But What About Plain Pop Tarts?

Some headlines are truly brilliant: "Judge Allows Expert on Pop Tarts to Testify in Flaming Pastry Lawsuit." What's scary is that I actually think I'm going to track down and read the decision...

A federal judge agreed to let an engineer testify in the case of an allegedly flaming toaster snack, concluding that Michael Wald has studied frosted Pop-Tarts and the toaster company’s lawyers will have the opportunity to attack his expert testimony in court to determine if it’s shaky.

Hamilton Beach wanted Mr. Wald kept out of the case, arguing that his pastry testing didn’t measure up to the usual scientific methods, resulting in a conclusion to match Mr. Wald’s defective-toaster theory.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn disagreed in a decision Wednesday, citing the federal rules on scientific or technical evidence and Supreme Court case law.

The guy studies frosted Pop Tarts. Talk about specialization.

The Real Enemy for Eagles and Patriots Fans

Ben Roethlisberger's pre-game ritual apparently starts on Monday...

Really, it seems all of the South Side knows where Ben Roethlisberger, the National Football League's hottest rookie, a star in the making and the center of the Steelers' Super Bowl hopes, goes after he leaves Jack's on Monday night.

"He goes to Casey's to see the midget," Coddington said brightly.

Casey's, a bar about six blocks down Carson Street from Jack's, hosts "Monday Midget Madness" featuring a midget who dances on the bar and pours shots into people's mouths.

Big Ben, the wholesome darling of Pittsburgh, watches a dancing midget on Monday night?

Yes. Because he has to.

Because to do otherwise would break the spell.

It would jinx him, jinx the Steelers, jinx you, the fans.

It's an athlete's superstition.

This is what we know so far, as told to us by some key players of the South Side bar scene:

On the Monday before Roethlisberger's first start, he went out on the town. On Sunday, he led the Steelers to a win.

He went out on the next Monday night and followed the same routine. On Sunday, he again led the Steelers to a win.

He hasn't missed a Monday night since. The Steelers haven't lost a game since.

Of course, the Steelers don't have any Monday Night Football games this year. But I'll also bet some Patriots fan is arranging for that midget to disappear on January 17th.

Social Security Privitization -- The Debate

Michael Kinsley, through Andrew Sullivan's blog, issued a challenge to bloggers who support Social Security reform. Arnold Kling at Tech Central Station has a response, as does Donald Luskin. Trust me when I say this debate, which will continue with more people weighing in, will provide a better analysis and discussion of the issues than you will see on Capitol Hill, and it will likely be better than any analysis the mainstream media tries.

The Swift Boat Vets and Kerry -- The Conclusion

Well, at least Kerry's campaign is acknowledging their impact...

The campaign manager for Sen. John Kerry's failed presidential bid said Wednesday she regrets underestimating the impact of an attack advertisement that questioned Kerry's Vietnam War record.

Mary Beth Cahill, who spoke at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government with Ken Mehlman, President Bush's campaign manager, said the Massachusetts senator's campaign initially thought there would be "no reach" to the ad from Swift Vets and POWs for Truth.

Instead, the ad, which initially aired in just three states, became a central issue of the campaign, eventually forcing Kerry to personally deny the group's allegations that he did not deserve his combat medals.

"This is the best $40,000 investment made by any political group, but it was only because of the news coverage that it got where it did," she said.

"In hindsight, maybe we should have put Senator Kerry out earlier, perhaps we could have cut it off earlier."

Well, Kerry did call it "a pack of lies", as Geraghty pointed out. But his bigger problem was one countless folks hammered home -- a failure to actually rebut the specific claims within the book, and to do so with the candidate himself leading the charge. Not every claim made against a candidate has credibility, but the claims of the Swift Boat Vets did have credibility with plenty of people. By only responding with ad hominem attacks against the veterans themselves, and doing so belatedly, the Kerry campaign left the candidate open to the perception that the Swift Boat Vets were the ones telling the truth.

