Excerpts from "FBI, Joint Terrorism Agents Search Home in Hillsboro," by Mark Larabee and Les Zaitz, The Oregonian, March 21:

A software designer was being held Thursday as a material witness in a terrorism investigation after FBI agents searched his Hillsboro home and his office at Intel.

According to neighbors and co-workers, Maher Mofeid Hawash, 38, was the target of Thursday's searches by the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Hawash was booked into the Multnomah County Detention Center on Thursday afternoon and put on a "material witness hold" at the request of the U.S. Marshal's Service, a sheriff's department spokesman said. A material witness designation allows the government to hold someone in order to compel testimony.

The FBI issued a short statement Thursday morning saying that in an "ongoing investigation," the Joint Terrorism Task Force had executed four federal search warrants in the Hillsboro area and that the Hillsboro Police Department assisted in the searches.

Prosecutors and investigators refused to say who the target of their search was or what they were looking for. The federal search warrants filed in the case are sealed, meaning the information in them is secret. Asked whether anyone was taken into custody as a result of the searches, officials said they could not answer the question because of a court order.

"A software designer." "Agents searched…his office at Intel." Maher Mofeid Hawash.

It all sounds so…sinister, doesn't it?

The Oregonian seems to be happy to play along: "Hawash, who also goes by the name 'Mike'" was how Larabee and Zaitz framed that nugget. "Goes by the name"? You mean, like an alias? Or something more ordinary, like maybe a nickname? Or something akin to the way my grandfather was called Lou, even though his parents named him Lucido?

Oh, and The Oregonian's report left out one very important fact: Mr. Hawash is a citizen of the United States. He's as American as, well, even Michelle Malkin and her Filipino immigrant parents.

Details are sketchy -- what with the grotesquely misnamed Patriot Act and all -- but the trigger behind the FBI's raid, which included the obligatory assault rifles, apparently was contributions Hawash made to an organization called the Global Relief Foundation. Hawash says he believed he was donating to a humanitarian organization; the FBI says the group provided funds for terrorist activities.

Friends of Hawash, currently detained incommunicado at in the Sheridan (Ore.) Federal Prison, have launched a web site, "Free Mike Hawash," where you can find more information about the matter and a defense fund they have established.

Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin is certainly living the easy life.

Her latest column, at least in the form I saw it in the Philadelphia Daily News, "They're Green With Hatred for U.S.," is vintage Malkin in its theme and tone. Like the rest of her recent columns, this one can be summarized in one sentence: The real war is here at home and it's being waged by "America-hating leftists."

The rest is just filler. And I mean that literally.

I ran today's column through the counter embedded within Microsoft Word. The tally: 627 words, the customary length of a PDN op-ed piece. But of those 627 words, 347, comprising more than half of her column, are taken up by Malkin's seven-point summary of a platform of action written by an anti-war and environmental activist, one she is convinced is "an anarchist menace" to the very foundations of our society but also one whose name I can't recall having heard before this morning.

Call it bad blogging, but in print.

Former senator Gary Hart (D-Colo.) is in the building. And while he's here, in the building, I mean, he's blogging.

Hart posted his first blog entry yesterday, Saturday, March 29, under the title, "Gary Hart: From the Road."

As I say, Welcome to the fray, Mr. Hart.

The U.S. Senate has been called, and rightly so, the most exclusive gentlemen's club in the world. It's purportedly a chummy place and members are loath to criticize each other publicly, even in the most polite terms. (Gee whiz, sounds like just the kind of place that wouldn't welcome me with open arms and one in which I might not fit well.)

Anyway, it will come as no surprise that I have spent considerable time over the past three months evaluating the current Senate membership. As I engaged in this project I fully expected that my home, Pennsylvania, would easily rank as the most poorly represented state in the upper chamber.

I was surprised, however, to find that no fewer than 17 states easily could compete for the same dishonor. The list, published below, obviously represents the view of a liberal Democrat -- there, I said it -- but make no mistake, there are plenty of Democrats in the Senate who continually disappointment me, Sens. John Breaux (La.), Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), and Zell Miller (Ga.) coming most immediately to mind.

My nominations:

ALABAMA
Sen. Jeff Session (R)
Sen. Richard Shelby (R)

ALASKA
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R)

COLORADO
Sen. Wayne Allard (R)
Sen. Ben Campbell (R)

GEORGIA
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R)
Sen. Zell Miller (D)

IDAHO
Sen. Larry Craig (R)
Sen. Michael Crapo (R)

KANSAS
Sen. Sam Brownback (R)
Sen. Pat Roberts (R)

KENTUCKY
Sen. Jim Bunning (R)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R)

MAINE
Sen. Susan Collins (R)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R)

MISSISSIPPI
Sen. Thad Cochran (R)
Sen. Trent Lott (R)

MISSOURI
Sen. Christopher Bond (R)
Sen. James Talent (R)

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Sen. Judd Gregg (R)
Sen. John Sununu (R)

OKLAHOMA
Sen. James Inofe (R)
Sen. Don Nickles (R)

PENNSYLVANIA
Sen. Rick Santorum (R)
Sen. Arlen Specter (R)

TENNESSEE
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R)
Sen. Bill Frist (R)

TEXAS
Sen. John Cornyn (R)
Sen. Kay Hutchison (R)

UTAH
Sen. Robert Bennett (R)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R)

VIRGINIA
Sen. George Allen (R)
Sen. John Warner (R)

WYOMING
Sen. Michael Enzi (R)
Sen. Craig Thomas (R)

Depressing, isn't it?

I would be interested in hearing my readers' reaction to this list. Please send your comments to the Review's new address and let me know if I may publish your comments at Letters to The Rittenhouse Review. (Names will be withheld on request but must be provided.)

Thomas Mullen Adams, 27, La Mesa, Calif.

Jamaal R. Addison, 22, Roswell, Ga.

Jay Thomas Aubin, 26, Waterville, Maine

Ryan Anthony Beaupre, 30, St. Anne, Ill.

Michael E. Bitz, 31, Ventura, Calif.

Brian Rory Buesing, 20, Cedar Key, Fla.

Therrel S. Childers, 30, Harrison County, Miss.

David K. Fribley, 26, Lee, Calif.

José A. Garibey, 21, Orange, Calif.

Jorge A. Gonzalez, 20, Los Angeles

Jose Gutierrez, 22, Los Angeles

Nicolas M. Hodson, 22, Smithville, Mo.

Evan James, 20, La Harpe, Ill.

Howard Johnson II, 21, Mobile, Ala.

Michael Vann Johnson Jr. , 25, Little Rock, Ark.

Phillip A. Jordan, 42, Brazoria, Texas

Brian Matthew Kennedy, 25, Houston

Bradley S. Korthaus, 28, Scott. Iowa

Eric J. Orlowski, 26, Buffalo, N.Y.

Frederick E. Pokorney, 31, Nye, Nev.

Randal Kent Rosacker, 21, San Diego

Gregory P. Sanders, 19, Hobart, Ind.

Christopher Scott Seifert, 27, Williams Township, Pa.

Thomas J. Slocum, 22, Adams, Colo.

Gregory Stone, 40, Boise, Ida.

Brandon S. Tobler, 19, N.A.

Kendall Damon Waters-Bey, 29, Baltimore

(Source: New York Times, March 30, 2003.)

As noted here at the Review last week, a group of Philadelphia-area bloggers are gathering for coffee and, subsequently, drinks, on Saturday, April 12, beginning at 8:00 p.m. at Xando, possibly now known as Così (I don't get over there very often), at 325 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, under the direction of Go Fish author and proprietor, Nicole.

Nicole tells me all Philly bloggers, their readers, and friends are welcome.

See you there.

One of the most valuable voices of the blogosphere, that of Mary Beth Williams of the inestimable Wampum, has been silenced.

No, not by the evil people at Eli Lilly & Co., as first crossed my mind -- though I suppose it's at least possible -- nor by Attorney General Short Stick -- that's being saved for some time in the future -- but by Blogspot.

In private correspondence Ms. Williams briefly described the problems she has experienced while attempting to post to Wampum since at least Friday morning. As much as I wish I could help, I don't know enough about the technology involved to be of any assistance.

If you think you might be able to help, please send Ms. Williams an e-mail. It is important for all of us that she gets back on line.

Thanks.

[Post-publication addendum (March 30): Wampum is up and running again, and for this the world is a better place.]

The loose cannon with the loose screws who currently runs the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, was running off all half-cocked again yesterday, apparently threatening, or coming pretty damned close, military action against Iran and Syria. (See, for example, "Rumsfeld Cautions Iran and Syria on Aid to Iraq," by Eric Schmitt and David E. Sanger, New York Times, March 29.)

Rumsfeld accused Syria and Iran today of interfering with the American war effort in Iraq.

He said he [sic] would hold the Syrian government accountable, the first time anyone in the administration has suggested that the confrontation could be broadened to include states that could be aiding the Iraqi forces....

Mr. Rumsfeld's comments, at a Pentagon briefing, seemed to take White House officials by surprise, but more for their timing than their content.

Several senior administration officials said they were pleased that Mr. Rumsfeld had challenged the two countries so directly....

"I don't think you'll hear the president upbraiding Rumsfeld for what he said," one senior administration official said tonight. "He gave public voice to something that has been talked about around here for a week."

Ah, but, and there's always a but:

Mr. Rumsfeld's statements not only took Syria by surprise but seemed to stun some at the Pentagon, who have never seemed to become accustomed to the fact that the defense secretary knows how to make headlines.

"I was surprised," said one senior military official.

So was the White House. "It's fair to say he didn't tell us this was coming," said one official. "Then again, he rarely does."

Notwithstanding today's party line, which the media are only to happy to feed viewers and readers, holding that the swift advance toward and upon Baghdad all along had incorporated a break ranging from one to three weeks, should the war on Iraq continue to fare as poorly as it has so far, mark my words that great Washington tradition -- "Heads will roll!" -- shall reemerge.

If that happens, cocky braggart Rumsfeld's head is sure to be among the first to drop from the blade to the bucket, and deservedly so.

We all have our roads not taken, the paths of life we chose not to follow or were hindered or prevented from pursuing. I have many, one of which came to mind again last night while I was listening to a performance by the Symphony Orchestra of the Curtis Institute of Music.

You know, I was pretty good way back when. At music, I mean. I learned -- or just as often, taught myself -- to play the piano, the organ, the oboe, the French horn, the clarinets, the saxophones, and the flute. (I went to a very small school: Each year I was assigned the instrument that was needed to fill the band's most glaring hole.)

Okay, so maybe I was just "pretty good" for a kid growing up in a small village in the middle of nowhere in upstate New York, but a pair of talented and well educated instructors from my elementary and junior high school days seemed to think I had the right stuff.

But I gave it all up. Gradually, at first, as the end of high school approached, and then more rapidly, and finally entirely, during college. (I did try to learn the violin about ten years ago, but that was kind of a disaster I would just as soon forget.)

My departure from this road ultimately not taken was caused, motivated, or sparked by separate impulses and influences during high school and college.

While in college I didn't have the time to practice even on my first instrument, the piano, let alone any of the others. Over time I became frustrated by my inability to sight read pieces I once could have played by ear after having heard them just one or two times. Sonatas I previously knew by heart became laborious to play, even with the sheet music before my face. Eventually, I simply lost interest.

High school, a more critical period in the larger scheme of things, was a different story. I pulled away from music -- practicing, playing, performing, and writing music -- because of peer pressure of the ugliest sort. After years of unrelenting and vicious mockery at the hands and mouths of classmates and even my siblings, I decided studying music -- and learning it and loving it -- was simply not worth the pain. I kept playing, but I was no longer trying very hard.

Why playing the piano made me "a faggot" remains for me an unanswered question. (Oddly enough, my classmates and siblings were right, though I became -- or, more accurately, was then already -- "a faggot" for other, still unknown, reasons.)

I admit to being envious of the Curtis students in the conservatory's orchestra. "That could have been me," I kept thinking. Or not. I really have no idea whether I was or could have been as good as the Curtis's players are. But a small part of me will always wonder. And a larger part of me will always resent that I let the ignorance of others keep me from finding out.

[Post-publication addendum (March 28): The Curtis Institute's Symphony won a solidly favorable review from Philadelphia Inquirer music critic David Patrick Stearns, published in today's paper as "Curtis'[s] Unleashed Mahler is Genuine." I generally agree with Stearns's points, but was disappointed he offered no comments on the orchestra's strings, particularly the violins. They're a very talented group, but I was struck by the violinists' lack of depth, as a group that is. The better players are, or at least soon will be, world class, but once you get to the third or fourth row of both the first and second violins, there is a noticeable decline in musicality. Overall, though, the Curtis's performance of a very difficult piece, Gustave Mahler's Symphony No. 5, was impressive, with the woodwinds and brass given an opportunity to shine they grabbed with appropriate gusto. (Note: The orchestra also performed Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's Flute Concerto No. 2 in D Major with Jeffrey Khaner, principal flutist of the Philadelphia Orchestra, both pieces under the direction of conductor David Zinman.)]

This just arrived in my e-mail in-box:

CNN Breaking News

Richard Perle, head of board that advises U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, resigns.

There's nothing up at CNN's web site yet, so a few quick guesses:

1. A presidential appointment pending.
2. A scandal about to break.
3. A job at Halliburton "rebuilding" Iraq.
4. "Personal reasons."
5. "Family reasons."

Anything else, anyone?

ADDENDUM: Well, ladies and gentlemen, it already appears that choice number two, "a scandal about to break," is the correct answer. So far CNN has only an uninformative blurb, but NPR-listener and world-renowned film director Brian Linse of AintNoBadDude (That's a blog, not a film, by the way.) tells us public radio reports are tying the resignation to Perle's lobbying on behalf of the quasi-criminal enterprise that goes by the name of Global Crossing Ltd.

It began on March 6 with a venting complaint by Hesiod, proprietor and author of the blog Counterspin Central, written after he found himself justifiably displeased to learn Pennsylvania Democrats appear unwilling or uninterested, at least so far, in promoting a serious challenge to the state's senior U.S. senator, Arlen Specter (R).

Hesiod's lament was followed quickly by a brief word of encouragement from Atrios of Eschaton and a "seconding nomination" from Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft. From there, it took on a life of its own, with more than three dozen bloggers expressing support within days of Hesiod's initial post.

Needless to say, the words of support from my fellow bloggers, and just as important, the same sentiments as noted in letters from readers, regarding the possibility of my challenging Specter's upcoming reelection bid -- his fourth, if you can believe it -- to the extent they took the matter seriously, have been flattering, even overwhelming.

In addition to these many expressions and messages of support, others have sent e-mail inquiring, basically, "Are you serious?", the subject at hand today.

Admittedly, this all started in a humorous vein, as something of a stunt. But things happen quickly on the internet, or in cyberspace, if you will. And I assure you events proceed still more swiftly in the blogosphere. Express an interest in challenging someone like Specter and one is almost immediately inundated with encouragement, offers of financial support, suggestions, and advice, along with more than a few of warnings about the senator's longstanding penchant for dirty politics and his election-season proclivity for closely monitoring the latest political winds.

Although I am not yet prepared to declare my candidacy, I would like to assure my fellow bloggers, my readers, and other supporters that I am taking this matter seriously. Very seriously.

During the past three weeks I have had numerous mostly informal but always intense discussions with friends and other contacts -- experienced political professionals who have managed or participated in major Senate, House, and gubernatorial campaigns -- regarding a possible candidacy. (It was not for nothing that I lived in Washington, D.C., for 11 years -- less than half the time, incidentally, Specter has made that city his home.) If nothing else, the process thus far for me has been an invaluable civics lesson. I have learned much about the political process and the nature of contemporary campaigns that I likely would not have discerned on my own.

It has been an exciting month, but one during which my most optimistic hopes quickly have become dashed by the daunting realities ahead. The obstacles facing a potential challenger to Specter are enormous. Foremost among these, of course, is money. At last report Specter had built up a war chest of more than $6 million. He'll need it. Pennsylvania campaigns are expensive: The state's media markets include Philadelphia (Nielsen Ranking: 4), Pittsburgh (21), Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon-York (47), Scranton-Wilkes-Barre (53), Johnstown-Altoona (96), and Erie (143). (And TV and radio spending in Philadelphia, the state's largest and most expensive market, is inefficient, with much of the candidate's advertising dollar "wasted" on residents of neighboring New Jersey and Delaware.)

It appears Specter, 72, will face an opponent in the Republican Party primary even more conservative than he -- Rep. Pat Toomey -- but few give the congressman much hope, in part because Specter enjoys the always opportunistic support of Pennsylvania's junior senator, Sen. Rick Santorum (R), and also because Specter, by virtue of his seniority, I suppose, for I can think of no other logical reason, has the backing of most of the state's Republican establishment.

