More Deep Thoughts

As noted earlier this week, I could care less about the identity of Deep Throat. But that's definitely not true for Ben Stein or Pat Buchanan (hat tip to D.C. correspondent NC). Pat's column makes me remember why I liked watching him on Crossfire back in the day...

And so the great mystery, "Who was Deep Throat?" reaches its anticlimax. He turns out to be a toady who oversaw black bag jobs for J. Edgar, violated his oath and, out of malice and spite, leaked the fruits of an honest FBI investigation to the nest of Nixon-haters over on 15th Street, then lied about it for 30 years.

Why did Felt lie? Because Felt knew he had disgraced himself and dishonored everything an FBI agent should stand for. He didn't want his old comrades to know what a snake he had been. Linda Tripp, savaged by the same press lionizing Felt, at least had the moral courage to go public and take the heat when she blew the whistle on Bill Clinton.

But to Bob and Carl and Ben and Sally, Felt is a "hero," a real Medal of Freedom man. And to them, perhaps, he is. For in the 1970s, a hero was any turncoat who would sink teeth into a president who was ending with honor a war into which the Liberal Establishment had plunged this country, and then cut and run when the body bags started coming home and their Ivy League kids started calling them names.

Now that's wielding some kick-ass rhetoric. As noted, I could care less, but I sympathize with Kathleen Parker, who seems disappointed that the legendary source for Woodward and Bernstein was nothing more than a guy plenty of people suspected. Then again, maybe we should learn to be disappointed -- it's not like a Dan Rather report.

Monkey Playboy

Wojr is back, with news that gives Darwin a bit more traction. Apparently, monkeys will pay for a chance to glimpse monkey pornography...

In most monkey social groups, behavior is structured by kinship, dominance, and reproductive status, suggesting that social information should be valued according to these attributes. While previous studies had shown that monkeys would work to see other monkeys, no one knew whether the value they placed on seeing other individuals was related to the social relevance of those individuals.

In the new work, researchers Robert Deaner, Amit Khera and Michael Platt, all of Duke University Medical Center, tested this hypothesis by measuring how much fruit juice monkeys would accept or forgo to see photographs of familiar monkeys, permitting the researchers to compare monkeys' valuation of different types of social information. Male monkeys "paid" in juice to view female hindquarters or high-ranking monkeys' faces, but required "overpayment" to view low-ranking monkeys' faces. Despite living in a captive colony, the value monkeys placed on information about potential sexual partners and powerful individuals matched the relative importance of these individuals for behavioral success in the wild. This study demonstrates that monkeys assess visual information by its social value and provides the first experimental evidence that they spontaneously discriminate between images of others based on the social rank or classification of individuals.

Maybe we're not all that highly evolved.

A Little Bit of Good News, Birds Fans

Welcome back, Mr. Westbrook...

TUESDAY NIGHT, Brian Westbrook finally called agent Fletcher Smith. Westbrook had fired agent Tony Agnone nearly 2 weeks earlier, before going off on vacation to think over how he wanted to approach his stalled negotations with the Eagles. The widespread assumption then was that Westbrook would hire Smith - who also represents Donovan McNabb and Correll Buckhalter - but as late as Tuesday afternoon, Smith hadn't heard from Westbrook in more than a week, and Smith said he wasn't sure what might happen.

But Westbrook and Smith talked Tuesday night and yesterday morning, and two things happened very quickly: Westbrook hired Smith, and Smith advised Westbrook to sign the team's 1-year, $1.43 million restricted free-agent tender and report to the passing camp that started yesterday. This was what Westbrook planned on doing, anyway, Westbrook said yesterday, after his first workout with his teammates.

It still isn't clear that the Eagles and their top running back will be able to agree on a long-term contract before Westbrook becomes an unrestricted free agent next spring, but what was clear to Westbrook was that when dealing with this team's front office, antagonizing just isn't productive, especially if staying here is important to you.

