SELLOUT. The "money shot" box in the left margin is an invitation to advertise at alicublog via blogads. I have no idea how this will work. The one time I had a tip jar, I received exactly one donation (from a friend who could spare it less than I needed it) and a torrent of abuse from someone who worked in an advertising agency but thought it was disgraceful that I was asking for money. And it may alienate some of my readers, though if I were concerned about that I'd never write anything.

Still, if you have $10 or $20 to piss away, you might do worse than associate your cause with my ravings. I'm like Wesley Willis without the Casio, and cool to be associated with without actually being cool myself.

NOT A GOLDEN BOWL. I only grazed the big game tonight. Caught about half of it. It was well-played, except when it was sloppy; it was exciting, except when it was dull. None of the ads impressed me much (I missed the Simpsons one, though, which sounds like fun).

Maybe I'm just aging out of the blood-and-thunder demographic. I can't see why the boner pill ad chose to dis baseball, unless it's been proven that men with erectile dysfunction equate sex with bone-crushing NFL action, and baseball with limp dicks. And the halftime show was a more egregious monument to bad taste than last year's. What was up with Justin Timberlake ripping off Janet Jackson's pasty? Maybe that one went out to the boner pill demo.

I hope the ratings weren't so good that they start doing this kind of shit in the World Series.

BELLS AND WHISTLES. Over at OpinionJournal a Daniel Henninger column runs under the Jacobin headline "Patient Rage: Consumers march to the walls of the health-care castle." The input considered, however, is not from consumers, but from politicians, providers and their middlemen, the corporate human resources administrators who try to limit the effect of rising health-care costs to employees under their jurisidictions.

Henninger notes that most citizens get their health care coverage from the company store, so this area is where the "real action is," leaving concerns of the uninsured (14.6 percent of Americans, per the last census, and steadily rising) and Medicare recipients to one side. This ellision would seem to guarantee a less depressing picture of national health care right off the bat, but as it turns out, even these beneficiaries are not immune to rising costs, as any covered employee who saw his premiums and deductibles increase in the past year will suspect. Employers are trying all kinds of tricks to hide the damage -- for example, many of them are slashing benefits to retirees, which is a neat way to hide cost-cutting from those workers still at their desks -- but even Henninger cannot deny that companies "are taking employee premiums higher for more or less flat coverage."


And so a conference was convened by the World Health Congress; Henninger was its keynote moderator, and most of his article is based on testimony to that Congress.

The good news, such as it is, relies largely on the standbys of any modern and failing system promising that things will get better soon: technology ("brighter explosions are also in health's firmament... remote medical sensors, implanted monitors, Web-based health-care 'wizards'") and innovation. These benefits include "Web-based programs and human 'coaches' who give guidance on dealing with chronic aliments or complex medical problems," "a consumer-directed plan with a year-to-year financial rollover for its own workers, 'many of them single mothers,'" and "put[ting] a greater decision burden on workers."

All this makes Henninger optimistic. But haven't we attended this sort of presentation before? The Federal Government was going to be "reinvented," the internet was going to shift the very paradigm of business, and privatization was -- is! -- going to restore Social Security. Yet at the end of the day we get a lot of geegaws, new processes and metrics, and decreased services. The shrinking of the Federal deficit (remember that?) was largely paid for, and bought into, by reducing expectation of services from the Government. Given the way things are going, I doubt the reformation of health care will work any differently.

Time was when the powers that be distracted us punters with bread and circuses. Now we get bells and whistles. But if your kid needs her tonsils out, I don't see how they're going to make things any easy. Perhaps, given the glorious promise of "remote medical sensors" and such like, I'm being insufficiently forward-looking. But many of us can only look forward to the next (or present) medical exigency, and wonder how we're going to pay for it.

OSCAR ADVANCE POSTING. O helldamn, this has been a thick and thorny stint of posting lately, so let's talk Academy Awards. It's my plan to see a bunch more of the nominated achievements before February 29, but I will here give readings on those few I can intelligently judge:

Johnny Depp. After all his wonderful and sometimes strenuous prior performances, I think the voters finally named him because this one has a smidge extra of something he has always had (charm) and one thing he's never had (a Disney vehicle). His Jack Sparrow is, in long form, a somewhat sloppy performance -- its highs and lows come and go, and do not describe an arc; but then, neither does the film. Surely his languid incongruousness amid all those laudably stiff supporting performances helped him stand out. His long suit in this competition is his boldness of conception (think Jeremy Irons in Reversal of Fortune) -- his short suit, one nice fat scene that would encompass all the Oscarworthy qualities.

Bill Murray. A New York Post gossip columnist caught Chevy Chase besmirching Murray's underplaying of this role. Truth be told, it's a fair cop, but in this relentless becalmed film, that may be why people applaud him so. In his Oscar-ignored Rushmore breakthrough, Murray was also in perfect low pitch with his cinematic surroundings -- recall him saying, to Max asking whether he was alright, "Mmmm... I get a little lonely sometimes." That Rushmore was brilliant, whereas Lost in Translation is only a nice college try by a Hollywood nepot, matters only in timing: Otherwise we'd be talking about Paul Giamatti right now. Lost is a modish and tidy packaging of middle-age and coming-of-age crises that also affords Murray a reward for his serious late work in films like Rushmore, Hamlet, and The Royal Tannenbaums. I do think Murray is a little stiff here at times (his smile at the end of his last encounter with the girl is thoroughly unearned and unconvincing), but there are many, many times when he is sweetly fluid, and these linger in the memory.

Diane Keaton. Holy shit she's good. The acting-ability gap between Annie Hall and Reds, her next nomination, is on balance small; the gap between Reds and now is huge. Even in the rather dicey, low-comedy early innings of Something's Gotta Give, she is believeable and grounded, on the limited basis the film then offers; but as the love affair takes off, she is b&g in everything. When I saw her part from the Nicholson character by kissing him wildly and declaring, "This... this is heartbreak!" I thought: This, this is Duse, this is Nazimova! For she is not only believeable and grounded, but magnificent and wild, justified and ancient, at every part of the spectrum. And she retains all the best qualities of her earlier career: the unpredictability, the sense of humor, and the tendency to suddenly shatter.

The three best picture nominees I have seen were already here briefly judged, but there will be more viewing and judging, I promise, in days to come.

CONTRA YGLESIAS. A day or so ago READINblogger Jeremy Osner invited me to visit a Matt Yglesias thread based on some David Bernstein twaddle I'd previously stripped. "I'll look at the Yglesias fracas later," I said at the time; "I don't like to drink before sundown."

(Pause. What an incestuous mass of linkage! Can I even go on? Yes.)

Well, I just looked at that comment thread, and the original post, and Holy Jesus, I'm so glad I'm drunk.

No Child Left Behind? This country has never had national educational standards, and Bush suddenly tied federal funding to adherence to "standards" to which not even the kinder of that edumacational paradise called Texas could adhere without massive relocation of the goalposts.

All it does is create a market for free-market educrats who will offer their services in pursuit of these unattainable goals for a fee. This is privatization by the back door; if Chris Whittle can't make free-market public education viable, the new idea, it would seem, is to open a new market for "standards" hucksters.

Oh, and it's good for something else: defunding even decent public school systems, as the Ohio example demonstrates. Perhaps these stolen dollars will fund the President's recent budgetary largesse elsewhere.

Matt, I'm sorry, this is bullshit of the highest order. That some of the big bucket called the "budget" gets poured into the little bucket that's called "education" doesn't make it a good thing. I tutor on weekends, and I have seen what gets basic knowledge into kids' heads: hard fucking work. And as much individual attention as good teachers can give each student. Not national syllabi devised by bureaucrats and related to underhanded cost-cutting schemes.

As a longtime Charles Goodell Republican, I beseech you, Matt, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.

ALL THEY WILL CALL YOU WILL BE: EMPLOYEE. Three bits of posted matter together make an interesting point, though perhaps not one their individual authors intended.

At the American Enterprise Institute, Douglas A. Irwin declares "Outsourcing is Good for America."

Never mind that the tide of emigrating jobs is a large part of our current employment crisis, as the demand for labor does not necessarily involve American laborers, even in previously outsourcing-proof white-collar trades. Or that, in a telling bit of self-preservation, some Senators (including a few Republicans) are trying to head off the threat in their own little corner of the labor pool by placing a ban on offshore outsourcing of government jobs.

Irwin's executive summary tells us that this hemmorhage simply means "the world is changing." We shouldn't bother about why, or who has made it change. He admits that "the service sector, which traditionally has been insulated from international competition, is now ripe for outsourcing on a global scale," but asks us to take heart because this does not mean production is down. Your boss, or your former boss, is doing fine. Look at the manufacturing base, Irwin says; "manufacturing production has risen about 40 percent over the past decade... Of course, the share of the American workforce in manufacturing has fallen steadily over the postwar period because of vast increases in productivity, but this is a worldwide phenomenon."

In other words: it's the same shit all around, bro. Deal with it. Besides, costs will fall! "If a capable radiologist in India can read x-ray pictures at a quarter of the cost of doing so domestically," says Irwin, "important health care services can be delivered at lower cost to everyone, putting a brake on exploding medical costs."

Everyone who sees the cost of medical care going down anytime soon, raise your hands. No takers? Well, again, don't worry, because the New Way "includes such things as ensuring the portability of health and pension benefits in order to reduce the adverse impact of changing jobs, which must inevitably happen in an ever-changing economy." So when you're canned, your COBRA eligibility may be extended.

There's nothing here about getting the laid-off back to work. It's all about protecting companies from the crippling burden of outsourcing bans. Indeed, the worker doesn't enter into the equation; it's not for him or her that it was written. It's for those that run the decreasingly-employing firms, and their advocates on Wall Street, and in Washington.

Meanwhile over at the Seattle Times, Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz sums it up more succinctly:

The general principle of trade is, everyone benefits. Now, there are many circumstances where that general principle doesn't work, particularly when you don't have free and fair trade rules.

Countries are not being given the choice of rules. You say you have to open your markets. If you don't, here will be the consequences. The consequences are so dire they open their markets.

At that point, goods start flowing in. The guys who are buying the goods see (a benefit) from subsidized American corn or milk. But the people who lose their jobs are worse off.

If society as a whole isn't able to create new jobs, what you've done is move people from low-productivity jobs to unemployment. And that's not good for growth. That's not what's supposed to happen.

Over at OpinionJournal, where the free (as in "totally unencumbered by the concerns of puny humans") market rules, Tunku Varadarajan belittles a humble illustrator who has refused to ornament an article with which he does not agree. This sends a supposedly soul-searching Varadarajan ("worried that I had perhaps behaved like a Neanderthal" -- and could that be him? With his tailored cuffs and fat paycheck, yet could it?) to walk among the other artists-for-hire -- a little touch of Tunku in the night! -- to ask, was the man reasonable?

While one draughtsman says he "kinda admired the guy, in a funny kind of way, for his political purity," they all agree with their employer that the refusenik "went too far." One even shines Tunku's buttons (or assuages his own pride) more than this, explaining that "People sometimes ask me if I'm an 'artist.' I tell them I'm an 'illustrator.' The difference defines your prickly encounter with the person who makes his living as an illustrator but somehow thinks of himself as an artist."

Satisfied, Tunku concludes that the artist in question "must 'either be very young, or very rich.'" He doesn't explain the quote marks -- something a grandee told him at a gala once, perhaps? -- but adds that the third option may be that the artist is just "very silly."

"Silly" is an instructive choice of word here, implying that the loss of a paying gig for a freelance illustrator, whose income is probably not so much, is without consequence. And for Varadarajan, I'm sure that's so.

Still, one marvels that Varadarajan, formerly a lecturer in law at Oxford University and a longtime Wall Street Journal editor, took the time to glean quotes from the lowly scribblers of his Art Department at all. Perhaps he understands that the plebes will need a different sort of convincing than that offered by Irwin at the AEI. And that sort of convincing traditionally involves some overt humiliation, some ritual reminder -- not just of the recalictrant, but of those who had once labored with him -- that it is only a silly one, a self-styled "artist," a self-marginalizing outcast, who would refuse the king's (or even Tunku's) shilling. For they are not artists (or craftsmen, or union men, or International Workers of the World, or any such lofty sort), but merely employees, and even that slight status, in a world that is changing, may be taken away from them.

BUSH LIED. "I'M HEARTENED BY CONSERVATIVES... and how they are responding to the Bush NEA announcement. Jonah says that most of the e-mail he's getting-by something like a three-to-one margin-gives Bush a pass on this issue. This is a very important signal, because it shows a certain maturity of outlook on the part of conservatives: a dogged insistence on focusing on the Big Picture... Spending a few million bucks on the NEA is worth it if it reassures some people that Bush is not governing in a partisan spirit... But if Bush is willing to stand up to his own ideological supporters -- on what is relatively a trivial issue -- he can win points as a national uniter, the president of all the people. And that way he can get a resounding victory in November..." -- Mike Potemra, The Corner.

Remind yourself of this next time any of these guys talks about Democratic "flip-flops."

I KNOW HOW YA FEEL, ZIP. (January 15 comic -- if they're not showing it when you go, use the button to call it up.)

HE KNOWS WE ARE, BUT WHAT IS HE? David Bernstein at the Volokh site (I refuse to accept its chosen cognomen, "Conspiracy," as that usage reminds me of a bunch of corporate financial officers calling themselves a "crew") wonders, in light of the recent NEA funding, "why liberals are so hostile to George Bush":

Give him a phony Haavaad accent instead of phony Texas twang, a wonky college life, a less religious persona, and an attorney general other than John Ashcroft, and George Bush, in theory, would be a dream president for many liberals, judging by their ex ante policy preferences.

Haw haw. Stupid libruls! With their stupid Kennedys and their stupid edumacations and their stupid Satan!

One expects this sort of treatment from operatives like Bernstein, but few of them have the stones to follow it up immediately with something like this:

...cultural cues are more important than policy and ideology. W just represents lots of things that coastal liberals dislike, and they will continue to dislike him regardless of how he governs policy-wise. But I find it amusing when they dress up their cultural prejudices in rhetoric...

To haul out the Mallard Fillmore caricatures and attack liberal "cultural prejudices" almost simultaneously takes a certain kind of... let's say, lack of self-consciousness.

As to his further claims that Bush isn't an ultraconservative 'cause he spends lots of money, I could tell Bernstein that real liberals prefer that public moneys be spent on enforcement of environmental regulations and Head Start, for example, than on grants to religious maniacs, but there wouldn't be much point, what with Bernstein standing there with his fingers in his ears, singing "La-la-la, I can't hear you."

PBS REPUBLICANS. At OpinionJournal, Naomi Schaeffer reports on the State Department's CultureConnect program, which sends "cultural ambassadors" like Frank McCourt and some Sinatra interpreter of whom Ms. Schaeffer seems enamored to places like Iraq (and Venezuela!) for the old hearts-and-minds gig. "'It gives us a vehicle for people of good will to connect,' says Patricia S. Harrison, assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs," blah blah blahs Schaeffer.

Of course, the venue being what it is, Schaeffer must have thought her chances of publication would improve if she stuck this in:

But there is another sense in which it is important to send artists like [opera singer Denyce] Graves and jazz musician Wynton Marsalis (another of the program's ambassadors) to Muslim countries. Though one hesitates to say there is anything reasonable in the impression that these young people have of America as the Great Satan, it is certainly true that the parts of American culture that get through to these countries are often crude, sexually explicit and lowbrow. Ms. Graves notes, "I see what's being imported in terms of American culture, and it's not a fair representation of who we are. I have cringed at what people think is American, but if you don't have a chance to visit, all you have is what's being said to you."

What she's talking about, of course, is the stuff most Americans really attend to: hip-hop, action movies, etc.

That's interesting. American pop culture is famously influential and profitable around the world. Foreigners willingly seek it out. Where they are prevented from experiencing it by mullahs, dictators, or poor TV transmission, they will even go underground to have it. Remember the black market rock concerts of the old Soviet Union?

These people aren't going to all that trouble for a PBS special. No, they want a big glassful of the same Moloko Plus we lucky Americans live on. Junk culture is what other people "think is American" because it is -- certainly more so than the grand opera Ms. Graves has been sent to "ambassador" to the underserved.

To get around this glaring anomaly, Schaeffer implies that the rowdy, bad stuff everyone listens to and watches is actually a elite invasion of culture, rather than the thing itself:

Indeed, one needn't go as far as Pakistan to find religious people who see American culture as a potentially destructive influence. Plenty of religious communities in the U.S. are disgusted with offensive rap lyrics or installation art like the elephant-dung painting of the Virgin Mary.

Yeah, that's what's sweeping the country, folks: Mobb Deep and Chris Ofili. Nice try, but it's what CultureConnect is selling that's the elitist alternative stuff, of the sort seen during Public Television fundraisers. Opera? Jazz? You see them selling out the Meadowlands? No, you see them in the boxed sets that come with the tote bag.

What makes this doubly weird is that, in and among the like-minded screeds against our goldurned culture that run tiresomely off the conservative conveyer belts, we have of late heard many gloats about "South Park Republicanism," an alleged conservative Great Awakening fueled by smutty, irreverant humor.

This may reflect a genuine divergence of opinion, but with this as with most discordant notes issuing from the Mighty Wurlitzer, I think it's more about having it both ways. For in the view of dedicated propagandists, what's the point of having a culture at all if you can't use it to stroke friends and flail enemies simultaneously?

GOING FOR THE GOLD. I'm a hopeless Oscar nerd. Even worse, I'm the kind of Oscar nerd who makes predictions -- really unsuccessful ones -- based mainly on historical precedents and voodoo. I've had to do it that way because, usually, I never see most of the movies up for awards.

But the latest nominations have come out and I find, to my shock, that I have already seen three of the five Best Picture Nominees, and three of the 10 nominated performances. I could conceivably catch a couple of films before February 29, and be able to discuss this superficial topic with some expertise. Then I shall be part of the great world!

For the record, Lost in Translation is Antonioni for Dummies, Master and Commander is beautiful but curiously inert, and Seabiscuit blows. More snap judgements to come!

A FIRST CLASS STRANGE-O. Once again, a mortal enemy of the Democratic Party (not to mention the democratic way of life) offers it collegial advice. She does so, predictably, by first asserting that her own Party is so interested in the health of the nation (which it has brought, unassisted, to near-ruin) that it must come pleading to the cursed Others that they not place a madman within polling distance of the Command in Chief:

Our No. 1 question used to be: Can we beat this guy easily? But now we feel the age of terrorism so profoundly challenges our country, and is so suggestive of future trauma and national pain, that our No. 1 question has become: Is he?.?.?. normal? Just normal. Is he stable and adult and experienced?

In this latest fever dream of the Wall Street Journal's resident mystic, Peggy "it was what it am and that's all that it am" Noonan, the specimen so lacking in normalcy, stability, adulthood and experience that it must not be exposed to the electoral light of day is... General Wesley Clark.

Her professed concern with America's well-being might be to the uninitated touching, but seasoned Noonan-watchers will know it for an affectation meant to bestow upon her own partisan scribblings an unearned loftiness.

She only recently visited similar slurs upon the erstwhile Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean ("Odd... immature... ungrounded..."); it's only a matter of time before she brings such like, with the same maudlin air of a duty painfully performed, against whatever other contestant seems to have a chance against her beloved Leader.

For now, Clark is her target, and she brings to his demolition all the sharp tools of her tenure as the Riefenstahl of Reaganism. "A first class strange-o," she proclaims Clark, "void of purpose beyond meeting the candidate's hunger."

On what grounds are these damning indictments delivered? These:

• Clark was dismissive of John Kerry before Noonan had her chance;
• Clark bragged of leading the U.N. mission against Kosovo (a defeat of totalitarianism in which Noonan's beloved Leader can claim no part);
• Clark changed his mind about the war (watch for this in her coming jihad against Kerry);
• Clark was mean to Brit Hume;
• Clark was nice to Michael Moore;
• Clark favors abortion rights (Jesus wept!);
• Camille Paglia doesn't like him.

Noonan spends many column inches on this last bit, which is hilarious, considering that Paglia has explained her "Italian pagan Catholicism" thusly: "I'm pro-prostitution -- I mean really pro, not just pro-prostitute and against prostitution. I'm pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-drag queens, pro-legalization of drugs" -- whereas Noonan's non-Italian, non-pagan Catholicism is explained mostly by her lies about Pope John Paul's endorsement of the new Mel Gibson movie.

It has been demonstrable for some time that this miserable harpy is nuts -- the question remains, why does a major outlet like the WSJ continue to avail her ravings? Perhaps the question answers itself.

SHORTER TACITUS. Goddamned Rockefeller Republican George W. Bush! I join the Coalition of the Wistful in pretending to consider other alternatives.

(I know Shorters are the job of BusyBusyBusy but, frankly, I'm too busybusybusy myself right now to do anything else...)

SHORTER STANLEY KURTZ: Someone spoke disparagingly about marital benefits in the New York Times, heretofore a bastion of traditional values, and this proves that homos are causing the End of Marriage and turning the United States into Scandinavia.

(The marriage mystics' whole line of argument baffles me. When it comes to Iraq, immigration, education policy, etc., I can at least understand the other side's logic, but Kurtz et alia seem to be engaged in magical thinking. The Times article is standard-issue water-roiling on an issue it has zero chance of influencing. If marriage rates are dropping in Scandinavia, so what -- haven't conservatives been arguing for some time that Europe is dying or dead already? Is gay marriage really what destroys civilizations? Somebody tell Gibbon. Really, what am I missing here?)

ADD SOME MUSIC TO YOUR DAY. Via Alterman we learn that the Beach Boys' Smile is finally coming out:

The final straw was the sudden appearance at the top of the charts by another far-reaching concept album: Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, by arch-rivals the Beatles. [Brian] Wilson put the Smile tapes on the shelf, went home, got into bed and closed the door.

And for decades, while some of his Smile songs were rejigged for subsequent Beach Boys albums or slipped out on bootlegs or the internet, he refused even to mention the project. Until last October, when he went back to the album and finished it.

This is giddy news. Smiley Smile, a disjointed assemblage of Smile fragments, has been part of the soundtrack of my life for years now. I accepted the rumor that Wilson, fucked up on chemicals, burned the original tapes in a paranoid episode.

Now we get to hear the whole thing. The chances that it will totally suck are slim. And about how much can you say that anymore?

THE BUSH-MANSON CONNECTION. Conservatives everywhere are outraged that Wesley Clark did not renounce Michael Moore's endorsement in last night's debate. "Didn't have the decency, the wits, or the guts," says Jonah Goldberg. "Clueless," says Tim Graham. "Stumbled badly," says Rush Limbaugh.

A couple of eventheliberals have taken the cue as well: "May have joined Howard Dean in the penalty box," says Eleanor Clift; "evasive... barely a person," says Roger L. Simon. But the anger is more palpable among rightists like Byron York, who spent several paragraphs telling the tale of Clark's perfidy to National Review readers, who are most easily enraged by any reference to the "radical leftist filmmaker" (three words that, individually, can rattle the teacups of any NR reader, and which used collectively send them screaming to their Robert Welch books and Reagan ephemera for comfort).

What I want to know is, when will someone call out George W. Bush for his endorsement by Marilyn Manson in 2000?

...Manson -- who says he loathes Gore and Sen. Joseph Lieberman -- tells Tucker [Carlson] that "If I had to pick, I'd pick Bush, and not necessarily by default."

A Bush campaign spokesman did deflect the endorsement -- but Bush himself craftily remained silent on the issue. And the Manson endorsement may have won him crucial support in Florida! What was his margin, 720-odd votes? At least that many people bought "Holy Wood"!