Specter no doubt will avail himself of the chummy backing of his conservative Republican colleagues in the clubby halls of Congress and within a Bush administration that appreciates his recent votes supporting the launch of the 21st Century Crusades, curtailing environmental standards, cutting taxes by a mind-boggling $750 billion, and eliminating the estate tax, to name just a few. Specter can also count on continued support from the usual right-wing special interest groups whose favor he has curried for decades, including the National Rifle Association.

I have limitations of my own, of course. I have never held elective or public office of any kind. I have lived in Pennsylvania for fewer than 18 months. I lack what is called in the business -- and it is a business -- a local base. And my name recognition in Pennsylvania -- anywhere, actually -- is virtually zero. Then again, I always can hold my head high, for I have not built a spurious fame through such embarrassing acts as devising fanciful "magic bullet" theories, providing legal services for bail-jumper and convicted killer Ira Einhorn, or recklessly accusing Anita Hill of "perjury."

Surely you're joking, I suspect some readers are thinking. I assure you I am not. Specter -- and the future of Pennsylvania and the rest of this nation -- are not joking matters. And why shouldn't I be Pennsylvania's next U.S. senator? Someone has to, and if Specter -- or, even more curiously, Santorum -- can represent so great a community as the citizens of Pennsylvania, why couldn't I? Stranger things have happened.

I regret to say there is no additional statement at this time.

Thank you again for your support. And please stay tuned.

Tbogg is on some kind of roll this week.

Stop by and see Tbogg take on . . .

Washington Post columnist, soldier lover, and life-long non-combatant Michael Kelly.

Pentagon spokesperson and avid mid-day skier Victoria Clarke.

The "Coalition of the Willing," also known as the "Coalition of the Willing, But Not Particularly Able, and Some Other Countries Offering Anonymous Support, We Swear."

Stephen Den Beste.

Ben Shapiro.

Texas.

Andrew Sullivan. And again.

Sean Hannity and Henry Kissinger.

Tiresome shtick wielder Professor InstaLinker.

And, of course, Peggy Noonan.

Norah Vincent is projecting again, drawing her latest scribblings -- as tendered to the credulous editors of the Los Angeles Times and that paper's beleaguered op-ed readers -- from her unconscious subconscious, all the while writing between the lines about nothing and no one but herself.

Today, ostensibly discussing MSNBC's new hit man, Michael Savage, Vincent writes: "Savage committed the grave sin of exercising his right to speak his twisted and mediocre mind." [Emphasis added.]

She then offers this: "In a concerted effort to silence [Savage], GLAAD [the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation] has launched a 'public education campaign,' the same Robespierrian enterprise it used to torpedo Dr. [sic] Laura Schlessinger's short-lived television show in 2000."

Robespierrian enterprise. So clever. So wise. So . . . familiar.

Later on, Vincent employs such phrases as "self-righteously opportunistic," "endemic schizophrenia," "myopic selfishness," "decrepitude," and "fatuous posse."

I swear, this woman writes while looking into a mirror.

[Post-publication addendum (March 28): Vincent, by the way, as she pulled together this trite assemblage of her typically schoolgirl prose -- the final moments of the deadline fast approaching, it's plainly clear -- appears in some respects to have been channeling the White House press corps' resident nut case, Lester Kinsolving. (See Kinsolving's "Sodomy Lobby Censorship Aimed at Michael Savage.") Vincent -- a self-styled (and I'm being very generous with the word "styled" here) "pro-life libertarian" -- and Kinsolving are, no doubt, cut of disparate bolts of cloth, but how different are they really?]

For several weeks now, months perhaps, the Philadelphia Inquirer has been running a series entitled, "Conversations on War," man/woman on the street-type interviews with everyday Philadelphians. The series has been uneven, sometimes interesting and thoughtful, sometimes not.

Today's interview, by the Inquirer's Murray Dubin, is with a woman named Susan Madrak of nearby Bensalem, Pa.

I point this out not only because Madrak is so obviously one of the most thoughtful of those interviewed by the Inquirer so far, but because she also is a reader of, and correspondent to, The Rittenhouse Review and TRR: The Lighter Side of Rittenhouse. And I learned from the interview that she has launched her own weblog, Suburban Guerilla.

Madrak is intelligent, articulate, outspoken, and opinionated.

She's the typical Rittenhouse reader. Enjoy.

[Post-publication addendum (April 1): See "Murray Dubin Writes," Letters to The Rittenhouse Review, April 1, 2003.]

I learned something today.

I learned that the words "first do no harm" are not included in the Hippocratic Oath and apparently never were, though at a web site called Time and the River I found this:

It is the opinion of many scholars that Hippocrates did, in fact, originate the phrase, but in another of his writings, Epidemics, Bk. I, Sect. XI. One translation reads: "Declare the past, diagnose the present, foretell the future; practice these acts. As to diseases, make a habit of two things -- to help, or at least to do no harm."

The same site provides a translation of the original Hippocratic Oath along with two modern versions. The first of the modern versions reads, in part:

I swear in the presence of the Almighty and before my family, my teachers[,] and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath and Stipulation.

To reckon all who have taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents and in the same spirit and dedication to impart a knowledge of the art of medicine to others. I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of advances in medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient.

I will follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.

With purity, holiness and beneficence I will pass my life and practice my art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector thereof, understanding that research must have as its purpose the furtherance of the health of that individual. Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction of any patient….

While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse [be] my lot.

A second modern version of the oath, approved for use by the American Medical Association, reads as follows:

You do solemnly swear, each by whatever he or she holds most sacred: That you will be loyal to the Profession of Medicine and just and generous to its members. That you will lead your lives and practice your art in uprightness and honor.

That into whatsoever house you shall enter, it shall be for the good of the sick to the utmost of your power, your holding yourselves far aloof from wrong, from corruption, from the tempting of others to vice.

That you will exercise your art solely for the cure of your patients, and will give no drug, perform no operation, for a criminal purpose, even if solicited, far less suggest it.

That whatsoever you shall see or hear of the lives of men or women which is not fitting to be spoken, you will keep inviolably secret.

These things do you swear. Let each bow the head in sign of acquiescence. And now, if you will be true to this, your oath, may prosperity and good repute be ever yours; the opposite, if you shall prove yourselves forsworn.

The same site informs me, "It should be noted that not all physicians take the Hippocratic Oath when they enter practice. Depending on where they earn their medical degrees, they may take an oath or pledge other than one of the several forms of the Hippocratic Oath."

Now, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) reminds each and all of us at every available opportunity that he is a physician. Sen. Frist is a graduate of the Harvard Medical School. I do not know, and at this late hour I cannot confirm, which version of the Hippocratic Oath Sen. Frist took upon entering medical practice.

It is clear, however, that Sen. Frist, at least as a U.S. senator, has violated several provisions of the Oath, that by, uh, virtue of his craven loyalty to the pharmaceutical, medical, and hospital industries -- the latter from which he and his family continue to profit greatly -- and particularly to Eli Lilly & Co., one of the Republican party's most reliable contributors, as well as his shamelessly cavalier disregard for the health of America's children.

Hyperbole? Overstatement? Exaggeration?

I don't think so.

I'll leave the final vengeance in the hands of Zeus or our own almighty God, but in the meantime I suspect the wrath of Wampum's Mary Beth Williams may prove sufficient, at least as a starting point.

And so, for further details about Sen. Frist's aiding and abetting of the cruel, selfish, and greedy agenda of Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of the adulterant Thimerosal, an untested derivative of mercury that many scientists believe may have caused autism in thousands of American children who received any or all of several vaccines adulterated by this compound, see, among much else at Wampum, "Cut to the Chase" and "A Plea for Action."

A final note to my fellow bloggers: The blogosphere made a difference, a real difference, exposing the not-so-latent racism of Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) when he not so long ago was wishin' he and the darkies was back in the land of cotton.

It's time to join together again, for this is an issue the traditional print and broadcast media largely have ignored and are continuing to ignore. Too complicated, I guess. The parents are too "emotional," they're probably saying, echoing the party line out of Lilly and the Republican National Committee.

Please, bloggers, take some time to read the heartbreaking and, unfortunately, sickening posts about autism, Thimerosal, Lilly, and Sen. Frist, White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels, Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas), and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) at Wampum and P.L.A. - A Journal of Politics, Law & Autism.

This is an issue, a cause, and a goal that deserves to be made our own. Get with the program, people. And I mean that in the nicest, and yet most dejected, way.

[Post-publication addendum (March 26): I see that Tapped, the blog of the American Prospect magazine, wrote briefly about this issue yesterday, quite rightly directing readers to Wampum. Please alert me to other bloggers writing about the Thimerosal scandal -- also known as "Lillygate" -- so that I may post links here.]

[Post-publication addendum (March 27): Mother Jones today wrote about Lilly, Thimerosal, and the spineless sycophants that comprise the Republican Party's leadership in Congress (see "Under Cover of War"), giving a well deserved nod (and link) to Wampum.]

Earlier today I happened to pass a church, First Church of Christ, Scientist, Philadelphia, to be specific, and saw this biblical passage posted out front:

Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world. [KJV: 1 John 5:4.]

Something to thing about. Or not.

I see in the paper today that the English are finally allowing Scotland to enter the 20th century, finally abolishing the feudal "crofting" laws in place there since 1707. ("Scotland Turns Tables on the Rich," by Thomas Wagner, Associated Press.)

Make no mistake, many Scottish and other landowners are coming along kicking and screaming:

The Land Reform Bill is one of the most important steps taken by their legislature since [Prime Minister] Tony Blair's government gave Scotland and Wales limited autonomy. Supporters say the new law will boost the economy, empower rural communities and the 30,000 crofting families, and rectify a situation in which half of Scotland's private land is owned by just 343 people.

But Peter de Savary argues that investors are just as important to the economy. De Savary transformed Skibo Castle in the Highlands from a private home into the Carnegie Club in 1995. It is now a resort where the rich can golf, ride horses, hike, and dine lavishly.

"The Madonnas and Michael Douglases of the world won't come here anymore," de Savary said. "Security is important to these people." [Ed.: The article informs readers the horrible excuse for an actress and technologically enhanced singer known simply and pretentiously as "Madonna" was married at Skibo Castle two years ago.]

Another opponent is Mohamed Al Fayed, owner of Harrods department store and the father of Dodi Fayed, who died with Princess Diana [Ed.: Diana F. Spencer] in a 1997 car crash. He owns the 65,000-acre Balnagown Estates, 10,000 acres of which is croft land.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force Academy is still mired somewhere in the 19th century, when men were animals and women were their slaves, as we learn from "E-mail Gave Hint of Climate at Academy," by Angela Couloumbis of the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Interviews with current and former cadets and military experts suggest that despite having admitted women for more than 20 years, the academy remains a male-dominated institution, particularly in the higher echelons, with a culture that unabashedly favors men over women....

"There's a climate at the academy that makes it difficult for a victim of sexual assault to come forward, and that is retaliation," said Rep. Heather Wilson [(R-N.M.)], a 1982 graduate [of the Air Force Academy] who served several years in the Air Force.

"At the academy," she said, "if a guy's buddies decide to protect him, they control whether the victim eats, sleeps, uses the telephone, leaves the campus, even how many push-ups she does....So the opportunity to retaliate and to force somebody out is greater."

Academy officials, while acknowledging that their institution has a problem, have said the school does take rape allegations seriously, and has in the last decade established a number of sexual-assault awareness programs, as well as a 24-hour hotline.

Academy critics counter that the hotline is staffed by cadets, who while well-meaning might not have the proper experience to counsel rape victims. Complicating matters is that victims have difficulty accessing necessary services -- such as nurses specially trained in processing rape kits -- given the campus' isolated location and the academy's strict rules governing when cadets can come and go.

Does not one of the men in charge of the USAFA have a wife or daughter? Good God, why is rape treated so cavalierly in our society?

During the first semester of my senior year of college I took a course called "History of Rome." I took it for two reasons: first, because the subject was of considerable interest and therefore I thought it promised to be edifying in and of itself; and second, because I figured, as a senior, this freshman-level course would be an "easy A."

I was correct on both counts, with the course offering the added bonus of the co-enrollment of a student I will refer to here only as W.A.B., III, easily the most handsome freshman on campus that year, and a man who sat one row to my right and just one place behind me -- believe me, I checked three times a week -- a young man of considerable promise who, I'm very sad to say, has been most undeservedly deceased for more than 15 years.

Putting aside my schoolboy crushes of yesteryear, last week I returned to my interest in ancient Rome through an auto-didactical course of study offered by a collection of CDs I have been playing while -- and while not -- blogging.

I was struck last night by the discussion on these CDs of a civil war fought in Rome in the first century B.C.

I probably shouldn't be blogging about this without a more solid background, but I was struck by the obvious similarities between that Roman era and current American history, with all of its imperialist and anti-democratic trappings.

I hope another blogger can comment upon this particular period of Roman history more astutely than I. If not, I will proceed upon my own investigation of that era and report my findings at this site.

Nicole -- Philly blogger, Henry Rollins nut, Sassy cat-owner, and the author of Go Fish -- writes to inform me that Philadelphia-area bloggers will be gathering for coffee and then, it's fair to assume, drinks, all this on Saturday, April 12, beginning at 8:00 p.m. at Xando, 325 Chestnut St., Philadelphia.

See you there.

(Oh, and a shamelessly gratuitious link on the blogroll to anyone who buys me a drink. Unless, of course, the blogger already links to well, you know who.)

[Post-publication addendum (March 26): For more on "you know who," be sure to visit SoundBitten for a good laugh at "you know who's expense.]

Congratulations are in order for Sean-Paul Kelley, author of The Agonist, not only for his inestimable coverage of the U.S. war upon Iraq, but for easily outpacing Eschaton on each of the past three days in generating traffic sent here from there, an honor previously earned only by the Washington Post, Altercation, Media Whores Online, Cursor, and Antiwar.

Kelley has no specific link to Rittenhouse outside the blogroll, so the traffic coming this way can only be a function of a massive increase in visitors to The Agonist.

Congratulations, Mr. Kelley.

Does it bother any other bloggers that when the Blogspot advertisement that appears on one's home page is bought out by you, a kind reader, or a fellow blogger, Blogspot and Blogger continue to place their obnoxious ads on the pages readers access through the archives or via web searches?

It bugs the hell out of me.

If you agree, send Blogger and Blogspot an e-mail at, well, I don't know where because I can't find the still-unanswered e-mail I sent them about this, and like many web sites (see my comments about the irresponsible, careless, and reckless site doing business as "eBay," below), Blogger and Blogspot actively discourage outside contact and seem to think their little "FAQs" pages cover everything their users might wish to know.

Most readers by now know that Eric Alterman is the author of the most provocative and stimulating book on politics and the media to appear so far this year, What Liberal Media?. (And I'm not just saying that because I make a fleeting appearance in its pages.)

Today at his weblog, Altercation, Alterman asks the question, "How lame is the Weekly Standard?" [Note: Sixth item.]

Judging from Alterman's observations, I would say the Weekly Standard is pretty damned lame. But isn't that par for the course for any project in which William Kristol is involved?

Amazing, isn't it, to watch a fit of hysteria in print?

You've never seen one? Check out Michelle Malkin's latest column. For rank paranoid lunacy, this one can't be beat.

Malkin is afraid, very afraid, and she wants you to be too. The government, she tells us, isn't doing -- can't do -- enough. She's getting her war on -- not in Iraq, here in the U.S. -- and she wants your help.

Poor Michelle. One can tell she desperately wants to praise the latest collection of doodlings and scribblings of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge -- that which has been dubbed "Operation Liberty Shield" -- but she can't. ("Operation Liberty Shield"? Do these guys need writers, or what?) Malkin writes, "Instead of calling on Americans to 'prepare for the inevitability' of suicide attacks, the homeland security chief should be issuing a citizens' call to arms."

She really is a "gun nut," isn't she?

Malkin's column is a collection of oh-so-helpful and constructive advice to respond to the threat she believes surrounds her -- us, even -- at every moment. "Be sure to check out the FBI's photo gallery of most wanted terrorists on the Internet," she writes, incoherently. (It's not clear whether Malkin is referring to the terrorists most wanted by FBI or only to those the agency most wants to find surfing the web or whether there are indeed two such lists at all.)

And while the FBI may be devoting its best efforts (may being the operative word here) toward capturing suspected terrorists, for Malkin, that's not enough:

[T]he bureau needs all the help it can get....Law enforcement officials rely on civilians to look out for criminal suspects all the time. More than ever, they could use the services of citizen sentinels on guard against fugitive terrorists and sleeper suicide bombers.

Block committees of the world, unite!

And here's a gem of typical Malkin advice: "Report illegal aliens."

What a surprise. The daughter of Filipino immigrants, who can't abide the notion that anyone entered this country, legally or illegally, after her beloved parents, writes: "If you know or suspect an illegal alien, fugitive deportee or other criminal alien, call the feds."

College students, professors, administrators, and even the cafeteria ladies, have a special role to play in Malkin's hysteria: "Watch the campuses. If you study or work at a college or university, be alert....Be especially on guard against suspicious behavior if you are in the computer or engineering fields. Don't let political correctness paralyze you from reporting unusual activity."