"I think I have a better shot of getting a deal done with me here, helping the other players get better as well as myself, and letting the coaching staff know that I'm ready to help our team win a Super Bowl," Westbrook said. He said he "just didn't like the way things were going" between the Eagles and Agnone.

Not quite 4 months after their first Super Bowl appearance in 24 years, the Eagles face a thicket of disagreements over what players are worth. Management hasn't given ground in any of them, and doesn't seem likely to do so. At one point yesterday, disgruntled defensive tackle Hollis Thomas, who is attending the passing camp despite rumblings a few weeks ago that he might stay home, was asked about how the team might fare without wide receiver Terrell Owens. Owens, of course, is not attending, as he tries to get the Birds to rework his contract.

"One monkey don't stop no show," Thomas said.

That last quote cracks me up. As for the T.O. issue... I've got my fingers crossed that he'll show up. But that decision will be his. In the meantime, this article about his new agent, Drew Rosenhaus, caught my eye. Why didn't I try representing players while I was a second-year law student?

Up Yours, Again, Senator McCain

The deadline has now passed for submitting comments to the FEC on their proposed regulation of the blogosphere. Mike Krempasky at Red State has a summary of some of the more voluminous and interesting comments. The Washington Times provides the context for the Notice of Proposed Rule-Making...

Instead, the focus of the NPRM is to extend the definition of "public communications" to include paid advertisements placed on third parties' Web sites. While appearing minor, this in fact carries some fairly onerous demands. As the Center for Democracy and Technology notes, assuming that NPRM is approved in its entirety, an individual planning to express his views on the Web would have to consult Chapter 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations to determine if his speech would be treated as a "public communication"; if his speech qualifies as "express advocacy"; if he qualifies under the news-media exemption; if his Internet activities count as contributions subject to limits; if his Internet activities count as expenditures for reporting purposes; if his use of an employer's computer to access the Internet is permissible; if his bulk e-mail requires a specific type of disclaimer; and whether his plan to collaborate with someone else on the Internet qualifies as a "political committee" subject to registration and reporting requirements.

Conversely, an individual who wants to post a political advertisement on someone else's Web site would be subject to campaign-finance regulations no matter how small the cost of the advertisement. (In some cases, online advertising space runs for as little as 3 cents per ad display.) That individual would be required to display on the ad personal information like a home street address. Other forms of online political advertising, such as video production, would carry even more burdensome regulations.

The fallout from this regulatory nightmare would have what the CDT rightly calls a "chilling effect" on Internet free speech.

As the Times noted, Congress is considering legislation to exempt the blogosphere from regulation. Maybe they could just repeal the idiot's law (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold) that prompted this charade. Instapundit sums up my feelings regarding Senator McCain nicely:

John McCain should be tarred and feathered, not spoken of as a presidential timber, for the travesty he produced.

Of course, Max Cleland would probably rip bloggers for questioning McCain's patriotism, when we're just questioning his common sense. To be fair, Instapundit's right when he says President Bush was wrong to sign the bill, putting his faith in Sandra Day O'Conner to do what he should have done -- stand up against a blatantly assinine free speech restriction.

On a related topic, the Lord of Truth sent us Brendan Miniter's article about McCain's participation in the Dirty Deal, and its impact on his Presidential chances. Here's a good excerpt...

Talk of being a "compassionate conservative" notwithstanding, it wasn't maverick moderatism that handed President Bush victories in 2000 and 2004. Nor has the McCain Myth been responsible for padding Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Indeed, Republicans have been winning by sticking to their principles and not bucking their party's ideas on tax cuts, national defense or reforming the judiciary.

What's changed since 2000 is that it's become clear that the conservatives have become the Republican establishment by being able to claim credit for almost every ballot-box victory since 1980--including that of Vice President Bush, who in 1988 had the support of the conservative wing, which hoped--futilely, it turned out--that he would continue the Reagan revolution. After Mr. Bush's 1992 defeat, conservatives took over Congress in 1994, and a moderate Republican lost the presidential race in 1996. No one represents the changing of the guard better than George W. Bush himself, who is now pushing revolutionary conservative ideas in every arena from defense to Social Security to tax reform.

