From today's Political Journal (sorry, subscriber email only):
"Comedian Dennis Miller's high-profile involvement in the California recall election -- he performed political spin duties on TV on behalf of Arnold Schwarzenegger after the only debate involving all the candidates -- was apparently just a warm-up act for his own political talk show.

CNBC announced yesterday that the edgy comic will host his own five-nights-a week talk show starting in January. It will be taped in Burbank.

Mr. Miller was briefly touted as a possible GOP candidate against Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer next year, but he has apparently decided to bench those ambitions. It's just as well. He would have had to curb his over-the-edge humor on the campaign trail."

This is legitimately disappointing to me. I think he could have had a sincere shot, and at the very least, made the election interesting for non-Californians. Oh well.

Ananova - Downing Street 'mystified' by Bill Clinton claim

How did we miss this?? There are two explanations: Clinton lies easier than he tells the truth, or, Blair forgot that this had happened to him before. Which do you think is more likely?

Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Books That Have Had The Biggest Impact On Their Thinking - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)

I got this link through Jake's new favorite site which I think might also be my new favorite site. But this list is certainly interesting...

True Believers, Please Rise: "The main critique is that it is ridiculously expensive to lease planes, rather than buy them. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the leasing option will cost taxpayers an extra $5.6 billion, though scandal connoisseurs will appreciate that the deal also involves the use of 'special purpose entities,' the accounting mechanisms used by Enron executives in their glory days."

Brooks gives a serious critique of this whole process. James, do you have any insight that might help me understand if this is true or not?

James --

I don't know the specifics of the deal, but I certainly can speak to leasing in general. By and large, Brooks is correct that leasing would be more expensive than buying the aircraft. So, why would anyone in their right mind lease an aircraft? There are several reasons. One, which is probably irrelevant in this case, is concern over residual value risk. Some companies might be worried that they'll be stuck with a worthless plane that they can't sell, so they lease it, and at the end, it's the leasing company's problem to deal with. The other reason is availability of funds. Remember, a 767 can cost upwards of $100 million. Chances are, an airline or cargo carrier doesn't have that kind of cash on its balance sheet and would need to borrow in order to fund a fleet of new 767s. A lease is essentially the loan of equipment instead of money. Because the lessor still owns the plane, and could always take it back if the lessee defaults, the lessor might not need to charge as much interest in order to make the risk of lending profitable. Therefore, it might be less costly for an airline to lease an aircraft instead of borrowing the money to purchase it. But, the government works a little differently. For all intents and purposes, no one borrows more cheaply than the US Government. The rates on US bonds are often used as a baseline interest rate or a "risk-free rate". Boeing had to borrow (probably in the form of corporate bonds) in order to pay to build the planes. You can safely bet that the rate used to calculate the Air Force's lease payments was higher than the Boeing bond rate (otherwise the leases wouldn't be profitable), which in turn is higher than US Treasury rates. Brooks, the GAO, the CBO, and the OMB are probably right, this looks like a bum deal for the tax payers.

yaledailynews.com - Universal health care is not a viable option: "It is essential, however, not to let emotion cloud logic."

Written by a good friend of mine, and worth a close read.

Presidential Debate
John Kerry, in reference to Boykin's comments: "When Boykin talks about 'The Almighty' he gets the White House all confused: Bush thinks he's talking about Cheney, Cheney thinks he's talking about Halliburton, Ashcroft thinks he's talking about him."

HAS THE POLITICAL DEBATE IN THIS COUNTRY REALLY SUNK THIS LOW? I'm appalled that John Kerry could actually feel comfortable saying that in a policy debate. Oh, and by the way, this was in response to a question about American troop strength around the country.

