Bob debunks the theory of how to impress women and men.#

Now in one sense it's obviously not true: people aren't so shallow and simple. But the humor, if any there be, lies in the sense that there's some truth to this; something recognizable, even to our sophisticated grown-up selves. But here are a few anecdotes. Several years ago, a woman I'd recently met called me in the middle of the day, brought me lunch, and demonstrated a rather shocking, um, eagerness. I remember thinking "this will make a good story," but I wasn't impressed. Mostly I thought it was damn strange. A few years before that, in college, I was talking to an acquaintance about a rather attractive woman we knew. He told me she'd come to his room one night and just undressed. Granted, she hadn't brought food, but he kicked her out. Finally, I like to shop a hell of a lot more than my fiancee does.

Adam Yoshida has some powerful FUD against the Democrats in the tune of "If you're not with us..."#

Today's Democratic Party has been taken over by a new generation of Copperheads. They claim to be for fighting terrorism, yet they are only willing to do so by such means whose failure is certain. The idea that 'internationalizing' the War on Terrorism by bringing the United Nations, the French, the Germans and the Chinese onboard would be an effective way of fighting terror is as absurd as the suggestion that the Army of Northern Virginia would have willingly given up the rifle and returned home in 1863. In fact the Democratic Party doesn't have a position on fighting terror: they have an excuse.

A quick look at any of the popular left-wing web sites begins to quickly show the real feelings of the Democrats when it comes to terror. When Saddam Hussein was captured, more on the left were upset that it hurt their chance of winning in 2004 than were happy because it was good for America. Whatever tepid statements of support the actual politicians manage to make, we can learn far more from the feelings of those who support them. They would much rather see America defeated in war than have a Republican in the White House.

Every time I read Adam Yoshida I am completely appalled by what he is saying.#

What I would like to see is for that ban to be lifted and a new organization set up. We'll call it the 'United States Ammunition Commission' and its function would be to raise money from non-governmental sources for the purchase of various munitions for the Armed Forces.

Now, the purpose of this is not really to raise money, but rather to involve the people in the military. I've devised the concept of an 'Ammunition Commission' for a critical reason: bullets kill people and, on the whole, are easily affordable. In fact, I'd even let contributors pick the type of munitions they were buying from a catalogue.

Think about it- schoolchildren could donate a few dollars and buy a magazine for an M-16. Other people could make an annual donation sufficient to buy an anti-tank missile. Small companies (or community groups) could donate enough money to buy a GPS-guided bomb. Large corporations could donate enough money to buy Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.

Imagine the howls of the left at that one! They would piss their pants over the idea that the government would encourage children to buy weapons to help kill terrorists. We could even tailor publicity to help increase their rage. "Your thirty bullets can buy thirty dead terrorists" would make a catchy slogan.

I actually like this idea though. I like it because it would make it more apparent what is already going on. Every time you vote for someone who is pro-war or pay your taxes, they blood is transfered from their hands to yours because you are authorizing murder. If you can bear murder on your conscience, good for you. I can't.

Charley Reese writes about why World Domination by America is a fallacy.#

Fallacy No. 3 is the false belief that our military is undefeatable. This falsehood has been fed by the fact that since Vietnam, we have used our high-tech forces to attack small, poor, defenseless countries such as Grenada, Panama, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq. But even Afghanistan and Iraq, both dilapidated and lacking all modern military technology, have put a great strain on America's military forces. We do not yet have full control of either country.

Our strength is not in our ground forces but in our high-tech air power and the ability to coordinate the two. One breakthrough in air-defense technology could seriously weaken us, and you can be sure both Russia and China are working assiduously to make that breakthrough. Before you dismiss Russia, you should remember that we are now dependent on Russian spacecraft to reach the space station and that Russia, not us, has the world's largest mobile intercontinental ballistic missile force.

Paul Hein wonders why people feel they need government and authority.#

By any objective standard, government is a dreadful idea. Its rules are arbitrary and illogical. Its force is often extreme, and wielded carelessly. It imposes a tremendous burden upon those who subscribe to it, and an even greater one on those who don't. It complicates all human activity, and plunders and loots productivity at every stage. It helps a few at the cost of the many, although referring to itself as "democratic." For the benefit of its adherents and cronies it sends our sons off to die, if necessary, in places we've never heard of, and which present no threat to us. Why do we put up with it?

Because the instinctive desire to worship and obey dies hard; indeed, it does not die at all. A loving but stern and unyielding God may not be acceptable, but something must be worshipped, so let it be the state, imperfect as it is. Authority seems to be demanded by human nature. I've had many patients over the decades ask me what they should do about their cataracts. "Well, they're bad enough to remove, if you want to do that," I'd tell them. "Do they have to be removed?" "No, but they can if you want to see better." "Well, what should I do?" "What do you want to do?" "You're the doctor — you tell me!" It always impressed me — especially as a young physician — that people were anxious to let an authority figure make decisions for them. I suspect that many patients left my office dissatisfied that I would not tell them what to do!

Matthew Yglesias writes about what "electability" really means and the advantages Clark has over Dean.#

In the meanwhile, every time a candidate makes an explicit electability argument, it sounds like he's implicitly conceding that the other guy would actually be a better president. That's not really a very helpful way to advance your own campaign. Similarly, I would add, I think it was a mistake of Democrats to rely so heavily on tactical anti-Nader arguments during the 2000 campaign, because that obscured the fact that, at the end of the day, Al Gore would have been a good president while Ralph Nader would have been an utter catastrophe.

A president Dean would be no catastrophe, but Clark actually has a lot to bring to the table president-wise that Dean doesn't. In particular, Clark's foreign and military experience doesn't just bring "credibility" it also brings actual experience which is very helpful. It's often noted that many presidents (Bush II, Clinton, Reagan) take office without experience in this field, but it's less often noted that such presidents tend to have extremely confused and ineffective foreign policies at the beginning of their administrations. Just what you would expect from an inexperienced leader. All else being equal, I'd rather avoid that. But just ragging on about electability makes it sound like you don't have a real case to make.

Lance Knobel writes about the European Constitution negotiation.#

The Observer had two excellent commentaries on the problem. First, Robert McCrum, literary editor, compares the draft European constitution with the US constitution (but he oddly cites Jefferson above Madison as a drafter). As I've written before, the European language is bureaucratic rather than anything for the ages. McCrum also offers a startling comparison: "There's another, more fundamental, difference between these two documents. The EU Constitution is expressed in 69,196 words and runs to 263 pages (depending on what language you read it in). The original US Constitution, by contrast, is just 4,608 words long on four pages. One has been the product of 26 plenary sessions, 11 working groups and three so-called 'discussion circles'; the other was cooked up by half a dozen remarkable young Americans."

Consistent pro-European Will Hutton reckons the weekend failure may prove terminal for Europe. "We are drowning in a sea of mutual spite and the legalistic legacy of successive treaties. Until more put their head over the parapet and fight for what I regard as a necessary and inspiring idea, we might as well -- to follow William Pitt -- roll up that map of Europe. It will stagnate and decline in the shadows of our mutual recriminations."

Chris Winters has found hidden commentary on the Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition DVD. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn comment on the Orcs.#

Zinn: After Gandalf falls, you get another view of the so-called terrorist Orcs. You know, the regrettable side of the Orcs does occasionally come out. The violence. It doesn't help their cause when these distinct, individual Orcs take it upon themselves to lash out at the inequality of the system. But notice that even these violent Orcs don't seem happy. They're not pleased with themselves. It's a violence borne of necessity.

Chomsky: Sure. They're trapped in a cycle of violence.

John at Crooked Timber writes about the implications of Saddam's capture.#

Next, there's the trial. The big issue is not so much whether Saddam will get a 'fair' trial as whether he will want to, and be permitted to, bring evidence of Western (particularly US) complicity in his worst crimes, committed during the 1980s.

Next, there's the question of the extent to which Saddam's capture justifies the war. Obviously, it's a better outcome than Saddam remaining at large. And it makes it easier to argue that despite the (uncounted) thousands of Iraqi deaths in the war and its aftermath, Iraqis are, on balance better off. But the huge amounts of money, military power and political capital expended on this war, and the breaches of international law it required, need more justification than that. If the same resources had been allocated to implementing, say, the proposals of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, millions of lives could have been saved. Even spent on improvements to health in the US, the war budget could have saved around 10 000 lives. From a less utopian viewpoint, if more military and economic resources had been allocated to Afghanistan, and more political capital to North Korea, everyone in the West would be significantly safer at the end of 2003 than at the beginning. Instead, the threat from North Korea is substantially worse. If Al Qaeda is less of a threat than before, this is due to its own criminal folly in attacking fellow-Muslims and not to the Iraq war or to wise handling of postwar Afghanistan.

Tony Pierce feels so much safer.#

i feel safer now.

so thanks.

and im really stoked that it wont take an hour and a half to get on an airplane anymore.

and that they wont make people get out of line and take off their shoes anymore.

and the stock market will go back up, and stay up.

and man, now that you have him all locked up and captured, im sure he will be telling you right away where all those weapons of mass destructions are.

and we will never have to worry about the good people of iraq ever blowing up the world trade center, or the pentagon again.

speaking of which, when are we going into saudi arabia?