As Malkin reaches her crescendo, the level of her psychosis becomes readily apparent:

Be always prepared. Take nothing for granted in your daily life: your trips to the mall, your commute across the bridge, your stop at the library or Home Depot.

And do what, Michelle, as we head to the mall, cross the bridge, visit the library, or buy our plastic sheets and duct tape? What, pray tell? Ah, but she has the answer:

Sharpen your powers of observation. Take note that the Islamists abroad are recruiting women suicide bombers. If you are trained and licensed to carry a concealed weapon, don't leave home without it. [Ed.: Emphasis added.]

That last statement leads me to wonder whether Malkin is herself packing heat. If so, we need far stricter gun control measures than we have in place now.

Malkin concludes: "War is here. The choice is ours: Shields or sheep? Let's roll."

Lisa Beamer, please call your office.

(Keep in mind, bloggers of all political persuasions, those dozens, hundreds even, of you far smarter and more thoughtful than Malkin could ever hope to be: She gets paid to write this tripe. Then again, Norah Vincent, she of the late and unlamented Norah's BlogJam, is continuing to scam the otherwise intelligent editors of the Los Angeles Times.)

In today's Philadelphia Inquirer there is a fascinating article about the risks the U.S. war on Iraq holds for that country's treasure trove of antiquities. In "Treasures in Peril," reporter Faye Flam outlines the country's long and rich history, and provides the reader with a clear and alarming delineation of just what is at risk, going deep underground beyond the obvious at-risk sites such as museums and mosques.

She writes:

Archaeologists fear that war and its aftermath could obliterate much of humanity's earliest heritage…."What's really at stake here is our past," said John Russell [of the Massachusetts College of Art]. "What happened here was the establishment of civilization as we know it -- codified religion, bureaucracy, cities, writing," he said.

"What developed there was modern life -- urban existence," said Richard Zettler, an archaeologist at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology….

But here's the real kicker: Until they agreed to meet with concerned archaeologists, the Pentagon was clueless about the historical and cultural implications of its impending war. Flam writes:

McGuire Gibson [of the University of Chicago] and other archaeologists petitioned the Pentagon earlier this year to try to spare the country's temples, mosques, and archaeological sites. "They were very receptive," said Gibson. He said he pointed out that the hills in southern Iraq are actually rich archaeological mounds, where people may have built houses for 7,000 years.

The military was watching 150 sites, said Gibson, so he pointed out 4,000 more. "And that's a tiny percentage," he said. [Ed.: Emphasis added.]

(To this I would just quickly note that the entirety of southern Iraq has been classified as a "no fly zone" that the U.S. and British air forces have been pounding for a decade.)

And to this day, Flam reports, the Pentagon is unable or unwilling to say how many of those 4,000 sites -- the tiny percentage sites rich in human history cited by Gibson -- have been added to the Defense Department's maps:

Pentagon spokeswoman Diane Perry said it was "imperative" for U.S. forces to try to protect Iraq's cultural sites. Many such sites are on a "no-strike" list, she said, though she wasn't sure if all 4,000 recommended by the archaeologists were included.

Meanwhile, Flam reports there apparently is a bustling trade in looted Iraqi artifacts on eBay, still more evidence Meg Whitman's eBay is among the world's most carelessly and recklessly operated businesses.

All too many of my colleagues within the blogosphere have demonstrated a strange, inexplicable even, disinclination to link to my secondary blog, or annex, TRR: The Lighter Side of Rittenhouse.

I have no idea why this is, or whether I should offended. I work pretty hard at the site and I think it's quite a good blog, and yet it's overlooked, ignored, and disregarded.

With the slight of my fellow bloggers in mind, I direct you to the weblogs of those writers wise and prescient enough to have linked to TRR. I hope you will visit them now and often:

ArchPundit

Exposing the Right

Go Fish

Long Story; Short Pier

Mad Kane's Notables

MaxSpeak

Norodogobots

Paradox 1x: Philly Blogs

Pennsylvania Gazette

Plucky Punk's Happy Land

Roger Ailes

Ruminate This

Scoobie Davis Online

Sisyphus Shrugged

Skippy the Bush Kangaroo

Sugar, Mr. Poon?

TalkLeft

VanitySite (Zizka)

WTF Is It Now?

You know, I just might start taking this personally. I might even have to start keeping track.

[Note: The post was published earlier today in a slightly different form at TRR: The Lighter Side of Rittenhouse.]

[Post-publication addendum (March 24): Additional links added as new links to TRR are created or existing links are brought to my attention.]

[Post-publication addendum (March 24): Wait, I know! If I don't raise 80 thousand dollars, like, right now, I'm just going to stomp my little steroid-shrunken feet, throw myself a little Briton-oid tantrum, and shut the whole thing down. So there! You'll be sorry! And so much for the improvements to my Cape Cod condo, eh? And you know what that means, don't you? It means...Well, it means...I might HAVE TO GET A REAL JOB!]

It has been a long, hard, and unrelenting winter in Philadelphia, almost unbearable in its intensity even for one, such as I, with a high tolerance for the cold. Worse, the recent brief respite from the harsh temperatures quickly reversed course this week, leaving this another cold night in Philadelphia -- about 45 degrees, last I checked -- during which it is also raining, raining hard.

Tonight, then, was not the most auspicious of nights to participate in an anti-war demonstration. And as one who abhors the rain generally, I spent much of today expecting to opt out of an event -- a demonstration at Philadelphia City Hall -- that I had heard first heard of just this morning.

But I live nearby and, all things considered, How much of a sacrifice would it be?, I thought. I could always drop off at a point convenient to a quick jaunt home. And if the inclement weather was pulling others away, why shouldn't I, living just four or five blocks away, take their place? And so I went.

I headed out with some reluctance and more than a little trepidation. I have only participated in two events even remotely similar to this one in the past, and neither had anything to do with U.S. foreign policy or the military. Protest marches generally are "not my thing," in part because the coverage of such events by the media often left me convinced I would feel out of place.

But this is an issue -- a war, actually -- about which I feel strongly. And with the media's characteristically skewed coverage of such events in mind, I believe it is important that someone like me -- a 40-year-old, pretty-damned "normal" looking, and generally thoughtful guy -- ought to participate and be seen.

When I arrived I felt, more than anything, old. I now know who marches against senseless and morally reprensible wars on cold late-winter evenings amid driving rains: high school and college students, twentysomethings, bicycle messengers and other anti-establishment types, and the true believers. I use none of these terms with the intent of disparaging the participants; I deploy them out of respect for their obvious conviction and the hope that I might at this point be considered a "true believer."

But I felt old and out of place, yet happy to be there with them, buoyed by their energy, pleased by their lawful decorum. They chanted loudly. I prayed and pondered silently. They played to the cameras. I turned shy when the photographers were about. They were angry. I was sad. They shouted, beat drums, and sang. I tried not to cry.

And now I'm home, drying off and warming up, and I think, We have much to learn from each other.

Do I now feel morally superior? No. Am I now bathed with a sense of self-righteousness? No. Do I believe I made a difference? No, not really. But I'm glad I went.

[See also: You March, I'll Vote (For You), Letters to The Rittenhouse Review, March 21, 2003.]

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who continues to enjoy a wholly undeserved reputation as a "moderate Republican," even as a "liberal Republican," yesterday joined with his right-wing colleagues, as comfortably as ever voting to support opening a portion of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling, an extremist position opposed by even the most moderate of environmentalists.

Yesterday's vote was largely along party lines, though, according to the New York Times, eight Republicans voted against opening this pristine stretch of the Alaskan wilderness to the rampant degradation so eagerly sought by and for the oil industry: Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), Sen. Norm Coleman (Minn.), Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), Sen. Mike DeWine (Ohio), Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (Ill.), Sen. John S. McCain (Ariz.), Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.), and Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine).

Sen. James Jeffords (I-Vt.) also voted against ANWR drilling.

Five Democrats -- Sen. Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), Sen. John Breaux (La.), Sen. Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.), and, of course, Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) -- broke ranks and voted in support of the oil industry.

Now, perhaps, with this measure set aside once again, we can have a serious discussion about energy policy in this country. Or is that just expecting too much?

The specter of Specterism: It's haunting Pennsylvania -- and the rest of the nation as well.

There's a fascinating article about José Clemente Orozco, the Mexican revolutionary painter, in the March 3 issue of In These Times that I highly recommend to all Rittenhouse readers.

The article, entitled "The Fires This Time," was posted only recently to the web, broadening its potential audience.

The author?

Christopher Capozzola, assistant professor of history at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a rising star of academia with whom, in the spirit of full disclosure, I will say I haved enjoyed something more than a casual acquaintance for the past 30 years.

I'll bet most readers have "Googled" themselves, or friends and family, at least once in the past, entering names into the extraordinary search engine known as Google.

I wonder, though, how many readers have "Googled" their phone numbers and how many would be surprised at what they find.

Ed Weiner of the Philadelphia Daily News provides advice and instructions on removing your number from Google's database in today's "Cyberia" column, "Google's Got Your Number."

I see from this morning's paper that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is still having difficulty accepting the basic premise underlying our notions of free speech and a free press.

The Associated Press reports ("Scalia Bars Taping of Free-Speech Award," by Paul Singer):

Scalia banned broadcast media from taping a speech he made [in Cleveland] yesterday upon receiving an award for supporting free speech.

Scalia did not mention the ban, which he had insisted upon, and television reporters were allowed to see him accept the City Club's Citadel of Free Speech Award before his remarks. The justice did not take any questions from reporters.

The ban on broadcast media "begs disbelief and seems to be in conflict with the award itself," Terry Murphy, C-SPAN vice president and executive producer, wrote last week to the City Club. "How free is speech if there are limits to its distribution?"…

Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio-Television News Directors Association in Washington, criticized the ban…."The irony of excluding journalists from an event designed to celebrate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech is obvious to all," she wrote yesterday.

Award committee chairman Richard Pogue said Scalia earned the award because he is a staunch defender of First Amendment rights, citing Texas v. Johnson in which the court overturned the Texas conviction of a man who burned a flag during a 1984 demonstration.

During his speech in Cleveland yesterday, Scalia expressed his purportedly enthusiastic support for free speech with these words:

"Trust me, I did not like to not put Mr. Johnson in jail -- bearded, scruffy, sandal-wearing guy burning the American flag, you know, it made me furious. But I was handcuffed, I couldn't help it; that's my understanding of the First Amendment. I can't do the nasty things I'd like to do."

Damn Bill of Rights, gets in the way of all the really big right-wing fun, doesn't it?

From today's Philadelphia Inquirer:

Minutes before the speech, an internal television monitor at the White House showed the President pumping his fist.

"Feels good," he said.

What, no high fives and tequila shots?

We have our war on now, as of just an hour ago.

I can almost hear the champagne glasses tinkling at the White House, the Pentagon, the American Enterprise Institute, the New Republic, Commentary, and the Washington Post.

Make no mistake. This is just the first of many wars planned by the insatiable warmongers of the present administration, its allies in the so-called think tanks, and among the hawkish and slavish elements of the American media.

Just today I had the misfortune of reading a brief piece by the columnist and public menace that goes by the name of Michelle Malkin. Granted, Malkin is not the most influential of pundits, but she is popular, and her simple-minded view of the world, one that would have her laughed out of any graduate seminar, is typical of her peers.

As published in the Philadelphia Daily News under the title, "First Baghdad, Then Riyadh," Malkin throws around the usual right-wing-applause-meter-ringing phrases including "half-clad, anti-America moaners," "snarling 9/11 memorial trashers," "pacifiers," and "'Kumbaya' warblers." The oh-so-pious Malkin next prays for American soldiers -- only the men, one might fairly presume -- and then expresses two reservations as the war proceeds:

1. Our nation's still faint-hearted approach to immigration enforcement on the homefront[;] and 2. Washington's unwillingness to launch a frontal assault on the deep-pocketed, hate-filled terror-backers in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Looking at her latter reservation we find that for Malkin a preemptive, unjustifiable, and immoral war upon the nation and people of Iraq is not enough: "We may wipe out Baghdad, but the war on terror cannot ultimately be won without setting our sights on Riyadh and its butchers in duplicitous diplomats' clothing," she says.

So after Iraq, it's war upon Saudi Arabia, and, if I might take a cue from the rantings and ravings of those associated with the aforementioned "think tanks" and "little magazines," then it's on to Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Lebanon, and the narrow poverty-stricken patches of parched land inhabited by Palestinians that Israel continues to occupy with brazen brutality and in defiance on international law.

As for Malkin's first reservation, what she calls "our…faint-hearted approach to immigration enforcement," its relevance at this particular moment is unclear to me. But immigration is to Malkin what welfare reform is to her equally dim-witted right-wing colleague Mickey Kaus, the stock-in-trade that must be propounded at each and any opportunity lest the issue lose its cachet. (Bookings, dontcha know?)

Why Malkin, of all people, has chosen to latch on to the issue of immigration like an angry and rabid bitch with a bone continues to escape me: In her autobiographical sketch Malkin describes herself as "the daughter of Filipino immigrants."

And so for Malkin it's "thus far and no further." Malkin and her parents are worthy of the many blessing and advantages they have won in this country she professes to love so much, but such cannot be conferred upon even one person more. Malkin's is a shockingly sad expression of deep-seated self-loathing, a fuller analysis of which I will leave to the psychologists.

Unbeknownst to most Americans, there is a major crisis in Washington: President George W. Bush displayed a furrowed brow during his televised address to the nation last night!

No big deal? No big deal?!?! What are you, nuts?!?!

You obviously haven't been keeping up with the likes of Mickey Kaus and Mark Steyn.

Mickey and Mark recently threw themselves into great lathers of righteous indignation over the subject and significance of brows, together -- actually, one after the other: Kaus, then Steyn -- rending Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) by writ of fiat simply and undeniably unfit for the presidency because of his deeply and perpetually furrowed brow. (For Kaus's ridiculous remarks, click here. For commentary on Steyn's even more absurd, and echoing, comments, click here.)

With the shallow observations of Mickey and Mark in mind, today's column by Philadelphia Inquirer television critic Jonathan Storm, reviewing the president's address, ought to have sparked a full-fledged constitutional crisis. Storm writes:

The President's speech was competent and measured. After the camera moved away from Bush's hands turning obviously phony pages of his speech as he stared relentlessly into the TelePrompTer, and after you got used to the strange and constant furrow of his brow, it was hard to fault the performance. Sure, it was generally monotonous, but that underscored the seriousness of the topic, and the President was far removed from the near catatonia of his March 6 news conference. [Ed.: Emphasis added.]

Why are the people not up in arms? Where is the outrage? Where is the revolution? Is this not intolerable? WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WITH A FURROWED BROW!

Why have Mickey and Mark not expressed their contempt for this massive personal failing and failure of President Bush? Are we truly, in the words of Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) "sleepwalking through history," our laughable punditocracy unable and unwilling to hold elected officials to the standards they themselves have set?

Or is it just that most other Americans and Canadians believe, as I do, that Mickey and Mark are stupid little jokesters, smart-assing their way to the bank at the expense of honesty and accountability?

(For the record, the record for its own sake and the record in the event I decide to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) in his upcoming reelection bid, I repeat: I have a furrowed brow. It is a deeply furrowed brow. It is a deeply and perpetually furrowed brow. My brow has been deeply and perpetually furrowed for nearly 20 years. I believe I inherited my deeply and perpetually furrowed brow from my father, as his brow also has been furrowed, both deeply and perpetually, for as long as I can remember.)

The State Department today released a list of countries that constitute the "Coalition for the Immediate Disarmament of Iraq."

They are:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan.

How many are committing troops?

I count two definites: The U.K. and Australia.

Call me unimpressed.

Why does this whole thing have the ring of an "Open Letter" to it?

You know, the kind of "present danger" correspondence the neoconservatives pass around and then publish in the New York Times, the kind of crank mail that Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter always sign that would be more at home on the "Voice of the People" page of the New York Daily News?

I should be celebrating today. It's St. Patrick's Day, after all. And, notwithstanding my surname, which is of Italian origin, I am Irish-American, my mother a descendent of the Frains of Kilmovee and the Caseys of Ballaghadereen. But I'm not celebrating St. Patrick's Day. At least not the way most Americans will observe this day.

Like many other Irish-Americans, I cringe at the tacky cardboard shamrocks, the precious little lepracháns, the silly lapel buttons, and the green beer. These are not the day's most offensive absurdities, though the last at least broaches the subject, for when it comes to the most offensive absurdity, the subject is drink.

For all too many Americans, of Irish descent or otherwise, St. Patrick's Day is simply an excuse to drink, and not only to drink, but to drink heavily, to get drunk. Packed "Irish bars," seedy roadhouses offering two-for-one specials on Guinness, and hotel bars filling the pretzel baskets with soda bread. College students, twentysomethings, and full-fledged adults drinking to a wretched and embarrassing excess. At such sights as these I not only cringe, I reel with disgust.

