The Blue Grotto

Here's a Nice Little Poem I Spotted. . . .

     In April of 2006, I was lucky enough to spend a week fishing and beaching it in Costa Rica with host Christopher L. and guests Mary Beth O'K. (now Mrs. Christopher L.), Darcey Y., and Juan Seitz. 

     Hanging on the wall of the guesthouse I shared with Juan was this little poem.  I love it.  I find it to be very soothing and relaxing:

     It reads:

    If I ever become a rich man

    or if ever I grow to be old

    I will build a house with a deep thatch

    to shelter me from the cold.

    I will hold my house in the high wood

    within a walk of the sea

    And the men that were boys when I was a boy

    Shall sit and drink with me.

     The house on which this quote hung did indeed have a beautiful, dramatic view of the sea.

.

Anti-Anti-American Quote of the Day!

     A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S., British, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a   large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries.

     Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks, but a French admiral suddenly complained that, "whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English." He then asked: "Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French? "

     Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied: "Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German."

.

Check Out These Pics of Icy Versoix, Switzerland!

 

 

   

Election '08 "FYI"

 

Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007

By Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.

.

Special Patriots-Giants Matchup Graphic!

   

Nice Resume. . .

     This just in from Grotto Election '08 Editor Terry B.:

.

Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her "record," which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or "co-president" - and her seven years in the Senate.

Here is a reminder of what that record includes:

* As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Pat Moynahan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would "demonize" anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.)

* Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations (Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood) were forced to withdraw their names from consideration, and then she chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as "my worst mistake."

* Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn.

* Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster allegedly committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

* Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. (FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee in 1996 both the drug use and Hillary' involvement in hiring Livingstone.)

After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years.

* In order to open "slots" in the White House for her friends the Harry Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded),
Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for "gross mismanagement" and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with
White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours.

* Another of Hillary's assumed duties was directing the "bimbo eruption squad" and scandal defense:

---- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit.

---- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica
Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all for $800,000.

---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury

---- And Bill was impeached by the House.

---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repe ated, "I do not recall,"
"I have no recollection," and "I don't know" 56 times under oath).

* Hillary accepted the traditional First Lady's role of decorator of the White House at Christmas, but in a unique Hillary way. In 1994, for example, the First Lady's Tree in the Blue Room (the focal point each year) was decorated with drug paraphernalia, sex toys, and pornographic ornaments, all personally approved by Hillary as the invited artists' depictions of the theme, "The Twelve Days of Christmas."

* Hillary wrote "It Takes a Village," demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint.

* Hillary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary
also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support.

* Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen.

* In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the "Gender card" by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her.

* Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those
records.)

* As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. she has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11.

* Hillary's one notable vote, supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed.

.

Happy Late Birthday, George N.!

     George's birthday was January 25th, but we're running a little slow here at Worldwide Headquarters this week.  George and I have been pals since September of 1976, in First Grade.

     Here he is on Maaatha's Vineyaahd with some actors he hired.  Just kidding!  The attractive bunch with George is supercool wife Melissa and supercool kids Ryan and Millie, posing for one of the top Christmas cards of '07:

     Happy Birthday, Dude!

.

      

Hey, Bill Gates: Blame the Absence of Capitalist Principles, Not Capitalism Itself.

January 25, 2008

Capitalism Doesn't Work, Mr. Gates?

By Lawrence Kudlow

Bill Gates, bloviating at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, is issuing a clarion call for a "kinder capitalism" to aid the world's poor. Gates says he has grown impatient with the shortcomings of capitalism. He thinks it's failing much of the world. This, of course, from a guy who's worth around $35 billion (give or take a billion).

Don't you just love it?

A guy without a college degree who invented a new technology process in his garage that literally changed the entire world, a guy who took advantage of all the great opportunities that a free and capitalist society has to offer and got filthy rich in the process, is now trashing capitalism and telling us it doesn't work. What chutzpah.

For all his do-good preaching, Gates is ignoring the global spread of free-market capitalism that has successfully lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and into the middle class over the last decade. Think China. Think India. Think Eastern Europe. (Maybe even think France under Nicolas Sarkozy.) Gates wants business leaders to dedicate more time to fighting poverty. But the reality is that economic freedom is the best path to prosperity. Period.

The latest stats out of China are revealing. Here's a country that was a basket case not so long ago and today is the world's fourth largest economy -- hot on the heels of Germany, the third largest economy. China just reported 11.2 percent fourth-quarter GDP, its fastest growth rate in 13 years. Total output for China is now 24.7 trillion yuan, or $3.42 trillion at current exchange rates.

At $14 trillion, the U.S. economy is still four times the size of China's. But we've had free-market capitalism for more than 300 years. China's only had it for about 15. China is still an undemocratic, authoritarian and repressive society that lacks the benefits of political freedom. But it was the late Milton Friedman who argued that the onset of free-market capitalism was the precursor to full-fledged democratic capitalism. China's on the right track.

Gates says he has witnessed steep income and cultural inequities in his travels around the world, in particular to Africa. But for this he should blame the absence of capitalist principles, not capitalism itself. Even the most compassionate corporate executives are not going to bring prosperity to impoverished countries with statist economies. Until Africa's nations undertake the market-oriented reforms that have boosted China and the other Asian Tigers -- like South Korea and Taiwan -- they will continue to rank at the bottom of the world prosperity scale.

The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal 2008 Index of Economic Freedom reveals how free-market economics is spreading like wildfire, while state-run socialism is on the decline. And it's no wonder why. The free-market countries are prospering mightily, while the least-free economies are mired in poverty. We're talking North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe and Iran. Also noteworthy is Venezuela. As the neo-socialist Hugo Chavez attempts to adopt Fidel Castro's failed economic model, he's sinking his nation toward Cuba-type poverty.

Economist Mark Perry, on his Carpe Diem blog site, reports that both the U.S. share of world GDP and its global stock market capitalization are shrinking. But this isn't a bad thing at all. It doesn't mean that America is heading downward. On the contrary, it means that newly freed economies are heading up.

The reality here is that the rising tide of global capitalism is lifting all boats that employ it. Capitalism works. It's a good thing. It's the key to unlocking a nation's prosperity. In fact, free-market capitalism is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised by man.

Another billionaire, George Soros, the Davos partygoer who finances near every left-wing political-action group on both sides of the Atlantic pond, recently wrote in the Financial Times that the era of capitalism is coming to an end. Soros, of course, has been predicting this for at least 20 years -- through the greatest world boom in history. And how was it that Soros made his money? Trading currencies in the technologically advanced world financial markets, the very same markets that were spawned by 20th century free-market capitalism.

So I just have to smile when billionaires like Bill Gates and George Soros turn cold shoulders to the blessings capitalism bestows. Or when their buddy, Warren Buffett, broadcasts the importance of hiking tax rates on successful earners and investors.