And the eventual response, which failed to acknowledge that Kerry had exaggerated some of his exploits, particularly Christmas in Cambodia, was even more telling. I don't think people would have had a problem if Kerry had acknowledged a few tall tales in his past -- it could easily have been spun as demonstrating the candidate's human side. I also think he left the door open by never issuing an apology for his testimony before Congress in 1971, which was the true motivation for many of the Swifties, who were rightly offended by those statements.

But the part of the AP dispatch that cracked me up was this paragraph:

The Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, a group of Republican-funded Vietnam War veterans who patrolled the same Mekong Delta in Swift boats similar to the ones piloted by Navy Lt. John Kerry, challenged Kerry's accounts of his medal-winning service and anti-war protests.

When is the last time anyone referred to MoveOn or any of the liberal 527s as "Democrat-funded"? Yet the Swift Boat Veterans and their source of funding is important here? Yes, plenty of Republicans contributed to the Swift Boat Vets. But they weren't part and parcel a GOP group, because that would have violated McCain-Feingold -- which is the same reason the massive liberal 527s are a seperate entity from the DNC. Next time someone asks about liberal news bias, you have entry #7,114,962 for the list.

More on the Washington Follies

My good friend Greg over at Another Project has his own take on the Washington gubernatorial battle that may never end. It's worth a read -- I obviously disagree with much of what is asserted, but I'll try to generally stay away from the 2000 Florida recount and Al Gore (in fact, I think people should make it a policy to avoid Al Gore generally, since he's a little weird lately). I'm even more aggravated that Greg calls me "otherwise reasonable" -- since when have I been reasonable?

Generally, I'll say this -- the problems in our voting system stem from three sources:

1. The voting systems are less than optimal, in that people in some places are voting on computer screens, while other people use punch cards, and others use something else. In addition, plenty of people don't trust the voting screens, while other folks (like me) don't trust people to do the counting either. This is not a problem that can be eliminated entirely (even if you give some people paper receipts of electronic machines, they won't always trust them), but it can be minimized.

2. Voter fraud is a problem in several places. I know that everyone laughs about dead people voting, but there need to be more accurate ways to maintain voter rolls than currently exist. Maybe things aren't as bad as Chicago in 1960, when Daley delivered Illinois to Kennedy, but this problem is one that's winked at far too often.

3. Stupid voters like the people in Palm Beach County in 2000, or the people who left the polls in the Panhandle after the networks mistakenly called Florida for Gore in 2000. Or people in Minnesota who cast a vote for "Ewards".

I don't think there's a way to solve problem #3, and if there is, I'd also like to the solution to educate the American electorate so everyone's making an informed choice. There are people in every election who vote Democrat or Republican for the dumbest reasons, and there are people who are stupid enough to cast their ballot incorrectly. There's only so many safeguards we can build into the system. If you are confused about your ballot, then ask questions -- it's part of casting your vote responsibly. If you care about your vote, then a certain modicum of responsibility is on you, the voter. People like Greg and the Minister of War are serving and defending our country so that you can responsibly exercise your rights as a citizen. I'm not going to say that you owe it to them, but perhaps they would. And you definitely owe it to yourself.

As for #1-2, there are problems with our system. I tend to believe the problems balance themselves out politically, but solutions need to be put in place. My problem with the Democrats in Washington, and the litigation that may occur in every future election that's reasonably close, is that partisans will seek to shift the rules after the election has taken place and their candidate has finished short in the count. Perhaps the bigger problem is that election laws aren't exactly precise. But too often, the lawsuits we witness in these electoral disputes ask or allow judges to impose rules on the process that have absolutely no basis in reality -- witness the Florida Supreme Court and its wackadoo deadline for certification in 2000.

But just as Greg is tired of the GOP claims that the Dems seek to steal close races, I'm sick of the mantra of "counting every vote." For one thing, it's generally about counting until you're ahead, then stopping additional recounts. If Gregoire had led after the mandated recount, would the Dems be asking for a hand recount, even though several votes may have been miscounted? For another, let's be clear which votes Democrats want counted:

Shortly after the election, upon seeing how close the race was, the Democrats began chasing voters who cast provisional ballots with mismatched or missing signatures. (Provisional ballots are used when voters vote somewhere other than their regular polling place or when a voter's eligibility is in question.)

