I watched an interesting installment of Tim Russert this afternoon that dealt with Jack Abramoff where he held a round table discussion with three elite media reporters that have covered the story.

There was actually a lot of useful information brought forth, particularly about the nature of Indian Casino operations in the U.S.

All of the panel members, Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post, Evan Thomas of Newsweek and Karen Tumlty of Time, agreed that Abramoff's crime was ripping off his clients. That elevated my expectations of the program immediately since I fully expected this to be a "culture of corruption" program judging by its title It was precisely the kind of stuff I eat up--the players, the motivations and the deals.

Abramoff was involved with the college Republicans in college, where he came to know and befriend Ralph Reed, but unlike Ralph who became a political operative, Abramoff went to Hollywood to make movies with the liberals and learned to do business the Hollywood way. When the Republicans wrested power from the Democrats, Abramoff dumped the movie business and became a lobbyist.

Evan Thomas had a great comment about lobbyists--they are great at getting paid for doing nothing.

From this perspective, its hard to swallow the accusation that he was ripping off his clients--he's a lobbyist, its a given. Yet Abramoff was taking it to new heights. Abramoff used Ralph Reed (who is anti-gambling) to help him kill an Indian casino in Texas, but not surprisingly, it was the Lousiana tribes that were paying Abramoff to do it (the mark's greed makes the con possible...). Next he turns to the dispossed tribe and says, "Hey, pay me 'x' dollars and I'll get your casino opened again..."

Nice work if you can get it, but business as usual for mercenary lobbyists.

By playing off anti-gambling forces against the Indians, Abramoff cleaned up on both sides, supporting the aphorism that fear is a better motivator than profit. There are no innocents here.

On the other side of this question was the Congressional dynamic--Abramoff's end game was to become the ultimate powerbroker in Washington D.C. You get that by spending money, and his connections with the Indian tribes provided money on an unprecented scale. What becomes clear from the conversation is that calling it a Republican scandal really misses the scope of what Abramoff was doing--he cultivated people everywhere--Repubicans, Democrats, and most importantly-bureaucrats. That Republicans were the largest beneficiaries of Abramoff largesse is no surprise since they have the lion's share of federal power, but the main criteria to become a friend of Jack was your power to get something done for him, which is why Robert Kennedy and Harry Reid were getting the big bucks.

The money was even going to congressional spouses; usually to charities they supported. Its as if Washington was covered with liquid money to the depth of six feet--the money found its way into every possible nook and cranny it could go.

I've said this before, but when you have guys handling billions of dollars surrounded by guys making millions of dollars and get paid $162,000.00 a year, you have a problematic dynamic. Occasionally squeezing out the sponge gets rid of the problem temporarily, but the sponge can help but absorb the available "moisture".

Small government anyone?

The political effects are up in the air. The Republicans are taking it seriously, but lurking is the prospect of some possible high-profile prosecutions. A recent poll demonstrates the problem--65% of respondents thought Congress routinely took bribes. Now that is certainly not an accurate view of the matter, and the Crats should consider that its inevitable that they are going to get tarred with the same brush. There are a lot of comparison with the Repubicans in the 90s, but the Republicans had clean hands back then. Distinctions without a difference like, "I didn't get it from Abramoff directly" are no shield against public disapproval anymore than "no controlling authority" was for Gore.

If the prosecutions end up fruitless, or simply nail a bad actor or two, it won't have a significant affect on this electoral cycle (especially considering how much Iran will be weighing on all our minds...). Nevertheless, the Republicans have to conscientously clean up the mess if they want to keep the revolution on track. Frankly I doubt there are two many conservatives who are unhappy about the Abramoff scandal--it appears to be just the thing we needed to get the party on track with small government conservatism.

Margaret Thatcher's Employment Secretary, Norman Tebbit commented in the wake of the 1981 Brixton riots:

I grew up in the 1930s with an unemployed father. He did not riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he went on looking until he found it.

Not surprisingly, this was seized on as "insensitive" by the welfare lobby. So far, three New Orleans city council members seem to have escaped castigation for their remarks about "soap opera watchers".

La Shawn Barber has the details.

I just find it one more indictment of the left's long-standing doctrines.

The devastating report on the Katrina response ripped a strip off of all levels of government. Lesson learned? Government doesn't work. Big government works even less well.