Look fellas, the command-and-control, state-run economics experiment was tried. It was called the Soviet Union. If you hadn't noticed, it was a miserable failure.

Lawrence Kudlow is a former Reagan economic advisor, a syndicated columnist, and the host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company.

.

     Here's an old Time cover I found:

.

Who's the Creepiest of Them All?

     I strolled into a Barnes & Noble a few days ago and glanced at the selections on one of those common-themed tables near the front.  This particular display seemed to be showcasing the most exciting new diet and "wellness" titles.  (Question: When did we switch from the perfectly accurate term "health" to the fancier "wellness?"  I'm sure some very serious person with a Ph.D in a non-subject like "educational linguistics" came up with it and presented it at a conference in Orlando, at which point his colleagues all nodded gravely and thought they'd better get onboard.)

     Here are three of the most prominently-displayed titles.  Please rank these fellows in order of creepiness:

.

This Basedow guy's been on the Grotto before:

.

This guy likes to wear a little bit of tasteful eye makeup:

.

This guy likes to promote an image of "Hey, I work hard and exercise and eat well, but I'm also laid-back, cool, and relaxed, as you can tell by my comfortable yet attractive skin-tight shirt."

.

And then this poor guy had a book on a nearby table (yes, it's a dude):

By Now You've Heard of the SocGen $7 Billion Rogue Trader. . .

. . . and it looks like authorities are establishing some of the pyschological motives for his reckless behavior (thanks to CFC IV for this):

.

FRENCH TRADER WAS FORCED TO WORK 30 HOURS A WEEK
   

     FRIENDS of rogue trader Jerome Kerviel last night blamed his $7 billion losses on unbearable levels of stress brought on by a punishing 30 hour week.

     Kerviel hid his November losses in a batch of wonderfully fresh croissant. Kerviel was known to start work as early as nine in the morning and still be at his desk at five or even five-thirty, often with just an hour and a half for lunch.

     One colleague said: "He was, how you say, une workaholique. I have a family and a mistress so I would leave the office at around 2pm at the latest, if I wasn't
on strike.

     "But Jerome was tied to that desk. One day I came back to the office at 3pm because I had forgotten my stupid little hat, and there he was, fast asleep on
the photocopier."

     As the losses mounted, Kerviel tried to conceal his bad trades by covering them with an intense red wine sauce, later switching to delicate pastry horns.

     At one point he managed to dispose of dozens of transactions by hiding them inside vol-au-vent cases and staging a fake reception.

     Last night a spokesman for Sócíété Générálé denied that Kerviel was overworked, insisting he lost the money after betting that the French were about to stop
being rude, lazy, arrogant bastards.

.

Appeasement / "Orwellian Newspeak" Post of the Day. . .

     Here's an excerpt from Mark Steyn's new column.  He talks about the surreal new policy of the British Government that renames Islamic Terrorism as "Anti-Islamic Activity."  While they're at it, why not call bald people "People With Thick Heads of Hair" or "People Who Are Not Bald?"

.

January 28, 2008 

First, They Came for Piglet 

By Mark Steyn

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com

My favorite headline of the year so far comes from the Daily Mail in Britain:

"Government Renames Islamic Terrorism As anti-Islamic Activity' To Woo Muslims."

Her Majesty's government is not alone in feeling it's not always helpful to link Islam and the, ah, various unpleasantnesses with suicide bombers and whatnot. Even in his cowboy Crusader heyday, President Bush liked to cool down the crowd with a lot of religion-of-peace stuff. But the British have now decided that kind of mealy-mouthed "respect" is no longer sufficient.

So, henceforth, any terrorism perpetrated by persons of an Islamic persuasion will be designated "anti-Islamic activity." Britain's Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, unveiled the new brand name in a speech a few days ago. "There is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief," she told her audience. "Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic."

Well, yes, one sort of sees what she means. Killing thousands of people in Manhattan skyscrapers in the name of Islam does, among a certain narrow-minded type of person, give Islam a bad name, and thus could be said to be "anti-Islamic" — in the same way that the Luftwaffe raining down death and destruction on Londoners during the Blitz was an "anti-German activity."

But I don't recall even Neville Chamberlain explaining, as if to a 5-year-old, that there is nothing German about the wish to terrorize and invade, and that this is entirely at odds with the core German values of sitting around eating huge sausages in beer gardens while wearing lederhosen. . . .

.

Here's a Cool Site for Grotto-Reading Travelers. . .

     Grotto reader, contributor and political analyst at-large, Terry B., has partnered with a fellow NYU MBA grad and a network of fellow travel/writers to start an excellent new website designed to give you everything you need for modern and original travel: www.area-daily.com. 

     Created specifically for an audience of adventurers and professionals who travel often and seek originality wherever they go, AREA is your key to authentic and contemporary places only locals and insiders seem to know about.  Get discounts and deals on travel services and invitations to exclusive events and places; and book everything straight from the web site.  It's one stop shopping for all of your travel needs.
     AREA DAILY is a free daily email with real recommendations and insider tips on the best designed hotels, innovative restaurants, must-have services and fun things to see and do around the globe.
     AREA VALET is a personal service that organizes unforgettable travel experiences for Area readers such as a Ferrari driving trip through Tuscany, front row seats at Paris Fashion Week, a chartered sailing trip through the Croatian Islands, or a personal wine making experience.
     Soon AREA will launch AREA CONNECT, an online community where members can connect and share travel tips, experiences, videos and resources, AREA TV, a video series covering the best in modern travel, AREA ONLY, a membership club that provides discounts & deals on travel services and access to exclusive events & places, and AREA GUIDES, downloadable city guides with up-to-the-minute information on where to sleep, eat, play, and relax in cities around the globe.
Sometimes its just fun to open the area-daily email to stoke your imagination, and travel far from your desk if even for just a minute! 
     GO TO www.area-daily.com AND SIGN UP TODAY, IT'S FREE!

.

Study Finds Link Between Being Struck By Cream Pie, Diminished Social Standing

January 25, 2008

ITHACA, NY—A new study conducted by the Cornell Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences has found what researchers believe to be a demonstrable link between being struck with a banana cream pie and a sudden, significant drop in one's public standing.

"What we have observed is nothing short of astounding," Dr. Philip Shaw, a human sciences professor at Cornell and the study's lead researcher, said Monday. "By having cream-topped pies forcibly applied to their faces—or kissers—men and women of high regard were seen to immediately fall in both status and esteem."

Enlarge Image

A banana cream pie much like the ones used in the study.

"Whether the subjects were wealthy shopkeepers, pompous barons of British descent, or matronly women sporting tiny opera glasses—our results were always the same," Shaw added.