Now, chasing down the problem ballots wasn't the problem. The problem is that the Democrats insisted they were undertaking the task to make sure every vote counted (even though the Dems were only interested in going the extra mile in Gregoire-backed King County).

And here's how the party went about making every one of those King County votes count:

Ryan Bianchi, communications assistant for Gregoire's campaign, told The Seattle Times that volunteers knocked on doors and asked voters with problem ballots if they voted for her. "If they say no," he told The Times, "we just tell them to have a nice day." And if they said yes? The red carpet was rolled out to assist these most deserving voters with the process required to turn their erroneous ballots into valid ones.

Look, I'm not saying the GOP has clean hands on the issue. But I am saying the continuing litigation-happy environment for close elections serves no one, except maybe the lawyers and the press. But hey, those are two popular constituencies, aren't they?

Where's The Beef?

Okay, it's not here, but a number of old-school 1980's TV commercials are. Kudos to Jonah Goldberg at NRO for posting this link and destroying productivity across the country.

The Revenge of Lindros

I had to scream when I read this...

As expected, the Eagles placed reserve linebacker Jason Short on injured reserve with a broken left fibula. Short's roster spot will be taken by another rookie linebacker, Mike Labinjo, who was signed and promoted from the practice squad yesterday.

Labinjo (6-foot, 241) is an undrafted free agent from Michigan State. He grew up in Toronto, where he attended the same high school as Eric Lindros.

Now I know we're cursed. There's no way anyone from Eric Lindros' circle who can help us win anything.

It's Time to Take A Counting Break

Geraghty has more on the fun and games in the Washington Governor's race. The attempted highway robbery continues...

The blogger Hamilton's Pamphlets is keeping a close eye on the Washington state recount process. His latest?

Using my questionable math talent, and my numbers from yesterday (mostly cause I didn't save that spreadsheet), that leaves six counties left to report and Rossi has averaged around a 2 net vote gain per county, so it looked like a 12 vote win for Rossi.

But wait, on my way to work today while listening to KVI (AM 570) and Kirby Wilbur, I hear that yesterday's number was 573 not 577 and that King County has "found" 22 MORE ballots bringing the grand total to 595. I think the math still holds up, but even if it doesn't, you can count on King County to come up with a few more ballots to pad Gregoire's margin.

Using Stefan's numbers from yesterday, that would result in 21 two party votes. Use the 60/40 split numbers and GUESS WHAT?! It gives Gregoire 13 votes, or a 1 vote margin of victory. Does it get any more transparent than this? Every time the math goes against Gregoire, King County "finds" just enough ballots to eke out a Gregoire win.

Meanwhile, Washington-state-based Sound Politics is calling Washington's King Couty "Ukraine County."

... UPDATE: Cam Edwards sends word that he just interviewed John Fund on his show... "He says they've found 50 more ballots in Washington State. New total is 645. Unreal."

Again, thank God for the GOTV effort in Ohio, or a whole bunch of people would be dealing with this crap in Columbus.

Hot for Teacher

Oh, yeah, like you didn't think of that when you saw this story...

Jenna Bush, one of President Bush's 22-year-old twin daughters, will teach at a public school in Washington.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan would not give details on Wednesday but The Washington Post reported she would teach at Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom Public Charter School, a public school for low-income children.

Someone probably needs to check with Teresa Heinz-Kerry and make sure this is a real job.

Drop The Bomb, Senator Frist

Okay, now I'm aggravated. Yesterday's Washington Post effort about the nuclear option for filibusters leaves me with one thought -- go for it, Senator Frist...

As speculation mounts that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will step down from the Supreme Court soon because of thyroid cancer, Senate Republican leaders are preparing for a showdown to keep Democrats from blocking President Bush's judicial nominations, including a replacement for Rehnquist.

Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the "nuclear option," to thwart such filibusters.