Having come this far, what Mr. McCain and the other Republican Senate "moderates" in last week's compromise would have the party do is give up on the very principles that is winning elections. All in the name of appealing to the "middle" of the electorate that is already voting for the party.

Plenty of my good friends are enamored with Senator McCain and believe he'd make a fine President. The Minister of War and Lord of Truth are both good examples, although I sense the latter feels a little less enthused about him. But I have to question why.

Much of McCain's cachet comes from his life story, which is exceedingly admirable. But wasn't that basically the same story that John Kerry tried to sell last year? I have no doubt that McCain's story is far more compelling, especially since he definitely suffered far more than Kerry; McCain also doesn't have the baggage of coming home and accusing his fellow vets of committing atrocities.

But is the basis of McCain's candidacy his life story, or his actions while serving in the Senate? If it's the latter, then ask yourself what he has wrought in the past few years. We have the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act, which I've savaged above. We have an opposition to tax cuts. We have a deal on judges where McCain placed the interests of Senate comity and his own ambition over actually getting all the President's judges an up-or-down vote (and since the Democrats appear willing to already redefine "extraordinary circumstances, the deal still has time to fall apart). We even have his inane attempt to regulate drug testing in professional sports. Small government conservatism hasn't been President Bush's strong suit, but McCain appears more than willing to spend plenty of taxpayer dollars on expanding the regulatory state.

Yes, I know. McCain has tremendous "leadership" qualities. Has he ever proven these capabilities in an executive capacity? He's a Senator, not a Governor. Yet the admiration expressed for "Mr. Straight Talk" makes it seem that he has developed into the consummate leader. I'm not buying.

McCain has certainly charmed the mainstream press, but I don't consider that a good thing. So now I'm wondering -- why should I support McCain in 2008? I know the lifestory is compelling, and that he has character. But is there anything else that provides a rationale for anyone to support him?

I Need A Break

My good friend The Eternal Pledge fills me in on a good Friday evening distraction -- some "Office Dares" for next Friday...

ONE-POINT DARES

1. Ignore the first five people who say 'good morning' to you.

2. To signal the end of a conversation, clamp your hands over your ears and grimace.

3. Leave your fly open for one hour. If anyone points it out, say, "Sorry, I really prefer it this way".

4. Walk sideways to the photocopier.

5. While going in an elevator, gasp dramatically each time the doors open.

6. When in elevator with one other person, tap them on the shoulder and pretend
it wasn't you.

7. Finish all your sentences with "In accordance with the prophecy..."

8. Don't use any punctuation.

9. Interrupt your conversation with someone by giving a huge dejected sigh.

10. Use your highlighter pen on the computer screen.

THREE-POINT DARES

1. Say to your boss, "I like your style", wink, and shoot him with double-barrelled fingers.

2. Kneel in front of the water cooler and drink directly from the nozzle.

3. Shout random numbers while someone is counting.

4. Every time you get an email, shout ''email''.

5. Put decaf in the coffee maker for 3 weeks. Once everyone has got over his or her caffeine addictions, switch to espresso.

6. Keep hole punching your finger. Each time you do, shout, "dagnamit, it's happened again!". Then do it again.

7. Introduce yourself to a new colleague as "the office bicycle".. then wink and pout.

8. Call IT helpdesk and tell them that you can't seem to access any pornography web sites.

FIVE-POINT DARES

1. At the end of a meeting, suggest that, for once, it would be nice to conclude with the singing of the national anthem (extra points if you actually launch into it yourself).

2. Walk into a very busy person's office and while they watch you with growing irritation, turn the light switch on/off 10 times.

3. For an hour, refer to everyone you speak to as "Dave".

4. Announce to everyone in a meeting that you "really have to go do a number two".

5. When you've picked up a call, before speaking finish off some fake conversation with the words, ''she can abort it for all I care''..

6. After every sentence, say 'Mon' in a really bad Jamaican accent. As in: "The report's on your desk, Mon." Keep this up for one hour.