The study, which was conducted with the help of 25 dignified members of the aristocracy and three rather clumsy butlers, showed a direct correlation between unexpected contact with the custard-based stimulus and a loss of social stature—including the respect of bystanders, the affections of untold gentlewomen, and any possibility of securing a sizable donation for one's struggling playhouse.

Even more surprisingly, results showed that the drop in standing took place in mere seconds and not over the course of many weeks, as is generally needed for adjusting an individual's hierarchical status.

"Upon each pie's delivery, we were able to detect a 12 pecent decline in both privilege and hubris," said Shaw, who conducted further experiments on the airborne dessert phenomenon in a highly controlled masquerade-ball setting. "However, much to our surprise, a host of secondary factors—such as the angular velocity at which the pies were thrown, the length of time they stuck to a participant's face before sliding off, and whether they were accompanied by the honking of a loud bicycle horn—also affected the overall reputation of our subjects."

Timing was also cited as being pivotal by Shaw, who said that the sequence of introducing a pie into the face of an elderly countess, giving her time to clear the cream from the eyes and mouth, and then administering a second pie into her face generated the sharpest descent in stature.

"Response to the delivery of the pies was generally varied among participants, although we did observe nearly 15 separate threats of 'Why, I oughtta…' and roughly six distinct cries of 'Well, I never!'" Shaw said.

A 12-minute black-and-white video recording released by the researchers documented some of the more acute reactions to face-first pie contact, including the rapid emission of compressed steam from a participant's ears† and, on three separate occasions, a fast-motion but ultimately unsuccessful chase around an elegant dinner table between participant and researcher.

Isolated incidents of a cream pie causing one's dickey to fly up into one's face were also reported.

Enlarge Image

Though the long-term effects of Shaw's pie experiment are still unclear, a number of the subjects registered a strong psychological reaction within moments of completing the study.

"Why, I cannot remember the last time I was so insulted in all my life," said socialite Thomas DuBottomer, who on day four of the study ducked an oncoming cream pie only to have it land square in the face of a passing police officer. "I demand an apology, you troublemaking so-and-so!"

Shaw's report is not the first of its kind. Four years ago, a Princeton study attempted to measure the effects of discharged seltzer water on one's reputation; and in 2005, scientists determined that slipping on a discarded fruit skin, rolling down a circular flight of stairs, and landing face-first into an awaiting cart of horse manure could be definitively linked to being fired from a board of bank trustees.

Though the report has yet to be published in any major journals, Shaw has defended his team's research.

"I strongly believe our study to be of the utmost importance," Shaw announced at a conference of behavioral scientists in Chicago on Tuesday. "Whether others approve or disapprove of it is not my concern. We are serving a greater purpose here, a higher purpose. What we have accomp—"

The outspoken Shaw was thereupon struck with a banana cream pie, his opinions at once rendered completely irrelevant.

.

Property = Responsibility = Prosperity, or Why Cows, Chickens and Pigs Will Never Make the Endangered Species List. . .

     If you missed the Nov. 21st column (one of the best of 2007), here's the link:

http://jewishworldreview.com/1107/stossel112107.php3

.

Tragedy of the Commons, Part II 

Dec. 5, 2007

By John Stossel

www.JewishWorldReview.com 

My Thanksgiving column about how the pilgrims nearly starved practicing communal farming but thrived once they switched to private cultivation made some people angry. One commented, "Sharing of the fruits of our labor is a bad thing?"

I never said that.

I practice charity regularly. I believe in sharing. But when government takes our money by force and gives it to others, that's not sharing.

And sharing can't be a basis for production — you can't share what hasn't been produced. My point is that production and prosperity require property rights. Property rights associate effort with benefits. Where benefits are unrelated to effort, people do the least amount necessary to get by while taking the most they can get. Economists have a pithy way of summing up this truth: No one washes a rental car.

It's called the "tragedy of the commons." The idea is as old as ancient Greece, but ecologist Garrett Hardin popularized the phrase in a 1968 Science magazine article. Hardin described a common pasture on which anyone may graze his livestock. Each person will benefit from a larger herd but will suffer only a tiny fraction of the negative effects of overgrazing. Public Choice economists call this "concentrated benefits and dispersed costs."

That's a recipe for depleting the resource. If a herdsman were to leave a portion of the commons ungrazed, someone else would gain the benefit, so why leave it ungrazed? Soon, all the grass is gone, and the livestock die. That's the tragedy of the commons.

There are two possible solutions. One is to put someone in charge. But that someone would have arbitrary power over the rest — he may give his friends better terms — and one individual can't possibly know how to plan the village economy.

The second solution, as the pilgrims learned the hard way, is private property. Property rights unite costs and benefits. If a herdsman owns part of the pasture, he reaps not only 100 percent of the benefits of enlarging his herd but also 100 percent of the costs. Under those conditions, he behaves differently. If he undergrazes, uses fewer pesticides, etc., to make sure that the pasture flourishes next year, he can anticipate the future benefits. So, he has a strong incentive to be a good steward of the land.

This principle is pertinent today. People lament endangered species and call for government action. But that is the inferior "solution" already discussed. What we need is private property.

Cows, chickens, turkeys and pigs are never at risk of becoming endangered. What's special about them? Only that individuals own these animals and sell them. That gives livestock owners an incentive to keep them healthy and plentiful year after year.

The animals whose future we do worry about — whales and elephants, for example — are not typically subject to ownership. It's the tragedy of the commons.

Elephants are endangered because in much of Africa, poachers kill them for their tusks. Poachers have no incentive to expand herds, and neither does anyone else. Governments outlawed hunting and the ivory trade, but that hasn't stopped the loss of elephants. The plain is too vast to police it all.

Yet, where the property principle has been applied — however imperfectly — the fate of the elephants has been reversed. Villagers in Zimbabwe earn income by permitting hunting. In effect, the villagers have property rights in the herds. That changes attitudes. They'd be poorer if they let the elephants be hunted to extinction.

The result? "To say that we have too many elephants would be an understatement," Zimbabwe Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management acting director E.W. Kanhanga said 2001.

The system is not perfect because individual property rights — which would create a stronger sense of responsibility — are not allowed. Moreover, the system has come under suspicion because cronies of Zimbabwe's despicable dictator, Robert Mugabe, are said to be killing elephants in game parks.

Nevertheless, Zimbabwe tried property rights. Kenya tried prohibition. Kenya lost elephants while Zimbabwe gained them.

The pattern is clear. Property = responsibility = prosperity.

.

TV Critics Admit To Never Having Watched The Wire

January 25, 2008

NEW YORK—Despite heaping lavish praise on the HBO crime drama The Wire, television critics across the country admitted Monday that not one of them has ever sat down to watch an entire episode of the show. "The Wire has done what no other television program has come close to achieving—namely, presenting the life of a decaying American city and doing so with the scope and moral vision of great literature," said New York Times critic Virginia Heffernan, who was surprised to hear that the groundbreaking series had already started its fifth and final season in early January. "It sounds fantastic. I really wish I had HBO." Many reviewers from top media outlets assured reporters that they would start watching the Peabody Award–winning show just as soon as the first season reaches the top of their Netflix queues.