The image of the Irish and Irish-Americans as besotted drunkards is not only popular and pervasive, it is pernicious -- and it is a lie. As in any culture, there are and have been Irish who drank too much, but as a people, a nation, they are far from being the world's heaviest drinkers. In fact, according to the most recent statistics I could find this morning, Ireland isn't even among the top ten European countries ranked by annual alcohol consumption.

The standard, stock-image portrayals of the lazy or just down-on-his-luck Irishman drinking the dole while his children go hungry and of the miserable wife sipping sherry by the bottleful as she labors in the care of her brood have helped sell more than a few memoirs, historical novels, and films. It all makes for very moving and picturesque tales, but these are not the Irish I have known.

My grandfather has been dead for more than 30 years, my grandmother for more than 20. They aren't here for me to ask, but I'm quite certain they would be displeased to hear their grandson intended to celebrate his Irish heritage by consuming vast quantities of liquor or beer. And I'll be damned if I'm going to dishonor their memory by joining in this pre-programmed display of frat-house-quality revelry, this "harmless fun" that is nothing more than an undisguised ethnic slur.

Instead, I think I'll end the day by listening to my favorite rendition of "Danny Boy" (Carly Simon, on "My Romance"). Or perhaps spend some time with a volume of William Butler Yeats or Seamus Heany, or more challengingly, of Daithi O Brudair or Aodhagán O Rathaille. Or maybe I'll recite the Chaplet of St. Patrick, or pray the rosary using not a full set of beads but a rosary ring or bracelet, devices surreptitiously used by pious Irish Catholics when the British outlawed the practice of their faith.

Before then, however, I'm having a quiet dinner out this evening. At dinner I will lift a single glass of wine in honor of Martin and Katherine, and all those coming before and after them. Mine just a simple gesture that speaks to the quiet dignity of my grandparents and to the greatness of the Irish people.

Out to prove yet again that its editorial-page editors will print anything, absolutely anything, provided it serves the interests of the paper's most doctrinaire and/or affluent readers, today's edition of The Wall Street Journal features "The Case for Insider Trading," by Henry G. Manne, dean and professor emeritus at the George Mason University School of Law.

Insider trading refers generally, and reductively, to the purchase or sale of securities while knowingly in possession of material, non-public information. Current law on the subject is based on the premise that officers of publicly traded corporations, together with those acquainted or doing business with such individuals, should not be permitted to profit from their direct and specific knowledge of information about their companies' prospects that is not available to the trading public.

As reasonable as that premise sounds, there is a fringe element in the fields of economics and law that finds the legal basis of insider trading laws to be a horrific assault on the free market and free enterprise. Manne is quite at home among the extremists who hold this view. He writes today:

Insider-trading regulation had its primordial introduction in the muck of New Deal securities regulation, which was itself justified on the trumped-up theory that full disclosure was the best way to deal with corporate fraud and deception….

Prior to 1968, insider trading was very common, well-known, and generally accepted when it was thought about at all. When the time came, the corporate world was neither able nor inclined to mount a defense of the practice, while those who demanded its regulation were strident and successful in its demonization. The business community was as hoodwinked by these frightening arguments as was the public generally.

To present his case, Manne adds, in a clever twist of the tongue, "Since [1968], however, insider trading has been strongly, if by no means universally, defended in scholarly journals." [Ed.: Emphasis added.] Well, of course, Dean Manne. After all, many things have been strongly defended -- and wrongly defended -- in scholarly journals over the past several centuries. It is the nature of the beast. It is one of the reasons scholarly journals exist.

Manne argues, first, "that insider trading does little or no direct harm to any individual trading in the market, even when an insider is on the other side of the trades"[;] second, "that it always (fraud aside) [Ed.: That's quite a parenthetical!] helps move the price of a corporation's shares to its 'correct' level; and third, "that it is an efficient and highly desirable form of incentive compensation, especially for corporations dependent on innovation and new developments."

Giving short shrift to those he calls "critics of insider trading," Manne characterizes arguments in favor of current and possibly more restrictive insider trading laws as relying on two aggregate-harm theories. The first, he says, is the "market confidence" argument: "If investors in the stock market know that insider trading is common, they will refuse to invest in such an 'unfair' market. Thus investment and liquidity will be seriously diminished[.]" The second, according to Manne, is the "adverse selection" theory, which holds that specialists and market makers will broaden the bid-ask spreads in their books to cover for losses that stem from dealing with insiders.

Although it is clear at this point in the essay that Manne already has gone haywire, he then trots out a new, even more bizarre, "justification" [Ed.: Manne's word.] for insider trading:

Management and the shareholders of large, publicly-held corporations have a strong common interest in the accurate pricing of the company's shares. If pricing is not reliable, investors will demand a higher return in order to be compensated for assuming this added risk. Thus, all other things being equal, the shares of a company with reliable pricing of its shares will sell for more than otherwise identical shares.

Lack of confidence in the reliability of a share's price, reflected in a higher risk premium, will have several negative effects. The company will have to pay more for new capital, boards of directors and the managers themselves will have less reliable feedback on managerial performance, managers' professional reputations will suffer, and the managers will be at greater risk of displacement either through a takeover or action of their own board of directors….

No other device can approach knowledgeable trading by insiders for efficiently and accurately pricing endogenous developments in a company. Insiders, driven by self-interest and competition among themselves will trade until the correct price is reached. This will be true even when the new information involves trading on bad news. You do not need whistleblowers if you have insider trading.

And what a glorious day it would be if insider trading ran untrammeled through world financial markets:

If such trading is allowed, there are no delays or uncertainties about what has to be disclosed. There are no issues about when information must be published, or in what form. There is no need to regulate investment bankers, auditors, or stock analysts. The evaluation of new information will be done efficiently through a pure market process. Investors receive "virtual" full disclosure in the form of immediate and correct price adjustments.

Meanwhile, back here on Earth, I'm nearly speechless. I can only ask why such as Manne are called "conservatives." They are radical anarchists of a most dangerous sort. We should be glad the Journal is one of few mainstream publications that willingly and eagerly plays host to such absurdities.

[Post-publication addendum: See also Manne is Still Singing the Same Tune, at Letters to the Rittenhouse Review, March 17, 2003; and Anything Goes!, at Letters to the Rittenhouse Review, March 22, 2003.]

"Ain't nobody over there at that anti-war protest except the usual old geezer peaceniks!"

That's the message from today's Washington Post, the mouthpiece of the Bush administration, as found in "On the Mall, Songs of Old Carry Current Plea for Peace: Familiar Faces Protest Potential Action in Iraq," by Ian Shapira:

Surrounded by about 400 peace activists who carried lighted candles and posters urging "Mr. President, Please Change Your Mind," guitarist Noel Paul Stookey of the folk trio Peter, Paul and Mary mused that folk songs are always apt for political demonstrations….

Stookey and fellow trio members Peter Yarrow and Mary Travers serenaded fans old and new at the vigil below the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Organized by Win Without War, a District-based nonprofit group led by former Maine congressman Tom Andrews (D), the vigil was one of 6,000 that were scheduled in 136 countries at 7 p.m. in their respective time zones.

I see. Around the world thousands of people -- ordinary citizens: your family, friends, and neighbors -- gather to express their opposition to a war on Iraq, but what does the Washington Post find in its own backyard?

"Peace activists" and Peter, Paul, and Mary.

Hardy-har-har. Get it? Oh, please, Peter, Paul, and Mary? They are, like, so over! This motley trio has been protesting everything that's come out of Washington since the Vietnam War. There's just no pleasing them! What do you expect? They're the heart and soul of the hard anti-American left! They hate their own country! Liberals have no new ideas!

I would expect to read a piece like this in a little right-wing flyer like Human Events or the Weekly Standard, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the group's appearance mentioned at National Review's "The Corner" today, made the centerpiece of some snide and sneering missive from the likes of Jonah Goldberg.

But the Post? How sad. How pathetic. And how utterly typical.

Still more evidence we are living in the age of unseriousness can be found in the weekend's reports about Iraq. To cite just one, "U.S. Plans Rapid Transfer of Power," by Maura Reynolds, Los Angeles Times (March 15, 2003):

The Bush administration has agreed on a strategy for administering postwar Iraq that borrows key elements from its experience in Afghanistan and emphasizes a rapid transfer of authority to Iraqi leaders, a senior administration official said Friday.

The official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, said the decision had been made to limit U.S. military governance to as short a time as possible and avoid the kind of occupation that Gen. Douglas MacArthur presided over in Japan following World War II.

"We don't want to have a MacArthur-run country for a four- or five-year period," the official said. "We want to get the administration turned over to an Iraqi administration as soon as possible."

After entering Iraq, perhaps even before the fighting is over, the United States would sponsor a conference of Iraqis from all the country's ethnic groups and regions who would choose an interim government -- much as Afghans met in Bonn, Germany, in late 2001 and chose Hamid Karzai to serve as interim leader. Karzai was elected Afghan president last summer.

National security advisor Condoleezza Rice, in an interview with Arab journalists earlier in the day, described the new strategy in general terms.

"Just as we did in Afghanistan, the United States and the coalition will stay as long as we're needed," she said. "But we have no desire to stay very long at all."…

The interim administration would draw up a constitution and develop a plan for choosing a permanent government. The officials said they would recommend that the new authority build democracy "from the ground up" by organizing local elections first and choosing a permanent leadership later.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Gen. MacArthur's lengthy occupation of Japan, flawed though it may have been in many respects, both from the perspective of Japan and the U.S., ultimately prove successful? Highly successful, in fact? Japan, once a greater threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world than Saddam Hussein's Iraq is now or could ever have hoped to become, today is a loyal, democratic, capitalist ally.

And hasn't the recent history of Afghanistan, that which has played out since the U.S. withdrew following its not entirely successful war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, proved eminently unsuccessful?

Why, then, is the Bush administration eager to replicate a policy that hasn't achieved even the most basic of its stated goals?

Stranger still, for years the administration and its allies in the punditocracy and among policy intellectuals repeatedly have asserted that Arabs specifically, and Muslims generally, have demonstrated a complete inability to form democratic governments, often going so far as to suggest Arabs and Muslims are inherently incapable of such governance or that their religion and culture are antithetical to democracy.

Such talk is insouciant nonsense, we are now to believe, for the war on Iraq, we have been told, will be a quick and easy precursor to the dawning a new democratic age throughout the Middle East: the Democracy Domino Effect, it has been called, a theory the Los Angeles Times on Friday reported even the State Department's best experts consider preposterous (or at the very least, "non credible").

The Bush administration is conducting U.S. foreign policy on a wing and a prayer: We'll get in, get out, democracy will bloom, then it's on to Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, et al., and all will be well and good in the world. Just trust us.

Welcome to the Age of Unseriousness. Never have so few thought so little about so much.

Well, this is just getting too confusing.

CNN.com today reports:

U.S. government officials are discussing the current five-color terror threat alert system to determine whether a higher level of risk should be added before a possible war with Iraq, government sources tell CNN.

The debate is not over whether to add a new color, sources said. Instead, a slightly higher warning level may be added within orange.

Currently the highest level of alert is for a "severe" risk of terrorist attack, indicated by the color red. Below red is orange, meaning a "high" risk of attack exists.

For now, each level of risk has its own color. Yellow, blue and green follow orange and stand for "elevated," "guarded" and "low" risks of attack, respectively.

Sources said the current discussion was prompted by the belief of some in the government that if the U.S. takes military action against Iraq the threat level should be raised above orange to indicate an even greater risk of retaliation against Americans and U.S. targets overseas. But there is fear that raising the risk to the ultimate warning level would do serious harm to an already-shaky economy, the sources said.

Not dark orange, I guess. A higher level "within orange."

Too confusing and too stupid.

And unserious.

Please welcome these blogs, all recent additions to the blogroll -- published in the sidebar at right under the heading, Better Blogs & Such -- and visit them early and often.

A Brooklyn Bridge

A Moveable Beast

CenterPoint (Paul Helgesen)

Disgusted Liberal

Ezra Klein

Hegemoney (Chris Woolery)

Mad Prophet (C. Brian Lavigne)

Marstonalia (Brett Marston)

MediaWhoresOnline Watch Watch Watch Watch

ReachM High Cowboy Network Noose

Russian Beauty (Tatiana Kelley)

Silentio (Brad Johnson)

Ted Rall

To The Barricades!

Very Very Happy

Vote Quimby

WhiteHouse.org (John Wooden)

You Live Your Life As If It's Real

I've subscribed to the New York Observer for several years and usually have found it a refreshing, informative, and entertaining read. However, I no longer live in New York, and, as such, the weekly paper's appeal for me had waned. My subscription will expire before too long and I recently decided not to renew.

What a difference a day, or in this case, a week, makes.

The Observer's editors came out swinging, punches flying, and shooting darts in the latest edition (March 17), with a front-page editorial, "Smug President Has Painted U.S. Into a Corner." In it the editors pummel President George W. Bush mercilessly, using the kind of language we should have been hearing for almost a year now from the rest of the American media. The editorial is written with the acid-tongue contempt and intellectualy disdain, much deserved, of course, that has become almost the exclusive province of bloggers and the real liberal media (including The Nation, In These Times, and The Progressive). It is a welcome change of pace, and long overdue.

The editorial bears quoting at some length, but should be read in its entirety:

As the nation slouches toward war, the sentries of our democracy are whirling asunder and threatening to dismember their nation. On one hand, a callow and blustering President has assured us that his goal is right by confusing the despot in Iraq and the atrocities of 9/11. On the other hand, those political leaders who oppose going to war have failed through a shockingly craven silence that seems strange and almost calculated; never have opponents of a war seemed so lame and dumbstruck, almost as though they were watching an engineer drive a locomotive right into the side of a building.

Many politicians in their hearts, and at their dinner tables, call the war a folly, a potential disaster; their courage on the street is nil. "This chamber is hauntingly silent," Senator Robert Byrd told the Senate last month. "We are sleepwalking through history."

Meanwhile, the playing field is controlled by a blustering, bullying President who -- though truly committed -- seems to have regressed to his Yale persona of male cheerleader at a grim pep rally, exhorting through fear and intimidation. As he said last week, "We don’t need anyone’s permission."

The callow, smug, inarticulate man who was the lead player in a farce called "White House News Conference" gave us no new reasons to go to war, no sense of the dangers involved and no confidence in his leadership. The television appearance itself -- more a blustering tape loop than exchange with the press -- could only be called a national disgrace; President George W. Bush’s performance in front of a docile collection of game-show hosts posing as reporters ought to frighten all of us. We live in terrible times, dangerous times, and all this man can do is mouth platitudes and assertions put on his podium cards by his war-crazed handlers. Eight times he interchanged the war on Iraq with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and eight times he was unchallenged.

Amazingly, in the immediate aftermath of the President’s disgraceful performance, news outlets described him as "solemn" and "determined." These pieces must have been put together before the President actually spoke, because there was nothing solemn or determined about him; "clueless" and "lost" would have been closer.

It is astonishing that this mediocre President apparently has cowed the alleged opposition party, the Democrats, into reticence, as the elected officials who usually rush for the mascara for Sunday-morning talk shows have been hiding under Washington toadstools….

Somehow, the Bush administration’s cowboys have done the unthinkable. They have alienated friends, ruined international relationships, squandered the good will and sympathy that the Sept. 11 atrocities inspired, and turned America into a global villain. All of this, while Saddam Hussein smiles and watches the world turn in his favor, inheriting the gusts of international opinion that Mr. Bush has mind-bogglingly forfeited. Rarely in modern times has such a blundering swap taken place….

Thanks to the President and his hubristic crew of ideologues, America and Europe are not united, as they should be, in the face of global Islamic militancy. Instead, many people talk about the end of America’s strategic alliance with Western Europe. Instead of France and Germany, some say, we will simply align ourselves with the post-Communist states of Eastern Europe -- like, say, Bulgaria.

Osama bin Laden did not create this sad state of affairs. George W. Bush did.

Rarely in the face of war has the leadership in this country -- both the executive and the opposition -- served it so badly….

These are hyperbolic and misinformed times. So it was hardly surprising to hear a television commentator report, just before the President’s press conference, that Mr. Bush was not expected to use the opportunity to declare war on Iraq. It did not occur to the reporter -- any more than it has to Mr. Bush and his bunch of crusaders -- that no President has ever declared war, because no President has ever had that power. Congress declares war; it’s in the Constitution….Why? The Founders understood that the power to declare war was so awesome and so serious that it should not be one person’s decision. The test of this nation at this moment may not be creating democracy in Iraq; it may be in reacquainting the American people and their institutions and President with the glory and responsibility of American democracy itself.

That's some mighty strong language, and it's about time we started hearing it. I'd say stop the bleeding, but the entire exercise is just too much fun -- and yet all too sad as well -- to watch. Needless to say, I will eagerly renew my subscription to the Observer, and I will be equally pleased to start giving subscriptions to others as gifts.

I'm not a linguist, not by profession anyway. I'm not even an amateur linguist. But languages are to me what jigsaw and crossword puzzles are to others. These seemingly mixed-up assortments of letters and words are puzzles to be completed, riddles to be solved, and mysteries to be unraveled. They are treasure chests to be admired and respected for their own sake.

And so, while I may never meet a Swede with whom to trade god dag's or a Netherlander with whom to swap hoe gaat het's, to mention two of my current linguistic fixations, I press on.

To be honest, my goal, aside from breaking the code, so to speak, is not to speak these languages fluently, nor even necessarily to become conversant. Rather, for now at least, I'm trying to be able to read the language, "read" being defined here as the ability to grasp a typical newspaper article. I can do so with German and Italian, and, to a lesser extent French, and, with the aid of a good dictionary, Dutch and Swedish. (I'll admit it helps to know what the article is about and to have read similar pieces in English.)

Still, there is much to be said for being able to listen to a radio report, a soundtrack, or a movie in another language and actually grasp the story, the lyrics, or the plotline. Even more to be said for conversing with a stranger. And so, while I have traveled very little overseas, I hope the time and effort I have invested in this rather bizarre endeavor eventually will pay off at least a bit. And should I be in a position to travel again, I intend to pursue that higher goal.

With that in mind, it pains me to read an article like "When Grazie is Better Than 'Thanks'," by Elizabeth Armstrong in today's Christian Science Monitor. Armstrong's article, part of a vast body of literature chastising Americans for their linguistic inadequacies, leaves me conflicted.

Armstrong, ensconced in Florence, begins with an anecdote:

The moment the pair entered the cafe, something changed. Conversations halted. Eyes darted back and forth. An elderly woman rubbed her head and sighed. Somehow, everyone just knew: The Americans had come.

The two girls struck an amusing pose, both hunched forward to ease the weight of their bulky backpacks, both dressed in cargo pants and university-emblazoned sweatshirts. But they employed a loud, commanding tone -- in English.

"What kind of ice cream is that?" one of them asked the man behind the counter. He paused. "Chocolate chip," he replied, his voice rich, deep, and distinctly Italian.

"Oh, OK; well then I'll have some of that," the American stuttered, failing to specify cup or cone, one scoop or two. But the man nodded and scooped the chocolate chip gelato into a cone. "Please," he said politely, and handed it over.

When the duo left, a few diners rolled their eyes and the cafe quickly returned to normal. But I, biting into my brioche in the corner, burned with shame.

I can empathize with Armstrong's discomfort, but not with her self-described "shame." She points, out, correctly, I think, "All it would have taken was a couple words -- or charades, for the girls to communicate without using English." And Armstrong is also correct in adding these observations:

[T]he Americans were missing out on a priceless learning experience, one that might have exposed them more intimately to the Italian people and their culture. Studying a language before going abroad, even if only for a few hours, can open so many doors. The duo either didn't know, or they didn't care, that a simple "Mi scusi, no [sic] parlo Italiano" might have been met with a much warmer reception. Or that the tiniest sign of humility might stir patience and kindness, and could even have a positive, if small, influence on the already shaky image of Americans abroad….With the wealth of language preparation available in books or online, it remains a mystery why, everywhere I went in Italy, I could always hear the Americans.

Beyond these points, however, Armstrong is on shaky ground.

Her tale is replete with the condescension typical of the genre. The American girls were "loud," she tells us, unable to appreciate that every foreign language employed outside of its customary environment sounds "loud" to other ears.

Armstrong chastises her protagonists for wearing "university-emblazoned sweatshirts" (Not Abercrombie?), without conceding the universality of such garb and the prevelance of similar affectations among non-Americans, for example, the vast numbers of (English-speaking) Canadians who seem unable to travel anywhere without stitching miniature flags on their backpacks, luggage, and jackets.

Meanwhile, Armstrong has the café patrons rolling their eyes because "the Americans" have arrived, thinking not for a moment that the arrival of two "girls" -- I'm assuming they were teenagers -- into an otherwise peaceful setting often sets the eyes of adults a-rolling.

Worse, Armstrong deploys the bastardization "gelaterias," as if her (American) readers could not hope to comprehend, in context, so foreign a word as gelaterie.

Yes, I agree, Americans who travel abroad should make an effort, a serious effort, to acquire at least a respectable degree of knowledge of the language used in their intended destinations. And they should speak that language upon arrival and throughout the duration of their visits to the greatest extent possible. This is a gesture -- more than a gesture, a manifestation -- of respect for the people of one's host country.

But last I heard the geographic population center of the U.S. was located somewhere in Missouri. Travel 500 miles in any direction from Missouri and guess what the natives speak? English. In contrast, travel 500 miles in any direction from Switzerland and what language do the natives speak? Take your pick.

Few Americans speak a foreign language well enough to communicate overseas because they so rarely have the opportunity to use what language skills they may have acquired. And when Americans who try to get along with their self-taught, cassette-instructed, or rusty high-school French, Spanish, German, or Italian are greeted with impatience, exasperation, and a quick reversion to heavily accented English that isn't nearly as good as the speaker presumes, well, who can blame them?

Neil Stein, last month named "Philadelphia's Own Leona Helmsley" by The Rittenhouse Review, was back in the news this week: Three of Stein's four restaurants -- Striped Bass, Avenue B, and Rouge -- have filed for bankruptcy protection.

Stein still hasn't paid his $2 million tax bill -- he's "working out a deal with the city" -- but the restaurants will remain open for business as usual. More important, Stein gets to keep his liquor licenses, a not insignificant development in a city where prospective diners visiting an unfamiliar restaurant must call ahead to find out whether the establishment is or is not "BYOB."

And while not all is forgiven, at least here at the Review, Stein is being granted another reprieve of sorts: Barring any unforeseen future transgressions, Stein henceforth will no long carry the title, "Philadelphia's Own Leona Helmsley."

That honor now belongs to scrappy upstart and scheming parvenu, Melanie Hopkins.

Hopkins's claim on the title has nothing to do with her taxes -- not yet, anyway -- and everything to do with the fact the she is, hands down, the Queen of Mean in the City of Brotherly Love.

She even looks like Leona Helmsley!

Hopkins, identified in court papers as the "paramour" of Philadelphia City Councilman W. Thacher Longstreth (R-At Large), 82 and stricken with Parkinson's disease, at least as portrayed in the local media, is a grade-A, world-class, well, we don't print words like that at the Review.

As the story has unfolded thus far, Longstreth is currently in a Naples, Fla., hospital, a court-ordered ward of the state, as police in Florida and Pennsylvania investigate allegations he was physically abused by Hopkins, who is also Longstreth's chief of staff.

Hopkins, 62, has denied abusing Longstreth. "I never, ever hit Thacher Longstreth, or anybody else for that matter. I love him very much," the Philadelphia Inquirer quotes Hopkins as saying.

It's a sad story, a very sad story in fact, but one that urban tabloid reporters -- and readers, like me -- live for.

To offer just a sampling of the alleged misdeeds for which Hopkins has earned her new title, a few excerpts from today's report by Barbara Laker and Paul D. Davies in the Philadelphia Daily News ("Melanie Called a 'Female Rasputin'"):

City Councilman Thacher Longstreth, who slipped and fell, lay crumpled on the restaurant floor with a broken hip. Friends rushed to help the frail, sickly man, a shadow of his former self, inside a Rittenhouse [Square] steakhouse that day in April 2001. One of them called 911.

In walked Melanie Hopkins, his fiancée and chief of staff. She yelled at him to get up, one of Longstreth's friends said. They told Hopkins he was hurt. "Oh, he's all right. He falls all the time," Hopkins said, according to a close Longstreth friend. Another friend confirmed the incident. Hopkins then allegedly chewed out the person who called 911.

Surgeons later replaced his hip with an artificial device at Pennsylvania Hospital.

There's more:

One time during dinner at a restaurant in the Rittenhouse Hotel, Hopkins yelled at him for not using his walker properly, a friend recalled….

At a Union League function late last year, friends saw her snap at him to sit up straight in his wheelchair. Hopkins, a grandmother of four, later dragged him out of the chair, a friend said….

[D]uring a multiple sclerosis fund-raiser at the Crystal Tea Room in the Wanamaker Building[,] Longstreth showed up with Hopkins. His wife, Nancy, who suffers from the disease, was seated across the room at a separate table. Nancy Longstreth asked a friend to have her husband stop by her table. As the friend approached, Hopkins jumped up. "That woman is not going to ruin our evening. We're entertaining clients," she shouted, according to a close friend who was there.

Appropriately, Hopkins apparently makes liberal use of the same kind of salty language employed by Helmsley. Mark McDonald and Ramona Smith, reporting on an interview with Hortense Jackson, the home health aide who claims to have witnessed Hopkins abusing Longstreth, write ("Thacher Lives in Fear"):

The night Longstreth said he feared for his life, Hopkins had been "cursing and yelling" because a reporter had visited Longstreth "and the story didn't go as Melanie planned," Jackson said. Hopkins had cooked dinner for Longstreth, Jackson said. When the plate was ready, Jackson recalled, Hopkins said to her, "You'd better get this food and give it to the mother----er because I'm not going to give it to him."

And, just this week, displeased to see a reporter at her home, the following scene played out:

Yesterday, Hopkins reacted angrily when a Daily News reporter arrived at her Naples condominium….Complaining bitterly about her portrayal in the media, Hopkins said: "You can't be gentle and kind. You just write s---. Get out of here!" As she screamed at the reporter, she was changing a grandchild's wet clothing and complaining to her ex-husband, Dick Hopkins, who is also staying at the condo, that he hadn't been properly baby-sitting the child.

Congratulations, Melanie Hopkins, you are Philadelphia's Own Leona Helmsley!

(Other Daily News reports on the situation include: "News Not Surprising," by Dave Davies, March 13, and "Hospital: Thach Abused," by McDonald, March 12.)

(Coverage in the Philadelphia Inquirer has been more restrained and includes: "Hopkins'[s] Influence on Longstreth Long a Subject of Controversy," by Clea Benson; "Longstreth Abused, Nurses Say," by Benson and Anthony S. Twyman, March 13; and "Council Takes Action Against Longstreth Aide," by Benson and Leonard N. Fleming, March 13.)

I've sometimes joked that if you want something done right, do it yourself, but if you want something done wrong, take it to Philadelphia. That's an overstatement, of course, but there are days when I wonder. And there are advantages to living in a city that sometimes seems to take pride in its undeserved reputation for mediocrity, a city with a perpetual inferiority complex. The main advantage is that when something is done right, people notice.

And people will notice One Pennsylvania Plaza.

Not yet. It isn't finished. But as Harris M. Steinberg's early review of the plans, published in the latest edition of Philadelphia City Paper, "High Hopes," make perfectly clear, "Pennsylvania Plaza promises to be the finest addition to our city and skyline since the PSFS Building." [The PSFS Building was discussed at TRR: The Lighter Side of Rittenhouse last November, in "Philadelphia: Love It or Hate It."]

Steinberg writes:

Planned for the edge of Penn Center, Philadelphia's tepid imitation of Rockefeller Center, the smart people of Liberty Property Trusts through the clever and talented hands of architect Robert A. M. Stern and landscape architect Laurie Olin have crafted a building so finely conceived and so seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric that at first glance you wonder what all the fuss is about. Behind the tailored, Saville Row-quality of its Kasota stone exterior skin (the same golden-hued limestone used at the Philadelphia Museum of Art), this dapper piece of urbanism strikes all the right chords....

Liberty Property Trust is once again daring Philadelphia to be great. The company that in the 1980s defied the unwritten height limit of Billy Penn's hat -- unleashing a flurry of buildings that artfully scrape the sky, reinvigorating our urban identity -- now offers us a building of excellence that will quietly brush the clouds as it urges us onward. For this is a building that believes in Philadelphia's future as much as it is proud of our past.

With a nod to the Philadelphia Museum of Art in both its color and its abstracted classicism, One Pennsylvania Plaza grasps the significance of our rightful place in the history of American civic design while maintaining a keen eye toward the future. This is a building to be proud of.

What are you waiting for? Go ahead. Take a look. And then take another. And then have another.

[Note: This post was published earlier today, in a slightly different form, at TRR: The Lighter Side of Rittenhouse.]

Eli Lilly & Co. and its Republican allies in Congress are at it again.

Wampum today reports that Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the newly installed chairman of the Senate Health Committee, has introduced a bill, S 15, nobly entitled "The Biodefense Improvement and Treatment for America Act."

Sen Judd describes the measure as "a comprehensive piece of legislation that protects Americans from biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological weapons attack."

According to Wampum's report, "It's Baaack…," the bill addresses government purchases of vaccines and compensation for those injured by smallpox inoculation. But the measure also calls for "improvements in the Vaccine Compensation Program making the program more responsive to children and families."

Details are still sketchy, but Wampum is correct in saying this has an awful ring of familiarity to it.

She asks, Is this another "get out of jail free" card for thimerosal manufacturer Eli Lilly? To be slipped again into a measure couched in terms of "homeland security"?

I wonder, Is there any muck in which the likes of these will not wallow?

An excerpt from a transcript of today's a media briefing orchestrated by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

Q: Sir, support for a possible war is shrinking rapidly in Great Britain. Would the -- two questions. Would the United States go to war without Great Britain? And two, would the role of the British in an initial assault be scaled back?

Rumsfeld: This is a matter that most of the senior officials in the government discuss with the U.K. on a daily or every-other-day basis. And I had a good visit with the Minister of Defense of the U.K. about an hour ago. Their situation is distinctive to their country, and they have a government that deals with a parliament in their way, distinctive way. And what will ultimately be decided is unclear as to their role; that is to say, their role in the event that a decision is made to use force. There's the second issue of their role in a post-Saddam Hussein reconstruction process or stabilization process, which would be a different matter. And I think until we know what the resolution is, we won't know the answer as to what their role will be and to the extent they're able to participate in the event the President decides to use force, that would obviously be welcomed. To the extent they're not, there are workarounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase of it.

Q: We would consider going to war without our closest ally, then?

Rumsfeld: That is an issue that…President [George W. Bush] will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume.

We truly are about to become alone in the world.

God help us, every one.

Damned democracies! All that "procedure" getting in the way of us manly war-like studs!

We truly are about to become alone in the world.

God help us, every one.

[Post-publication addendum: For the latest on British Prime Minister Tony Blair's future, see "British Dissent Over an Iraq War Imperils Blair's Political Future," by Alan Cowell. As for the much ballyhooed and totally over-hyped "Anglo-American domination of every friggin' corner of the whole damned universe that ticks off even a single neo-conservative or right-wing nut," well, for that it's over to you, Andy. Spin that, you little freak.]

An excerpt from a transcript from today's media briefing conducted by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

Q: Sir, support for a possible war is shrinking rapidly in Great Britain. Would the -- two questions. Would the United States go to war without Great Britain? And two, would the role of the British in an initial assault be scaled back?

Rumsfeld: This is a matter that most of the senior officials in the government discuss with the U.K. on a daily or every-other-day basis. And I had a good visit with the Minister of Defense of the U.K. about an hour ago. Their situation is distinctive to their country, and they have a government that deals with a parliament in their way, distinctive way. And what will ultimately be decided is unclear as to their role; that is to say, their role in the event that a decision is made to use force. There's the second issue of their role in a post-Saddam Hussein reconstruction process or stabilization process, which would be a different matter. And I think until we know what the resolution is, we won't know the answer as to what their role will be and to the extent they're able to participate in the event...President [George W. Bush] decides to use force [sic], that would obviously be welcomed. To the extent they're not, there are workarounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase of it.

Q: We would consider going to war without our closest ally, then?

Rumsfeld: That is an issue that the President will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume.

Damned democracies! All that "procedure" getting in the way of us manly war-like studs!

We truly are about to become alone in the world.

God help us, every one.

[Post-publication addendum: For the latest on British Prime Minister Tony Blair's future, see "British Dissent Over an Iraq War Imperils Blair's Political Future," by Alan Cowell. As for the much ballyhooed and totally over-hyped "Anglo-American domination of every friggin' corner of the whole damned universe that ticks off even a single neo-conservative or right-wing nut," well, for that it's over to you, Andy. Spin that,

In a shameless act of self-promotion -- Who me? -- I direct readers to my secondary site, sometimes known in the jargon of blogging as my "annex," a site that in this case goes by the name of TRR: The Lighter Side of Rittenhouse.

What? You haven't been reading TRR? Religiously, regularly, repeatedly?

What? Your blog doesn't link to TRR? Explain yourselves! (I might have to start checking. Little Green Snotballs and all that, dontcha know?)

You're missing out on a great deal, some of it pretty darn good, if I must say so myself. (And judging from the traffic reports, I probably should.)

Among the recent entries, working in reverse chronological order:

A Story Without a Villain: An elderly woman, her dog, numerous heroes, and a few tears.

A Séance with Diana: A princess, some greedy hacks, and "reality television" hitting a new level of unreality.

The Pee Thrower Flinches: The Mainline, an attempted murder, a millionaire, and his urine.

File Under: Get Over Yourself: Jennifer Lopez, six limos, and all of 300 feet.

"Degas and the Dance" on Your Very Own PC: An artist, some dancers, a great museum, and your PC.

Marcel Marceau is Alive and Well and Still Doing That Mime Crap: Self-explanatory, I would think.

Mildred: The Two-Eyed, One-Tailed, Lying, Stupid Poo-Poo Eater: A bulldog, her excrement, and my shame.

Oliver Twist Would Have Sent This Back: An orphan, bad soup, and Campbell Soup Co. founder John Dorrance.

My Moment Musicale Has Passed: 13 pages of band listings, Philadelphia night life, and what, if anything, I'm missing.

The Ways and Woes of the Introvert: Me, me, me. I, I, I. Not that an introvert would ever say such things.

The Other Michael Jackson Documentary: Michael Jackson, Neal Pollack, and an impending call from my attorneys.

A Pharmaceutical Conundrum: Three prescriptions, four pharmacies, and no drugs.

I have a few questions for Vice President Richard B. Cheney and his wife, Mrs. Richard B. (Lynne V.) Cheney.

If Mrs. Cheney is not a public figure, why didn't she hire an attorney in private practice to relay her complaint to WhiteHouse.org Editor-in-Chief John A. Wooden?

Why was the letter of complaint to Wooden instead sent by David S. Addington, counsel to Vice President Cheney?

Why was the letter written on official stationery?

Why does the letter refer to Mrs. Cheney as "the Honorable Lynne V. Cheney"?

And if Addington was not acting in his official capacity as counsel to the vice president, will Mrs. Cheney be reimbursing the federal government for the time spent by Addington and his staff at rates comparable to those charged by Washington, D.C., law firms?

For the record, Mrs. Cheney is currently a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C. think tank that is home to numerous former officeholders and public intellectuals, and current advisers, including Robert H. Bork, David Frum, Newt Gingrich, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and Richard Perle, each one of whom, by virtue of the prominence accorded by his or her status at A.E.I. and/or accomplishments beforehand, makes him or her a public figure.

In addition, Mrs. Cheney was chairman [sic] of the National Endowment for the Humanities from 1986 to 1993. She also was a member of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the Constitution and in the past advised President George W. Bush on education issues.

There is no room for confusion on this issue from the vice president's lawyers or advisers, nor from Mrs. Cheney. She is highly educated woman who, despite having earned her bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees in English and British literature, has taken a more politically advantageous interest in history over the course of her career and that of her husband.

According to her official biography, published at the White House web site, "Mrs. Cheney has written articles about history for numerous publications on topics ranging from woman suffrage in the West and the way Americans celebrated the country's centennial to more tongue-in-cheek assessments, such as the impact of technological advances like air conditioning, the Xerox machine, and the paper shredder on life in Washington, D.C." [Ed.: Emphasis added.]

(One would think a woman who has written "tongue-in-cheek" articles would have a greater appreciation for parody. Clearly, she has not.)

I'll concede Mrs. Cheney strategically has lowered her profile of late. Her latest book, America: A Patriotic Primer, is not a scholarly work. It is described by the White House as "an alphabet book for children of all ages and their families," a characterization that might appear to include at least a subtle dig at President Bush. (And in fairness to Mrs. Cheney, her A.E.I. colleagues Charles Murray and Dinesh D'Souza have written similarly unscholarly work on the institute's dime.)

Yet as the official White House site makes clear, Mrs. Cheney is a frequent public speaker, invited to address numerous audiences, including the Fairfax (Va.) County Library, the National Press Club, the National Volunteerism Awards Luncheon, the Dallas Institute of Humanities & Culture, and the National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame.

I'll let the reader decide whether these organizations sought Mrs. Cheney's appearance because of her connection to the Bush-Cheney administration or to A.E.I.

Furthermore, in National Public Radio's archive addresses to the National Press Club, Mrs. Cheney's status is conflicted. In the archive she is identified as Lynne Cheney, "Wife of Vice President Dick Cheney." The page at the web site devoted to the address she is identified as a "senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute," but the photo of Mrs. Cheney on the same page comes from the White House.

In fact, Mrs. Cheney herself at times has been rather coy on this point. For example, she began her July 2002 address to the National Press Club with these words:

It's a great pleasure to be here today at the National Press Club. You welcomed me when I came here as [c]hairman [sic] of the National Endowment for the Humanities. I appreciated your hospitality then, and I appreciate your inviting me to come again now that I am in a somewhat different role.

"Somewhat different role"? Care to be more specific, Mrs. Cheney? Care to clarify the matter for us? Which role is it? Senior fellow at A.E.I.? Second Lady? Both? Former chairman [sic] of the National Endowment for the Humanities? All three? None of the above?

Or does she think nobody cares?

The Age of Unseriousness continues. Deepens, in fact, its hold upon our culture. (With thanks to reader B.P.)

I missed the media event called by Rep. Ney, but I have visions of Ney and his ally, Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), using black markers to deface the cafeterias' existing menus. Destruction of public property, anyone?

From the office of Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio):

House Office Buildings to Serve "Freedom Fries"

Reps. Ney and Jones Remove "French" Fries From House Restaurant Menus

March 11, 2003 - WASHINGTON D.C. - In a symbolic effort to show their support for American troops protecting freedom abroad and their displeasure with France's continued refusal to stand with its U.S. allies, U.S. Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, today responded to a letter circulated by U.S. Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), and ordered that "French fries" be removed from all restaurant menus in the three House office buildings and be replaced with "freedom fries." Chairman Ney directed this change, as well as the new term, "freedom toast," instead of "French toast," in a letter to the House Chief Administrative Officer who supervises restaurant operations in the House.

Ney and Jones will hold a press availability at [noon] today in the Longworth House Office Building cafeteria to make this name change official by changing the menu signs personally.

"Once again, our brave men and women in the American military are putting their lives on the line to ensure the freedom and security of others, and once again, France is sitting on the sidelines," Ney said today. "Over the years, France has enjoyed all of the benefits of an alliance with the United States, and all our nation has received in return is a trade deficit and a cry for help when their appeasement efforts fail. This action today is a small, but symbolic effort to show the strong displeasure of many on Capitol Hill with the actions of our so-called ally, France."

"I represent a district with multiple military bases that have deployed thousands of troops. As I've watched these men and women wave goodbye to their loved ones, I am reminded of the deep love they have for the freedom of this nation and their desire to fight for the freedom of those who are oppressed overseas," Congressman Jones said today. "Watching France's self-serving politics of passive aggression in this effort has discouraged me more than I can say. I am grateful to Mr. Ney for standing with me today as we publicly declare our support for our nation's troops and our sincere disappointment in our old friends, the French."

And a hearty laugh was had by all.

Welcome again, reader, to the Age of Unseriousness.

Media Whores Online today published e-mail received by the site's readers from officials at Casual Male and PreferredRX.

Both companies informed the inquiring MWO readers they have asked their respective advertising agencies to ensure their advertisements are not carried during the broadcasts "The Savage Nation," the weekly program hosted by MSNBC's latest and greatest public-debate-expander, Michael Savage.

Great news. Looks like it's time to order that 52/Long sports jacket I've been coveting. And make a bulk purchase of glucose testing strips.

Happy to oblige. Oh, and the boycott petition can be found -- and signed -- by clicking here.

Uh-oh...I suppose this means I'm on yet another "enemies list." That's okay, only this one really does sort of scare me a little.

[Post-publication addendum (March 17): I'm a little late in adding this, but Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) on March 7 published an excellent piece on Savage, Phil Donohue, and MSNBC, "MSNBC's Double Standard on Free Speech.")

Reader Ted Clayton has alerted me to today's "Best of the Web," Jim Taranto's blog, funded by The Wall Street Journal.

You Heard It Here First--I

"American journalism's crazy old aunt in the attic." -- Best of the Web Today on Helen Thomas, Jan. 28

"It was a bad night for American journalism's crazy old aunt in the attic."--Best of the Web Today, March 7

"She is . . . the nutty aunt in the attic of the Washington press corps."--Brit Hume on Thomas, "Fox News Sunday," March 9

And so smirking Fox News personality Brit Hume, who hasn't the intelligence or journalistic experience to pour the Geritol that Ms. Thomas so obviously doesn't require, joins the sandbox set that is the American media today.

Actually, come to think of it, Hume has been a member in good standing of the sandbox set for years now. I guess Sunday's performance, if one could call it that, was just Hume's latest contribution to the ongoing effort of this motley assemblage of back-scratching, mindless script-readers to keep real journalists out of the club -- by pissing on the good names and reputations of their superiors.

[Post-publication addendum (March 10): And I read at Liquid List that sandbox pisser ordinaire Andrew Sullivan on Friday used his corner of Salon to take a few ill-considerd whacks at Washington Post columnist, Mary McGrory: "That buffoon Andrew Sullivan decides to trash Mary McGrory in today's screed. Unfortunately for Sully, he's an idiot. And he doesn't have the journalistic credibility to rinse Mary McGrory's pantyhose in his sink let alone sit there on the page grinning like a fool and panning McGrory's change of heart on an Iraq war." Pantyhose rinsing. Not bad. By the way, there's a humorous Capozzola family anecdote associated with a similar ritual that I will spare you. At least for now.]

[Post-publication addendum March 13): Hammerdown is talking about this subject as well.]

Well, look who's back in the news: Ira Einhorn.

The Philadelphia Inquirer last week reported Einhorn is seeking to fire his court-appointed defense attorney, that as the appeal of his October 2002 murder conviction is pending before the Pennsylvania Superior Court. ("Einhorn Wants to Fire Court-Appointed Lawyer," by Jacqueline Soteropoulos, March 4, 2003.)

As widely reported, Einhorn last year -- after some 20 years on the run -- was convicted of the 1977 slaying of his longtime girlfriend, Bryn Mawr College graduate Holly Maddux.

William Cannon, a highly experienced and well regarded defense attorney, was appointed by the court to represent Einhorn in last year's murder trial and the initial appeal.

According to the Inquirer Einhorn on February 21 wrote to Cannon: "To reiterate for the third time, I no longer wish you to act in any way as my lawyer. Please inform the judge of my wishes. Do not speak about my case in public as my representative."

Einhorn, now 62, is serving a life sentence in Houtzdale State Prison, in Houtzdale, Pa. The appeal, filed by Cannon, argues, among other things, that the trial judge improperly allowed the jury to hear testimony regarding Einhorn's prior violent acts against previous girlfriends, is pending before the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Inquirer reports Cannon is confused by Einhorn's plea. "Ira has received my very best efforts at all times," Cannon said.

Cannon's contention will come as a surprise to those who closely followed the Einhorn prosecution, including observers, like me, who were not particularly predisposed toward the so-called Unicorn Killer. (During the trial, The Rittenhouse Review sharply criticized Cannon for his bizarre defense. [See, "Read Between the Lines," October 2, 2002; "Einhorn Defense Shifts From Desperate to Deranged," October 10, 2002; and "Ira Einhorn: Convicted Murderer," October 17, 2002.])

Thus, while I am modestly sympathetic to Einhorn's complaints about the quality of his defense, I would emphasize that Einhorn's case was pretty weak to begin with.

Moreover, it is ironic that Einhorn is now complaining about inadequate legal representation. After his arrest on March 28, 1979, after police found Maddox's rotting corpse, stored in a truck in Einhorn's Philadelphia apartment for 18 months, the defendant availed himself of the willing and eager representation of a man who was then considered one of Philadelphia's best attorneys.

At a hearing on April 3, 1979, bail was set at $40,000. The $4,000 bond was posted by Barbara Bronfman, one of several deluded, but not necessarily intoxicated, heirs to the Seagram liquor fortune.

After having been freed on bail, Einhorn fled jurisdiction in January 1981, just days before the start of his trial, spending the subsequent two decades mostly in Europe until he was extradited to Pennsylvania by France, where he had been frolicking nude in the countryside with his Swedish-born wife, in 2001.

According to published reports, Einhorn's attorney at the time of the bail hearing: Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

The specter of Specterism. It's haunting Pennsylvania.

There is no prepared statement at this time with respect to what has been referred to as "Capozzola for Senate 2004."

Meanwhile, use these links for up-to-the-minute commentary, observations, and endorsements from bloggers with respect to the campaign:

AintNoBadDude; Body and Soul; Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal; Busy, Busy, Busy; CalPundit; Chris Nelson's Weblog; Counterspin Central; Daily Rant (the Jane Finch side); Eschaton; Hullabaloo; Kieran Healy's Weblog; Lean Left; Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics; Mad Kane's Notables; MaxSpeak; Michael Finley; Mousemusings; MyDaddy'sBlog; Pandagon; Paradox1x; Peevish; Pen-Elayne on the Web; Pennsylvania Gazette; Progressive Gold; Raitt Stuff; Reading & Writing; Road to Surfdom; Roger Ailes; Ruminate This; Silt; Sisyphus Shrugged; Skimble; Slacktivist; So Far, So Left; TalkLeft; Tbogg; Testify!; The Agonist; The Sideshow; To the Barricades!; Wampum; Matthew Yglesias; and Zizka.

[Post-publication addendum (March 10-March 12): Additional links added as other blogs publish comments.]

One cannot help but wonder what new bizarre thoughts and theories are running through the mind of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

The Philadelphia Inquirer's March 5 editorial "Fools on the Hill," raises that question, among many others. The editors wrote:

Al-Qaeda operational guru Khalid Shaikh Mohammed may be in custody in a faraway land, but some of the targets of terrorism after which he is said to lust so perversely still have attack appeal -- and very little protection.

While most nuclear-power plants have beefed up security since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, many chemical plants have not. In the last year, reporters and environmentalists have easily gained access to critical areas of chemical plants and refineries around the country.

The sooner Congress imposes security requirements, the better….The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates there are 110 chemical plants across America where a terrorist attack could expose more than 1 million people to a cloud of toxic chemicals….

Homeland Security chief [sic] Tom Ridge and EPA Administrator Christie Whitman have called for tough federal security standards.

Instead, the Senate bowed to industry lobbyists last fall and let a solid proposal by Sen. Jon Corzine (D., N.J.) die without a vote. Seven Republican senators, including Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, actually withdrew support after voting in favor of the bill in committee. [Emphasis added.]

Despite the bad news, brought upon us by Sen. Specter and his allies, there is some hope.

Sen. Corzine has reintroduced his legislation in a new version with what the Inquirer calls "the reasonable compromises hammered out last fall." Sen. Corzine's bill would require the federal government to identify chemical plants that post the greatest risk to their surrounding areas, assess the vulnerability of these sites to terrorist attacks, and to implement and enforce improved security measure.

"It would be worse than a shame should Corzine's bill be sidelined again," the Inquirer editors wrote. "It could be a fatal mistake."

In a state with more than its fair share of chemical plants within or near its borders, can Pennsylvanians count on Sen. Specter not to make the same mistake again?

The specter of Specterism. It's haunting Pennsylvania.

I think I just read the most ignorant blog post ever written. Well, outside of Steven Den Beste's self-referentially named USS Clueless, that is.

Entitled "Helen Thomas Deserved To Be Snubbed" and dated March 7, 2003, it reads:

Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas received a well reserved snub at the Presidential press conference yesterday. By tradition Helen Thomas should of sat in the front row and asked the first question. Instead, she was seated in the third row, and not even picked to ask a question. Well when you describe President Bush as one of the "worst president ever" don't expect any favors. [Ed.: Errors in grammar, diction, punctuation, and capitalization retained from the original text.]

I don't know who this blogger is, but he knows nothing about journalism.

Nothing.

[Post-publication addendum (March 10): Speaking of people who know nothing about journalism: James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web Today" made a similarly ridiculous remark last week: "It was a bad night for American journalism's crazy old aunt in the attic…. People old enough to remember tell us Thomas was once a respected reporter, but lately she's taken to making demented pronouncements on how [President] George W. Bush is 'the worst president in all of American history.' … [A]ll Americans can cheer President Bush's decision to muzzle her at an event as important as yesterday's press conference. It's part of the president's project of restoring dignity to the office." Ah yes, the dignity of watching the tinker-toy set play their childish little games.]

Where does Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) stand on clean air for Pennsylvania and the rest of the nation? It's a question raised in an important op-ed piece published in the March 5 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Specter Changes His Clean-Air Tune," by Joseph Otis Minott, executive director of Pennsylvania's Clean Air Council.

Minott writes:

If recent events are any indication, the conservative leadership in the U.S. Senate may be trying to silence Pennsylvania's senior senator on environmental issues.

For more than 20 years...Specter has shown that he is willing to vote his conscience on the environment and to act independently from his party when it has tried to pass anti-environmental legislation. Recent actions regarding clean air, however, suggest that the pressure may be rising for him to toe the party line on environmental issues and to neglect both his constituents and his heart. ...

Specter's apparent change of attitude first surfaced last year when he voted against the Clean Power Act. This legislation sought to clean up America's oldest and dirtiest power plants by imposing reasonable curbs on concentrations of pollution in their exhaust plumes. At the time, many assumed that Specter wanted a more moderate legislative approach than the one offered. Sens. Thomas Carper (D., Del.) and Lincoln Chafee (R., R.I.) introduced just such a bipartisan bill last fall, but Specter was not among the list of cosponsors.

More surprisingly, Specter did not publicly resist when the Republican leadership of the Senate removed him from the Environment Committee, an assignment he had held only since 2000. His removal is Pennsylvania's loss. Now he will be unable to balance the strongly anti-environmental disposition of incoming committee chairman James Inhofe (R., Okla.). ...

Yet even in this role, Specter's most recent action should concern us. His vote a few weeks ago, for example, enabled the Republican Senate to defeat an amendment by Sen. John Edwards (D., N.C.) to slow the Bush administration's drastic weakening of the Clean Air Act's New Source Review program....

Specter's vote made all the difference in defeating the Edwards' amendment. In contrast, six of his fellow Republicans supported it. Specter would have been in good company had he decided to put Pennsylvania first and vote his convictions on clean air.

Once again, as his next re-election campaign looms, Sen. Specter has become difficult to pin down on issues of importance to millions of Pennsylvanians and other Americans, including those who believe Sen. Specter is an important moderating force on the Republican Party leadership.

I have no doubt we will see more evidence of the senator's political opportunism in coming months.

Let's call it the specter of Specterism. It's haunting Pennsylvania.

The Philadelphia Daily News today reports the disbanded presidential campaign committee of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) "will pay $25,000 to the Federal Election Commission to settle claims that the committee was improperly getting the senator cut-rate air fare from a campaign contributor."

According to the Daily News report of the settlement, "[T]he FEC agreed that the committee, Arlen Specter '96 Inc., 'acted in good faith' when it got the senator flights on leased Koro Aviation jets in 1994 and 1995.

Thomas A. Leonard, a Philadelphia lawyer speaking on behalf of Specter's failed presidential campaign, said the committee denies wrongdoing.

As widely reported, the FEC sought more than $600,000 in fines and penalties from Specter's committee in a suit filed nearly two years ago.

Presumably, the $25,000 Specter's committee agreed to pay will help cover the costs associated with examining this matter for two years.

Sean-Paul Kelley, of The Agonist, a prominent liberal blogger and foreign-policy specialist who generally has supported the Bush administration's planned war on Iraq, switched sides today, and in a brief post -- "Throwing in the Towel" -- declares himself in opposition.

Welcome to the side of truth and light, Mr. Kelley.

[Post-publication addendum: I see that Kevin Drum of CalPundit also has given up on the Bush administration: "I still believe strongly that we need a tough-minded long-term policy aimed at eradicating terrorism and modernizing the Arab world (among others) — and that this policy should include the use of force where necessary — but not this time. This is the gang that couldn't shoot straight."]

[Post-publication addendum (March 9): Kelley's change in course is explained in greater detail in a post entitled, "The Agony of a Liberal Hawk."]

Meanwhile, check in for commentary on the subject, including endorsements, at these sites: AintNoBadDude; Body and Soul; Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal; Busy, Busy, Busy; CalPundit; Chris Nelson's Weblog; Counterspin Central; Daily Rant (the Jane Finch side); Eschaton; Hullabaloo; Kieran Healy's Weblog; Lean Left; Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics; Mad Kane's Notables; MaxSpeak; Michael Finley; Mousemusings; MyDaddy'sBlog; Pandagon; Paradox1x; Peevish; Pen-Elayne on the Web; Pennsylvania Gazette; Progressive Gold; Raitt Stuff; Reading & Writing; Road to Surfdom; Roger Ailes; Ruminate This; Silt; Sisyphus Shrugged; Skimble; Slacktivist; So Far, So Left; TalkLeft; Tbogg; Testify!; The Agonist; The Sideshow; To the Barricades!; Wampum; Matthew Yglesias; and Zizka.

And reader L.M. writes to suggest this slogan: "Capozzola. That's One P, Two Z's."

[Post-publication addendum (March 8-March 12): Additional links added as other blogs publish comments.]

Andrew Northup of the Poor Man is blogging again, his hiatus mercifully brief.

And he's funny. Very funny.

Go over there for his take on shorter this, shorter that, including riffs on National Review, the Weekly Standard, The Nation, The Onion (surely the most overrated "humor" site on the web), "Scooby-Doo," Camille Paglia, Noam Chomsky, Joe Millionaire, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), and Natalie Merchant.

Okay, okay, a few teases. My two favorites:

Shorter Camille Paglia - I believe that Madonna is the most original philosopher of the millennium, for reasons so self-consciously contrarian that I must surely be the Smartest Girl In The Whole Wide World. My obsessive desire to draw attention to myself and approvingly recite my resume apropos of nothing speak volumes about my screwed-up psychology, much like the many volumes of Aristotle[,] which I have read in the original Greek.

Yes, I agree, Northrup is stretching it with that "original Greek" remark, but his point is well made and well taken.

Shorter Natalie Merchant - If my floppy dorm-room-tapestry dress and my limp New Age-y posturing wasn't enough of a tip-off, my latest album of Adult Contemporary-Core warblings about the fantastic wonderfulness of the eternal miracle of Me bares an explicit warning label from the Surgeon General about the dangers of aural estrogen poisoning.

Northrup's comments here remind me of a statement once made by my younger brother. Asked what he thought of the 10,000 Maniacs' performance the previous night in concert, he responded, "It was fine. Of course, I had forgotten my Natalie Merchant-decoder ring, so I had a hard time understanding the lyrics."

[Post-publication addendum: By the way, if you missed Northrup's take on public television last October, go read it now.]

The blogger I would most like to . . .

Meet for drinks in a rowdy bar: Tom of Tbogg.

Meet for drinks some place quiet: Roger Ailes of Roger Ailes.

Share a bottle of wine with: Jane Finch of the Daily Rant.

Stay up with all night talking: Avedon Carol of The Sideshow.

Buy me dinner in L.A.: David Ehrenstein of David E's Fablog

Date: Mike Signorile. (Okay, he's merely a quasi-blogger. And taken.)

Play duets with: Madeleine Kane of Mad Kane's Notables.

Read the first manuscript of my book: Jeanne d'Arc of Body and Soul.

Represent me in a civil matter: Dwight Meredith of P.L.A.

Represent me in a criminal matter: Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft.

Do my taxes: Kevin Drum of CalPundit.

Make a movie about my life: Brian Linse of AintNoBadDude.

Take on my enemies: Joe Conason of Joe Conason's Journal.

Bake for me: Kim Osterwalder of Free Pie.

Teach me Finnish: Vaara of Silt.

Teach me how to look cool: Mighty Reason Man of Very Very Happy.

Teach how to spell: Hesiod of Counterspin Central.

Do disabled Americans face discrimination?

Jeff Sutton, just one of the names on the all-too-sorry list of judicial nominees issued by the Bush administration and Attorney General Short Stick, apparently doesn't think so.

And for this reason, among others, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) today issued a statement opposing Sutton's nomination to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

So, back to the question, Do disabled Americans face discrimination?

I have no personal experience with the issue except this: I once worked for a company that was moving to new offices. As part of the move we found space and hired architects to design the interior. The Americans with Disabilities Act required that the space be built in a manner making it accessible to the disabled.

The president of the company complained as follows: "This handicapped stuff is costing us so much money. It's required now, you know. I don't know why they're forcing us to do this. It's not like we're ever going to hire a handicapped person."

What do you think?

[See also, Discrimination Against the Disabled," Letters to the Rittenhouse Review, March 6, 2003.]

Sean-Paul Kelley of The Agonist has a wife. Well, you probably knew that already. And how bureaucracy almost kept them apart. Young lovers crossing cultural and geographic boundaries vexed by the impersonal ways of a government gone mad. Their emotions toyed with, their hearts torn asunder, their love reduced to a form-in-triplicate by the cold and imperial...

Oh, sorry, I got kind of carried away there.

Anyway, her name is Tatiana.

She's new here, in the U.S. I mean, and I'm not sure she's even opened a checking account or received her driver's license, but she's blogging already, at the aptly named blog, Russian Beauty.

And she's very good. And funny. And she directed me to what I think may be the very best web site in the world. (Though I thought this one was sad. And the basketball theme they use on the masthead is pretty lame.)

"PETA SEEKS APPROVAL FROM JEWISH COMMUNITY FOR 'HOLOCAUST ON YOUR PLATE' NATIONAL TOUR"

Thus blares the headline of a February 24 press release from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

The text of the release is equally revolting:

PETA wants to stimulate contemplation of how the victimization of Jews, Gypsies [sic], homosexuals [sic], and others characterized as "life unworthy of life" during the Holocaust parallels the way that modern society abuses and justifies the slaughter of animals.

Just as the Nazis tried to "dehumanize" Jews [Ed.: And Gypsies [sic] and homosexuals [sic], I presume? Or have we forgotten them already?] by forcing them to live in filthy, crowded conditions, tearing children away from their mothers, and killing them in assembly-line fashion, animals on today’s factory farms are stripped of all that is enjoyable and natural to them and treated as nothing more than meat-, egg-, and milk-producing "machines."

Fred S. Zeidman chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council called the campaign a "desecration of Holocaust memory":

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is appalled by PETA's utterly shameless and contemptible public relations campaign equating the millions of men, women[,] and children murdered in the Holocaust to animals.

This organization has chosen to ignore common decency and desecrate the memory of Holocaust victims, survivors[,] and their families in its perverted effort to generate headlines. . . .

We urge PETA to halt this campaign and find an appropriate way to build support for its goals. An organization so concerned about inflicting pain on animals should not be so oblivious to the pain it is inflicting on humans.

Well, PETA, I'm not Jewish, so you haven't asked for my approval, but this is an issue about which I feel pretty strongly myself, and with good reason, so I'll tell you what I think.

Mr. Zeidman is right. This campaign is despicable. It is the moral equivalent of spraying graffiti on the walls of Auschwitz.

And it is infantile, which, of course, means it's just another day at the office for PETA.

This latest disgrace has all the hallmarks of a PETA campaign: It's too clever by half.

Note the group's bold-text reliance on supporting quotes from prominent Jews. (But not Gypsies [sic] or homosexuals [sic].)

Note PETA's rush to promote the campaign as one "funded by a Jewish philanthropist who has spent the past 25 years affiliated with the world's foremost Holocaust organizations," as if one man with fringey views gives PETA the stamp of approval of an entire people.

Note PETA's supplying a quote from staffer Matt Prescott with the touching yet vague addition: "members of whose family were murdered by the Nazis."

The usual scenario: A ruckus ensues. PETA perhaps apologizes. And a free ride and a good time was had by . . . PETA.

[Post-publication addendum (March 6): And while I have your attention on this, direct it to Meryl Yourish, who blogged wisely on this very subject.]

This is great. The photograph referenced in the post below -- the one in which Rush Limbaugh failed to identify Ireland -- is a hoax

This is from the Urban Legends References Pages:

Origins: The contradictory explanations of this photograph's origins given in the accompanying text are the first clue that something's amiss here -- this image can't have been both "taken by the crew on board the Columbia" and "taken via satellite."

Actually, the notation about this image's having been "taken by the crew on board the Columbia during its last mission" was added only after the fatal break-up of the Space Shuttle Columbia upon its re-entry. . . . Well before then, this picture had been circulating as a photograph "taken via satellite, on a cloudless day."

Although this image does accurately depict the landforms described and the positioning of lighted cities to the right of the day-night terminator line, it doesn't represent an actual Earth view one might see from space. Although real satellite images or data may have been used in its creation, this photograph is a composite formed by merging multiple images. . . .

Nice job, boys.

[Note: Thanks to Greg Cabot of My Daddy's Blog.]

It had been a while, so I trekked over to Andrew Sullivan's weblog today.

Big mistake.

In addition to the usual junk about how Europeans are anti-American, Europeans are anti-Semitic, liberals are Stalinists, liberals are anti-American, liberals are anti-Semitic, liberals are anti-gay, etc., I saw that Sullivan linked to Rush Limbaugh, of all people, specifically, his posting of an "extremely cool photo" taken from the ill-fated Space Shuttle Columbia.

What the hell, I'll bite. (But I won't link. Principles, you know.)

And yes, it is a remarkable photograph. Here's how Limbaugh describes it:

This is the most incredible photo. It was taken from the shuttle Columbia on its last mission and relayed by satellite, which is why we have it. What you see is the sunset in western Europe. There are no clouds in this picture. You can see much of Africa, all of western Europe, half of it at nighttime because the sun has set, the other half in broad daylight. You can clearly see Great Britain, Scotland, the British Isles, Spain, the Sahara desert. It's an amazing photo, folks.

"Great Britain, Scotland, the British Isles."

Rush, that smaller island to the left there? You see it? The green one?

We call it Ireland.

(Thanks for the genes, Mom.)

[Post-publication addendum: Turns out there's a good reason why this "photograph" is so remarkable. It's a fake.]

In the Great Debate, DSL v. Cable Modem, the verdict is in. At least it's "in" here.

The contestants: Verizon DSL and Comcast Cable.

The winner: Comcast Cable.

It was no contest. Somebody stop the bleeding.

My Bulldog Mildred yesterday became an anti-war activist, participating in the Lysistrata Project's reading of the great Aristophanes comedy, Lysistrata.

Hers was not a public reading. Actually, it was just Mildred and I reading the play at home by ourselves. And, to tell you the truth, Mildred only read for a little while.

During our reading, at which there sadly, but not surprisingly, was no paying audience, Mildred played the part of Cleonice, in honor of Clea, a Bulldog she and I helped find a new and most welcome home.

Mildred did the best she could, but there were problems. Mildred is, as her fans know, virtually mute. She can speak, but I haven't heard her bark in, gee whiz, about four years or so.

And then there's the whole "But, daddy, I don't have an opposable thumb!" issue. Usually we can work around this, though it did make holding and keeping up with the script more than a little challenging for Mildred.

You probably will not be surprised to learn that soon after abandoning the role of Cleonice, Mildred fell asleep.

And, yes, she snored. Loudly. Persistently. Delightfully.

I love you, Mildred.

[Post-publication addendum: This article was posted earlier today at TRR: The Lighter Side of Rittenhouse.]

On the subject of Turkey, and doing business with Turkey, and my current love for the Turkish people and their legislators, and, while I'm at it, sort of ripping off Atrios -- What the hell? He just lives down the street. And I could take him. -- I only have this to say:

Buy -- Don't Boycott:

Turkey
Turkish Delight
Turkish Baths
Turkish Cotton

And all the other stuff Atrios forgot: Like Turkish Taffy, Turkish, uh, . . . Turkish Studies . . . Turkish Cotton . . . Wait! No, he said that already. . . . Turkish, uh, Taffy . . . Wait, no, I said that. . . . Turkish wine. . . . Yeah, Buy Turkish wine! . . . And I don't know, just buy all kinds of Turkish stuff, okay? Until further notice.

(See "The Lysistrata Project: Reading -- and Taking Action -- for Peace," March 1.)

CINESIAS
Oh! Myrrhine, Myrrhine, in our child's name, hear me; at any rate hear the child! Little lad, call your mother.
CHILD
Mamma, mamma, mamma!
CINESIAS
There, listen! Don't you pity the poor child? It's six days now you've never washed and never fed the child.
MYRRHINE
Poor darling, your father takes mighty little care of you!
CINESIAS
Come down, dearest, come down for the child's sake.
MYRRHINE
Ah! what a thing it is to be a mother! Well, well, we must come down, I suppose.
CINESIAS (as MYRRHINE approaches)
Why, how much younger and prettier she looks! And how she looks at me so lovingly! Her cruelty and scorn only redouble my passion.
MYRRHINE (ignoring him; to the child)
You are as sweet as your father is provoking! Let me kiss you, my treasure, mother's darling!
CINESIAS
Ah! what a bad thing it is to let yourself be led away by other women! Why give me such pain and suffering, and yourself into the bargain?
MYRRHINE (as he is about to embrace her)
Hands off, sir!
CINESIAS
Everything is going to rack and ruin in the house.
MYRRHINE
I don't care.
CINESIAS
But your web that's all being pecked to pieces by the cocks and hens, don't you care for that?
MYRRHINE
Precious little.
CINESIAS
And Aphrodite, whose mysteries you have not celebrated for so long? Oh! won't you please come back home?
MYRRHINE
No, least, not till a sound treaty puts an end to the war.
CINESIAS
Well, if you wish it so much, why, we'll make it, your treaty.
MYRRHINE
Well and good! When that's done, I will come home. Till then, I am bound by an oath.
CINESIAS
At any rate, lie with me for a little while.
MYRRHINE
No, no, no! (she hesitates) but just the same I can't say I don't love you.
CINESIAS
You love me? Then why refuse to lie with me, my little girl, my sweet Myrrhine?
MYRRHINE (pretending to be shocked)
You must be joking! What, before the child!
CINESIAS (to the slave)
Manes, carry the lad home. There, you see, the child is gone; there's nothing to hinder us; won't you lie down now?
MYRRHINE
But, miserable man, where, where?
CINESIAS
In the cave of Pan; nothing could be better.
MYRRHINE
But how shall I purify myself before going back into the citadel?
CINESIAS
Nothing easier! you can wash at the Clepsydra.
MYRRHINE
But my oath? Do you want me to perjure myself?
CINESIAS
I'll take all responsibility; don't worry.
MYRRHINE
Well, I'll be off, then, and find a bed for us.
CINESIAS
There's no point in that; surely we can lie on the ground.
MYRRHINE
No, no! Even though you are bad, I don't like your lying on the bare earth.