Now you have Democrats grinning sheepishly and telling the layabouts to stay away. Lesson learned? The votes of entitlement slaves are worthless without a city or an electorate to represent.

A recent entry I missed from a friend:

I’m not sure who I’m more enraged with the asshole of a husband or her stupid, idiotic “support network” who told her “you’ve made your bed, and now you have to lie in it.” The thought of one of my daughters in a relationship like this makes me damn near homicidal, and you can bet good money if my daughter came to me with a story like this she would be out of that house so fast the bastard’s head would spin. That her bastard husband publicly pretends to piety and a Christ-like love for women is just salt on the wound.

Continue past the fold

Are you drunk again Gregory? How many fingers am I holding up?

The Post does a rather extraordinary profile of media twit David Gregory.

If David Gregory seems like a bit of a showman in the White House pressroom, it's worth noting that, as the son of a Broadway producer, he grew up meeting the likes of Richard Burton, Rex Harrison and Henry Fonda.

But NBC's White House correspondent, while mindful of the cameras, insists he's not putting on a show, whether he's telling off spokesman Scott McClellan or challenging President Bush with questions that are often replayed on the nightly news or cable shows.

"I have no problem with being tough," says Gregory, 35, dubbed "Stretch" by the president for his 6-foot-5 stature. "I think it's totally appropriate to press hard for answers, particularly with a group of people who don't like to give information." For the administration, he says, "it's easy to divert attention against a familiar whipping boy, the White House press corps, and define this as a freakish sideshow. . . . I provide fodder for critics who say, 'Aha, they're out of control.' "

After six years on the beat, Gregory is emerging as the Sam Donaldson of the Bush years, the outspoken, aggressive, smart-aleck correspondent serving as a symbol for conservatives who detest the press and liberals who want reporters to crusade against the White House.

I have to say, Sam Donaldson should feel insulted. Donaldson was a bull dog, but he was never a smart aleck.

It says something that even a arguably complimentary article casts Gregory in a partisan mold. Yet perhaps the most sobering comment comes from Washington Bureau chief editor Tim Russert, who considers Gregory "anchor material". Is that like Dan Rather was anchor material?

NBC is the top rated news show, but that is like saying you're the healthiest guy in the cancer ward. This might be the year that marks a 50% drop in audience since 1980 and it continues at a rate of a 2% a year decline with no end in sight.

Russerts cluelessness about the damage Gregory does to the media in general and NBC in particular goes a long ways to explain the decline.

Bret Stephens writes in the Opinion Journal that a recent study by Yale scholars showing a direct correlation between anti-semitism and harsh views on Israel.

The results were remarkable. Among those who held the most negative views of Israel, some 60% also believed that Jews engaged in shady financial practices, and more than 70% thought that Jews had too much business power. Whatever the respondents' religion, nationality, sex or income level, the more intense their dislike of Israel, the likelier they were to be anti-Semitic. Altogether, 56% of those harboring strong anti-Israel feelings were also anti-Semitic. (For the record, the survey found that Spain was the most anti-Semitic country in Europe, with 22% of respondents qualifying as anti-Semites, while Denmark and the Netherlands, at 8%, were the least.)

This does not mean, of course, that even the most strident opponents of Israel are necessarily anti-Semites. But in a telephone interview, Mr. Kaplan explained the significance of his findings this way: "Say you're at one of those anti-Israel rallies. Say you ask them whether they are anti-Semitic. Say all of them say no. Statistically speaking, more than half of them are lying."

According to Stephens, Mel Gibson may hate the Jews, but at least he's honest.

Salvador Ordonez Vasques, Jesus Eduardo Vidana Lopez and Lucio Randon Bacerro don't give up easily.

The three were picked up near the Marshall Islands, 5,000 miles from their home in a 25 foot fiberglass boat after 11 months at sea.

Eleven months!

They had engine problems soon after leaving San Blas, Mexico and drifted with the currents, living on sea birds, fish and rain water. The Taiwanese trawler that picked them up said they were very hungry and very skinny..

Two of their crew members allegedly jumped overboard early in the unscheduled voyage, perhaps in an attempt to swim to shore (or...maybe they ate them...).

Whatever happened, its an extraordinary tale of survival.

The Mexican Foreign ministry is arranging for their repatriation.

My wife wanted to see "World Trade Center", having heard good things about the film from her friends.

I on the other hand, did not want to. Even five years later, I find myself still traumatized by the events of 9/11, and I don't willingly pick at the psychic wound.