Quote of the Day. . .

     Interesting, is it not, that no one considers it necessary to insist that "the debate has ended" about whether the Earth is round.  People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues.

     George Will, in a recent column

.

Bill Clinton: 'Screw It, I'm Running For President'

January 23, 2008

CHARLESTON, SC—After spending two months accompanying his wife, Hillary, on the campaign trail, former president Bill Clinton announced Monday that he is joining the 2008 presidential race, saying he "could no longer resist the urge."

"My fellow Americans, I am sick and tired of not being president," said Clinton, introducing his wife at a "Hillary '08" rally. "For seven agonizing years, I have sat idly by as others experienced the joys of campaigning, debating, and interacting with the people of this great nation, and I simply cannot take it anymore. I have to be president again. I have to."

Enlarge Image  

"Damn, this feels good," Clinton told supporters as he shook hands in Charleston Monday.

He continued, "It is with a great sense of relief that I say to all of you today, 'Screw it. I'm in.'"

In a show of respect, Clinton then completed his introduction of Hillary Clinton, calling her a "wonderful wife and worthy political adversary," and warmly shook her hand as she approached the podium. A clearly shocked Mrs. Clinton got halfway through her speech about the nation's obligation to its children before walking briskly offstage.

A spokesman for Sen. Clinton's campaign had no comment.

"No longer will I have to endure watching candidates like Hillary Clinton engaging in single-pump handshakes with voters, as I use every last ounce of restraint not to shout out, 'No! Warm double-clasp! Warm double-clasp!'" Clinton said. "America deserves someone who can do it right."

While the announcement has come as a surprise to many, Beltway observers said it was not completely unexpected, citing footage from a recent Democratic debate that showed Clinton fidgeting in his seat, gripping the arms of his chair, and repeatedly glancing at all the television cameras while rapidly tapping his right foot. Analysts also noted one debate in which Clinton mouthed responses to all the moderator's questions while making hand gestures to himself.

Clinton told reporters Tuesday that seeing so many "Clinton '08" posters "really got [him] thinking," and said that the fact that he was already wearing a suit, and smiling and waving on the campaign trail was an added motivator.

"From signing healthcare reform legislation, to working with politicians from across the aisle, to brokering international peace treaties with foreign dignitaries, I goddamn love being president," Clinton said. "For too long has this nation been deprived of a Bill Clinton presidency, and for too long have I been deprived of being president. Now I get to experience all these wonderful things again myself."

"And the applause," Clinton added. "I look forward to the endless roar of applause perhaps most of all."

Since his announcement two days ago, Clinton has raised a staggering $550 million. He has also surged in national polls, rising from a mere 2 percent prior to his candidacy to a commanding 94 percent, ahead of former front-runners Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are now tied with 3 percent each. John Edwards withdrew from the race Tuesday, saying only, "I am not worthy."

Although some have pointed out that it is unconstitutional for Clinton to run for a third term in office, he has silenced most critics by urging voters "not to worry about the Constitution for now" and assuring them he will address those legal issues immediately after regaining control of the White House.

"All I am asking of the American people is four more years," Clinton said at a fundraiser Tuesday where tens of thousands of South Carolinians gathered to stare in gape-jawed wonderment at the former president. "Well, maybe eight. Actually, you know what, definitely eight. Eight more years."

Thus far, the response among voters has been positive.

"I love Bill Clinton," said Orangeburg, SC resident Marsha Demarais. "God, he was just so great as president. Can we just make him president again right now?"

Clinton also noted that, if elected, the timing would be perfect for his family, as his wife has recently expressed a desire to move back to the D.C. area.

Strange Bedfellows. . .

     Christopher Hitchens is one of the nastiest, most   disagreeable and odious guys out there, but he's right about the War on Terror and he's right about the outdated, farcical nature of the "Politics of Race and Gender."  [Note: Hitchens now has a special place in my heart for blowing the whistle on Madeleine Albright, one of the most boneheaded nitwits to ever grace the political stage, and possibly the most imbecilic of all the Clinton Administration's loons.]

.   

 

The Perils of Identity Politics

By Christopher Hitchens

January 18, 2008

Let us give hearty thanks and credit to Rudy Giuliani, who has never by word or gesture implied that we would fracture any kind of "ceiling" if we elected as chief executive a man whose surname ends in a vowel.

Yet actually, it would be unprecedented if someone of Italian descent became the president of the United States and there was a time -- not long ago at that -- when the very idea would have aroused considerable passion. Now that it doesn't, is it not possible to think that that very indifference is the real "change"?

I recall thinking, when Geraldine Ferraro became the first woman on a major-party ticket in 1984, that she would also, if elected, be the first vowel-ending Veep. Indeed, in San Francisco for the Democratic convention that year, I listened to the poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti muse over drinks on the possibility of a future Cuomo-Ferraro "all wop" ticket.

The fact that these were now joking words and not fighting words struck me as happily suggestive. (I also thought that a President Walter Mondale would be a very high price to pay for having the first female vice president, and that President Mario Cuomo would be an even higher price to pay to prove that we no longer held any rooted prejudice against the descendants of Mediterranean immigrants.)

People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of "race" or "gender" alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason. Yet see how this obvious question makes fairly intelligent people say the most alarmingly stupid things.

Madeleine Albright has said that there is "a special place in hell for women who don't help each other." What are the implications of this statement? Would it be an argument in favor of the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton? Would this mean that Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama don't deserve the help of fellow females? If the Republicans nominated a woman would Ms. Albright instantly switch parties out of sheer sisterhood? Of course not. (And this wearisome tripe from someone who was once our secretary of state . . .)

Those of us who follow politics seriously rather than view it as a game show do not look at Hillary Clinton and simply think "first woman president." We think -- for example -- "first ex-co-president" or "first wife of a disbarred lawyer and impeached former incumbent" or "first person to use her daughter as photo-op protection during her husband's perjury rap."

One might come up with other and kinder distinctions (I shall not be doing so) but the plain fact about the senator from New York is surely that she is a known quantity who has already been in the White House purely as the result of a relationship with a man, and not at all a quixotic outsider who represents the aspirations of an "out" group, let alone a whole sex or gender.

Mrs. Clinton, speaking to a black church audience on Martin Luther King Day last year, did describe President George W. Bush as treating the Congress of the United States like "a plantation," adding in a significant tone of voice that "you know what I mean . . ."