"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," he said in a speech to the Federalist Society last month, labeling the use of filibusters against judicial nominees a "formula for tyranny by the minority."

So far, at least, Democrats are refusing to forgo filibusters and say they will fight any effort by Frist to act unilaterally to end them for judicial nominations. They warn that it could poison the well for bipartisan cooperation on other issues in the upcoming Congress.

"If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this, it's not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back," incoming Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said last week. "I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up."

Democrats, however, face several constraints. Democratic strategists said that some of the party's senators from states Bush carried in the presidential election could be reluctant to support a filibuster for fear of being portrayed as obstructionist -- a tactic the GOP used successfully in congressional elections this year and in 2002.

...At issue is a seldom-used, complicated and highly controversial parliamentary maneuver in which Republicans could seek a ruling from the chamber's presiding officer, presumably Vice President Cheney, that filibusters against judicial nominees are unconstitutional. Under this procedure, it would take only a simple majority or 51 votes to uphold the ruling -- far easier for the 55-member GOP majority to get than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster or the 67 votes needed to change the rules under normal procedures.

It would then take only 51 votes to confirm a nominee, ensuring approval of most if not all of Bush's choices.

Senate GOP leaders say no final decision has been reached on whether to use this maneuver (which they prefer to call the "constitutional option") and, if so, when. But they have signaled they may do so next year, either shortly after the new Congress convenes in early January or -- more likely, some Republicans say -- after Democrats mount a filibuster against another judicial nominee.

Historically, lawmakers of both parties have engaged in filibusters -- a word derived from the Dutch name for pirates to describe a process of unlimited debate that has been enshrined in the Senate for two centuries -- mostly to block or delay final votes on legislation. But filibusters have also been used against judicial and other nominations, although never in such a systematic manner, Republicans said. In 1968, Republicans filibustered President Lyndon B. Johnson's choice of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice, but Johnson withdrew the nomination in the face of Fortas's likely rejection by the Senate.

...Democrats contend the 10 filibustered judges are too far outside the legal mainstream to warrant lifetime appointments, describing them as the cutting edge of an effort by Bush to pack the courts with ideologically driven conservatives. They also argue that, during the Clinton administration, the GOP majority in the Senate blocked action on dozens of judicial nominations, without need for a filibuster because they could use their majority-party powers to bury nominations in committee or block them through anonymous "holds" on the Senate floor.

Republicans counter that, even though the number of filibustered nominations is small, the Democrats are trampling on the Constitution by denying a straight up-or-down vote for even a single nomination. The Constitution, they note, requires two-thirds majorities for treaties, constitutional amendments and other specific matters but calls for only the "advice and consent" of the Senate on judicial choices, with no reference to any super-majority for confirmation.

Democrats disagree, arguing that the Constitution empowers Congress to set its own rules of operation and does not specify the size of a majority needed for judicial confirmations because the issue was to be left to the Senate to decide. "What about all these people who say they want a literal reading of the Constitution?" asked Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

There's so much crap in there it's hard to respond.

First, the use of the filibuster is unprecedented. To start, the GOP did not filibuster Fortas in 1968. For one thing, the Democrats had a 64-36 edge in the Senate in the 90th Congress from 1967-69. Any filibuster would have had to have been bipartisan.

Second, it wasn't even a filibuster as the term was understood. Both Senator Cornyn and Boyden Gray have noted that Fortas was subjected to a single cloture vote -- that would be one, for any Democratic electors from Minnesota reading this. That differs significantly from a permanent denial from cloture, especially when you consider that the single cloture vote for Fortas only netted 45 votes, which indicates that the nominee would have likely been rejected outright. According to Gray, this vote allowed Fortas' nomination to be withdrawn, thereby sparing both he and President Johnson any humiliation. By contrast, Bush's nominees are being denied votes when a majority of Senators are voting for cloture.

Next, Harry Reid's rhetoric is about as intelligent as taking hair care tips from Jim Carville. You're Harry Reid, and you're planning a mini-insurrection on legislative issues to strike back at the President? Who has more political capitol with the American people right now? Newt Gingrich tried shutting down the government after his party dominated the Democrats in the 1994 Congressional elections, and he still got his butt handed to him on a platter. Reid's seemingly willing to make the same mistake, with absolutely no qualms.

As for Democratic complaints about the GOP holding up Clinton nominees, please note that the Dems opened judicial confirmation follies with the Bork debacle in the 1980's. Also note that using one stupid Senate tradition (blue slip holds) to justify another (filibusters) is idiotic. And let's note that the GOP held up Clinton nominees the same way Dems held up Reagan nominees, and that bottling up the nominees in committee, when the GOP had a majority, was the equivalent of voting these judges down. Here, the Democrats don't have the majority, yet seek to act as the majority party.

Finally, for Chuckles Schumer, the only man in New York who loves cameras more than Donald Trump... I appreciate your sudden desire for strict interpretation. But if the Senate can determine how to "advise and consent" to a nomination, then having Dick Cheney change the rule as per a perfectly legal procedure seems to be perfectly in line with the Consitution. But maybe Chuck's been smoking with the Minnesota electors or something.

Something Stinks in Seattle

You know, the Democrats can feel better about one thing -- they're successfully going to find a way to steal the Washington governor's race...

Five hundred sixty-one valid absentee ballots that had been erroneously rejected have been discovered in heavily Democratic King County, buoying Christine Gregoire's hopes of prevailing in a hand recount of the governor's race.

King County Elections Director Dean Logan announced the find yesterday. Hours later, lawyers for the county, the state and Republican Gov.-elect Dino Rossi appeared before the state Supreme Court to argue that counties should not be required to reinspect roughly 3,000 rejected ballots for the hand recount that began last week.

State Democrats filed a lawsuit seeking a ballot reinspection the same day they agreed to pay for a statewide hand recount of the governor's race. They hope additional scrutiny of previously uncounted ballots will give Gregoire enough new votes to reverse Rossi's victory.

Rossi won the first count by 261 votes. That set in motion a mandatory mechanical recount of more than 2.8 million votes, which Rossi won by 42 votes.

I'm sure they'll keep counting until Gregoire takes the lead, then call off the count. The more I think about it, the more I'm glad God spared us this mess in Ohio.

Maybe This Person Didn't Pass Electoral High School

All those campaign visits to Minnesota, and the electors couldn't remember his name? I figured Kerry was a dry candidate, but yikes...

Voting irregularities were few in Minnesota this year -- until it really counted.

Defeated Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry likely is going to get one less electoral vote nationally than he should have -- 251 instead of 252 -- because of an apparent mistake Monday by one of Minnesota's 10 DFL electors.

One of the 10 handwritten ballots cast for president carried the name of vice presidential candidate John Edwards (actually spelled "Ewards" on the ballot) rather than Kerry.

"I was shocked ... this will go in the history books," said Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer, who presided over a ceremony that normally is uneventful.

Kiffmeyer said she was unaware of any other such apparent mistake in Minnesota, although there have been cases in other states of "faithless electors" casting ballots for candidates other than those to which they were committed.

There was stunned silence after the announcement that Edwards had gotten a vote for president, but none of the 10 electors volunteered that they voted for Edwards as a protest, nor did anyone step forward to admit an error.

"It was perhaps a senior moment," said elector Michael Meuers, 60, a Bemidji marketing consultant for a health care firm, the second-youngest member of the Minnesota delegation to the Electoral College.

Meuers said he was certain that the Edwards ballot wasn't his, but he noted that "both the candidates were named John, and the ballots looked pretty much alike."

Let me get this straight -- the elector not only voted for the wrong guy, he or she didn't even correctly spell the other name. And Dems claim that it's the people who voted for Bush who are stupid.

Good Lord

The Lord of Truth lets us know that you, too, can become a Lord...

The British aristocracy has long been an exclusive club but now anyone can become a Lord or Lady -- for as little as 30 pounds ($58).

A raft of British Web sites are offering one square foot of the Glencairn Estate in northeast Scotland and, with it, access to the prestigious-sounding title of Lord/Laird and Lady of Glencairn.