Nevertheless, my wife's happiness is important to me, so we went with my sister and her husband to relive terrible events as an evening's entertainment.

This is not a review of the film, but I will say that it was extremely well done. It recalls 9/11 in all-to-vivid detail. Yet five minutes after the film was over, I thought to myself--this film wasn't about 9/11. In fact with a change of locale and other circumstances, this story occurs everyday. Its a personal story about despair, desperation, hope, rescue and redemption. Its a moral tale, but it is isn't about 9/11--not really.

I don't think we'll ever see a film about 9/11--the real 9/11. Taking sides is bad for box office, and the country is still not ready to deal with the reality that intruded so rudely on lives dedicated to meaningless western self-indulgence. After all, global warming is the real problem we are facing, right?

We're like a bunch of adolescents who keep postponing study-time for an exam because there is a party we want to go to. Our collective capacity to ignore imminent threat until it becomes crisis would be amusing if it weren't so deadly. Mark Steyn recently gave the C.D. Kemp lecture in Australia, and with his usual jeremiad about Europe's death spiral demographics, was this observation:

September 11th 2001 was not “the day everything changed”, but the day that revealed how much had already changed. On September 10th, how many journalists had the Council of American-Islamic Relations or the Canadian Islamic Congress or the Muslim Council of Britain in their rolodexes? If you’d said that whether something does or does not cause offence to Muslims would be the early 21st century’s principal political dynamic in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom, most folks would have thought you were crazy. Yet on that Tuesday morning the top of the iceberg bobbed up and toppled the Twin Towers.

But it’s important to remember: radical Islam is only the top-eighth of that iceberg – it’s an opportunist enemy taking advantage of a demographically declining and spiritually decayed west. The real issue is the seven-eighths below the surface – the larger forces at play in the developed world that have left Europe too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia and call into question the future of much of the rest of the world.

Quite right--9/11 was like an eviction notice, a shock, but no surprise considering the rent hasn't been paid in six months.

Steyn, Robert Kaplan and a few others have been warning us for sometime about the forces at work in the world that are building to a tsumani. dark, dreadful forces born in the slums of Lahore, Nigeria and Paris, and yet these insights and the authors that communicate to them are confined to the ghetto of "alarmists" and "neocons" to be dismissed and scoffed at.

Afterall, global warming is the real problem...

The irony is that there is a film on global warming out (critically-acclaimed of course...), but no one has the guts to do a film on 9/11 that dares look at what forces produced the calamity.

Hey, there's a party to go to.

One final note: Bill Clinton turned 60 today. President Bush had a press conference and had to go out of his way to say that he wasn't challenging the patriotism of the Democrats. It occured to me that Bush has been getting beaten up pretty bad by just about everyone--sometimes with justification. Yet I cannot bring myself to criticize the man because while he has made mistakes, is making mistakes and will make mistakes tomorrow, he is doing something to address the threats before us.

Bill Clinton, by all accounts an enormously talented and brillant man, is looking at the last act of his life, realizing that he had the reins of power in his hands and did nothing.

Is it better to have turned aside from the challenge because it was too great, too risky? Or better to have tried, struggled and even failed?

That's a question for history, but I know what I think.

On Sunday we may travel to the northern tip of Denmark, one of the most tranquil spots I know because:
1. The beaches are superb and fairly empty.
2. The land is surrounded by sea on nearly all sides, so the light bounces up and down to create a special palette which was exploited by the "Skagen school" of painters.

The uncluttered landscape is mirrored by Danish design. We're partial to the glassware.
3. I like the Danes. They earned honour in WW2, saving almost all their Jews, and they have been pro-US against the EU pattern. I have done a lot of shipping business with Danes and they are great at performing their side of the letter and spirit of contracts.
4. They were traduced by most of the MSM over the Mohammed cartoons, so this is a good year to visit.

The bad part is Stansted Airport. This weekend a strike of check-in staff and baggage-handlers is scheduled - evil in a normal year. It's a Bank Holiday weekend and the kind of person who'd piss on a family vacation like that deserves nightmares to the crack of doom. Oh the humanity! Think of the children! Let these cockroaches get another job if they can't do this one without back-stabbing the rest of us. Backstabbing cockroaches, pah! This year the strike comes on top of the security farce, so 'treasonous' is too mild. No wonder one becomes a sulphurous old fart with age - it's the rational response to the calibrated sadism all around. Hell is other people, heaven is:

So, folks, for a great family vacation, rent a house in Jutland and fly by private jet.