She did not repeat this trope, for some reason, when addressing the electors of Iowa or New Hampshire. She's willing to ring the other bell, though, if it suits her. But when an actual African-American challenger comes along, she rather tends to pout and wince at his presumption (or did until recently).

Here again, the problem is that Sen. Obama wants us to transcend something at the same time he implicitly asks us to give that same something as a reason to vote for him. I must say that the lyricism with which he does this has double and triple the charm of Mrs. Clinton's heavily-scripted trudge through the landscape, but the irony is still the same.

What are we trying to "get over" here? We are trying to get over the hideous legacy of slavery and segregation. But Mr. Obama is not a part of this legacy. His father was a citizen of Kenya, an independent African country, and his mother was a "white" American. He is as distant from the real "plantation" as I am. How -- unless one thinks obsessively about color while affecting not to do so -- does this make him "black"?

Far from taking us forward, this sort of discussion actually keeps us anchored in the past. The enormous advances in genome studies have effectively discredited the whole idea of "race" as a means of categorizing humans. And however ethnicity may be defined or subdivided, it is utterly unscientific and retrograde to confuse it with color. The number of subjective definitions of "racist" is almost infinite but the only objective definition of the word is "one who believes that there are human races."

For years, I declined to fill in the form for my Senate press credential that asked me to state my "race," unless I was permitted to put "human." The form had to be completed under penalty of perjury, so I could not in conscience put "white," which is not even a color let alone a "race," and I sternly declined to put "Caucasian," which is an exploded term from a discredited ethnology. Surely the essential and unarguable core of King's campaign was the insistence that pigmentation was a false measure: a false measure of mankind (yes, mankind) and an inheritance from a time of great ignorance and stupidity and cruelty, when one drop of blood could make you "black."

I remember going to several of the mass events generated by Colin Powell's memoirs a few years ago, and being very touched by the eagerness with which young and old "white" people hoped he would give them the chance to elect (what would in fact have been) our first West Indian president. It was all book-tour hype as it turned out -- I could have told you that then -- but now it has resurfaced in a similarly naïve way.

Not to dampen any parade, but if one asks if there is a single thing about Mr. Obama's Senate record, or state legislature record, or current program, that could possibly justify his claim to the presidency one gets . . . what? Not much. Similarly lightweight unqualified "white" candidates have overcome this objection, to be sure, but what kind of standard is that?

I shall not vote for Sen. Obama and it will not be because he -- like me and like all of us -- carries African genes. And I shall not be voting for Mrs. Clinton, who has the gall to inform me after a career of overweening entitlement that there is "a double standard" at work for women in politics; and I assure you now that this decision of mine has only to do with the content of her character. We will know that we have put this behind us when -- as with the vowel -- we have outgrown and forgotten the original prejudice.

Mr. Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of "No One Left To Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton" (Verso, 2000).

.

Oscar Nominations Are Out This Morning!

BEST PICTURE
"Atonement" (Focus Features)
"Juno" (Fox Searchlight)
"Michael Clayton" (Warner Bros.)
"No Country for Old Men" (Miramax and Paramount Vantage)
"There Will Be Blood" (Paramount Vantage and Miramax)

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
George Clooney in "Michael Clayton" (Warner Bros.)
Daniel Day-Lewis in "There Will Be Blood" (Paramount Vantage and Miramax)
Johnny Depp in "Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street" (DreamWorks and Warner Bros.,
Distributed by DreamWorks/Paramount)
Tommy Lee Jones in "In the Valley of Elah" (Warner Independent)
Viggo Mortensen in "Eastern Promises" (Focus Features)

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Casey Affleck in "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" (Warner Bros.)
Javier Bardem in "No Country for Old Men" (Miramax and Paramount Vantage)
Hal Holbrook in "Into the Wild" (Paramount Vantage and River Road Entertainment)
Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Charlie Wilson’s War" (Universal)
Tom Wilkinson in "Michael Clayton" (Warner Bros.)

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Cate Blanchett in "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" (Universal)
Julie Christie in "Away from Her" (Lionsgate)
Marion Cotillard in "La Vie en Rose" (Picturehouse)
Laura Linney in "The Savages" (Fox Searchlight)
Ellen Page in "Juno" (Fox Searchlight)

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Cate Blanchett in "I’m Not There" (The Weinstein Company)
Ruby Dee in "American Gangster" (Universal)
Saoirse Ronan in "Atonement" (Focus Features)
Amy Ryan in "Gone Baby Gone" (Miramax)
Tilda Swinton in "Michael Clayton" (Warner Bros.)

DIRECTOR
Paul Thomas Anderson - "There Will Be Blood"
Ethan Coen & Joel Coen - "No Country For Old Men"
Tony Gilroy - "Michael Clayton"
Jason Reitman - "Juno"
Julian Schnabel - "The Diving Bell And The Butterfly"

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Brad Bird - "Ratatouille"
Diablo Cody - "Juno"
Tony Gilroy - "Michael Clayton"
Tamara Johnson - "The Savages"
Nancy Oliver - "Lars and the Real Girl"

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Paul Thomas Anderson - "There Will Be Blood"
Ethan & Joel Coen - "No Country for Old Men"
Christopher Hampton - "Atonement"
Ronald Harwood - "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"
Sarah Polley - "Away from Her"

ANIMATED FEATURE
"Persepolis" - Sony Pictures Classics; Marjane Satrapi and Vincent Paronnaud
"Ratatouille" - Pixar; Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Distribution; Brad Bird
"Surf’s Up" - Sony Pictures Releasing; Ash Brannon and Chris Buck

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
"Beaufort" - Israel
"The Counterfeiters" - Austria
"Katy?" - Poland
"Mongol" - Kazakhstan
"12" - Russia

On the Campaign Trail with Dennis Kucinich. . .

     Thanks to Grotto political analyst Terry B. for alerting the Blue Grotto's Election '08 Nerve Center to this:

.

   

"Republicans Believe What They See, and Democrats See What They Believe."

     Here's a timely list put together by Larry Elder on the differences between Republicans and Democrats.  Before all of the Grotto's left-leaning readers get blotchy, apoplectic, and defensive, complaining about generalizations and offering up anecdote after anecdote to contradict the below points, hang on a sec. 

     Members of the Left tend to be ready to combat inconvenient truths with heartstring-tugging story after heartstring-tugging story (note the existence of Hollywood).  I mean, if one last Iowa family out of millions was to be adversely affected by the disappearance of farm subsidies, that's all you need to shape your opinion that farm subsidies are good, right?  Forget about what they do to prices for the rest of the poor people in America. . . . 

     If I say, in an argument, that the Dutch tend to be taller than the Japanese, my opponent could trot out a list of a thousand Dutchmen, each of whom is shorter than a thousand Japanese gentlemen on another list.  OK, fine, but what about my point about the Dutch tending to be taller?  It's still true isn't it?

     .