National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com): "For some reason or another, a series of enormously important issues — the future of the Middle East, the credibility of the United States as both a strong and a moral power, the war against the Islamic fundamentalists, the future of the U.N. and NATO, our own politics here at home — now hinge on America's efforts at creating a democracy out of chaos in Iraq. That is why so many politicians — in the U.N., the EU, Germany, France, the corrupt Middle East governments, and a host of others — are so strident in their criticism, so terrified that in a postmodern world the United States can still recognize evil, express moral outrage, and then sacrifice money and lives to eliminate something like Saddam Hussein and leave things far better after the fire and smoke clear. People, much less states, are not supposed to do that anymore in a world where good is a relative construct, force is a thing of the past, and the easy life is too precious to be even momentarily interrupted. We may expect that, a year from now, the last desperate card in the hands of the anti-Americanists will be not that Iraq is democratic, but that it is democratic solely through the agency of the United States — a fate worse than remaining indigenously murderous and totalitarian."

Whether you agree or not, you must admit it's a good point.

Talking Presidents: Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure (via Andrew Sullivan)

This is unbelievable. Jake, I know you're gonna get one ASAP.

Did I Violate the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban? - A doctor ponders a new era of prosecution By Warren M. Hern: "Then I inserted my forceps into the uterus and applied them to the head of the fetus, which was still alive, since fetal injection is not done at that stage of pregnancy. I closed the forceps, crushing the skull of the fetus, and withdrew the forceps. The fetus, now dead, slid out more or less intact. With the next pass of the forceps, I grasped the placenta, and it came out in one piece. Within a few seconds, I had completed my routine exploration of the uterus and sharp curettage. The blood loss would just fill a tablespoon."

I'm sorry, but this column did the opposite of persuade me that partial-birth abortion should remain legal. The fact of the matter is, I'm not worried about whether or not the woman described here came out ok or not. The image of a doctor crushing the skull of a fetus with forceps is a barbaric one, and solidified in my mind an opinion on which I had previously been anything but decided.

ajc.com | North Fulton | Student expelled over diary

This was blogged on Best of the Web today. Roswell High School is a Bakers Dozen tour stop on every spring tour. Our musical director from two years ago attended Roswell High, as did a current sophomore in the group. I have been to this high school twice. Small world.

OpinionJournal - Xtreme Politics

I'm a little worried about Mr. Henninger, if I'm reading this column correctly. The overall tone here seems to be one of frustration, helplessness, and futility. Did anyone else see it this way?

I need a witty title for a blog that is a spin-off of diet coke for breakfast. Any suggestions?
If you're curious as to why, I'm going to build a blog in a similar vein with my friends at yale, and I'd like it to make reference to diet coke.
It's currently hosted here with the stupid name of "Something Witty For Breakfast" until I (or you) come up with something better.

CNN.com - Size matters for animals that change sex - Oct. 22, 2003

I can't believe some editor okayed that headline...

Full Disclosure on Leaks: "The most serious kind of leak is the unauthorized disclosure of national security information. Robert Novak's revelation that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was a C.I.A. 'operative' falls into this category. Mr. Novak's source, by revealing the wife's name without approval from the C.I.A., has potentially compromised national security."

I'm lost. Why did the NYT publish this today? This story is weeks old and floundering. This piece doesn't say anything that hasn't already been said in every newspaper across this country at least 10 times. Am I missing something?

OpinionJournal - OpinionJournal's Political Diary: "The former Vermont governor now has the clearest path to the Democratic nomination of any candidate. If he wins in Iowa, he knocks out Dick Gephardt. If he wins in New Hampshire, he knocks out John Kerry. By then he'd likely be unstoppable, notwithstanding the inevitable Joe Lieberman, Wesley Clark or John Edwards claim to be the 'stop-Dean' candidate. The only way to stop Dean is to defeat him early, which is why we've seen Messrs. Gephardt and Kerry pounding away at him on perceived weak spots, like Medicare and trade, from the left."