As an air travel oriented coda, here's a transplanted comment to Mick's post "Mutiny in the War on Terror" provoked by the damnspamfilter (more calibrated sadism; what's the bad word ? 'race' ? 'flipflop' ?) -

"I applaud the passenger mutiny. Nobody cares what race they are - it's risk assessment. Nearly a quarter of young British male Muslims tell pollsters that 7/7 was justified.
Mick, it may be hard to get just how 'sensitive' the UK establishment has been to Muslims in ways which are beyond satire. It's been tried and failed. Repeat slowly after me "tried..and..failed."

The dhimmi mood music all around just increases their sense of victimhood. But they are not the victims. We are, and it's time that that culture paid a price and take ownership of the problem. If they can not or will not, then the West must do what it needs to do for self-preservation.

Assume the following:
1. You and your family are on a plane waiting to take off.
2. It's hot. You're wearing shorts and flip-flops.
3. There is no passenger profiling.
4. 24 Muslims, mostly young males, have just been arrested for plotting to blow up passenger planes.
5. There are 2 young male Muslims on the plane. They appear too heavily dressed. They glance frequently at their watches. They speak to each other in Arabic or Urdu rather than English.

Ok, Mick, I want to know, honestly, would you leave your children on that plane for the sake of the wider principles you wrote about ? Not me, mush, and I don't feel bad about it. I didn't create the problem. Muslims did; that's Muslims as a group and Islam as a culture. It's way past time for them to fix the problem or have it fixed around them. "

Hat tip to John Hawkins for this posting at "The Bildungsroman of Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey".

(bildungsroman translates literately to "formation novel", a type of literature that tracks an individuals personal growth and maturation--think the first Spiderman movie...).

I'd never heard of her, or this allegedly notorious posting complaining about the amorous advances of certain commenters in the wake of a painful breakup, but my recent musings on the liberal fecundity gap piqued my interest in what she had to say.

I am a very high-quality woman. I know that sounds arrogant, but let’s consider the facts:

I’m slim (whereas 62% of American women age 20 to 74 are overweight)

I’m attractive (my new picture has been rated more attractive than 86% of the women on Hot or Not -- and the women who upload their pictures are a self-selected sample that is probably already biased towards being more attractive than the general female population)

I’m relatively young (whereas 82% of American adult women are over 30 years old)

I’m intelligent (IQ tested at 145 when I was a child, which is 3 standard deviations above the mean -- higher than 99.85% of the population. Even if I’ve gotten dumber as I’ve aged I’m probably still at least a 130, which is higher than 97.5% of the population.)

I’m educated (whereas 77% of American women do not have bachelor’s degrees)

I have my financial shit together (no debt, perfect credit history, 6+ months living expenses saved, adequate insurance, self employed)

I have a strong libido and love having sex (my lover *never* has to beg, unless it’s for me to let him get some sleep!)

Most of my interests tend to be more popular with men than women: science fiction, libertarianism, blogging, politics, economics, guns, gambling, etc.

Given that self-improvement is an ongoing project of mine this list will continue to grow (I’m currently working on adding bilingual, very physically fit, well-traveled, higher income, and fantastic cook to the list). So even when “relatively young” (an important criteria for most men) drops off that list, I should have added enough other things that my overall dating market value should remain the same or even improve.

The above list explains why I typically receive 50-100 (sometimes more) responses whenever I post personal ads. This is in addition to getting hit on almost every time I go out alone (and all that those men know about me is that they like the way I look, they don’t even know about all the other qualities I have that make me more appealing than most other women).

So, I have a *lot* of choices of men who want to date me. Given that, of course I choose to date only the highest quality men -- men who are also fit, attractive, intelligent, educated, financially successful, etc. I’m attracted to men from any race and a wide age range (21 to 50 or so) so the pool of men who meet those requirements is quite large, which allows me to add all sorts of additional restrictions if I want -- must be atheist, must be libertarian, must not want (more) children, must be financially independent or self-employed and available for frequent world travel, etc.

John Hawkins notes that the general reaction seems to be "How toweringly arrogant!", but having sisters, a young adult daughter and being married for many years, I see a woman struggling to convince herself she is still desirable after ending an unsatisfactory relationship. I don't know how much of the post is hyperbole, but taking what she says at face value, she does have a lot to offer--except her heart.