A Democrat or a Republican?
By Larry Elder
Thursday, January 17, 2008

What Republicans Believe, What Democrats Believe

Republicans believe hard work wins, and government should allow you -- to the fullest extent possible -- to keep what you earn. Democrats believe that success results from luck, chance and happenstance, and therefore a just government takes from those who have and gives to those who do not.

Republicans believe in a colorblind society determined by drive, work ethic and talent. Democrats want a color-coordinated society. This explains the support for race and gender-based preferences to "correct" past sins and to create "diversity."

Republicans believe discrimination to fix previous discrimination remains discrimination, and that all a government can be is just in its own time. Democrats wish to use government to "rectify" past wrongs, which they hold responsible for today's "inequities."

Republicans believe that government should empower the individual -- that a government that taxes least taxes best. Democrats want individuals to empower government, and support policies that redistribute income from person A to "deserving" person B.

Republicans believe that the playing field, while unlevel, requires an individual to do the best he or she can with the cards dealt. Democrats consider life rigged, and that one's destiny rests on matters beyond the control of the individual.

Republicans believe that those who cannot help themselves can and will be helped out by other individuals -- not government -- as a result of basic human compassion. Democrats believe that because of one's misfortune, he or she is entitled to something -- via government -- from someone else.

Republicans believe in peace through strength, and thus support strong national defense, and -- in this era of Islamofascism -- a proactive foreign policy. Democrats believe in strength through peace, and believe they can better influence the behavior of enemies by demonstrating our good intentions.

Republicans believe in the mutual benefits of free trade of goods and services. Democrats believe in "fair trade," and support barriers that shield domestic industries against competition, reducing the incentive to innovate and change to remain competitive.

Republicans consider the Constitution a contract, limiting the duties, powers and obligations of the federal government. Democrats consider the Constitution a "living, breathing document," to be interpreted flexibly. Republicans, for example, reject Roe v. Wade because the court based it on a right to privacy, not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Democrats consider the right to privacy implied, despite the absence of any reference to it.

Republicans believe in the Second Amendment, and that it confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers wanted this right to protect against tyranny by government. Democrats consider the Second Amendment an impediment to public safety.

Michigan, six years ago, became one of about 40 "shall issue" states that now allow citizens to apply for a permit to carry concealed weapons. At the time, law enforcement officials predicted an increase in violent crime. In fact, the opposite happened.

Woodhaven Police Chief Michael Martin said, "I think the general consensus out there from law enforcement is that things were not as bad as we expected. There are problems with gun violence, but I think we can breathe a sigh of relief that what we anticipated didn't happen."

So how did the president of the Michigan chapter of the anti-gun group Million Moms March respond? She called the statistics bogus, and argued that even if true, society still possesses too many guns.

And this brings us to our final observation:

Republicans believe what they see, and Democrats see what they believe.

"Big Government Pie-in-the-Sky vs. Free Markets" Quote of the Day. . .

     P.J. O'Rourke has a new book out called On The Wealth of Nations, in which he walks the reader through Adam Smith's phonebook-sized treatise.  Here's a quote from page 11:

.

.

"Good Girl!" Pics of the Day

     Here is my good canine friend Sammi DeStefano.  Sammi is enjoying her "golden year," and I'm glad to have gotten to know her!

.

Here's an Obituary for Hugh Massingberd, Obituary Page Editor of The Daily Telegraph.

     This is from the New York Times (I hope the blog doesn't hiss, shut down, or explode when I cut and paste something from the New York Times onto it).  Thanks to Andrew M. and Mr. C. Goodman for this:

.

December 30, 2007

Hugh Massingberd, 60, Laureate for the Departed, Dies 

By MARGALIT FOX

Hugh Massingberd, a celebrated former obituaries editor of The Daily Telegraph of London who made a once-dreary page required reading by speaking frankly, wittily and often gleefully ill of the dead, became the recipient of his own services after dying in West London on Christmas Day. He was 60 and lived in London.

The cause was cancer, according to The Daily   Telegraph. The newspaper announced Mr. Massingberd’s death in an expansive obituary that described, not unkindly, his being “invariably strapped for cash” and the “gourmandism” and “bingeing” that had turned him “into an impressively corpulent presence whose moon face lit up with Pickwickian benevolence.”

Sometimes called the father of the modern British obituary, Mr. Massingberd was The Daily Telegraph’s obituaries editor from 1986 to 1994. He was also a shy autodidact who had never been to college; a past editor of Burke’s Peerage, the venerable record book of the titled families of Britain and Ireland; the author of dozens of books on the English aristocracy; a recognized authority on the country homes of England, stately and moldy alike; and a rabid theatergoer whose enthusiasm for “Phantom of the Opera” was undimmed by the fact that he had seen it more than 50 times and knew every word and every note by heart.

In 2002 The Spectator, a British weekly magazine, described Mr. Massingberd as “an English eccentric of the sort Hollywood imagines shoot snipe in their underpants.”

Mr. Massingberd did not actually shoot snipe in his underpants, but he did once pose for a photograph dressed as a Roman emperor garlanded with sausages, as his obituary in The Daily Telegraph helpfully reminded readers on Thursday.

Traditionally, the obituary departments of most newspapers were little Siberias, and The Daily Telegraph’s was no exception when Mr. Massingberd arrived. The long, leaden recitals of awards, club memberships and honorary degrees massed on the page were distasteful pills that writers, and readers, choked down dutifully each day.

Mr. Massingberd transformed the paper’s obituaries from ponderous, sycophantic eulogies into mordant, warts-and-all profiles of the delectable departed. His model, he often said, was the 17th-century English writer John Aubrey, whose collection of biographical sketches, “Brief Lives,” offered gossipy backstairs portraits of eminences of the time.

In Mr. Massingberd’s hands the newspaper obituary became unabashed entertainment, and the page attracted a passionate following that endures to this day. It also helped to set a benchmark for newspapers throughout Britain, where obituaries are now far more irreverent, more editorial and more prurient than their American counterparts. (Witness The Daily Telegraph’s send-off of one Lt. Col. Geoffrey Knowles, “who as a subaltern was bitten in the buttocks by a bear — he survived but the bear expired.”)

Typically unsigned, Daily Telegraph obituaries are written by a stable of contributors. But during Mr. Massingberd’s tenure, observers widely agreed, every obit in the paper bore his droll, distinctive stamp. Naturally, he covered the presidents, kings and captains of industry who are the grist of obit pages everywhere. But Mr. Massingberd also sought out eccentrics; having the good fortune to live in Britain, he found them.

One Daily Telegraph obituary, from 1991, opened this way: “The Third Lord Moynihan, who has died in Manila, aged 55, provided through his character and career ample ammunition for critics of the hereditary principle. His chief occupations were bongo drummer, confidence trickster, brothel-keeper, drug-smuggler and police informer.”

