can be seen as a white flag in the culture war. Could there be a more grovelling surrender for a Christian culture warrior than endorsing a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, thrice-married liberal? Robertson has apparently moved on from the issues that once motivated him. The war on terror, which has distracted conservatives as conservative politicians have pursued liberal policies, is apparently Robertson's new moral crusade. And what better man to lead it than the man who showed so much leadership on 9/11?

Pat Robertson is not the king of religious conservatives, despite what liberals, who have benefitted by portraying him in this role, might say. We shall see if the pastor without a pulpit influences his television flock to do as he says. Conservative Christians aren't the "poor, uneducated, and easy to command" mob that the Washington Post's Michael Weisskopf's once claimed, are they? One way of proving such stereotypes false is for religious conservatives to ignore Robertson's bad advice.

Because of his frequent verbal gaffes, Pat Robertson has been one of the liberals' favorite conservatives. Now liberals have another reason to like him: advancing the presidential prospects of one of their own.

"There's no doubt that we represent the kind of change Senator Clinton can't deliver on. And part of it's generational," Barack Obama explained to Fox News. "Senator Clinton and others have been fighting some of the same fights since the '60s. It makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done. And I think that's what people hunger for." I haven't thought about it this way, but I think Obama has a point. Clinton, whether it's her reference to a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" or her dismissive comments about baking cookies and standing by her man, always seems in war mode. She is vindictive, vengeful even. Her politics were formed in the bitter fights over Vietnam and Watergate. I don't think she can govern effectively. Obama, on the other hand, has a likable personality. I disagree with most of his stances on issues, but he comes across as a normal guy and not someone stuck in partisan mode 24/7. Obama's 2006 "Call to Renewal" speech is an excellent example of his conciliatory approach. Reading it didn't make me want to vote for Obama. It did make me realize his temperament is not that of your garden-variety Democratic politician.

Rolling Stone has handed out its Almost Impossible Rock n Roll Quiz. I scored a 43 out of 58, which makes me, according to the invisible internet graders, an "expert." It's like getting a 1500 on the SAT, except that people who know a lot about rock never took the SAT. They went the GED or the ASVAB route. So, as a better point of reference, a 43 out of 58 is like a GED score above 3,000. If you have way too much time on your hands--this was not intended to be a rock n roll reference to Suxx, I mean Styx--take the test and report back to the readership on your score.

Billiam and Ralph notched impressive 11-3 records in becoming co-champs of week ten. Wow! Offer your congratulations in the comments section. All picks are against the spread. Home teams are in caps. Here are my selections: TITANS -4 over Jaguars, CHIEFS -3.5 over Broncos, Bills -3 over DOLPHINS, STEELERS -9 over Browns, SAINTS -11.5 over Rams, PANTHERS -4 over Falcons, REDSKINS -3 over Eagles, Vikings +6 over PACKERS, RAVENS -5 over Bengals, RAIDERS +3.5 over Bears, GIANTS +1 over Cowboys, Lions +1 over CARDS, CHARGERS +3.5 over Colts, and, on Monday Night Football, SEAHAWKS -10 over Niners. Make your picks in the comments section.

"During the course of the XIXth Century a dreadful ambiguity existed in this regard in democratic ideology; concepts and trends inspired from genuine devotion to the people and genuine democratic philosophy were mixed up with concepts and trends inspired from spurious democratic philosophy and would-be dictatorial, mistaken devotion to the people. There were men who believed that, as Jean-Jacques Rouseau put it, they should force the people to be free. I say they were betrayers of the people. For they treated people like sick children while they were clamoring for the rights and freedom of the people. Those who distrust the people while appealing to the highest feelings and to the blood of the people cheat and betray the people."
--Jacques Maritain, Man and the State, 1951

Remember when Michael Weisskopf wrote in the Washington Post that evangelical Christians were "uneducated" and "easy to command"? That supposition will be put to the test by Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, who has been to the left of George McGovern on social issues for most of his political career. I don't think the flock will follow the bad shepherd, but politics is full of surprises. John McCain, who boasts a pro-life voting record in the Senate but nevertheless rubs the likes of Robertson raw, noted: "Every once in a while, I'm left speechless. This is one of those times."

Five conservative authors--Jerome R. Corsi (Unfit for Command), Bill Gertz, Lt. Col. Robert (Buzz) Patterson (Dereliction of Duty), Joel Mowbray (Dangerous Diplomacy), and Richard Miniter (Shadow War & Losing Bin Laden)--are suing Regnery Publishing. "They've structured their business essentially as a scam and are defrauding their writers," Miniter told the New York Times, "causing a tremendous rift inside the conservative community."

Basically, the authors' gripe involves the relationship between Regnery and the Conservative Book Club, both of which are owned by Eagle Publishing. Regnery sells books at a deep discount to the Conservative Book Club, which in turn sells the books at deep discount to club members. In the process, authors forgo much of the royalties they would have received had those books been sold in stores. "The difference between 10 cents and $4.25 is pretty large when you multiply it by 20,000 to 30,000 books," Mr. Miniter told the Times. "It suddenly occurred to us that Regnery is making collectively jillions of dollars off of us and paying us a pittance."

That's one way of looking at it. I viewed the arrangement otherwise when the Conservative Book Club selected Intellectual Morons as a "main selection" for one of its monthly mailings. (They had done the same with Why the Left Hates America, but I was oblivious, learning of it several years later). In short, I was ecstatic. I realized that I would make a fraction of the money from the Conservative Book Club that I would have had those books been sold in a traditional store instead. But the promotion the Conservative Book Club does to attract members and sell books, I reasoned, would more than make up for the royalties lost. I always could use more money, but I prefer more readers and the Conservative Book Club gave me that.

On the backs of magazines like National Review, on the pop-up ads on conservative sites like Newsmax, and in the mailings to tens of thousands of conservatives, the Conservative Book Club would advertise my book, alongside the books of Mowbray's, Miniter's, and the other litigants. This free advertising, I surmise, led to many, many indirect sales. In other words, the Conservative Book Club advertises the book, but doesn't reap the exclusive rewards. How many people who become aware of my book through a double-page spread in, say, Human Events (yet another Eagle Publishing company), bought the book through Barnes & Noble, Borders, or Amazon (where I basically make 15 percent off the price), rather than through the Conservative Book Club (in which I split an agreed upon amount received from the Conservative Book Club with my publisher)? And how many people bought the book to fulfill annual club quotas on books bought or because they forgot to mail in their monthly cards saying "no book"? Put another way, how many people who would have never purchased the book otherwise did so because simply because they were a member of this club?

Might I have had a more negative view of such an arrangement if I were a Regnery author? Perhaps. As it stands now, I split the proceeds of such bulk book-club orders with Crown Forum. We take a hit in direct income on the deal. But what if Crown struck such a deal with another company owned by Bertelsmann? In essence, they would not be taking the hit with me but would be reaping huge profits as publisher and book store. Ultimately, however shady such a deal might appear, the arrangement would still be beneficial for me because of all the free promotion my book would receive. Just because one party benefits does not mean the other party is harmed.

Perhaps the bottom line on this is the bottom line, i.e., your signature on the agreement. If you have a contract, the best time for complaining about the terms is before you sign. Presumably, the litigants agreed to the terms they now decry.

Corsi, Mowbray, Patterson, Gertz, and Miniter don't see it that way. Not knowing the specifics of their suit, I can't sit in judgment on it. I can judge my own dealings with the Conservative Book Club positively, but my dealings aren't their dealings. I am very interested in how this turns out, and not just in the courtroom. There are a finite number of conservative publishing houses and imprints. Suing one limits your options as an author. It may even scare away other suitors. A few of these writers are established enough that they need not worry about such matters. But a few of them aren't. Should we view them as brave crusaders doing the dirty work so that other conservative authors will benefit, or as ingrates killing their own careers by biting the hand that fed them? As the facts of the case pour out, the answer to that question will be clearer.

Ron Paul raised more than $3.5 million in one day, besting the 24-hour hauls of all of his adversaries for the Republican nomination. Fundraising and polls are the two items Paul naysayers have cited for discounting his candidacy. They've similarly ridiculed Paul's rise from the second tier of candidates into the first tier in some New Hampshire polls. When Paul has performed well in internet polls, anti-Paul conservatives--who've excused Bush's nation building, big-government, and amnesty schemes but somehow find the constitutionalist Paul anathema--have denigrated the polls. Now that Paul has shown himself a formidable fundraiser--next to polls, the primary criterion for earning the support of party conservatives--Paul haters will have to find something new to carp about. My preference is for them to deal with his constitutionalist, small government voting record, instead of polls and popularity, as doing so will say more about their conservative credentials, or lack thereof, than about Paul's.