7. In a meeting or crowded situation, slap your forehead repeatedly and mutter, "Shut up, damn it, all of you just shut up!"

8. At lunchtime, get down on your knees and announce, "As God is my witness, I'll never go hungry again!"

9. Repeat the following conversation 10 times to the same person: "Do you hear that?" "What?" "Never mind, it's gone now."

10. Present meeting attendees with a cup of coffee and biscuit; smash each
biscuit with your fist.

11. During the course of a meeting, slowly edge your chair towards the door.

12. As often as possible, skip rather than walk.

13. Ask people what sex they are. Laugh hysterically after they answer.

14. Sign or p.p. all letters with your initials and a swastika.

15. Dry hump the photocopier. When someone spots you, stop and cough
embarrassingly, then lean in to the machine and whisper loudly, "I'll see you
tonight".

And with that, I'm heading home for the weekend... after stopping by the copier.

The Swamps of New Jersey

The Lord of Truth keeps us updated on the crazy shenanigans in his home state, where he's headed for more wonderful governance...

This year's race for governor finds the residents of the Garden State in a surly mood. Personal and financial scandals forced Democrat Jim McGreevey to resign last year, and the recent release of taped conversations between a South Jersey Democratic boss and other pols have only deepened a public perception that the state's local governments are dominated by a public-sector version of the Soprano family.

But none of this compares with the public anger over the state's highest-in-the country property taxes. Already 50% higher than the national average, they are going up 7% a year to keep pace with constantly growing local budgets and a state debt burden that is the third-highest in the country. An activist state Supreme Court has taken over distribution of a large chunk of property taxes and directed 60% of it to failing urban school districts. But none of that extra money appears to be improving education.

Next Tuesday, Republicans will select someone to challenge the certain Democratic candidate, Sen. Jon Corzine. A human ATM who spent $63 million of his own money to narrowly win a U.S. Senate seat, Mr. Corzine now vows to spend "whatever it takes" so he can take over the governor's mansion. But while he has both bucks and name recognition, he hasn't closed the sale with voters. This month, Mr. Corzine winced when Phil Thigpen, a Democratic leader in Newark, introduced him by saying "I know he's having a difficult time in Washington, being the minority in an unsympathetic majority. Maybe that's why he's coming home."

Indeed, there are signs that Sen. Corzine is returning to a state that could view him as part of the problem rather than the solution. His self-described political mentor, Sen. Bob Torricelli, had to drop out in disgrace from his U.S. Senate re-election race in 2002. This year, Mr. Corzine's name surfaced on tapes that prosecutors made of conversations by George Norcross, the South Jersey boss to whose political committees Mr. Corzine has funneled $700,000. Mr. Norcross boasted of breakfast at the Corzine home and speaking weekly with the senator: "In the end, the McGreeveys, the Corzines, they're all going to be with me. . . not that they like me, but because they have no choice."

For the record, Corzine's probably not an ethical slimeball like McGreevey (or the Democratic machine in NJ, for that matter). Corzine's so rich, it's hard to buy him with outright bribes.

But he's also insanely liberal, as Fund noted. Perhaps there's still hope...

Whoever emerges from the GOP primary next Tuesday will trail Mr. Corzine by double digits in polls, but that doesn't mean the race is over. Mr. Corzine began his 2000 Senate race with a 20 point lead and ended up winning with only 51%. On property taxes, he has backed a plan to call a constitutional convention that critics say could propose new taxes but be precluded from discussing spending limits.

One reason would be that Mr. Corzine is nothing if not liberal with other people's money. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation reports that the former Goldman Sachs executive supports the most costly current agenda of bills of all U.S. senators--a piggish pricetag of $441 billion. In his race for governor, he is already proposing to offer health coverage to two-thirds of the state's 1.2 million uninsured.

Corzine is beatable, but I'd rather back Schundler than Forrester, and I don't think Schundler can beat the money machine Forrester has. But in the meantime, the Lord of Truth should consider moving south to Jesusland.

More On the Torres Fund

For those of you wondering what this is about, please check my earlier post. NC notes that contributions to the fund are now tax deductible, as noted below...

Contributions to the Susan M. Torres Fund are tax-deductible and the Torres and Rollin families are extraordinarily grateful to the group Faith and Action, which has generously agreed to administer the fund under its benevolence account. Faith and Action is a not-for-profit religious/charitable corporation determined to be tax exempt under IRC section 501(c)3.

Again, donations can be sent to the following address:

The Susan M. Torres Fund
P.O. Box 34105
Washington, D.C. 20043-0105

Thanks again.

Yes, There's No Such Thing As Media Bias

No, it's not my usual rant -- I actually have very little quible with the story in the end. You gotta love the headline from the Washington Post, or perhaps AP: Payrolls Grow By Just 78,000 in May. I understand the point, but there's an issue here as to whether the emphasis should be on the smaller-than-expected growth, or whether it's a selective choice by the editor (who also waits several paragraphs to note that 3.5 million new jobs have been added in the past two years). Maybe I'm just overly sensitive to it, but if such a report got issued under Clinton in simlar circumstances, I'm guessing the headline would read, "Payrolls Expand by 78,000 As Unemployment Rate Drops."

Again, the issue isn't that media bias shouldn't exist. It's that it does, and it's clear in the way someone portrays the facts. I just wish folks in the media would admit it.

A Staple of Rap Music Vernacular... Exactly

Loyal reader KS points us to a story we've been meaning to discuss. It's good to see the legal profession out there setting out definitions for everyone...

No doubt the legal community was shocked -- shocked! -- to learn a "snitch bitch hoe" is not a garden tool with loose lips, as a federal appeals court recently took pains to explain.

The phrase appeared in a May 4 opinion by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case United States v. Murphy, 04-2032. Darron Murphy Sr. was appealing his conviction for tampering with a witness, Pamela Hayden, who he said testified against Murphy's son in a separate case.

Cue footnote: "The trial transcript quotes Ms. Hayden as saying Murphy called her a snitch bitch 'hoe.' A 'hoe,' of course, is a tool used for weeding and gardening. ... We have taken the liberty of changing 'hoe' to 'ho,' a staple of rap music vernacular as, for example, when Ludacris raps, 'You doin' ho activities with ho tendencies.'"

Attorneys from Pennsylvania to Silicon Valley are having fun with what is roundly estimated to be the work of a law clerk who, presumably, was feelin' Ludacris on this one.

On May 16, there were 367 Yahoo hits for "snitch bitch hoe." On May 18, there were 424.

On his blog, LearningToLoveTheLaw, "PhiladelphiaLawyer" reported the 7th Circuit's Web site may have crashed by "being constantly pinged by thousands, if not tens of thousands, of bored lawyers" checking to see if the footnote was real.

It's good to know that judicial clerks still have the same sense of humor that all lawyers have. Besides, it's about time people recognized Ludacris as a legal authority.

Aarrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

The Lord of Truth sends us an e-mail with news that should make everyone feel better...

Rambo is coming out of hiding and looking for some fresh blood.

After a 17-year layoff, Sylvester Stallone is ready to reprise his role as everyone's favorite muscle-bound Green Beret for a fourth installment in the popular 1980s film franchise.

After protracted legal wrangling, the rights to Rambo were snapped up in 1997 by Miramax's genre division, Dimension Films. But a planned Rambo IV stalled. Now, with Miramax heads Harvey and Bob Weinstein exiting Disney, they have sold the sequel rights for the intrepid character to Nu Image/Millennium Films, and the project is finally moving forward.

In addition to breaking the old red bandanna out of mothballs, Stallone, 58, will write the screenplay.

"I've signed the deal and I have the old headband, machine gun and bow and arrow ready to go. I am looking forward to showing movie fans the real action hero again," Stallone said in a statement.

Stallone, who earned an Oscar nomination for writing the original Rocky and who has directed such flicks as Staying Alive and Rocky V, compared Rambo IV to such 1970's revenge classics as Straw Dogs and Deliverance.