Another, from 1988, memorialized Peter Langan, a London restaurateur: “Often he would pass out amid the cutlery before doing any damage, but occasionally he would cruise menacingly beneath the tables, biting unwary customers’ ankles.”

And there was this much-quoted line, also from 1988, which appeared in The Daily Telegraph’s obituary of John Allegro. A once-renowned scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Mr. Allegro later advanced a theory that Judaism and Christianity were the products of an ancient cult that worshiped sex and mushrooms. His obit in The Daily Telegraph pronounced him “the Liberace of biblical scholarship.”

To dispatch his subjects, Mr. Massingberd used the thinnest of rapiers, but also the sharpest. Cataclysmic understatement and carefully coded euphemism were the stylistic hallmarks of his page. Here, for the benefit of American readers, is an abridged Massingberd-English dictionary:

¶“Convivial”: Habitually drunk.

¶“Did not suffer fools gladly”: Monstrously foul-tempered.

¶“Gave colorful accounts of his exploits”: A liar.

¶“A man of simple tastes”:

A complete vulgarian.

¶“A powerful negotiator”: A bully.

¶“Relished the cadences of the English language”: An incorrigible windbag.

¶“Relished physical contact”:

A sadist.

¶“An uncompromisingly direct ladies’ man”: A flasher.

Hugh John Montgomery was born on Dec. 30, 1946, in Cookham Dean, in the Berkshire district of England. His family, The Daily Mail wrote in 1994, were members of the “stranded gentry.” Hugh’s mother was a schoolteacher; his father worked for the BBC.

But as young Hugh was dreamily aware, the Montgomerys had nobler roots: Through their blue-blooded Massingberd relatives, he stood to inherit two country houses. In the 1960s, in the hope of securing one, Hugh’s father changed the family name to Montgomery-Massingberd. But both inheritances fell through. In the 1990s Hugh shortened his name to Massingberd.

As a young man, Mr. Massingberd planned to go to Cambridge University, thought better of it and took a job as a law clerk. Hating the work, he found his way to Burke’s Peerage, where from 1971 to 1983 he was the chief editor.

When Mr. Massingberd joined The Daily Telegraph as obituaries editor, he later said in interviews, friends regarded him with a mixture of pity and contempt. But he realized two things immediately: First, that a subject’s passage from cradle to grave furnishes writers with a built-in narrative thread from which to spin a ripping good yarn. Second, that personal stories, the odder the better, can be the stuff of deep, life-affirming levity.

One story belonged to this man, the John Allegro of the piano:

“The first sign that Liberace had embarked upon a road along which reticence would never ride came when he placed a candelabra on his piano. At this, the dam of discretion appeared to burst: first came a white tail suit, followed by stage patter about his mother and his philosophy of life, then a gold lamé jacket and a diamond-studded tailcoat.”

Mr. Massingberd’s first marriage, to Christine Martinoni, ended in divorce. He is survived by his second wife, Caroline Ripley, known as Ripples; and two children from his first marriage, Harriet and Luke.

His books include “Royal Palaces of Europe” (Vendome, 1983); “Blenheim Revisited: The Spencer-Churchills and Their Palace” (Beaufort Books, 1985); “Her Majesty the Queen” (Collins, 1985); a memoir, “Daydream Believer: Confessions of a Hero Worshipper” (Macmillan, 2001); and six anthologies of Daily Telegraph obituaries, which, he often said, made splendid bedtime reading.

Mr. Massingberd also belonged to a spate of respectable clubs, but they will not be itemized here.

Time for the Latest Pro-Wire Post. . .

     Until I've confirmed that all Grotto readers have moved "Get Season One of The Wire on DVD" to the top of their To-Do lists, I am going to keep a steady stream of Wire-related posts flowing.

     I am in the middle of Season Four right now, and the show's treatment of Baltimore city politics and the condition of the school system is as great as Season One's handling of the drug trade.  If you ever want to really get somebody to think about the important issues confronting us, as humans, at any level (e.g. individual, local, national), forget about parroting bad speeches by politicians and just park your friend in front of The Wire.  The show makes me think about a wide range of issues in new ways, as if I've actually spent time in these places. 

     The bottom line is that if you don't immediately order Season One from Netflicks (or better yet, buy it and display it on a shelf), you might as well jam a couple of shrimp forks into your eyeballs.  It makes about as much sense.

     Here's an article on the show from this past weekend's Life & Arts section of the Financial Times:

   

.

Wire, oh Wire

By Peter Aspden

Published: January 12 2008 00:38 

Some works of art can be so precious and intimate in their appeal that you just have to own them. That impulse is what fuels the art market and, on a less exalted level, it is what keeps music collectors searching for ever purer forms of recording. Art here becomes a private affair, something special between you and it, and the rest of the world can go hang.

But the opposite effect applies too. Some experiences are so great that you want to tell the whole world about them, so that they can share your joy. In fact you can’t stop talking about them. I feel that way about The Wire, HBO’s devastating police series that has just started its fifth and final season in the US.

I walk up to people at receptions or bus stops and ask them if they know about it. Because, in this case, to know is to love. I have never met anyone who has watched the programme and has anything negative to say about it. But we are a mystifyingly small band. I know that many of you will not know what I am talking about. So I have to try to convert you. I imagine this is what the early Christians felt like.

There are reasons for The Wire’s obscurity. First, it is forbiddingly difficult to watch and follow. It tells the story of the drugs war in Baltimore, and tells it like the complex, infuriating affair that it is. Narratives play out over an entire series, and beyond. There is no dipping into The Wire. It is a serious commitment: you have to start with series one, episode one.

Second, there is its authenticity. The Wire was created by a former journalist and a former police officer who ran their beats for many frustrating years. The salt of the street is all over the series. The writing is dense, hard to pick up, and true. There is no smart-arse film school tricksiness here. This is not The West Wing, with its clipped, slick homilies on the wonder of American values. This is the anti-West Wing.

Finally there is the darkness of the programme. As an early commentator said, this show is about an America that is broken. The shot of redemption that we are used to finding in just about any form of popular culture, to make it more palatable and grant it commercial viability, is lacking here. Its makers compare The Wire to classical Greek tragedy: there are immutable forces sweeping all before them while tiny lives skirmish at their edges.

Terrible things happen in The Wire, and no one is brought to account. The show’s heroes are flawed and selfish; its villains are frighteningly charismatic. This is why things are as they are. Respective series have focused on dockworkers, education and local politics as their principle themes (could anything be less sexy?). This final series is devoted to those fine folk in the media. Expect something between Lou Grant and Dante’s Inferno.

The Wire is such a radical programme that it threatens to disrupt entirely the way we watch TV. This is not appointment, or water-cooler, TV. This is a buy-the-DVD-set-and-indulge-in-three-episodes-at-a-time-on-a-quiet-winter-evening-at-home experience.