Granted, I haven't been conscious for many presidential primary seasons, but does Dean winning Iowa and New Hampshire really knock out Gephardt and Kerry, respectively?
Also, the 'stop-_____' character, to my thinking, never seems to be an effective candidate. Positioning yourself like that automatically says "he's more liked than I am, but we've got to stop him anyway." It's like assuming you'll get a C on a test and trying to do better instead of shooting for the A from the start.

Iran to Suspend Uranium Enrichment, Permit U.N. Inspections of Nuclear Program (washingtonpost.com)
Bush Says Pact With N. Korea Possible (washingtonpost.com)

Wow. The Bush team is really messing up foreign relations. Iran has promised to stop its Uranium enrichment, and North Korea is willing to take steps to halt its program in exchange for the US promising not to attack them. What could have created the fear that we might attack? Certainly not the case where we attacked another country (Iraq, was it?) for the same reason. No, it must have been Bill Clinton's promise of food and cash for them to stop--which they flaunted and ignored before demanding more appeasement. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Ms. Albright, before you shout more criticism in French, from France.

GOP Sees Gephardt as Toughest Rival for Bush (washingtonpost.com): "In interviews with nearly two dozen Republican strategists, lawmakers and state chairmen across the country, including several close to the White House, Gephardt was portrayed by a majority as the Democratic candidate best prepared and positioned to defeat President Bush in a head-to-head matchup next year. The reasons, they said: Gephardt consistently supported the Iraq war, enjoys unrivaled support among union leaders and hails from the Midwest, where many Republicans believe the presidential election will be decided. They also cited his health care plan, experience and discipline as key factors. "

I've been thinking this for a while, and I'm glad to hear it laid out so plainly. Were he to win the Democratic nomination, Gephardt might have the highest chance of beating Bush. We'll obviously have to wait for Iowa, New Hampshire, and the rest of the primaries, but at the moment I don't think he's poised to overtake Dean or Kerry. (I think Clark is a passing fad who will never win the nomination.) But, were he to come out on top, I think Bush will have his hands more full than he would with any other contender.

WSJ.com - France's NATO Gambit (sorry, subscribers only): "NATO is the ultimate coalition of the willing. An alliance of democracies, it can only exist if its members agree to remain united. That's why the French effort to create an independent European defense organization, with a separate headquarters, needs to be understood as an attempt to undermine the only official institution that binds the West."

As much as I hate this idea, thanks to France, I'm becoming increasingly isolationist. My instinct when I read this paragraph was to say "Fine, screw you. See how well your organisation works when we stop providing any of your defense, and running to your pet causes in Africa. Create your own organisation, we'll withdraw from NATO and form a new group with the Italy, Spain, Britain, and the Eastern European Block that wants to join us. Oh, and that missile shield we're building that we were going to include Europe under? If we see a missile heading for France or Germany, we wish you the best of luck."

I realize that this is a very immature view, and we do need foreign relations, but we have to draw the line somewhere. We have done, and continue to do so much for the stability of the world, and France, and to a lesser extent Germany, continue to ignore that fact. The entire purpose of the Bush Doctrine is to keep the world safe from a threat before it becomes imminent. Up to this point, France has been a minor annoyance, but if Chirac continues to behave the way he has been, he could threaten the future of the planet. Maybe one more "unilateral" action is in order?

The Volokh Conspiracy: "Can North Korea blackmail us? Assume that the North Koreans want nuclear weapons to blackmail the United States, and not just for deterrence. They offer to sell us a nuclear weapon for $100 billion, or, if we decline to buy, to sell it to al Qaeda for $1 million. Would we buy?"

This is an interesting and terrifying possibility. To put this in perspective, you might also like to read this, from today's OpinionJournal:The Terror Ahead: A nuclear attack? Be very afraid.

WSJ.com - The Democrats Can Win on Taxes

To be fair, I don't read a lot of Democratic strategy, because I don't want them to do well; I'm much more focused on Republican strategy. However, I have to complement this piece on its clearness of vision. Unfortunately, I find it extremely unlikely that any of the current candidates will adopt it - it's too straighforward.