I've noted "the attitude" in a lot of lonely young people "with a lot to offer", but relationships aren't like buying a Porshe--well some are, but they get traded in within a few years too.

If its all about "me, me, me" then be prepared to be "alone, alone, alone".

What really comes across in this soul-bearing moment is that Jackie doesn't really like other people all that much, which ultimately is the key to successful relationships. Miss Passey is still relatively young, so she may change her mind about things--hopefully before gravity, time and mileage take their toll.

I'm going to produce a little advice here that Miss Passey probably won't appreciate, but perhaps will benefit posterity to one degree or another--just a few things I learned along the way towards Jackie's outer age limit that I find to be true.

1. Being slim is a matter of youth and genetics, then discipline and self-respect, then health and quality-of-life. Lasting "attractiveness" comes from being comfortable with yourself, genuine interest in others, a sense of humor and the confidence to honestly express one's feelings (goes for men too...)

2. Intelligence is like "going to Hollywood" on American idol--an estimation that enough talent lies buried in you to try for the final ten. The question is, can you sing? Really sing? With your soul? A lot of very intelligent people never realize their full potential because they lack the emotional maturity, the imagination and frankly, the humility to do so. The demonstrable reality is that majority of very successful people are only moderately intelligent. Too much talent can be a curse if it prevents us from developing other necessary personal attributes.

3. Education is great, unfortunately in the sense Miss Passey seems to be using the term, I infer a diploma, not an education. Some of the most educated people I know never went to college. Most notably though, educated people don't limit themselves to what and who they are comfortable and familiar with. They are constantly looking to expand their experience, which is somewhat different from knowledge.

The mistake I would say young people make all too frequently is too much planning for the future and not enough living in the moment. I need to clarify this because by planning I mean envisioning a future rather than preparing for it. Preparation is good, but envisioning the future is pretty useless. I tell my daughter this all the time--she so desperately wants to be thirty as if there are no issues to resolve once she gets there.

The piece of companion advice to the above is to be open to the possibilities. I found it incredibly sad that Miss Passey had so narrowly defined her prospective relationships--it all says "no surprises" to me. I've had lots of "surprising" relationships that I never foresaw and very "unlikely" friends. People are the most interesting things in the world.

Life is not a competition. Offering more or less than "other women" is simply ridiculous. There simply is no one ideal for women (or men), only what we individually respond to in other people and what they respond to in us. This observation holds in oh, so many areas of life. Ultimately all any of us can ever do is try to make the most out of our own potential, and for the vast majority of us, that is pretty awesome.

Finally, I am convinced that if you forego having children, you're only living half a life. Can't have your own? Adopt.

Every year in the intermountain west,, somebody in a small plane "flies into terrain", a term used among fliers to basically describe a crash where the plane actively flies into a geographic obstacle like a mountain. This summer, three men died as their small plane flew into Utah lake (a large shallow lake in the Utah valley). The public treats it as a car accident--lamentable, but a common occurance.

The same accident in Manhattan has a completely different impact.

It occured to me that being a New Yorker these days entails a certain paranoia--justified paranoia in my view.

A number of people, even media types, literally choked on their laughter as the wrestled with the dichotomy of their feelings of relief and the socially correct somberness at the news of the dealths.

We seem to be cursed to live in interesting times...

A week and a day ago Army Pfc. Ross A. McGinnis sacrificed himself to protect his buddies from a grenade thrown into their armored vehicle.

McGinnis was manning the gunner's hatch when an insurgent tossed a grenade from above. It flew past McGinnis and down through the hatch before lodging near the radio. His platoon sergeant, Sgt. 1st Class Cedric Thomas of Longview, Texas, recalled what happened next.

"Pfc. McGinnis yelled 'Grenade! ... It's in the truck,'" Thomas said. "I looked out of the corner of my eye as I was crouching down and I saw him pin it down." McGinnis did so even though he could have escaped. "He had time to jump out of the truck," Thomas said. "He chose not to."

McGinnis was 19. He was finishing his sophomore year when the war started. When he graduated from High School last year he joined the Army. I was struck by this recollection of his platoon sergeant:

Thomas remembered McGinnis talking about how he would respond in such a situation. McGinnis said then he didn't know how he would act, but when the time came, he delivered. "He gave his life to save his crew and his platoon sergeant," Thomas said. "He's a hero. He's a professional. He was just an awesome guy."