It also confounds our expectations of the very medium in which it appears. Critics queue to decry the dumbing-down of television, but that is because they spend their lives watching makeover shows and reality programmes. Here is the real deal, yet they seem strangely averse to engaging with it at all. Could it be that the most popular art form is getting a little too “high” for their comfort?

And all those sanctimonious types who do not possess a TV at all, in the deluded belief that watching some piece of rubbish by Oscar Wilde on stage is in some way a superior cultural experience: who will give you your bearings now? Sorry, it’s time to invest in that flat screen.

Here is the clincher: late last year, in a poll in the US’s TV Guide, The Wire was revealed to be one of Barack Obama’s favourite shows. (Some context: Hillary Clinton responded with, among others, American Idol, while Mitt Romney chose Lost.) This is not the place to discuss the finer points of the American presidency. But that would clinch my vote. The man has taste.    

Pacifism Quote of the Day!

     Try poking a hole in this:

.

     "If not the greatest evil, yet war is a great evil.  Therefore, we should all like to remove it if we can.  But every war leads to another war.  The removal of war must therefore be attempted.  We must increase   by propaganda the number of Pacifists in each nation until it becomes great enough to deter that nation from going to war.  This seems to me wild work.  Only liberal societies tolerate Pacifists.  In the liberal society, the number of Pacifists will either be large enough to cripple the state as a belligerent, or not.  If not, you have done nothing.  If it is large enough, then you have handed over the state which does tolerate Pacifists to its totalitarian neighbour who does not.  Pacifism of this kind is taking the straight road to a world in which there will be no Pacifists."

     - C.S. Lewis, from "The Weight of Glory"

.

How Much Evidence Do Tax-Happy Democrats Need?

     Unlike global warming, I think one of the few issues about which it can be said that "the debate is over" is that of low taxes being in the best interests of EVERYONE at ALL times. . . . 

.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

A Supply-Side World

January 7, 2008   Page A12

.

Democrats in Congress remain committed to raising taxes on grounds that tax rates don't much matter to economic growth, and in any case they only help the rich. They may be the last public officials on the planet to believe this. In recent weeks alone, some of the unlikeliest political leaders have endorsed tax rate cuts in the name of making their economies better.

Start in Europe, where Socialist Party Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero pledged in December that if re-elected, "One of the first decisions I would take is to eliminate the wealth tax [up to 2.5%]," which he says is one of the highest in Europe and "punishes savings." Mr. Zapatero is no conservative. But he's joining the European march down the Laffer Curve on taxes, having already phased in reductions in Spain's corporate tax rate to 30% from 35% and its personal income tax rate to 43% from 45%.

Like France and Germany, Spain is cutting rates because of the tax competition from their European Union neighbors such as Ireland and East Europe. There are now at least 11 nations formerly behind the Iron Curtain with flat rate taxes of 25% or lower. On January 1, a new flat tax of 10% became law in Bulgaria, replacing its progressive rate structure and as far as we know the lowest such rate in the world. The newly elected Polish parliament is also planning to cut taxes, though an earlier flat-tax proposal earned a veto threat from the president.

And this just in: In the Middle East, Kuwait has decided to slash its corporate income tax on foreign companies to 15% from 55%. Finance Minister Mostafa al-Shemali argued for the cut, noting that Kuwait attracted less than $300 million in foreign investment last year, compared to some $18 billion in lower-tax Saudi Arabia (which has a religious tax but no corporate or income tax on Saudi nationals). "This law will encourage foreign investors to enter Kuwait," says Ahmed Baqer, head of the parliament's finance panel.

It's getting lonelier all the time at the top for America, which with a corporate tax rate of 35% is one of the few developed nations left with a rate of more than 30%. Economist Dan Mitchell tracks these trends for the Cato Institute, and he finds that 26 developed nations have cut either personal or corporate income tax rates since 2005. Since 1980, OECD nations have sliced their average personal income tax rate by 24 percentage points, to 40% from 64%. Corporate tax rates have fallen by more than 20 percentage points. Foreign leaders have learned that, in a world of easy global capital flows, high tax rates chase away investment and entrepreneurs.

Some of these tax-cutting nations -- such as Estonia, Ireland, Russia and Spain -- have seen revenues rise even as rates have fallen. This is what turns socialists into supply-siders in Spain, if regrettably not in the U.S.

Here Are a Handful of Headlines. . . .

.

Overweight Cyclist Walking His Bike For Rest Of Tour De France

.

Hank Williams Jr. Honored By Institute For Football Preparedness

.

Excercise Ball All The Way Over There

.

Congressman Lets His Guitar Do The Talking

.

Depressed Wolf Blitzer Locks Self In Situation Room

.

Local Building Accessible To Only The Strongest Of The Handicapped

.

Loveless Marriage Offset By Beautiful Four-Bedroom Home

.

Fun New Year's Pics Are In!

Here's Chatterbox, hostess Trish's beautiful house:

.

Approaching the little island paradise:

.

Steve, Katrina, Luke, Roberta, Self, Trish, John D.:

    

Di-Di, me, Trish, Steve, Luke, and Roberta on the superyacht we chartered:

.

Suz and Luke:

.

Trish and Johnny on the superyacht:

.

Roberta and I:

.

Six total losers!

.

Large, Medium, and Small:

 

.

Trish and Katrina:

.

Suzanne granting a photo to fans:

.

Katrina and Roberta:

Trish and Di heading out for a big night:

.

Suzanne and Luke at New Year's Eve dinner:

.

Yours Truly and Roberta:

.

John and Trish:

.

Luke and Suz holding court in the V.I.P. lounge:

.

Dinner at Rock House:

.

On the deck at Gusty's:

.

Di-Di and Roberta grooving to the tunes:

.

New Year's Eve dinner at The Landing:

   

.

New Year's Eve at Rock House:

.

Steve and Di:

.

Katrina:

.

Sue, Trish, Tracy, and Alina:

.

More New Year's Eve pics from Rock House:

.

.

Johnny, Sue, and Alina:

.

Suz fielding a call from the Googleplex:

.

Katrina staying current with world events:

.

Suz and Trish:

.

Roberta and Self:

 

.

John and I:

.

Roberta and Suzanne:

.

John and Trish:

.

Suz and I:

.

A couple of pint-sized local pals:

.

The gals:

.

Here are some pics from the Junkanoo parade:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Here I am posing with Trish in my "Stone Crab Claw-Breaking" Outfit:

.

Roberta always travels with a ski hat, which came in handy when the temp. plummeted for a couple days:

 

.

Roberta, Katy, and Trish:

.

Roberta and I:

.

I'm reading while Katy snoozes on the second-floor deck of Chatterbox: