Don't Mention the Assassination

The public rules of political engagement are awfully complicated - who can possibly figure it out? Now Hillary is in hot water for violating yet another hitherto unknown taboo. In explaining why she will fight on, she said: My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it." I don't understand it either. What's the problem?

Obama and the Court

A commenter on my last Obama-no-worse-than-McCain post asked, as surely will John McCain in his desperate efforts to hold onto "his" base,What about the Supreme Court?

One thing to keep in mind is that the Court's right wing core is not likely to go anywhere soon. Scalia is the oldest of the 4, a spry 72. Even Anthony Kennedy, the court's conservative-leaning swing vote, is a mere 71. He's had some minor heart issues (a couple cardiac stents were inserted a few years back), but otherwise he can be expected to outlast an Obama administration. So there's little chance Obama could undo Bush's only worthwhile contribution to civilization.

So Obama will likely only have a chance to replace one liberal justice with a more liberal one. Justice Stevens is the oldest justice and quite liberal (particularly for a Republican), but he is at 88 apparently the picture of health. Still, he's probably the best bet to take the opportunity of a Democratic administration to call it quits. But how much more liberal a justice is Obama likely to nominate? Probably not much. Justice Ginsburg has had treatment for colon cancer, and might be the next most likely to retire, but again you can't get a whole lot more liberal than she. Breyer, the most moderate of the liberals, and Souter, a bit less moderate, are young and there for the long haul. So for the next 4 years at least we're pretty safe.

Of course there's a lot more federal judicial appointments Obama will be making, and there he can do real damage, but that's the way it goes. I'm not going to endorse electing a lunatic just to have a chance at some decent court appointees.

Gone Ol' Party

The Republican Party appears to be entering a deep, brutal political winter, and few things in politics are more deserved. The Politico has reported that Republicans expect to lose up to 20 more seats this year, and seem to be at wit's end as to what to do about it. Former Rep. Mickey Edwards, an Oklahoma Republican, said: “I don’t know that I have seen a year like this, ever. The general attitude toward Republicans is so bad nationally.” Plus, they have no money. I know I've been deleting email after email from NRCC chairman Tom Cole begging for support, and apparently that's the norm - they have no money. The NRCC is basically telling their House members that their on their own.

The Iraq war is the most obvious problem, but the disease runs deeper. What did the Republicans accomplish? Yesterday's California Supreme Court decision mandating gay marriage is a case in point. Back in the Clinton years, the Republicans passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which allowed states to set their own rules but ensured that gay marriages would not be imposed on states that did not want them. Fair enough. But then the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, and the issue arose anew, as it became clear that activist judges could impose this social revolution by fiat. The Republicans had an opportunity to push a constitutional amendment that would have taken the issue out of the hands of the courts and ensured it could only be decided by popular vote. But they preferred instead to use it as a political weapon - a wedge issue - with which to bludgeon Democrats. So they proposed an amendment that would ban gay marriage outright everywhere for all time, and of course it went nowhere. A more moderate amendment could have passed easily, but then they would have lost the issue. Instead, we now find that the largest state in the Union has now mandated a potentially society-redefining revolution based on the opinion of 4 people!

We needn't go into the rest of the failures - massive budget deficits, massive trade deficits, continued mass immigration on an unprecedented scale, further balkanization of our society, a foreign policy predicated on the insane notion that small, rag-tag gangs of terrorists and belligerent though militarily impotent and inept states constitute a threat of equal danger to the U.S. as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

Here's announced-libertarian candidate Bob Barr on the Federal Marriage Amendment. The former congressman is surely performing a valuable public service by providing us a meaningful way not to vote for McCain without having to actually vote for Obama. But do we want Obama as president rather than McCain?

Of course. Obama will do little differently as president than McCain, except for one critical item: he will get us out of Iraq earlier than 2013. Now I'm not naive enough to think Obama will actually just pull us out of there, damn the consequences. I think he should - better to allow the Iraqis to fight it out and come up with a solution quickly than for us to sit their for five (or fifty) more years, bleeding red and green to accomplish nothing better than could be accomplished via an all out two-year civil war. But I'm pretty sure he will get us out of there within a few years. Otherwise, does anyone really think that McCain's insatiable desire to be loved by today's Illuminati (NYT, WaPo, NPR, Jon Stewart(yes, Jon Stewart!)) will not have him working with the Democratic congress to continue the massive growth of government?

But let's look on the bright side. Under Obama, the healing of our military can begin. Perhaps we will actually reduce our military spending to a level more in line with the actual dangers we face (and our ability to pay). Yes, social spending and intrusive federal management of our lives will grow. But one thing pessimistic observers often overlook is that the basic function of the free market is alive and well. The concept of competitive pricing and private ownership of capital rules the world, in Russia, in China, across Europe, South America - pretty much everywhere. No one is proposing a return of welfare - ever hear Obama or Hillary suggest we bring back welfare? While some (mostly sensible) prison-sentencing, police-interrogation and drug-legislation reforms are brought up, no one is suggesting that we have too much law enforcement or that violent criminals are being treated too harshly. And neither Obama nor Hillary could possibly bring about the rebirth of the Soviet Union and its drive for world domination. In short, some of the most fundamental conservative victories of the last 30 years are safely with us and will endure whatever might transpire over the next 4 years. And I'm pretty sure the Democrats have learned their lesson from last time they controlled the government - the 1994 Gingrich Revolution. So cheer up - the really bad stuff - the demographic disaster - won't happen for another couple decades.

Georgia On Our Minds

From the NYT Editors:

NATO needs to work with both sides to defuse the growing crisis. France and Germany, which argued for putting off Georgia’s membership, have a special responsibility. They can start by sending envoys to meet with Mr. Medvedev and make clear that they, and the rest of NATO, are committed to Georgia’s security and independence — and will be watching closely to see how he handles this first crisis.

Why, why, why? Why should France, Germany, the USA or Trinidad and Tobago care about how this little affair turns out? How is it any concern of ours how Russia treats the homeland of Joseph Stalin? We should have as little say in how Putin or Medvedev deals with Georgia than Czar Alexander II should have had to say about how Abraham Lincoln and William Tecumseh Sherman dealt with Georgia. I don't get it. Alright, Europe can try to broker a peace, because nothing good can come from a war there, but otherwise - who cares?

McCain Courting Hispanic Voters

Yes, he's back at it. Although Steve Sailer has demonstrated that very few Hispanics actually vote and they preponderantly vote for Democrats when they do, this might not be a complete waste for McCain this year - assuming Obama is the nominee. Much to Hillary's benefit, Hispanics voters have proven to be somewhat averse to voting for the junior senator from Illinois - they no doubt object to the lack of mandates in his health care plan. And McCain will need every vote he can get, even though, despite having an insane approach to foreign policy, being completely clueless on economic policy, and believing that America's future depends on a large, steady flow of cheap immigrant labor, he will still get the vote of every idiot Republican in the country (including, I'm afraid, this idiot Republican as well).

America's Future in Newsweek

A surprisingly good article by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek on America's future. He's been on the talk shows the past week promoting his new book, from which this article is excerpted, but I didn't have a sense it would be particularly convincing - he sounded a bit like a Friedmanesque globalism cheerleader. But I wish he had highlighted this bit on the foreign policy "challenges" facing the U.S.

Some point to the dangers posed by countries like Iran. These rogue states present real problems, but look at them in context. The American economy is 68 times the size of Iran's. Its military budget is 110 times that of the mullahs. Were Iran to attain a nuclear capacity, it would complicate the geopolitics of the Middle East. But none of the problems we face compare with the dangers posed by a rising Germany in the first half of the 20th century or an expansionist Soviet Union in the second half. Those were great global powers bent on world domination. If this is 1938, as some neoconservatives tell us, then Iran is Romania, not Germany.

Yes, exactly. We have nothing to fear from these 'rogue' countries - they can barely influence their dysfunctional neighbors, never mind have any affect on the world stage.

Others paint a dark picture of a world in which dictators are on the march. China and Russia and assorted other oil potentates are surging. We must draw the battle lines now, they warn, and engage in a great Manichean struggle that will define the next century. Some of John McCain's rhetoric has suggested that he adheres to this dire, dyspeptic view. But before we all sign on for a new Cold War, let's take a deep breath and gain some perspective. Today's rising great powers are relatively benign by historical measure. In the past, when countries grew rich they've wanted to become great military powers, overturn the existing order, and create their own empires or spheres of influence. But since the rise of Japan and Germany in the 1960s and 1970s, none have done this, choosing instead to get rich within the existing international order. China and India are clearly moving in this direction. Even Russia, the most aggressive and revanchist great power today, has done little that compares with past aggressors. The fact that for the first time in history, the United States can contest Russian influence in Ukraine—a country 4,800 miles away from Washington that Russia has dominated or ruled for 350 years—tells us something about the balance of power between the West and Russia.

This has been a consistent gripe of Pat Buchanan's - why are we making enemies of Russia? Why are we constantly tweaking the bear's nose about bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and setting up radar installations in the Czech Republic to deter Iran (what a joke!)?

Compare Russia and China with where they were 35 years ago. At the time both (particularly Russia) were great power threats, actively conspiring against the United States, arming guerrilla movement across the globe, funding insurgencies and civil wars, blocking every American plan in the United Nations. Now they are more integrated into the global economy and society than at any point in at least 100 years. They occupy an uncomfortable gray zone, neither friends nor foes, cooperating with the United States and the West on some issues, obstructing others. But how large is their potential for trouble? Russia's military spending is $35 billion, or 1/20th of the Pentagon's. China has about 20 nuclear missiles that can reach the United States. We have 830 missiles, most with multiple warheads, that can reach China. Who should be worried about whom? Other rising autocracies like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are close U.S. allies that shelter under America's military protection, buy its weapons, invest in its companies, and follow many of its diktats. With Iran's ambitions growing in the region, these countries are likely to become even closer allies, unless America gratuitously alienates them.

Right. Unfortunately, this is McCain's insane view of the world - every single government that disagrees with America is a potential Nazi Germany that must be crushed before it rises to conquer the world!

In July 2006, I spoke with a senior member of the Israeli government, a few days after Israel's war with Hezbollah had ended. He was genuinely worried about his country's physical security. Hezbollah's rockets had reached farther into Israel than people had believed possible. The military response had clearly been ineffectual: Hezbollah launched as many rockets on the last day of the war as on the first. Then I asked him about the economy—the area in which he worked. His response was striking. "That's puzzled all of us," he said. "The stock market was higher on the last day of the war than on the first! The same with the shekel." The government was spooked, but the market wasn't.

That's because the deaths of a dozen or so Israelis each year from random rockets fired off from Gaza is hardly a threat to Israel's security (never mind being a strategic concern of the U.S.). Israel is as dominant in the Middle East as the U.S. is in the world. People dying from rockets is sad and unfortunate, but hardly a basis for dramatic national action.

I haven't gotten to the rest of the article, which I presumes covers economic and social issues, but I'm glad he provided this bit of perspective - hopefully people hear it.

Disingenuousness Defined

By Frank Rich, in today's column that the editors labeled "The All-White Elephant in the Room." In this little rant, Rich expresses his frustration at how the press is so soft on Republicans and so hard on Democrats(!). He notes: "The Clintons and Mr. Obama are always held accountable for their racial stands, as they should be, but the elephant in the room of our politics is rarely acknowledged: In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington." He then closes with this gem:

Anyone who does the math knows that America is on track to become a white-minority nation in three to four decades. Yet if there’s any coherent message to be gleaned from the hypocrisy whipped up by Hurricane Jeremiah, it’s that this nation’s perennially promised candid conversation on race has yet to begin.

Yeah, sure - Frank Rich wants a candid conversation about race about as much as Stalin wanted a candid conversation about Socialism. Here's an example of one of Mr. Rich's "candid conversations" about race, a screed against Clarence Thomas and how soft the press is on him(!). Does it sound like he's interested in speaking candidly? It would be interesting to imagine what Frank Rich would consider his ideal candid conversation:

White Man: I vote Republican because I'm afraid black men will break into my house and rape my wife and daughters and steal my flat-screen TV.
Frank Rich: Don't you see that the Republicans just plant these fears into your head to distract you from larger issues such as health care and tax breaks for the wealthy and trans-gender rights?
White Man: Of course you're right. How could I be so gullible?
Black Man: All I want is for all people to live in harmony and have the opportunity to fully develop their potential, no matter their color or gender preference.
Rich: Thank you, gentlemen, for this candid conversation.

Cops and Bloggers

Well I certainly got some major feedback on my defense of cops - particularly regarding the Ruby Ridge outrage. I appreciated all the comments, even the one that concluded "Go f*** yourself, you neocon twit" (sans *) which I resented but only for the "neocon" accusation. My defense of police in these kinds of situations should not be viewed as an endorsement of prevailing police practices, of crooked or pathological cops or of blanket police immunity. I believe I am falling back on traditional legal concepts of intent and reasonable doubt. The questions to be asked whenever a cop is on trial (when anybody is on trial) are "Was there an intent to commit a crime?" and "Is he guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

The above mentioned commenter observed:

You are obviously one of those typical New York-area assholes who worships anything the cops do. Its the likes of you who gave rise to that creep Giuliani. Its because of dipshits like you, Ziel, that we're becoming a police state.

No, I don't worship anything the cops do. I hate SWAT teams - they are an abomination. A SWAT team is almost never necessary, but they're permanently ensconced in the police infrastructure, and thus need to be constantly justified by being used - inappropriately, and often with terrible consequences for life and property. I don't like the routine use of restraints and humiliation tactics during arrests and the offhand tasering of women.

But he has a point - I am from the New York area and am aware of what the police must deal with on a daily basis in this region. More important, I saw what the aggressive policing style of the 90's has brought about - the NYC miracle, where a city on the verge of complete chaos has become a veritable municipal disneyland. Sure, I'd rather guys at Yankee games aren't hassled in the parking lots for drinking out of beer bottles or peeing against the fence, but when a populace is badly behaved and lawlessness is rampant, society has the right and duty to enforce its norms.

Other commenters pointed to the bullying behavior of many cops and a general "jerkiness" of cops. Of course there are out-and-out psychopaths, jerks, bullies, and common thugs among the police. This is regrettable, but a bit unavoidable to some extent given that it's an awfully tough job (when it's a tough job) and not terribly well paying. As one commenter noted, 90% (perhaps more) of who cops deal with are scum, so it takes a bit for them to adjust to normal folk - and even then, many of the regular folk they deal with end up being scum, too. Then we give these guys tremendous power - power of life and death, since we give them guns. Of course they're going to fuck up now and then with tragic results. But it's important to keep perspective on what's a fuck-up vs. what is a criminal act, and never to prosecute someone based on a mob's emotions. There's nothing wrong with people venting their anger, but prosecutions and convictions must be based on facts.

NYC Shooting Detectives Get Off!

The day that Al Sharpton gets to decide who goes to jail and who doesn't has once again been delayed - hopefully that day won't be as soon as next January 20. I'm not real crazy about prosecuting officers of the law for actions taken in the course of doing their jobs. I mean, we give them guns, we tell them to maintain the peace, and to pretty much use their own discretion in doing so. Yes, there are rules, but all these rules ultimately require a judgment call on the part of the officer.

So if a cop is acting in his capacity as a police officer in good faith and ends up killing someone who probably should not have been killed, I don't see how we can call it a crime - incompetence, perhaps. Maybe (probably?) he should be fired for showing bad judgment, but mistakes aren't crimes (or they shouldn't be, at least). Screwing up on the job is not typically a crime - imagine failing to follow up on an important sales call, and being indicted for reckless procrastination.

I feel this way about Ruby Ridge, as well. Clearly there was no justification for anything law enforcement did in this tragic case, but I can't see charging the agents with crimes. There should have been mass firings, but not indictments (which there effectively weren't).

Now I'm not saying the police are immune to prosecution - obviously if they kill someone for personal gain or to cover up an act or to settle a score or out of hatred, it's a different story. But when it occurs in the course of official conduct and involves judgment calls, it's not a crime.

Examples of innocent officers: The Rodney King cops (probably over-reacted while trying to subdue a very large, uncooperative, and inebriated perpetrator), Ramos and Compean (used excessive force against a drug-smuggling illegal alien - not a crime), the guys who shot Amadou Diallo (really bad call - no intent to kill an innocent man - not a crime). Example of a guilty cop: Justin Volpe (not acting in his duties as a cop).

Educate Us, Oh Wise Times Columnists

New York Times columnists are just falling over each other pointing out how our dreadful education system is responsible for every bad thing in the world.

The other day Harvard economist Greg Mankiw blames it for rising inequality. He cites the numbers:

The cohort of workers born in 1950 had an average of 4.67 more years of schooling than the cohort born in 1900, representing an increase of 0.93 year in each decade. By contrast, the cohort born in 1975 had only 0.74 more years of schooling than that born in 1950, an increase of only 0.30 year a decade.

Ok, so the average educational level has stayed the same over the last 25 years - how's that supposed to cause more inequality? Well, he explains, we're a more technological society today. "Skilled workers are needed to apply and manage new technologies, while less skilled workers are more likely to become obsolete."

Now, granted, I don't live in Silicon Valley, but I do live in an area (Northern New Jersey) where a lot of people make some serious money. I'd say everyone I know who makes any kind of money is, if not completely retarded, at least seriously challenged when it comes to technology. They make money the way any go-getter of the Fifties would instantly recognize - with telephone calls, superior management skills, client meetings, and competent secretaries. Yes, there is Silicon Valley, but there has always been demand for engineers - particularly when we used to manufacture things. My guess is that the shift away from manufacturing and advances in information technology have enabled those who are good at making lots of money to rely on a lot less support. Even on Wall Street movers and shakers relied on large clerical staffs to process transactions and keep track of finances. The problem today is that there are less people required to do important work, not more - that's why there are less good jobs available, and why incomes continue to diverge.

Not to be outdone, Bob Herbert today spouts the tired line about how our failing schools are leaving us less competitive in the global marketplace, even going so far as to quote Bill Gates - how original, Bob! He basically debunks his own argument when he quotes some full-of-crap Gates-lackey:

“In math and science, for example, our fourth graders are among the top students globally. By roughly eighth grade, they’re in the middle of the pack. And by the 12th grade, U.S. students are scoring generally near the bottom of all industrialized countries.”

That effect sounds familiar it's the same pattern we see with Head Start - the underprivileged kids start off doing relatively well but the gains dissipate over time, and by high school they're back to their underperforming selves. This suggests that our educational system is actually pretty good - like we have the whole country on Head Start - our youngsters are getting a good education early and compare well with those from other countries. The falloff later suggests something more fundamental is at issue, as there's no logical explanation why education should get worse in later grades. Herbert notes that "Roughly a third of all American high school students drop out. Another third graduate but are not prepared for the next stage of life — either productive work or some form of post-secondary education." Care to speculate on where all these dropouts might be coming from, Bob? Later he notes:

By 2030, the U.S. population is expected to reach 360 million...with immigrationhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.italic.gif
insert italic tags having a big impact on both the population as a whole and the work force.

The most fitting rejoinder to that is delivered by Herbert himself (though obviously out of context) a few lines later:

You have to be pretty dopey not to see the implications of that. But, then, some of us are pretty dopey.

Touche, Bob, toooo-shay.

Related: Chris Roach discusses this silly education mantra in reference to a Charles Murray op-ed from a few months ago. Had Mankiw or Herbert taken the time to read Murray's column, it would have saved them the 15 minutes it took them to pull together those piles of cliches for their columns (assuming their heads would not have exploded first).

Update: Greg Cochran had left a comment on this post which I accidentally deleted (sorry about that):

Looking at the demographics, the US has at least twice as high a fraction of the population with an IQ in the 80s as, say, Finland.

Bound to have an effect.

One demographic advantage the United States has had is a sizable Jewish population, but that advantage has been dissipating as the Jewish population has stagnated and their proportion has shrunk from by about a third over the last 50 years.

Hey, I've Got a Family to Feed

In a rather eye-opening investigative report, the NY Times reveals the close relationship between the "military analysts" one sees being interviewed on TV and the Pentagon, and the business interests that binds them. Most of these guys are lobbyists, consultants, or executives with firms seeking military contracts. The Pentagon gave them unprecedented access, which of course was great for business. And as long as they touted the administration's line in interviews, the access continued. But slip up once, and you're cut off. Here's one analyst describing the bull he proferred to the public:

“We knew we had extraordinary access,” said Timur J. Eads, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and Fox analyst who is vice president of government relations for Blackbird Technologies, a fast-growing military contractor. Like several other analysts, Mr. Eads said he had at times held his tongue on television for fear that “some four-star could call up and say, ‘Kill that contract.’ ” For example, he believed Pentagon officials misled the analysts about the progress of Iraq’s security forces. “I know a snow job when I see one,” he said. He did not share this on TV. “Human nature,” he explained...