The sequel opens with our brooding Vietnam vet finally settling down with a wife and child, while still working for the military. (Sadly, Richard Crenna, who costarred in the three previous installments as Rambo's longtime commander, Colonel Samuel Trautman, will be MIA from the new sequel, havingdied in 2003.)

Though he's "assimilated into the tapestry of America," workplace stress forces Rambo to leave the big city and move his family to the boonies. Their lives are upended however by white supremacists unhappy about a part-Navajo man moving into the area. When the racists take Rambo's 10-year-old daughter hostage, dad is forced back into action to rescue her.

Well, that won't be formulaic at all. But at least I can sleep at night, knowing that Sly won't be unemployed too long, following the cancellation of The Contender. Heck, maybe Sugar Ray can fill in for Richard Crenna.

Did They Surrender When Arrested?

Loyal reader RB notes a story that leaves him (and us) with many questions...

French intelligence agents convicted of bombing a Greenpeace protest ship in Auckland's harbor two decades ago have appealed a court decision that would allow parts of their 1985 trial to be broadcast on television, a lawyer said Tuesday.

A High Court ruling last week gave state network Television New Zealand permission to broadcast never-before-seen video of the pretrial appearance of agents Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur for the bombing and sinking of the environmental group's vessel, Rainbow Warrior.

The two agents of France's DGSE spy agency were convicted of willful damage and the 1985 manslaughter of Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira, who died in the attack. Each was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Their court appearance was relayed to media in a room next to the court, but has never been seen by the public. A so-called depositions hearing -- part of the pretrial process -- started Nov. 4, 1985, and during the hearing the agents changed their pleas to guilty. They were formally convicted Nov. 22.

The Rainbow Warrior was in New Zealand being prepared for a protest at sea against French nuclear bomb tests in the South Pacific when the explosion ripped open its hull and the vessel sank.

After serving less than a year of their sentences in New Zealand, Mafart and Prieur were deported and returned to Paris as heroes. New Zealand's government called the bombing the country's first terror attack.

RB wants to know what's funnier -- the idea of French spies, or the French celebrating terrorists? I personally find the first two words of the article to be funnier than anything else. French intelligence? What the hell is that?

The 2008 Presidential Race

Since plenty of my readers ask the question all the time, here's a link to Patrick Ruffini's excellent running analysis of the 2008 Presidential race, the 2008 Presidential Wire. I'm not sure what scares me more -- the fact that we're already discussing three-plus years from today, or the fact I want to read it.

Where Do They Have The Victory Party?

The Wall Street Journal captures the essence of the Arthur Andersen conviction being overturned by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision...

As a unanimous Supreme Court yesterday announced its reversal of the 2002 criminal conviction of Arthur Andersen for shredding Enron-related documents, our first thought was: Now they tell us. Or, as former Reagan Labor Secretary Ray Donovan famously asked after his acquittal in 1987: "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?"

Except that in this case, even if the proverbial office existed, there is no one left at Andersen to knock on the front door and demand restitution. The accounting giant, which once employed 28,000 people in the U.S. and 85,000 world-wide, is essentially no more. There's still an office in Chicago, but the fewer than 200 people who work there handle leftover legal and administrative chores and manage a bit of real estate.

The scapegoating of Andersen was an utter joke, and my opinion in the matter has little to do with the fact that I once worked there, back in the mid-90's. It does have something to do with the fact that it cost many good people (including some close friends) their jobs, but most if not all landed on their feet and are doing well today.

In the end, it was little more than political scapegoating, and it was embarrassing as well. The costs were absurd, and little was gained. Sounds like a government program, don't it?

In Deep

Well, I guess we know who Deep Throat is now. And his family's clearly enjoying the prospect of cashing in on Grandpa's activities.

Personally, I tend to be skeptical of anything, including the idea that this guy is either a hero or a traitor. I'd question the fact that he chose to blow the whistle even though he was a law enforcement officer, but I'd classify it more as an ethical violation than a crime. And while liberals may crow that the end justified the means in bringing down Nixon, they should probably realize that Hoover, the object of their scorn for many years, probably could have brought down any number of Presidents, and this approach endorses the idea of law enforcement using the press to bring down a government. Even Felt appeared to be ashamed of potentially being "outed" as Deep Throat, as Tim Noah noted when discussing why Felt opted not to reveal his identity for so long...

But the main reason, I think, was that Felt saw his leaks as a betrayal of the FBI. Six years ago, I asked Felt (who at that point was still denying he was Deep Throat) whether, if he were Deep Throat, that would be so terrible. His reply:

It would be terrible. This would completely undermine the reputation that you might have as a loyal, logical employee of the FBI. It just wouldn't fit at all.

But wasn't Deep Throat a hero?

That's not my view at all. It would be contrary to my responsibility as a loyal employee of the FBI to leak information.

Now that we know Felt was Deep Throat, I have a few bones to pick with Woodward and Bernstein. One is that, in All the President's Men, Deep Throat is described as a heavy smoker. But Felt quit smoking in 1943. I suppose Woodstein would call this necessary misdirection. I call it conscious fabrication, however trivial. Also, a November 1973 Woodward and Bernstein Post story sourced anonymously to "White House sources" is described in All the President's Men as being sourced to Deep Throat. Yet Felt was not a "White House source." It's conceivable that Deep Throat was an additional, unacknowledged source on the story, but it's also possible that Woodward and Bernstein were misleading readers about where they got their information. Which was it, gentlemen? Finally, why did Woodward, in a 1979 Playboy interview with J. Anthony Lukas, flatly deny that Deep Throat was anyone inside the "intelligence community"? The FBI, where Felt worked, is most definitely part of the intelligence community.

Like I said, it's a little hard to consider the guy a hero of any sort, and I think Noah's right to take Woodward and Bernstein to task as well. Of course, the MSM is busy trying to spin this into an analysis of why the world was a better place in 1972 than now, when noble reporters like Woodward and Bernstein could operate free of the fear that someone on the right might -- God forbid -- dispute the account. To be fair, Howard Kurtz at the Post did a solid job of outlining the downside of the press' victory...

But it must also be said that while Watergate and "All the President's Men" briefly turned journalists into heroes, they may have contributed to the long-term credibility problems of the profession. Too many journalists became sloppy with anonymous sources, some of whom didn't have first-hand knowledge of what they were talking about, and some reporters tried to pump every two-bit scandal into a "-gate." Having been lied to by the Nixon White House, journalists became more confrontational, more prosecutorial and more willing to assume that politicians must be lying. And the news business is still paying the price for some of those excesses.

The real question doesn't involve Deep Throat. He clearly exists. It involves other anonymous sources, in other stories over the years... and whether they were real.

But Is Blindness Worth It?

Loyal reader KS lets us know the dangers of better living through chemical enhancement...

Federal health officials are examining rare reports of blindness among some men using the impotence drugs Viagra and Cialis, a disclosure that comes at a time when the drug industry can ill afford negative publicity about another class of blockbuster medicines.

The Food and Drug Administration still is investigating, but has no evidence yet that the drug is to blame, said spokeswoman Susan Cruzan.

Well, there might be other reasons to blame, especially if other symptoms are prevalent, such as Wookie-like hands... perhaps too much time as Hand Solo...

I'll stop now.

Those Tolerant, Open-Minded People in San Francisco

I love this story about how the San Francisco 49ers are trying to teach tolerance...

An in-house video meant to prepare 49ers players for dealing with the media backfired on the NFL team Wednesday after it was leaked to the San Francisco Chronicle.

The 15-minute film, featuring racist jokes, lesbian soft-porn and topless blondes, features the team's public relations director, Kirk Reynolds, impersonating San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in the mayor's office and other city scenes.

Now the mayor and the city's gay leaders are outraged, the team's owners are embarrassed and Reynolds is officially looking for another job. The Chronicle described the film and published an image showing Reynolds with the half-naked women under a screaming headline on Wednesday.

