Finally

Loyal reader RB and I are busy celebrating the return of the NHL to life, following the utter surrender by the Players Union last week. Much like when the Kerry campaign ended, I felt like saying our long national nightmare was over... except that this was more of a Canadian national nightmare. Now that I think about it, Canada's probably one of the few places Kerry could get elected -- Kerry looks French-Canadian, and his campaign, when you add in the spending by 527s, probably lost as much money as the NHL last year.

Understand, I could care less who won the NHL battle -- as a matter of fact, I tend to side with the players in most sports labor battles, since owners are usually trying to impose some form of socialism (salary cap, a draft) to restrict free enterprise. But it's pretty hard to spend too much time worrying about the players -- their representatives misread the situation badly, and the owners hung tough long enough to break them.

As for the changes, they're bound to create some interest among fellow puckheads. The strange environment we'll see, with tons of new free agents and buyouts, will make for an interesting environment before the season. Add in the strange lottery for the top pick in the draft, as well as the goofy new fantasy-style snake draft, and hockey's trying some really cool innovations. The potential of expanded playoffs means more of the second-best tournament in sports -- the race for Lord Stanley's Cup. The on-ice changes, such as equipment limitations on goalie equipment, the (hopeful) elimination of the red line and shootouts will be fun for the fans. All in all, after losing a season, we're potentially winning a better game.

Whetehr we choose to accept it will be up to us. I'd like to say I'll make them grovel, but I tend to doubt it.

The Chief Hangs On

How often do people call press conferences to announce that they're not retiring? I guess Chief Justice Rehnquist grew tired of the ghoulish death watch being conducted by the press...

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, moving to quash speculation that he will retire because of illness, said he will continue leading the Supreme Court as long as his health allows. He returned to work Friday.

"I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement," he said in a statement. "I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits."

...In recent days, as speculation intensified over Mr. Rehnquist's future, calls mounted to elevate Justice O'Connor to the chief justice's position.

The chief justice's statement is likely to speed President Bush's schedule in announcing a successor to Justice O'Connor.

I don't blame him at all. This would be annoying as hell to anyone who was in good health, let alone someone who's actually dealing with health worries. I'm fully in favor limiting the terms of Court justices, but Rehnquist has the right to sit on the high court as long as he pleases.

As for the decision, it makes Alberto Gonzales an unlikely nominee. Bush will now go for a conservative woman or Hispanic justice, and appoint someone like Luttig when the next opening occurs on the bench. And keep in mind -- Rehnquist's announcement doesn't say he's staying for a long time -- just as long as his health permits. That leaves him room to maneuver and promptly announce his departure as soon as O'Connor's replacement is confirmed.

The Evil Genius Keeps Them Guessing

Tom Maguire is having way too much fun with the Plame/Wilson/Novak/Rove/Cooper/Miller/Fitzgerald/arewesickofthiscrapyet that's been obsessing the bored press corps in DC this summer. First, he spent time playing with Josh Marshall's questions. Better yet, he broke down this morning's news from the left-wing dishrag that Novak might have been Rove's source...

So how did Libby and Rove learn that Wilson's wife was CIA and involved with his trip?

Both claim to have heard about if from reporters. But is this a carefully-spun leak to the press? Are they telling us that they *only* heard it from reporters, heard it first from reporters, or heard it from both reporters and others, such as other White House insiders? And if there is a more complete version, did they deliver it to the prosecutor?

In addition to the "we heard it from reporters" theory, we have liked the idea that the information in the INR memo ended up circulating a bit.

Or, as another possible source, David Corn (sorry, no link yet) noted that a former CIA officer was on the NSC, and might have known Ms. Plame.

Let's ask a question of journalistic ethics - if a reporter, in chatting with Karl Rove, mentioned the Plame angle, is there any rationale at all for the reporter to claim some sort of source confidentiality protection? I would assume not. I will further assume that, if Karl is telling the truth, then he has named a few reporters. Mr. Fitzgerald should have called them in for a chat. There is no need for a subpoena, since they have no legal basis to refuse, and will prefer to avoid the publicity.

In which case, there are reporters out there who know they have given testimony to Fitzgerald that would help Rove and Lewis, and are keeping quiet - not to protect a source, not to preserve confidentiality, but, I guess, because Fitzgerald asked them too.

This might even have made sense while the investigation was being ignored - Fitzgerald might have explained that he is trying to establish whether there was knowledge of Ms. Plame inside the White House prior to the reporters passing the news, and that he can't conduct a sensible investigation with reporters presenting a seemingly exculpatory but incomplete story to the public.

However, in the current revved-up atmosphere, I promise you - if the media is really just keeping quiet about their role in this, well, I can't imagine how I could respect our media less, but I will think of something.

This of course leaves the question of who was Novak's source... perhaps someone connected to Judith Miller?

The problem with this whole mess is that it's enjoying status as a partisan battle, instead of a serious criminal/ethcial investigation. I think it's reasonably clear that no violation of the law took place, if it is correct, as reported by USA Today, that Plame was no longer a covert operative by 1998. QandO has even more good stuff on the weirdness, while Vodkapundit probably has the position Democrats should take on the issue -- if they weren't so busy salivating over the prospect of getting Rove.

But when you can't win an election, you tend to fall for traps. Instapundit thinks some more evidence is emerging that Evil Genius may be playing the Dems and the press again. If so, it's time to admit he really is the Dark Lord and Master. Hell, he's probably responsible for the fact that the Democratic leaders are currently Reid, Pelosi and Dean, not to mention the Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston breakup. If I were the Democrats, I'd give up now.

We Celebrate Bastille Day!

Our annual celebration in honor of our Olympics-losing friends utilizes some of our favorite quotes about our least favorite "ally".

"The French are sawed-off sissies who eat snails and slugs and cheese that smells like people's feet. Utter cowards who force their own children to drink wine, they gibber like baboons even when you try to speak to them in their own wimpy language."

-- P.J. O'Rourke

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."

— Norman Schwartzkopf

"It took no more effort than casting a Frenchman into hell."

-- Dutch saying

"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France."

—Jay Leno

"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it."

— John McCain

"France is the only country where the money falls apart and you can't tear the toilet paper."

-- Billy Wilder

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people."

-- Conan O'Brien

"France was a long despotism tempered by epigrams."

-- Thomas Carlyle

"I just love the French. They taste like chicken."

-- Hannibal Lector

"Broadway producers are saying that because of the war, musicals are suffering from weak ticket sales. Not only that, over at 'Les Miserables,' the French are refusing to take part in the revolution."

—Conan O'Brien

"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee."

— Regis Philbin

"Victory?! What the hell is that? We don't even have a word for it. We're French!"

Homer Simpson (playing French character)

"A fighting Frenchman runs away from even a she-goat."

-- Russian saying

"The French, you might as well gas up the dinghy and go fishing with Fredo because you are dead to me, okay. You know something? These pricks are now putting — they're putting swastikas on our flag in France. You've got all those boys buried in Normandy. And after we had the good taste to chisel the armpit hair off the Statue of Liberty you gave us, you know something, I — always thought that tint was oxdized copper. Little did I know it was green with envy... Listen, I would call the French scum bags, but that, of course, would be a disservice to bags filled with scum."

-- Dennis Miller

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."

—General George S. Patton

"France has neither winter, nor summer, nor morals. France is miserable because it is filled with Frenchmen, and Frenchmen are miserable because they live in France... Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes. "

-- Mark Twain

"The French complain about everything and always."

-- Napolean

"Army personnel in Kuwait unloaded a dozen faulty tanks that only go in reverse. Tanks that only go in reverse — they've been repackaged and sold to France."

-- Craig Kilborn

"Now, as we all know, there are many good reasons to hate the cheese-eating surrender monkeys... Survey after survey reveals that raccoons bathe more than the average Frenchman. They stuck us with Vietnam and took credit for liberating Paris after they spent most of World War Two chastising the chef for not serving Herr General a Fresh brioche."

-- Jonah Goldberg

"They've taken their own precautions against Al Qaeda. To prepare for an attack, each Frenchman is urged to keep duct tape, a white flag, and a three-day supply of mistresses in the house."

-- Argus Hamilton

"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."

— Marge Simpson

"Next time there's a war in Europe, the loser has to keep France."

-- Unknown

"It is good to hate the French."

-- Al Bundy

More Bad Smells in the Garden State

The Lord of Truth keeps us updated on the current political conditions in his home state, where soon-to-be Governor Jon Cozine and current "acting" Governor Richard Codey are perhaps planning to effectively switch jobs later this year...

Acting Gov. Richard Codey had a conversation recently with this wife, Mary Jo, about his next career move.

She didn't like his new idea.

Because the suggestion on the table was a move to the United States Senate.

If Sen. Jon Corzine wins the gubernatorial election in November, he'll appoint his own replacement in Washington to serve out the final year of his term.

Codey, by far the most popular politician in the state, now says he might want the job.

"I think about it," he says. "People have raised the issue. They say to me, 'Dick, how can any politician pass up the opportunity to cap off a career in the United States Senate?'"

Codey swears he's made no final decision.

But ambitious politicians keep their options open. And by suggesting for the first time that he is interested in that seat, Codey is doing exactly that.

Is it dirty? Well, worse crap has happened, even on the GOP side, where Alaska Sen. Frank Murkowski moved into the Governor's office a few years back and appointed his daughter to replace him in the Senate. But considering the rather untawdry activities of New Jersey Democrats in the last few years, this should make all New Jersey residentrs take pause.

Keep Bringing the Light

Loyal reader RB notes this article, where the authorities in East Chicago, IN are trying to cut back on people gathering under a suddenly popular streetlight...

City officials have turned off a streetlight that drew more than 250 people to see a shadow that some say resembles the image of Jesus Christ.

East Chicago Police Chief Angelo Machuca called an emergency meeting Sunday to recommend the light be turned off in the interest of public safety after nearby residents complained about blocked cars and visitors congregating until 5 a.m.

Several arrests were made Friday night after a large fight broke out in the area.

“The city respects everyone’s religious beliefs, but it’s getting to the point now where it’s almost too dangerous” to leave the light on, said Damian Rico, the city’s public relations director.

People have been trying to turn that light off for a little over 2,000 years. Guess it would take someone with the name of "Damian" to do it.

They're Evil. Get It?

James Taranto takes note of the statement from the murderer of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker who was killed for making a movie that exposed the angry face of Islamic militants. The statement is a chilling reminder that our enemies aren't all that human...

Mohammed Bouyeri, a baby-faced 27-year-old with dual Dutch-Moroccan nationality, broke his vow not to co-operate with the Amsterdam court by admitting shooting and stabbing his victim last November.

"I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion," he told its three-strong panel of judges.

"I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do the same, exactly the same." Earlier, Bouyeri had insisted that he did not recognise the authority of any non-Islamic court and forbade his lawyer to mount a defence.

Spectators in the maximum security courthouse in western Amsterdam gasped as Bouyeri then turned to the victim's mother, Anneke, in the public gallery, and told her he felt nothing for her. Mrs van Gogh watched as he read out from what appeared to be a statement: "I don't feel your pain. I have to admit that I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because you're a non-believer."

He added: "Maybe you could find some consolation if the maximum sentence is given."

The maximum penalty won't fully console me. But seeing other men and women, particularly Muslims, condemn people like Bouyeri and his murderous ilk, would begin to provide the relief we all need.

Plame Nonsense

John Podhertz, who's been covering the supposed scandal involving Joseph Wilson, uranium, Saddam, WMD and Wilson's "covert" operative wife (I'd name her, but I'm not certain that I can do so -- that Vanity Fair expose where she and her husband agreed to interviews and pictures might have been part of her cover), floats an interesting theory in The Corner about the source of all the information...

What if the original source for the "Wilson got the job from his CIA wife" was, in fact, a reporter? After all, we know that the vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, has testified he learned of Plame's identity from a journalist.

Wilson had gotten very cozy with a couple of them -- Walter Pincus of the Washington Post and Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times among them. What if he spilled the beans to enhance his own standing in the story somehow, to bolster his supposed findings?

What if -- and here's where it gets really interesting -- what if the real object of interest where Fitzgerald's investigation is concerned is now none other than the jailed Judith Miller of the New York Times? What if she let it all slip and in the giant game of telephone around the nation's capital, Miller was the original source of the "Plame's in the CIA" info? What if Fitzgerald needs her notes to discern whether Miller knew or didn't know of Plame's supposedly covert status?

Fitzgerald already has a major bone to pick with Miller. He believes she materially and dangerously impeded his investigation into a terrorist-financing scheme run by the Holy Land Foundation.

When Miller found out that Fitzgerald was on the verge of indicting Holy Land, she called the Foundation for comment -- and right after her call Fitzgerald believes the Foundation may have commenced a shredding party that ensured prosecutors would find little paperwork to go on when they raided the Holy Land offices.

As the Washington Post put it, "On Dec. 3, 2001, Times reporter Judith Miller telephoned officials with the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Texas-based charity accused of being a front for Palestinian terrorists, and asked for a comment about what she said was the government's probable crackdown on the group. U.S. officials said this conversation and Miller's article on the subject in the Times on Dec. 4 increased the likelihood that the foundation destroyed or hid records before a hastily organized raid by agents that day."

Fitzgerald sought her phone records on that occasion to uncover the source of a potential leak in his own office and was blocked by a liberal New York judge named Robert Sweet. Miller didn't get so lucky this time. Fitzgerald thinks Miller has a loose tongue, and for good reason. It's possible he's trying to figure out what other mischief her loose tongue might have caused.

Podhertz's speculation makes even more sense when you consider that Joe Wilson is now defending the jailed Judith Miller. If Wilson is himself the source for the original story... let the backpedaling by the left begin.

Meanwhile, the Dems have the knives out to go after Rove. Apparently, this is what passes for victory for the Democrats, seeing as how they currently can't win elections. Of course, there's a great reason why Rove should stay in office. John Kerry wants him fired -- and we all know how good Kerry's track record is.

The Social Security Fight Continues

Apparently, wisdom and youth are not necessarily mutually exclusive...

Privatization foes in the Social Security debate have tried to pressure members of Congress by following them in waffle and duck costumes. Now supporters of private investment accounts are preparing a Capitol Hill snow job.

Dozens of college students who support the accounts plan to spend Wednesday afternoon lobbying members of the Senate Finance Committee — after a news conference staged amid imported snow and ice sculptures in the summer haze hanging over the capital.

"The imagery has multiple meanings," said Jonathan Swanson, a Yale University senior who co-founded Students for Saving Social Security. "It can mean, `Our future melting away,' or, `Congress is giving us the cold shoulder,' or, `Congress is freezing us out of the debate,' or anything else catchy you can think of."

Swanson, a 22-year-old from Plymouth, Minn., and a friend, Patrick Wetherille, also 22, a senior at Haverford College, started the group in March amid complaints that young people were largely absent from the Social Security debate despite having a huge stake in the outcome.

Most of the proposed overhauls would affect people younger than 55, with little impact on those older than that. President Bush has cast his signature proposal — diverting a portion of payroll taxes to personal investment accounts — as most beneficial to young people, saying money deposited in the accounts will grow faster through the long-term effects of compounding interest.

Democrats have steadfastly opposed personal accounts, saying the tax diversion is a backdoor attempt to dismantle the Depression-era program by replacing its guaranteed government check with investments subject to a cyclical stock market.

The Democrats have been supported by Americans United to Protect Social Security. Its members spent the July 4 recess following undecided members of the House Ways and Means Committee in their districts in waffle costumes or, in one case, a duck suit.

They rent costumes and send people from DC to follow people around and apply pressure. We have people from around the country come to DC and actually do something really creative. And are we sure the goofball in the duck suit wasn't just dressing like he usually does?

Fade to Black

The Lord of Truth points us to this article, which neither he nor we understand...

"The idea is to try to answer the question of what does a black hole look like," said David Kornreich.

The simple answer is "black" because light cannot escape the gravitational pull of a black hole. But light traveling just outside a black hole will be bent -- similar to what happens in a lens.

Kornreich and his student Bryant Gipson have figured out how images of landscapes and planets would be distorted by having a black hole sitting in the foreground.

Such mathematical calculations have been done before for stationary black holes, but this is the first time it has been done for spinning black holes, Kornreich told SPACE.com. Most black holes in the universe are thought to be rotating -- many at high speeds.

In a stellar black hole, which forms when a giant star dies explosively, the rotation is a logical remnant of the star's spin. Just as a skater speeds up when she pulls her arms in, the dead star's rotation picks up dramatically as remaining material collapses into a small, dense black hole.

...The computations for a rotating black hole are complicated by the fact that space around the hole is forced to rotate with it. This so-called frame dragging will affect everything in the vicinity of the spinning black hole.

"Even light rays will get pulled along with the rotation," Kornreich said. "Those that run counter to the rotation sometimes don’t make it -- they get sent backwards."

Because some light rays are shot back at you, it is possible to see your own reflection if you look carefully at the side of the black hole rotating towards you, the thinking goes. But this does not mean astronomers will be able to see themselves through a telescope.

"This is something you would only see in a spacecraft as you approached a black hole," Kornreich said.

To observe these distortions one would have to be within about three or four times the black hole’s Schwarzschild radius, said Kornreich. For a non-spinning black hole, this radius defines the event horizon -- the sphere of gravitational no return for intrepid black hole investigators.

Frankly, these guys could be making up the whole thing, and I would have absolutely no clue. But that's much like the rest of my life.

Even CBS Isn't This Bad

The Jerusalem Post notes that the BBC had a brief conversion to reality last week. Too bad the political correctness pills kicked back in...

In marked contrast to BBC reports about bombs on public transport in Israel – bombs which in some cases were even worse than those in London since some were specifically aimed at children and most were packed with nails, screws, glass and specially-sharpened metal shards in order to maximize injuries – terms like "guerrilla," "militant," "activist" or "fighter" were suddenly nowhere to be seen.

Nor – again in contrast to their coverage of Israel – did BBC correspondents, on either its domestic or international services, provide sympathetic accounts of the likely perpetrators, or explain to viewers that we must "understand" their "grievances." Instead they did what an objective news organization should do: just report on the attacks, and their atrocious nature, and on the sufferings of the victims.

The world's premier broadcast network appeared to throw away its own ridiculous "BBC Producer's Guidelines." BBC online reports, for example, had headlines such as "Terror of passengers stuck on tube" and "London Rocked by Terror Attacks."

BBC executives had previously insisted that for the sake of what they call "evenhandedness" terrorists should not be called terrorists. Their Guidelines state: "The word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier to understanding... We should try to avoid the term, while we report the facts as we know them."

BUT THE hope of many of the British taxpayers forced to fund the BBC that it had finally come to its senses and would henceforth call terror by its proper name turned out to be short-lived. By Friday, the BBC's World Service was slowly reverting to its old habits, both on air and on line. (Its domestic news broadcasts have for the time being continued using the word "terrorist.")

Presumably hoping that no one would notice, the BBC subtly and retroactively altered its initial texts about the bombs on both its British and international Web sites. Unfortunately for the BBC, however, previous versions of its webpages remained easily accessible to all on Google, and enterprising British bloggers, long-fed up with the BBC's bias, recorded the changes.

(hat tip: Instapundit) This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. The inability of leftist to call someone a terrorist when they're indiscriminently killing innocents in pursuit of a religious or political ideal reflects the same stupidity that infected the liberals who consistenly refused to recognize the evils of Communism during the Cold War. I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

The editing of the web pages is the worst part -- they recognize reality briefly when it smacks them in the face, but then opt to return to their little preconceived model of how the world should be. The enabling of criminals was a hobby for years -- now they like to enable terrorists. There's a reason no trusts the Left to fight the War on Terror -- they don't think there's a war, and they don't think there's terror.

This Also Explains 1992

The yellow eyes were always a tip-off...

New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has received the season's first major political endorsement: from the Devil. While Mrs. Clinton is often likened to the Devil, this is the first time that the so-called 'Master of Hell' has actually endorsed a candidate. Meanwhile, speculation has already begun as to whether Mrs. Clinton is to be the sole recipient of Satan's endorsement or whether he will throw his weight behind several candidates, including Senate Republican leader Bill Frist.

The real question is whether Hillary will later double-cross the Devil, or whether she'll just offer Bill up as a human sacrifice. I'm also wondering whether I would object.

I'm Wondering Whether the Dishrag or The Koran Have More Cred

This might be the funniest article Scrappleface has ever posted...

Law enforcement authorities in major U.S. cities put riot police on high alert today after recently-jailed journalist Judith Miller complained that prison guards had desecrated her copy of The New York Times.

"We know that journalists worship the Times," said one deputy police chief, "If they take to the streets in protest, things could get ugly fast."

Ms. Miller, who works for the Times' counter-intelligence department, told an unnamed visitor that her copy of the revered 'Gray Lady' had been carelessly tossed on the floor, handled by a conservative Republican jailer (who she called 'an infidel') and may have been used as a lining for a cat's litter box.

Seriously, read the whole thing. The Valerie Plame dig at the end is even funnier.

Why Can't They Just Trust Markets and People?

If you want proof that there are still advocates of big government liberalism, here's Paul Krugman, writing in the left-wing dishrag about how we should utilize government to help stop obesity. He starts by talking about the government crusade against smoking, pretending that it was the government's efforts that reversed people's desire to smoke. This leads to the question of how to counter obesity, and Krugman's distrust of the marketplace...

How can medical experts who see obesity as a critical problem deal with an ideological landscape tilted in the direction of doing nothing?

One answer is to focus on the financial costs of obesity, and the fact that many of these costs fall on taxpayers and on the general insurance-buying public, rather than on the obese individuals themselves.

...It is more important, however, to emphasize that there are situations in which "free to choose" is all wrong - and that this is one of them.

For one thing, the most rapid rise in obesity isn't taking place among adults, who, we hope, can understand the consequences of their decisions. It's taking place among children and adolescents.

And even if children weren't a big part of the problem, only a blind ideologue or an economist could argue with a straight face that Americans were rationally deciding to become obese. In fact, even many economists know better: the most widely cited recent economic analysis of obesity, a 2003 paper by David Cutler, Edward Glaeser and Jesse Shapiro of Harvard University, declares that "at least some food consumption is almost certainly not rational." It goes on to present evidence that even adults have clear problems with self-control.

Above all, we need to put aside our anti-government prejudices and realize that the history of government interventions on behalf of public health, from the construction of sewer systems to the campaign against smoking, is one of consistent, life-enhancing success. Obesity is America's fastest-growing health problem; let's do something about it.

Here, in a nutshell (um... salty), is the problem with old-school big government liberalism.

Krugman points to the campaign against smoking and the construction of sewer systems as indicative of government efforts that we should follow, without differentiating between the two and determining the effectiveness of each. With the latter, the need for a sewer system is established by the market -- most of us don't want to live in our filth. There are functions of basic society that almost all of us don't mind seeing contracted out to the government, mostly because we're not sure that the marketplace, whose desire is to make a profit, would add in the public benefit when determining whether and how to provide certain services. I don't want to contract out the Army, the cops or the sewage system. But I also don 't want a nanny state telling me what I need to do and more importantly, that I must do it.

Here's the thing. I don't smoke because I made that choice -- not because government tells me not to, and not because the government now makes it incovenient in many communities to do so. Does the government's public advocacy of the dangers of smoking help? Probably, but it helped a hell of a lot more that my parents would have killed me had they ever found me with a cigarette, and that a lot of really attractive girls don't want to date a guy with breath that resembles an exhaust engine.

Some people make the opposite choice -- and that's their decision. With regard to obesity, the same is true. In fact, there's a relentless public campaign against obesity already in place. But Krugman and his fellow liberals want to remove our ability to choose to be thin or fat, in pursuit of some collective good. Sorry, I'm not willing to buy an argument to turn the industries that provide us with fatty foods into evil-doers. I don't think anyone's promoting the health effects of a Big Mac -- they're promoting that it tastes good. It's an individual decision to eat it.

I love arguments that devolve into "do it for the children" because they're never quite able to articulate what government is doing for the kids that their parents can't do better. I sympathize with parents being stuck with kids who want the latest sugary snack because they saw a commercial during their favorite TV show. But the people who are arguing in favor of government intervention here are the same folks who tell parents they need to do a better job of monitoring their kids' viewing habits when parents complain about sex and violence on TV.

Yes, I'm aware that we have single-parent families, and in most families, both parents now work. I know this makes the job of taking care of kids more difficult. But guess what? Divorce is bad for society, and I don't see Krugman arguing against letting people get divorced, or against letting single parents raise their own children. These are choices people make, and some are unwise. That's part of being human. As for two parent families, I know there are some couples where both want to work and make that decision. In most, people are probably both working because they need to do so. Maybe if alleviate the crushing tax burden brought about by having government try to solve every problem, a few more couples might leave one of the breadwinners at home.

Yes, some food consumption isn't rational. So are other decisions people make every day. People sleep around. They fall in love with the wrong people. They don't get enough sleep. They spend money foolishly. Should government step in and change these things as well? To some extent, it already does -- it has rules in place to protect us from investing our money foolishly, and you need to get a marriage license to tie the knot. But as a society, we tend to want the right to make stupid decisions -- because sometimes the conventional wisdom is wrong, and we're right. And sometimes we don't care, because we want pleasure immediately instead of the right thing. We then face the consequences -- added pounds, potential pregnancy, whatever. That's part of freedom.

What it comes down to here is that Krugman and his fellow liberals believe that there are particular ideals to which we should all aspire... and that government should not only promote them, but somehow get people to "make" the right choices. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with them about what those choices are -- and some don't even want government promoting any ideals. I actually don't have a problem with the latter -- we're a democracy, and if the voters what government to promote public health by telling people they should strive to be thin, or telling people to avoid drugs or smoking or pre-marital sex, that's fine. Just avoid putting rules in place that force me to follow your suggested course of action, and don't hide those rules behind the veneer of sin taxes and complaints about the costs to society from people who partake in various pursuits.

One of the fears everyone has about the religious right is that they will try to impose their values on the rest of us through government. Last I checked, President Bush hasn't forced me to convert or give up my right to spend Christmas and Easter on the couch watching obscene and violent movies. But Paul Krugman and his ilk apparently want government to take away my right to consume a bag of Doritos, or make it a lot more expensive, while watching such movies.