In a presumably more relaxed moment Pfc. McGinnis had opined he didn’t know how he would react to the situation he eventually faced on December 4th. That question can’t be answered in an academic exercise.

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

Although three witnesses saw the woman hit a truck Wednesday in an Orem parking lot, police weren't sure until the woman's young son piped up and pointed out the damage on her van...

The woman allegedly challenged police to find damage on her van.

"As the officers inspected the woman's van, one of her children, a bright 6- or 7-year-old boy, decided to be helpful by pointing to a spot on the bumper and telling the officer, 'It's right here,' " according to Orem police Lt. Doug Edwards. "The boy was quickly quieted by his father with a terse command ... but it was too late." .

I guess it will take a few years for Dad to properly teach their family values to the youngster.

Each Thanksgiving a lighted star appears on the mountain east of Kaysville, Utah and remains through the end of the year. At night, when the darkness obscures the mountain, the star seems to shine from the sky. Visible to much of the county, the star is like a guiding light to my nearby home when I’m driving back after being out.

This morning I hiked to the mountain display. Up close, there was nothing remarkable about the light fixtures attached to rebar stuck in the ground. I was surprised to see ordinary household lights used in a feature visible for such long distances. Up close it was difficult to see how the network of lamps and wires formed a star.

I thought how people can be like this star. Up close we may be ordinary and no means perfect. Yet, despite our imperfections, as we strive to let our individual lights shine, collectively we can become an impressive beacon to the world.

At this season when we remember the birth of the Light of the world I wish you all a Merry Christmas.

The Washington Post drops its metaphorical jaw at the news that presidential bimbo Monica Lewinsky just graduated with a masters degree in social psychology from the London school of Economics.

Lewinsky, 33, is known more for her audacious coquetry than for her intellectual heft, and the notion of her earning a master of science degree in social psychology at the prestigious London university is jarring, akin to finding a rip in the time-space continuum, or discovering that Kim Jong Il is a natural blond.

That attempt at some clever prose only serves to reveal the media's collective idiocy at evaluating intelligence. Lewinsky's youthful confusion about sexual relationships with father-figures may have been a commentary on her emotional maturity, but had no bearing on her intellectual capacity to grasp abstract concepts.

To be fair, the article does offer a low-key mea culpa, acknowledging that Dan Quayle may have been treated unfairly by a media with an agenda and little grasp of the concept of "smart" outside of their narrow association of loquaciousness and intelligence.

I would go so far as to call this a peeve of mine, but I consider myself fortunate to have discovered rather early that what people who are commonly dismissed as "dumb" can be gold mines of non-traditional intelligence, and conversely, that "smart" people can be morons.

A very good friend of mine is considered, but those in the know, as one of the world's foremost experts in his field. His educational attainments are modest. He was over-weight (before the weight-loss) and somewhat pleasantly goofy-looking, modest, self-effacing, had difficulty expressing himself, has a distaste for confrontation. When he showed up for a job interview at the company where he would vault into preeminence, he wore two shoes of different color.

He almost didn't get the job, and if he company had been large enough to have a personnel department, with their specifications and standards, he never would have.

We he did get the job, and proceeded to make the company millions of dollars. When the company was sold some years later, I would conservatively estimate that half the value could be attributed directly or indirectly to this one man.

He didn't get rich. Other people, with other kinds of intelligence did, but without him, it just wouldn't have been possible.

The media arrogance categorization of people as "smart" and "stupid" only highlights their own naive and parochial perceptions.

As a certain "dumb" guy who made good pointed out, "Stupid is as stupid does..."

I read with some amusement Tucker Carlson's confrontation with blogger Charles Williamson.

Charles who?

Yeah--I'll get to that.

Potomac Video store clerk Charles Williamson, 28, posted a message on his blog, Freelance Genius, Dec. 23 that described how he set up a movie rental account for MSNBC host Tucker Carlson at the MacArthur Boulevard store the day before. "I could tell you what he and his ridiculously wasped-out female companion (wife?) rented if you really want to know," he wrote. "I won't tell you where he lives, though. That would be wrong and stupid." Williamson also joked that he wouldn't send 10,000 copies of Jon Stewart's best-selling political satire, "America (The Book)," to Carlson's home; Stewart ridiculed Carlson on "Crossfire" before the 2004 election.