(See "The Lysistrata Project: Reading -- and Taking Action -- for Peace," March 1.)

LEADER OF CHORUS OF WOMEN (To LYSISTRATA as she comes out from the Acropolis)
You, Lysistrata, you who are leader of our glorious enterprise, why do I see you coming towards me with so gloomy an air?
LYSISTRATA
It's the behavior of these naughty women, it's the female heart and female weakness that so discourage me.
LEADER OF CHORUS OF WOMEN
Tell us, tell us, what is it?
LYSISTRATA
I only tell the simple truth.
LEADER OF CHORUS OF WOMEN
What has happened so disconcerting? Come, tell your friends.
LYSISTRATA
Oh! the thing is so hard to tell-yet so impossible to conceal.
LEADER OF CHORUS OF WOMEN
Never seek to hide any ill that has befallen our cause.
LYSISTRATA
To blurt it out in a word-we want laying!
LEADER OF CHORUS OF WOMEN
Oh Zeus! Oh Zeus!
LYSISTRATA
What use calling upon Zeus? The thing is even as I say. I cannot stop them any longer from lusting after the men. They are all for deserting. The first I caught was slipping out by the postern gate near the cave of Pan; another was letting herself down by a rope and pulley; a third was busy preparing her escape; while a fourth, perched on a bird's back, was just taking wing for Orsilochus's house, when I seized her by the hair. One and all, they are inventing excuses to be off home. (Pointing to the gate) Look! There goes one, trying to get out! Hello there! Whither away so fast?
FIRST WOMAN
I want to go home; I have some Milesian wool in the house, which is getting all eaten up by the worms.
LYSISTRATA
Bah! You and your worms! Go back, I say!
FIRST WOMAN
I will return immediately, I swear I will by the two goddesses! I only have just to spread it out on the bed.
LYSISTRATA
You shall not do anything of the kind! I say you shall not go.
FIRST WOMAN
Must I leave my wool to spoil then?
LYSISTRATA
Yes, if need be.
SECOND WOMAN
Unhappy woman that I am! Alas for my flax! I've left it at home unstript!
LYSISTRATA
So, here's another trying to escape to go home and strip her flax!
SECOND WOMAN
Oh! I swear by the goddess of light, the instant I have put it in condition I will come straight back.
LYSISTRATA
You shall do nothing of the kind! If once you began, others would want to follow suit.
THIRD WOMAN
Oh goddess divine, Ilithyia, patroness of women in labor! Stay, stay the birth, till I have reached a spot less hallowed than Athene's mount!
LYSISTRATA
What mean you by these silly tales?
THIRD WOMAN
I am going to have a child-now, this minute!
LYSISTRATA
But you were not pregnant yesterday!
THIRD WOMAN
Well, I am today. Oh let me go in search of the midwife, Lysistrata, quick, quick!
LYSISTRATA
What is this fable you are telling me? (Feeling her stomach) Ah! What have you got there so hard?
THIRD WOMAN
A male child.
LYSISTRATA
No, no, by Aphrodite! Nothing of the sort! Why, it feels like something hollow -- a pot or a kettle. (Opening her robe) Oh you silly creature, if you have not got the sacred helmet of Pallas -- and you said you were with child!
THIRD WOMAN
And so I am, by Zeus, I am!
LYSISTRATA
Then why this helmet, pray?
THIRD WOMAN
For fear my pains should seize me in the Acropolis; I mean to lay my eggs in this helmet, as the doves do.
LYSISTRATA
Excuses and pretences every word! The thing's as clear as daylight. Anyway, you must stay here now till the fifth day, your day of purification.
THIRD WOMAN
I cannot sleep any more in the Acropolis, now I have seen the snake that guards the temple.
FOURTH WOMAN
Ah! and those awful owls with their dismal hooting! I cannot get a wink of rest, and I'm just dying of fatigue.
LYSISTRATA
You wicked women have done with your falsehoods! You want your husbands, that's plain enough. But don't you think they want you just as badly? They are spending dreadful nights, oh! I know that well enough. But hold out, my dears, hold out! A little more patience, and the victory will be ours. An oracle promises us success, if only we remain united. Shall I repeat the words?
THIRD WOMAN
Yes, tell us what the oracle declares.
LYSISTRATA
Silence then! Now, "Whenas the swallows, fleeing before the hoopoes, shall have all flocked together in one place, and shall refrain them from all amorous commerce, then will be the end of all the ills of life; yea, and Zeus, who doth thunder in the skies, shall set above what was erst below...."
THIRD WOMAN
What? Shall the men be underneath?
LYSISTRATA
"But if dissension do arise among the swallows, and they take wing from the holy temple, it will be said there is never a more wanton bird in all the world."
THIRD WOMAN
Ye gods, the prophecy is clear.
LYSISTRATA
Nay, never let us be cast down by calamity! let us be brave to bear, and go back to our posts. It would be shameful indeed not to trust the promises of the oracle.

(See "The Lysistrata Project: Reading -- and Taking Action -- for Peace," March 1.)

MAGISTRATE
And how, pray, would you propose to restore peace and order in all the countries of Greece?
LYSISTRATA
It's the easiest thing in the world!
MAGISTRATE
Come, tell us how; I am curious to know.
LYSISTRATA
when we are winding thread, and it is tangled, we pass the spool across and through the skein, now this way, now that way; even so, to finish of the war, we shall send embassies hither and thither and everywhere, to disentangle matters.
MAGISTRATE
And is it with your yarn, and your skeins, and your spools, you think to appease so many bitter enmities, you silly women?
LYSISTRATA
If only you had common sense, you would always do in politics the same as we do with our yarn.
MAGISTRATE
Come, how is that, eh?
LYSISTRATA
First we wash the yarn to separate the grease and filth; do the same with all bad citizens, sort them out and drive them forth with rods-they're the refuse of the city. Then for all such as come crowding up in search of employments and offices, we must card them thoroughly; then, to bring them all to the same standard, pitch them pell-mell into the same basket, resident aliens or no, allies, debtors to the State, all mixed up together. Then as for our Colonies, you must think of them as so many isolated hanks; find the ends of the separate threads, draw them to a centre here, wind them into one, make one great hank of the lot, out of which the public can weave itself a good, stout tunic.
MAGISTRATE
Is it not a sin and a shame to see them carding and winding the State, these women who have neither art nor part in the burdens of the war?
LYSISTRATA
What! Wretched man! Why, it's a far heavier burden to us than to you. In the first place, we bear sons who go off to fight far away from Athens.
MAGISTRATE
Enough said! do not recall sad and sorry memories!
LYSISTRATA
Then secondly, instead of enjoying the pleasures of love and making the best of our youth and beauty, we are left to languish far from our husbands, who are all with the army. But say no more of ourselves; what afflicts me is to see our girls growing old in lonely grief.
MAGISTRATE
Don't the men grow old too?
LYSISTRATA
That is not the same thing. When the soldier returns from the wars, even though he has white hair, he very soon finds a young wife. But a woman has only one summer; if she does not make hay while the sun shines, no one will afterwards have anything to say to her, and she spends her days consulting oracles that never send her a husband.

(See "The Lysistrata Project: Reading -- and Taking Action -- for Peace," March 1.)

MAGISTRATE (addressing the women)
I would ask you first why you have barred our gates.
LYSISTRATA
To seize the treasury; no more money, no more war.
MAGISTRATE
Then money is the cause of the war?
LYSISTRATA
And of all our troubles. It was to find occasion to steal that Pisander and all the other agitators who were forever raising revolutions. Well and good! But they'll never get another drachma here.
MAGISTRATE
What do you propose to do then, pray?
LYSISTRATA
You ask me that! Why, we propose to administer the treasury ourselves.
MAGISTRATE
You do?
LYSISTRATA
What is there in that to surprise you? Do we not administer the budget of household expenses?
MAGISTRATE
But that is not the same thing.
LYSISTRATA
How so, not the same thing?
MAGISTRATE
It is the treasury supplies the expenses of the war.
LYSISTRATA
That's our first principle -- no war!
MAGISTRATE
What! And the safety of the city?
LYSISTRATA
We will provide for that.
MAGISTRATE
You?
LYSISTRATA
Yes, we!
MAGISTRATE
What a sorry business!
LYSISTRATA
Yes, we're going to save you, whether you like it or not.
MAGISTRATE
Oh! The impudence of the creatures!
LYSISTRATA
You seem annoyed! But it has to be done, nevertheless.
MAGISTRATE
But it's the very height of iniquity!
LYSISTRATA
(testily) We're going to save you, my good man.
MAGISTRATE
But if I don't want to be saved?
LYSISTRATA
Why, all the more reason!

(See "The Lysistrata Project: Reading -- and Taking Action -- for Peace," March 1.)

LAMPITO
For ourselves, no doubt we shall persuade our husbands to conclude a fair and honest peace; but there is the Athenian populace, how are we to cure these folk of their warlike frenzy?
LYSISTRATA
Have no fear; we undertake to make our own people listen to reason.
LAMPITO
That's impossible, so long as they have their trusty ships and the vast treasures stored in the temple of Athene.
LYSISTRATA
Ah! But we have seen to that; this very day the Acropolis will be in our hands. That is the task assigned to the older women; while we are here in council, they are going, under pretence of offering sacrifice, to seize the citadel.
LAMPITO
Well said indeed! Everything is going for the best.
LYSISTRATA
Come, quick, Lampito, and let us bind ourselves by an inviolable oath.
LAMPITO
Recite the terms; we will swear to them.
LYSISTRATA
With pleasure. Where is our Scythian policewoman? Now, what are you staring at, pray? Lay this shield on the earth before us, its hollow upwards, and someone bring me the victim's inwards.
CLEONICE
Lysistrata, say, what oath are we to swear?
LYSISTRATA
What oath? Why, in Æschylus, they sacrifice a sheep, and swear over a buckler; we will do the same.
CLEONICE
No, Lysistrata, one cannot swear peace over a buckler, surely.
LYSISTRATA
What other oath do you prefer?
CLEONICE
Let's take a white horse, and sacrifice it, and swear on its entrails.
LYSISTRATA
But where shall we get a white horse?
CLEONICE
Well, what oath shall we take then?
LYSISTRATA
Listen to me. Let's set a great black bowl on the ground; let's sacrifice a skin of Thasian wine into it, and take oath not to add one single drop of water.
LAMPITO
Ah! That's an oath pleases me more than I can say.
LYSISTRATA
Let them bring me a bowl and a skin of wine.
CLEONICE
Ah! My dears, what a noble big bowl! What fun it will be to empty it
LYSISTRATA
Set the bowl down on the ground, and lay your hands on the victim. Almighty goddess, Persuasion, and thou, bowl, boon comrade of joy and merriment, receive this our sacrifice, and be propitious to us poor women!
CLEONICE (as LYSISTRATA pours the wine into the bowl)
Oh! The fine red blood! How well it flows!
LAMPITO
And what a delicious bouquet, by Castor!
CLEONICE
Now, my dears, let me swear first, if you please.
LYSISTRATA
No, by Aphrodite, unless it's decided by lot. But come, then, Lampito, and all of you, put your hands to the bowl; and do you, Cleonice, repeat for all the rest the solemn terms I am going to recite. Then you must all swear, and pledge yourselves by the same promises: I will have naught to do whether with lover or husband…
CLEONICE (faintly)
I will have naught to do whether with lover or husband...
LYSISTRATA
Albeit he come to me with an erection...
CLEONICE (her voice quavering)
Albeit he come to me with an erection...
(in despair) Oh! Lysistrata, I cannot bear it!
LYSISTRATA
(ignoring this outburst) I will live at home unbulled...
CLEONICE
I will live at home unbulled...
LYSISTRATA
Beautifully dressed and wearing a saffron-colored gown…
CLEONICE
Beautifully dressed and wearing a saffron-colored gown...
LYSISTRATA
To the end I may inspire my husband with the most ardent longings.
CLEONICE
To the end I may inspire my husband with the most ardent longings.
LYSISTRATA
Never will I give myself voluntarily...
CLEONICE
Never will I give myself voluntarily...
LYSISTRATA
And if he has me by force...
CLEONICE
And if he has me by force...
LYSISTRATA
I will be cold as ice, and never stir a limb...
CLEONICE
I will be cold as ice, and never stir a limb...
LYSISTRATA
I will neither extend my Persian slippers toward the ceiling...
CLEONICE
I will neither extend my Persian slippers toward the ceiling...
LYSISTRATA
Nor will I crouch like the carven lions on a knife-handle.
CLEONICE
Nor will I crouch like the carven lions on a knife-handle.
LYSISTRATA
And if I keep my oath, may I be suffered to drink of this wine.
CLEONICE (more courageously)
And if I keep my oath, may I be suffered to drink of this wine.
LYSISTRATA
But if I break it, let my bowl be filled with water.
CLEONICE
But if I break it, let my bowl be filled with water.
LYSISTRATA
Will you all take this oath?
ALL
We do.
LYSISTRATA
Then I'll now consume this remnant. (She drinks.)
CLEONICE (reaching for the cup)
Enough, enough, my dear; now let us all drink in turn to cement our friendship.

The Lysistrata Project is a nonprofit organization seeking political, economic, and social rights and justice for women around the world. Distracted, as we all are, by the Bush administration's mindless campaign for war and destruction everywhere, the Lysistrata Project's long-term agenda temporarily has taken a back seat to opposition to the impending, and apparently unstoppable, war upon Iraq.

As part of the group's contribution to the anti-war effort, the Lysistrata Project is sponsoring a worldwide reading of the Aristophanes masterpiece Lysistrata on Monday, March 3: At last count 919 readings are scheduled in 56 countries.

Although written and first performed more than 2,000 years ago, Lysistrata is a unique and timeless classic work that speaks with force to the current age. In this ancient Greek comedy, women from opposing states unite in an effort to end the Peloponnesian War by withholding intimate relations from their husbands. Eventually, unable to endure the, uh, cold shoulder any longer, the warriors on all sides put down their weapons and launch a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.

Never heard of it? Never read it? Don't feel bad. But you're an adult now, and this is one of the great works of world literature that you've been promising yourself for the last 10, 20, or 30 years that you would eventually catch up on.

So get with the program!

Too lazy to read Lysistrata? Then go out on Monday and have it read to you.

Among the Project's highest-profile readings is that which will take place at the Brooklyn Academy of Music's Harvey Theatre (651 Fulton St., Brooklyn, N.Y.) beginning at 7:30 p.m. on Monday evening. Readers include F. Murray Abraham, Kevin Bacon, Kathleen Chalfant, Kathryn Grody, Delphi Harrington, Bill Irwin, Mercedes Ruehl, Kyra Sedgwick, Lori Singer, and David Strathairn. (Admission is free, but the Project has suggested a $20 donation. Tickets will be distributed on a first come/first served basis. Doors open at 6:00 p.m. The New York reading, like money others, is collecting funds for humanitarian and relief organizations.)

Readings in the Philadelphia area will be held at: HUB South, 1914 S. 7th St.; The Theatre at 2111 Sansom Street, 2111 Sansom St.; the Hermitage Mansion, 700 Hermit Lane; the University of the Sciences, 43rd St. and Woodland Ave.; the Lusty Cup Café, Canaday Library, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pa.; and at Upper Tarble, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa.

To find a reading in a city near you, click here

I'm hoping anti-war bloggers will find their own ways to participate in this unique event. Perhaps anti-war bloggers who cannot join or attend a reading of Lysistrata could find time between now and Monday to read the play and select an excerpt or two to republish on their sites that day.

Due to a series of previous obligations, it is unlikely I will be able to attend any of the readings planned for the Philadelphia area. However, during the downtime at midday that characterizes my regular work schedule, I will be reading Lysistrata here, in my humble abode, out loud, to myself and to Mildred (assuming she's awake).

Does that sound strange to you? Really?

I don't care. Waging a senseless and unjustifiable war upon the people of Iraq and launching the 21st Century Crusades both sound far more bizarre to me. I'd rather talk to myself and my dog for a few hours than read endless lists of the names of the latest dead Americans, Britons, Australians, and Iraqis.