NBC is in the midst of a "green is universal" campaign, a 150-hour effort to politicize viewers into embracing a Hard Green view of global warming and other environmentalist scare stories. With Matt Lauer in the arctic, and other reporters at extreme weather locations, the network seeks to impart a message to viewers that the climate is changing due to normal human activity (driving, turning on a lightbulb, throwing a can in the garbage). This is a dubious proposition. It is not universally accepted, as the network's slogan implies. But if media conglomerates repeat it enough, it will become universally accepted--at least that's what they're hoping. Imagine the outrage if, instead of environmentalism, NBC chose to spend 150 hours indoctrinating its viewers into a pro-life or anti-gun control mindset. It's unthinkable, partly because one of the outcomes of such programming to program is the idea, tacitly accepted even by people who reject the Left, that it's not programming when it's a leftist pet cause that's being pushed. But it is.

It's a sad day when the most influential conservative is a liberal. Rudy Giuliani, the pro-abortion, anti-2nd Amendment, pro-illegal immigration former mayor of New York City, is the most influential conservative in America, according to the UK's Daily Telegraph. Beam me up, Scotty. What conservative would endorse Mario Cuomo, as Giuliani did in 1994? Dick Morris, Christopher Hitchens, and Andrew Sullivan are a few of the other influential "conservatives" who made the list. There are several conservatives that I admire on the list: Mike Pence, Thomas Sowell, and Ron Paul come to mind. But in the pre-Bush, pre-bizarro conservative movement, when conservatism meant more than merely opposing the Democrats' latest bogeyman, it would have been hard to not break out in laughter at the suggestion that Joe Lieberman influences a single conservative. But times have changed, and so have conservatives. They have become more liberal. Should we mock the list, or mock what's become of the "conservative" movement?

The New England Patriots won a half size Lombardi Trophy by beating the Indianapolis Colts in Super Bowl 41 1/2. The Patriots and the Colts are who we thought they were: the two best teams in football. The Colts lost because they couldn't get it done in the red zone. The Patriots won because they could. They were down by ten points with under ten minutes remaining--down but not out. With great speed, ferocious pass rushers, and solid hitting from the secondary, the Colts defense looks better than ever. There's no shame in their game, particularly with the absence of Marvin Harrison and starting left tackle Tony Ugoh. Joseph Addai is a stud. Gary Brackett's interception was an awesome display of athleticism--and concentration. With the aid of the referees, the Patriots set a franchise record for penalty yards. The officiating was horrible, and it detracted and distracted from an otherwise epic battle. Randy Moss is the man at wide reciever again. The one-handed circus catch was as amazing as the 55-yard reception was predictable. As soon as Brady let go of the ball, everyone knew who it was going to and that it would be caught. Here's a picture of Tom Brady's girlfriend. The Colts will get another crack at Patriots, but it will be in Foxboro in January instead of inside the dome. The Patriots have defeated a great team in the Colts, beat on some of the league's stronger teams in the Cowboys and Chargers, and laid waste to every other team they've played. Is it too early for that conversation about "best ever"?

That's right. You heard it here thirty first. Or, perhaps, sixty first, depending upon how much ESPN you watch or JT the Brick you listen to. The Super Bowl is in November. The defending champion Indianapolis Colts, who came back behind Peyton Manning's arm to vanquish the New England Patriots in last year's AFC championship game, take on those same Patriots--or should I say, those same Patriots plus Randy Moss, Adelius Thomas, Wes Welker, Donte Stallworth, and a giant chip on their shoulders--in the latest NFL regular season game between unbeatens since, well, since anybody can remember. To quoth the rhapsodist Terrell Owens, "Getcha popcorn ready." And get your predictions ready too. Patriots 41. Colts 24. Sure it's in the Coltdome. Sure they're the defending Super Bowl champs. Sure they're undefeated too. But I've never seen anything like the 2007 New England Patriots. Call me a homer, if you must. But before you do, make your predictions on the big game in the comments section.

Duane "Dog" Chapman murdered another human being in the 1970s. That didn't stop him from gaining a cable television show as America's favorite bounty hunter. Now, in private conversations, he used the "n" word repeatedly. His career is over. Some sins are unforgivable.

Myself, Ben T, and DocMcG are the champions of week eight, posting 8-6 records. A faint "congratulations" is in order. All picks are against the spread. Home teams are in caps. Here are my selections. Washington -3.5 over JETS, Packers +2 over Chiefs, BUCS -3.5 over Cards, TITANS -4 over Panthers, Niners +3 over FALCONS, SAINTS -3.5 over Jaguars, Broncos +3 over LIONS, Bengals even over BILLS, Chargers -7 over VIKINGS, BROWNS -1 Seahawks, Patriots -5.5 over COLTS, RAIDERS -3 over Texans, EAGLES +3 over Cowboys, and, on Monday Night Football, Ravens +9 over STEELERS. Make your picks in the comments section.