A week later, Williamson had forgotten all about it, he told us yesterday. That is, until Carlson, 37, reappeared at the video store and, said Williamson, "got pretty aggressive." According to Williamson, Carlson confronted him about the blog and said he viewed the post as a threat to him and his wife. "He said, 'If you keep this [expletive] up, I will [expletive] destroy you,' " Williamson recalled.

Long story short--Carlson made to look like an ass and WIlliamson's beyond-obscure blog goes to 7000 visitors a day.

Having just recently written about the hazards of fame, even minor-league fame, the story caught my eye.

I can understand Carlson's concern--he did a stupid thing. Giving out personal information for a famous person is an invitation to abuse. The clerk at the video store is going to pull up your record and forget it, but if you're famous, that information becomes currency. If you insist on being famous, and Carlson has, then practice safer privacy practices. He no doubt reacted out of an understandable fear for his family, but as even a pseudo-journalist should know--never go to war with a guy who buys ink by the barrel or with someone with a Typepad account.

A few months ago while in the St. Louis airport, I ran into Scott Hamiliton while getting in-line at the ticket counter. Hamilton was in the process of chewing out another passenger, a British fella, before he walked off. I only caught the confrontation and not what precipitated Hamilton's ill-humor that day, but it struck me that his fit-of-temper, whatever the reason, could have had far larger consequences than if he'd been a regional manager for a medical devices company. After Hamilton left, the woman in front of him leaned over to the target of his abuse and said, "Do you know who just called you an asshole?--Scott Hamilton, Olympic gold medalist in men's figure skating."

Hamilton had no idea that a blogger with a camera phone was there for the whole wicked incident. Fortunately for Hamilton, I wasn't predisposed to put a stick in his spokes, particularly since I didn't see what made him so angry in the first place.

Hmmm. I wonder if I'll get a call from his lawyer...

UPDATE: Carlson as a political commentator is a polarizing figure, so not surprising, some on the left (left-of-center?) have used the incident to slam him for being a bad dancer. You are so mean Joe.

Sister Toldja takes exception

I wonder how Gandelman, a blogger I respect, would have reacted had what the blogger written been about him and his family, rather than Carlson’s? Still David and Goliath? Would he have still added the blogger to his blogroll, as he apparently did today?.

If its not clear from what I wrote, Carlson's mistake is blaming anyone else but himself.

Incompetent parents who can't handle a typical three-year-old?:

The family, Julie and Gerry Kulesza and their daughter Elly, were headed home to Boston on Jan. 14 from Fort Myers, Fla., when they were told they had to leave the plane because Elly wouldn't get in her seat.

Or flim-flam artists?:

FAA rules require children age 2 and older to have their own seats with buckled seat belts before takeoff. The airline, Air Tran, said the flight had already been delayed 15 minutes when the family was told to disembark. Air Tran reimbursed the family the cost of their tickets and offered them three roundtrip tickets anywhere the airline flies as compensation.

The airline caved presumably to avoid any negative publicity (this was not a hit piece by the way, the article is a "how-to" for flying with children). I just wonder why the airline didn't give the Kulesza's complimentary tickets on another airline.

Mementos of what passed in a village north of Mosul-->

As far as I'm concerned, you really don't know squat about Iraq if you don't read Michael Yon.

Yon's latest piece reflects an unspoken truth about Iraq that the liberal-left elite would rather you never hear about--there are real martyrs in Iraq. Men and woman willing to sacrifice their lives for the families, their communities and their country.

As the murderer dressed in women’s clothes walked purposefully toward his target, there was a village man ahead. But under the guise of a simple villager was a true Martyr, and he, too, had his target in sight. The Martyr had seen through the disguise, but he had no gun. No bomb. No rocket. No stone. No time.

The Martyr walked up to the murderer and lunged into a bear hug, on the spot where we were now standing.

The blast ripped the Martyr to pieces which fell along with pieces of the enemy. Ball-bearings shot through the alley and wounded two children, but the people in the mosque were saved. The man lay in pieces on the ground, his own children having seen how his last embrace saved the people of the village.

Read the whole thing...