Bush's silence is even more disturbing when you consider that he was seen -- as President --at a White House Correspondents' Dinner joshing around with Ozzy Osbourne, an even more Satanic (and far more marketable) rocker. Do you not see the pattern?

Does the Family Research Council know about this? Why hasn't Peggy Noonan written about it? The culture warriors of the Right may have been bought off, but alicublog will not let this weasley (or should we say "Wesley") behavior pass.

Write to Peter Jennings, Brit Hume, and all media outlets and demand that Bush renounce Manson and Osbourne and all their works. Then ask him why he didn't do it sooner. Then ask him about his sweater.

Then, in a spirit of fairness, we can start grilling the General about Madonna.

OLD MEDIA REALLY BEATS THE SHIT OUT OF NEW MEDIA, especially in this case. (Via Sisyphus Shrugged.)

MAN TURNS HIS BACK ON HIS FAMILY, WELL HE JUST AIN'T NO GOOD. I've noticed before that some conservatives like to talk about their "liberal friends" as if they're all incoherent dumbasses, and I wondered how these guys keep getting invited to liberal dinner/cocktail/swinger parties.

Now I'm thinking, maybe they have to be invited -- because they're family:

My cousin, whom I'll call "Bob," just included me in a group e-mail that implied President Bush was anti-Semitic...

I was incensed, and my first reaction was to press "Delete" and erase the offending message. After doing so, I reflected a bit more and decided that my silence might imply that I agreed, so I went to an earlier mass e-mail from Bob and pressed "Reply to All." My trigger finger has now caused a family furor.

I'll bet. The author, one Alan Bromley, gets an angry note from his cousin about the mass reply, which prompts him to round up other witnesses to justify his actions, including a lawyer (!) and friends of his 17-year-old daughter, who say they "respond to the entire group all the time" (as one would expect 17-year-olds to do).

Finally Bromley tells his cousin to "Keep family and politics separate" -- at the end of an article published online at OpinionJournal.

This is why my attitude toward conservatives is slightly different from those of my colleagues. I don't mind in the least their views -- in fact, I quite enjoy them. I just don't like them personally.

BEHIND YOU ALL THE WAY. November 3, 2004 -- Hours after suffering the worst drubbing in American electoral history, Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman took conciliatory phone calls from moderate supporters Michael Totten, Roger L. Simon, and Andrew Sullivan.

"I swear that, right up till the end, I was ready to be convinced," said Totten. "I was heartened when you stood with the President on the Iraq, Iran, Syria, Nigeria, and Falkland Islands invasions. But last week, when you told the nation that our invasion of the Philippines was 'perhaps overreaching,' that proved to me that you didn't really 'get' the war on terror."

"Tough break, kid," said Simon. "Great scenario, but a lousy third act. You just don't have the looks for a wartime-president role. Bogie could pull off that lip-tightening thing -- you can't. But when Bush pulled out Saddam's decapitated head and sucked out the eyes, that was box-office gold. I was pullin' for you, kid. I didn't vote for you, but I was pullin'."

"I lied," said Sullivan. "I never intended to vote for anyone except Bush. Wait, is this being recorded? What a shocking invasion of my priv-acy."

NOT SO FUNNY. Tacitus tells mildly amusing tales about white people being taken for African-American or Hispanic. It reminded me of this less amusing tale of African-Americans being taken for something else:

Nearly one out of three African Americans report that they have been unfairly stopped, searched and physically abused or threatened by the police, according to findings from a new University of Michigan study....

...Asked if they had ever been unfairly stopped, searched, questioned, physically threatened or abused by the police, 28.2 percent of African Americans, 27.5 percent of Afro-Caribbeans and 17 percent of whites said they had...

Compared to a nationally representative sample of Black Americans [social psychologist James S.] Jackson and colleagues first surveyed in 1980, African Americans today were far less likely to say they thought most white people wanted to see Blacks get a better break (14.4 percent today compared to 22.6 percent in 1980).

Just for a little perspective.