We're used to financial pundits lying to us without a trace of that "still, small voice" getting in their way as they try to get you to invest in whatever company is paying them consulting fees at the moment. But some of us naively expect military guys not to be selling out their brothers quite so blatantly. Some of us can be pretty stupid. Still, the article is pretty disconcerting - depressing, really, as to how money - and not all that much money - can be used so effectively and subtly to mold public perceptions.

Warm Weather is Bad for You

I have been reading a good deal about global warming over the past few years, particularly skeptic sites, and deep down I do believe that the increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere (due to burning fossil fuels) is causing the earth to warm up. The data - at least up to now - seems rather clear on that, and the quality of the arguments on the global-warming-advocacy side seems much higher generally than that on the skeptic* side.

When they're talking about the climate, that is. But it's news reports like this that keep my skeptic blood flowing. Can you imagine - a 2 degree increase in temperatures is supposed to cause a significant health hazard - in the United States? Right - that's why all the old codgers move to Florida and South Carolina and Arizona - so they can get sicker and die earlier. What a crock.

*Skeptics tend to be snarky, polemical, and use rather crude analytics**. Most climate scientists expressing skepticism seem to be retired or have the title "emeritus". Not that there's anything wrong with that, but they're likely to be uninformed regarding the power of computer modeling or other newer techniques.

**"Snarky, Polemical and Crude" - sounds like a good blog motto.

Wild Doin's up in Massachusetts

Big controversy up in MA between...well, let's let the Boston Globe explain it:

The Massachusetts Municipal Association severed ties yesterday with the Anti-Defamation League's embattled No Place For Hate program, reigniting a debate that had gone quiet recently over the ADL's position on the..."

What? What could it be? What could this burning controversy be that would embroil the municipalities of one of our founding states and a militant Jewish organization? Well what else...

"on the World War I-era Armenian genocide."

Boy, life must be awfully good up in Massachusetts.

Gray Lady Gettin' Down?

Is the Times trying to titillate its more geeky readers with this headline the way the NY Post famously excited its readers with this?

Conspicuous Reproduction

The well-off like to advertise their success in many, mostly unproductive ways. They like to buy expensive luxury cars from Europe or build tacky, gaudily landscaped mansions, or purchase boats they never use. The point is to make the rest of us know that they have made it big and that we should be duly impressed.

But according to this Washington Post article, they've hit on a new favorite flaunt: having lots of kids. Anyone with kids knows it's not cheap, but it's especially not cheap when you're trying to impress people - or just keep up. Kids get real sore when their peers get all kinds of cool stuff and privileges and they don't, and they start wondering whether their old man ain't got his game no more (my kids have long ago given up on my "game" - though the 1993 Nissan Quest is still a much resented source of embarrassment). The cost of private schooling is of course beyond belief, but there are activities such as traveling sports when they're young, constantly eating out because of all the activities, trips to Europe in their teens, and then the horror of college tuition. And it keeps going - weddings, subsidized apartments, even paying for internships. So if you've got 5 kids in an upper-middle class milieu, people are going to be impressed.

This is one trend that should be encouraged - by all means, show off. You might worry we'll soon be inundated with swarms of spoiled brats, and this is certainly true. But these kids will for the most part be able to read and write and do high school math, which is an enormous boost over what is now the most fecund population segment - immigrant children with 50% high school graduation rates. It would be nice if this trend were to catch on in Western Europe, where they face a much scarier demographic trend. Another positive side of this is that this involves real sacrifice on the part of the mother. Well-to-do women work extremely hard at keeping themselves looking good, spending many hours at the gym and starving themselves the rest of the day, probably only infrequently being rewarded with a quick fling with the trainer (for which the competition is particularly fierce). Thus having several children requires a level of commitment to a "higher societal goal" we're unaccustomed to seeing in today's movers and shakers. So let's not sneer at this latest status symbol - cheer it on!

Department of Dubious Distinctions

Or, Department of Things You Can Find Out from Google Analytics. If you find yourself thinking "Barack Obama sucks" - who ya' gonna call?