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

Pity us. Gina and I have to deal with these people on a daily basis. Can't you just picture him reading this in Larchmont Lock-Jaw?

Israel News : Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Can anyone say Osiris?

OpinionJournal - Featured Article: "Then came the shock of this summer's heat wave, which claimed about 14,000 lives. Much of the blame for those deaths, mostly involving the elderly, fell on the 35-hour law, which depleted hospital and nursing home staffs. "

But I thought it was global warming....

yaledailynews.com - BDs face zoning investigation

Hopefully nothing will come of this...

OpinionJournal - Wonder Land: "If this is true, Arnold Schwarzenegger upended two other longstanding shibboleths--media bias and the 'litmus test.' "

This is the second time in as many days that I've seen the word "shibboleth" used in a political column. Is this really that well known a term, or did we all just see it on the West Wing a few years ago?

Jake -- The article also had this juicy quote about Arnold:

There's one last, large intangible that Arnold has slipped into the political waters: He's cool.

Like it or not, the force field of celebrity is part of the cultural physics of our era, and it looks as if the first party to get totally wired-in to a mega-celebrity is, incredibly, the GOP. Something weirdly attractive was coming off the Schwarzenegger camp's victory stage on TV round about midnight Tuesday--Arnold, Maria Shriver (a get-out-of-jail-free card for many centrist Democrats feeling trapped in an inhospitable party), Jay Leno's funny introduction, Rob Lowe nearby, Eunice and Sargent Shriver, the extended Shriver clan, and a sea of young, attractive faces. Liberal pundits will mock this scene unmercifully, but in terms of mass-market politics it was as hip as any politician could ever hope for. Arnold, with all that media reach and the aura of living wholly inside the country's popular culture, may be changing ideas of who can live comfortably on election day among the Republicans.

One of my big complaints about being conservative was always that I am surrounded by a pop culture which by and large embraces liberalism. Most producers of cultural consumption are liberals. So what's someone who likes pop culture to do? Arnold is great because he changes the image of a conservative from an uninteresting old, white guy to something so much cooler.

Big Turnout as Californians Vote on Recall (washingtonpost.com): "Davis, casting his own vote in West Hollywood, Davis told the Associated Press, 'I feel absolutely terrific. I have always trusted the voters of California and I know they're going to do the right thing today.' "

Does that mean that, if he's recalled, he'll think it was the right thing?

OpinionJournal - OpinionJournal's Political Diary: "Gesturing to the pumped-up crowed, a dazed reporter for a major newspaper said in puzzlement: 'There's a complete disconnect between what's going on here and the campaign we're reading about in the newspapers.' We'll find out tonight how true that is."

It seems that this is true of most arenas in the press these days. Honestly, I'm really worried about the sway the press has in shaping public opinion, especially since it's so easy for them to only pick up the sensationalist stories.

WSJ.com - To Lead, the U.S. Must Persuade Others to Follow
WSJ.com - The WMD Evidence
Opinionjournal.com - To Rally the Nation

Add these three, along with the William Kristol column that Jake blogged below, as evidence of the Bush administrations primary failing. James and I have discussed this at length, and we've both come to the conclusion (correct me if I'm improperly speaking for you here) that our biggest complaint about the Bush White House is that they are always back-peddling, always defending a decision after the fact. It is too easy these days for the Left to poison the public with claims about Bush's lies, because the White House constantly does nothing to discount them. They should be pounding the podium about the Kay report -- it proves that Saddam was evading 1441, and gives the justification for war. They simply are not controlling debate as is necessary to maintain control of the reigns of government. Maybe what Kristol says is correct, and could solve the problem. Either way, something needs to be done.

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines: "Deadline Set for Leak Papers
White House workers told to turn in all relevant documents in by Tuesday."

Read that sentence, from the front page of washingtonpost.com closely. This is a very commonly read newspaper. Do they not have anyone that knows how to check grammar?