Reynolds said he made the video to coach players on handling media questions in diverse San Francisco – and never meant it for public consumption.

"Did I push it too far? I did,'' Reynolds told the Chronicle. "The ideas of the tape are appropriate for the locker room – though some of the subjects were inappropriate for the values of this organization, and mine frankly.''

...Reynolds opens the film sitting behind the mayor's desk, then goes to Chinatown, where a 49ers team consultant uses racial slurs about the Chinese community. Next comes a topless, lesbian wedding filmed at a strip club and officiated by Reynolds, again impersonating the mayor.

"I know the courts say we can't do this,'' Reynolds says before the happy couple engages in heavy petting. "We make our own rules here in San Francisco.''

Reynolds then goes to SBC Park, where acting as "mayor'' he throws out the opening pitch, then takes a bribe from the catcher, who thanks him for supporting "hookers and booze.''

"You do something controversial, you say something controversial, it will have an impact on this team. So remember, be mindful of your actions,'' Reynolds says, wearing only a towel before joining three topless blondes for a group hug in a strip club's dressing room. "What you do is not only a reflection of yourself. It's a reflection of the San Francisco 49ers.''

I need to get this guy's job. In one day, he impersonated the mayor, officiated a lesbian wedding, and visited a strip club. I had entire months in college where I didn't have this much fun.

So, How Was Your Weekend?

I apologize for the break in posting, but let me summarize:

1. Drove to Philly for sister's wedding. Two and a half hour trip took over four hours. Thanks to all the folks who made that possible.

2. Attended family party on Friday night. My future in-laws, my sister's future in-laws and some members of wedding party, and members of my family. Surprisingly pretty good/

3. Lost wallet while working out on Saturday.

4. Attended rehearsal and rehearsal dinner on Saturday and Sunday, all while cancelling credit cards, assisting parents with ceremony and making certain that fiancee's bridesmaid dress for wedding got fixed.

5. Watched several people, mostly relatives, perform karaoke at rehearsal dinner on Saturday night. Then joined in, much to the regret of all attendees.

6. Practiced speech for serving as MC for sister's Hindu ceremony, then wrote a toast for my brother and I to deliver. Even skipped most of football game with groomsmen to do it.

7. Dressed in ultra-warm but very cool tux, although only future brother-in-law knew that we didn't need to wear the suspenders and the vest.

8. Enjoyed the opportunity to join groomsmen for requisite "Reservoir Dogs" picture walking down main driveway at wedding site, but wished we had sunglasses and firearms.

9. MC'd the Hindu ceremony, with thoroughly uncooperative priest who flipped the order of events so often I might as well have been reciting the Gettysburg Address. Luckily, everyone at the ceremony either ignored me or thought I knew what I was doing and didn't know any better.

10. Alongside my brother, delivered a tear-jerker of a toast. Seriously, I've never had that many people compliment me on anything, and this included my family, which generally won't lie to me about stuff like that.

11. Drank and danced the night away. If you haven't been to an Indian wedding, these people actually enjoy dancing. Mind you, I'm not saying they're good at it (granted, I shouldn't talk), but they definitely dance like nobody' business.

12. Spent time catching up with relatives I haven't seen in a decade or more. Unexpectedly very cool.

13. Made mental note: must mock brother-in-law for the rest of his life for putting Survivor's "The Search is Over" on the playlist. Not just on the playlist, but I think it was the sixth song played. Wow.

14. Woke up and drove brother-in-law's car to parents' home, with all tuxes in the back, before brunch with family and friends.

15. Drove home with sick fiancee. Traffic only moderately crazy.

Let's just say I needed a full day to recover enough to blog, and work has been pretty damn busy as well.

Besides, I blog because it relieves stress and I enjoy it. Seeing your baby sister get married to a great guy, in front of so many loving family and friends... well, let's just say it leaves you on a pretty good high. Congrats, sis -- like I said Sunday, I'm very proud of you. I hope you're enjoying Jamaica.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled ranting.