Right Wing News discusses the correlation between social and fiscal conservatism. Here's my take:

Fscal conservatism is a subset of social conservatism. Society should constrain the freedom to harm innocents while maximising the freedom to reap the rewards of one's own acts. Then criminalising abortion makes conservative sense as does criminalising drug trafficking if and when it impacts children. i honestly don't know if I'm libertarian about drugs and adults, but, legal or not, taxes should not be used to mitigate the suffering of voluntary adult drug users; charity, sure.

Homosexuals are already free to marry in any spiritually valid sense, but society should not be forced by law to punish, reward or endorse that contract. I'd go further and remove legal involvement from all marriage until children are involved. If a husband and wife want to make business arrangements, then use the law of contract.
Marriage is properly valued by the unforced approval of others and one's own self-definition, not by laws.

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds..

There is almost nothing more dishonest than a firing.

Some years ago I was privy to information about a case of embezzlement. It was slam-dunk.

The young man who had uncovered the problem naively believed his investigation would be appreciated, perhaps even rewarded.

He was fired.

The executive in question "resigned for family reasons" and the entire affair was covered up to avoid revealing a critical lack of judgment by the CEO in hiring the man in question.

There is nothing particularly unusual about this situation--firings are always potentially devastating to someone. Its shows poor judgment in the guy the hires the loser, the dismissed employee of course is disgraced. Law suits are in the air--complications on top of complications.

From this perspective, the firing of seven U.S. attorneys is indeed interesting--no one ever gets officially fired anymore unless they're convicted of child molestation or some other crime so beyond the pale that the risk of blowback is minimal.

On the other hand, what to make of this?

Rachel Lucas sits you down, looks you square in the eyes and tells you what you are doing wrong.

Of the roughly 400 "contacts" I got in the first month, I immediately deleted 95% of them with a cringe on my face because their profiles were just so apocalyptically BAD, but that made me feel kinda mean (really - only a little), and I thought to myself, Self, maybe you can HELP these poor bastards. So, this is for any single guys who are trying to meet women who are both sane and intelligent...

Sanity is a relative concept between the sexes. I don't know that I've ever really met what I'd call a sane woman--high functioning crazy person, but not truly sane.

The problem with Rachel's advice (and you should read it--especially you, you and you...) is that its all pretty useless. Guys who are going to get "winks", messages from interested ladies, are getting them for one reason and one reason only--they are good-looking fellas.

If you aren't a good-looking fellow then be rich--really, really rich. Money compensates for physical shortcomings. Bereft of money or looks, you are just out of luck, even if your profile was written by Cyrano and Shakespeare. On the other hand, if you are good-looking and rich, she'll overlook your atrocious spelling, the cowboy hat and seven motherless children.

UPDATE: I've developed an interest in dating sites recently because a friend of mine just had his dating site company acquired for mucho bucks. After reading Rachel Lucas post, I had a look at plentyoffish.com and hotornot.com.

As a marketing guy, I was aghast at what I saw. Terrible, unflattering pictures. It made me wonder how bad the people without pictures on their profiles look. I strongly suggest applying some basic market techniques--namely creating a value proposition for your product--namely yourself. Packaging is huge, so work on this aspect first.

Buy some nice, flattering clothes and if you don't know how, go to the Buckle and ask for help. Get a good, fashionable haircut (which can be had for far less than $400.00). Next, get a good photographer to take lots of pictures of you and pick out the best ones. Do not wear sun glasses. Smile for crying out loud--look like a happy person whose company people would enjoy. If you have a motorcycle, a sportscar or recreational vehicle, have a picture taken with it--this along with how you look will produce a lot of positive non-verbal communication.

State your best attributes as a matter of fact and unequivocally. Focus on the traits that other people value in you--a sunny disposition, wittiness, handy with tools, great cook, etc...

Next, divulge your liabilities--i.e. divorced, paraplegic, minor children, etc...

Finish on a positive note. If you have a good job, mention it. An advanced degree or working towards one? Mention it. Condo in Hawaii? Definitely.

The only physical attribute that bears mentioning is your height. The rest should be inferred from the pictures.

I don't think this is a particularly good way of meeting people, but you've got to work the system you've got.

Yeah, I've got a few of these...

Al Gore has been busted for drugs.

No, not that Al Gore; his son.

So why is this news? Well, apparently, Al Gore III made it news by clearly identifying himself as the son of the former Vice-President.

Gore was arrested on suspicion of drug possession and booked into the Inmate Reception Center in Santa Ana, about 34 miles south o