Buyagift.co.uk is offering the "fun" title as the "ideal gift for anyone who aspires to greatness" for 29.99 pounds, which includes a deed of ownership, a map of the Glencairn estate and a card which proves their title.

Oh, yeah, a card. Everyone will believe that.

In Honor of Wingmen

Normally, I'd just mock CNN for writing a story about the concept of guys using wingmen, since the practice pre-dates my arrival in college. And the fact that people have founded companies offering "wingpeople" is, well, a testament to American creativity, but everyone's been writing that tale for months. At this point, how is it news? But a friend sent me the story for one specific reason, which should become apparent...

Two friends are at a party when one sees a potential love interest across the room.

Immediately, the other friend swoops into action, making an introduction and helping to keep the conversation going -- all so the buddy can score a phone number.

It's long been a ploy in the flirting arsenal. But now, those who ride shotgun for the sake of love have a name: They are the "wingmen" and "wingwomen" of the dating world.

"Every guy's gotta play the role of the wingman at some point in his life. It's the unwritten guy code," says Steve Dybsky, a 25-year-old Chicagoan who works in advertising and has been a wingman for friends -- and had them do the same.

It's become such a popular concept that people are even posting ads online, looking for wingpeople to accompany them on a night on the town.

At Arriviste Press, a small Boston-based publishing house, writers have launched a Virtual Wingman service on the company's Web site. All clients have to do is plug in a few details about themselves and what the sort of date they're looking for and, using that information, the virtual wingmen will craft a personal ad, free of charge.

Meanwhile, in cities such as Chicago and New York, a person can rent out a real, live wingperson on an hourly basis.

...Though it's becoming a paid gig for some, many wingpeople are still just friends who do it as a favor. Paul Reiter says that since he met his fiancee three years ago, he's become an ace wingman for his friends.

"Now I will even talk to the hottest women without being scared, since I'm there just to shoot the wind until my friend comes in with a coy remark," says Reiter, who's 27 and lives in Philadelphia.

Not that every wingperson always plays it smoothly, as Dybsky -- the Chicagoan who works in advertising -- discovered three years ago.

He was a senior at Villanova University, and his roommate was playing the role of wingman when they met two cheerleaders for the Philadelphia 76ers basketball team.

"We were going out of our way to make myself seem like a fun guy -- and things were going well," Dybsky says. Then his roommate, who'd gotten a little too drunk, abruptly threw up all over the table.

"I thought he ruined my chances," says Dybsky, who can laugh about it now. But as it turns out, he still got the phone number he was after -- and a few dates with one of the cheerleaders.

Of course, now that I think about it, none of this is news. A Villanova senior getting too drunk and throwing up? What a shock.

Okay, NOW the Aplocalypse is Upon Us

Look, I'm not sure a New Year can actually start without Dick Clark...

A week after suffering a mild stroke, Dick Clark remained hospitalized and his spokesman announced that Regis Philbin will fill in as host of ABC's "New Year's Rockin' Eve 2005."

"It'll feel strange watching it on TV but my doctors felt it was too soon," Clark said in a statement Monday. "I'm sure Regis will do a great job and I'm thankful that he was able to step in on such short notice."

...The 75-year-old entertainer, who went from hosting "American Bandstand," "Bloopers" and game shows to producing awards ceremonies, has been host of a New Year's Eve special for 32 years.

"It's the greatest `temp job' in the world," said Philbin, co-host of the syndicated daytime talk show "Regis & Kelly."

Subbing for ailing entertainers is becoming a bit of a specialty for Philbin, who filled in for David Letterman when the "Late Show" host underwent heart bypass surgery in 2000 and recovered from an eye infection in 2003.

Philbin, who will host the show from New York's Times Square, will be joined by singer Ashlee Simpson, who's hosting the West Coast part of the special. Besides Simpson, performers include Big & Rich; Ciara; Earth, Wind & Fire; Good Charlotte; and Billy Idol.

Ashlee Simpson????

Jokes aside, I don't know that it will seem normal to ring in the New Year without Dick Clark. Seriously -- when most anyone my age thinks of New Year's Eve, we generally identify one person, and that's Dick Clark. It's not like the guy ever really got old, either -- he can't, since he's Dick Clark.

Regis is a pretty good choice to play host. Here's hoping Dick returns for 2006.

The Benefits of Marriage

Well, I guess it really is like heterosexual marriage...

Less than seven months after same-sex couples began tying the knot in Massachusetts, the state is seeing its first gay divorces.

Newlyweds seeking to renounce the vows they so recently took have been trickling into probate courts across the state, filling out obsolete forms that still read "husband" and "wife."

... The first gay divorce case in Suffolk County, which includes Boston, was filed Wednesday by a male couple who exchanged vows on May 22, five days after same-sex marriage was legalized.

One partner was a 33-year-old religious educator from Boston, the other a 39-year-old professor based in Washington. Since then, the couple said in their divorce filing, "our interests have grown in different directions." Each man signed a settlement attesting that the marriage had "irretrievably broken down."

The most difficult part of the settlement appeared to be custody of their three cats, who will live exclusively with the professor.

But "in recognition of the emotional hardship of such relinquishment," the settlement reads, the professor agreed to provide his ex "with periodic updates, photographs, and any health-related information pertaining" to the cats.

It's details like people haggling over updates about cat health that keep me from trying divorce law.

For All My Fellow Eagles Fans...

... this link should tide you over to next week. Some great audio from the last three years.

The Marriage Gap?

More really good reading here. Steve Sailer takes David Brooks' "natalist" column from the New York Times last week and expands his own earlier analysis to produce the following column on a concept he dubs "maritalism." If you can handle the statistical analysis, it's well worth the read, and it makes more sense than many of the opinion pieces that provide little data to back up their conclusions (you know, like this one).

Kobe Has a Beef

You know, it's great for the NBA when the most interesting news in the sport involves (1) fans brawling with players, and (2) players claiming that other players are scamming on their wives. Go for it, Kobe...

Another Kobe conflict for the Lakers.

Bryant has accused Karl Malone of making a pass at his wife at a game last month.

Talking before Los Angeles' 105-98 win over Orlando on Sunday night, Bryant said he felt betrayed by a man he considered a friend.

``He was like a mentor, like a brother to me, so when something like that happens, you're upset, you're hurt,'' Bryant said.

He said he called Malone and told him, ``Stay away from my wife. What's wrong with you? How could you?''

Malone was not available for comment Sunday, but agent Dwight Manley said Malone told him he had never made a pass at Bryant's wife, that he was surprised by the accusation, and that he then apologized to both Bryant and his wife for any remarks she might have considered inappropriate.

``Karl's response to Kobe's comments today is that he's a basketball player and not a soap opera actor and he doesn't intend to be involved in a personal soap opera,'' Manley said of his client.

Bryant said he had phoned Malone, who has a home near Bryant's in Newport Beach, after Bryant's wife, Vanessa, told him on Nov. 23 that Malone had made inappropriate comments to her that night at Staples Center.

``The comments that he said, I don't know any man in this room that wouldn't be upset about that,'' Bryant said in the Lakers' locker room. ``The past month, myself, my wife, (Malone's wife) Kaye, we've had fun together.

``We've been out to their house, just joking around, giving each other a hard time, just clowning, being sarcastic with one another, baby-sitting kids and all that.''

Asked if there might have been a misunderstanding, Bryant said, ``What he said is what he said. I believe in my heart that it wasn't a misunderstanding.

``My wife wasn't going to stand for it. She felt uncomfortable being around him to the point that she felt she had to call his wife and tell her.''

Bryant said Malone didn't deny making the comments, and told him during their phone conversation, ``Aw, you know, I'm sorry if I said anything that was out of line.''

Kobe lecturing anyone else on the planet about marital fidelity and feeling betrayed is rich, to say the least. And it always makes sense to publicize a private misuderstanding with a friend, doesn't it? Maybe David Stern needs to develop an etiquette course for his players.