CNN reports: Naked, bleeding man seeks help at Cal Ripken's house on Thanksgiving.

ESPN has an inspiring profile of a former Army quarterback now serving in Iraq.

Last month, I echoed Frank Gaffney's suggestion on NRO that President Bush should go to Baghdad; I suggested that Thanksgiving would be an appropriate time to go. I was dismayed to see reports that Hillary Clinton would be going (she was in Afghanistan today), not just for the partisan points but because her presence only underlined Bush's absence from what would be an important morale-boosting visit.

News came today, though, that the president did the right thing. Whatever you think of the politics of the event, that's just what it was: the right thing to do, for the sake of our soldiers who don't have the luxury of deciding where they'd like to be for Thanksgiving.

(PS - Oddly, The Corner is noting the visit without giving due credit to Gaffney for being an early booster of the idea)

David Pinto takes on the Elias Sports Bureau's statistics supporting Buster Olney's argument on ESPN.com that teams that make productive use of outs (generally through the deployment of one-run strategies -- bunts -- and other methods of emphasizing moving baserunners at the expense of hitting away) tend to gain a significant advantage in the postseason. Leaving aside Pinto's account of the institutional politics at play here, let's look at Olney's core statistical argument, in which he leads off by arguing that the Marlins

dominated the Yanks, 9-5, in productive outs -- in keeping with a longstanding post-season trend.

This is the Productive Out, as defined and developed by ESPN The Magazine and the Elias Sports Bureau: when a fly ball, grounder or bunt advances a runner with nobody out; when a pitcher bunts to advance a runner with one out (maximizing the effectiveness of the pitcher's at-bat), or when a grounder or fly ball scores a run with one out.

There have been 142 post-season series since 1969. In 130, one team or another has had an advantage in Productive Outs -- and in 62.3 percent of those 130 series, the team with the advantage in Productive Outs has prevailed. Factor in the 12 series in which opposing teams have tied in Productive Outs, and it can be said that teams with a deficit in POs have won 34.5 percent of post-season series.

* * *

[By contrast, t]he Athletics have failed to advance beyond the Division Series in the last four years, and it's probably not a coincidence that they have never won the battle of Productive Outs. In 19 games over those four series, their opponents have produced 23 PO's, Oakland 15.

Base on balls are a fundamental piece of the Athletics' offensive philosophy, but statistically, they have shown to have slightly less significance than Productive Outs in the post-season. Teams that have had the advantage in walks have won 60 percent of the time. (Teams with an advantage in singles have won 63.8 percent of the series, and teams with an advantage in home runs have won 70.4 percent - which makes sense, as Steve Hirdt of the Elias Sports Bureau noted, because it is the one offensive result in which a run is assured).

David raises two initial objections to Elias' definition of the Productive Out, which he suspects is "rigged" to generate a favorable result:

[I]f you move a runner into scoring position with two outs, doesn't that count for something? And besides, didn't Pete Palmer show 20 years ago that trading an out for a base always decreases run potential?

Well, yes, and yes, although on the second point I'm at least open to persuasion that the dynamics of regular season baseball are in some way materially altered by the characteristics of postseason play, in which a higher quality of pitching figures disproportionately (such as, as I've noted before, Mariano Rivera averaging over 150 innings pitched in relief per 162 games). But the problems with the definition run quite a bit deeper than David has addressed in his initial post on this issue. If your thesis is that teams should try to make productive outs, shouldn't you be measuring the number of times they try to do this, rather than the number of times they succeed? Otherwise, it's like measuring steals but not caught stealings. (Of course, I realize that such a study might be impossible, but recognizing that you've loaded the question by only looking at successful baserunner movement is the first step to recognizing the flaws in this measurement).

Or worse: you're mistaking a strategy for what could just as easily be a by-product of having a lot of baserunners. I wonder what that 62.3 percent figure drops to when instead of raw totals you compare each team's ratio of productivity, by dividing Productive Outs (or even Productive Outs +Stolen Bases) by the number of times that each team has a runner or runners in position to qualify for making such an out. I strongly suspect that teams that get more runners on base with none or one out are more likely to win anyway, regardless of what they do to move them along. Notice that the 62.3 percent figure is just above the number for walks and just below the number for singles; if you simply looked at times on base, I'd bet the number would be over 65%.

To illustrate more graphically: I'd be willing to bet that, overall, the team that leaves more runners on base is more likely than not to win a postseason series, because of the fact that teams that get a lot of baserunners are usually the teams that lead the league in men left on base. I actually ran a quick check on this, although it was difficult because the only source I could find was an old STATS Sourcebook that listed LOB by each game, so I just picked a random sample of 25 modern World Serieses (1969-1993) running somewhat parallel with the Elias study. It's hard to say the results were a resounding success in making my point here -- or that the sampling was large enough to be representative -- but the team that left more runners on base in the series won 13 times and lost 12 (interestingly, 3 of the teams to win the series with fewer men left on base were the 1972, 1973 & 1974 A's; make of that what you will).

Now, leaving runners stranded on base is unquestionably a bad thing, and more to the point, it runs precisely counter to the whole point of making Productive Outs. But the fact that, at least in a small sampling, the team leaving more runners on base was actually successful more often than not at least suggests that both moving and failing to move baserunners, as an indicator of success, is simply a symptom of having more baserunners in the first place.

If Olney wants to show that the study he relied on wasn't skewed but was really a meaningful measurement, he can always come back with a comparison to the success rate for the team that gets more men on base -- a number that is conspicuous by its absence from his article. Like I said, I really am open to persuasion that moving baserunners takes on added importance in the postseason; absent statistical evidence, my gut tells me it does. But the proof, as of now, just isn't there.

Kevin Drum, October 19, 2003:

[I]t has become obvious since he took office that, far from being a "uniter not a divider," George Bush is in fact (a) radically conservative and (b) does everything he can to hide the fact.

Kevin Drum, November 25, 2003:

I think that both liberals and conservatives have made the mistake of convincing themselves that Bush is a hard right ideologue . . . But if you look a bit more closely you'll see that he's not.

The United States was targeted on September 11, 2001 and is the target of ever-present threats by al Qaeda and ongoing insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Turkey has been the target of two sets of bloody bombings, believed to be al Qaeda-affiliated, in recent weeks. British interests in Turkey were the targets of the second set of those bombings and, like the U.S., Britain is also under constant threat from al Qaeda. Italian troops have recently been targeted by terrorist attacks in Iraq. All are NATO members.

This raises the question - why isn�t NATO, as a collective security entity, more actively involved in prosecuting the War on Terror? After the 9/11 attacks, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty was invoked, calling the attack on the U.S. an attack on all of NATO. Are the recent attacks on other member states any different, except in scale?

The U.S. should be looking for opportunities to shore up the NATO alliance, which showed worrisome signs of fracturing during the lead-up to the Iraqi war. Despite our superpower status, the U.S. needs allies and NATO has been the most rewarding alliance in history, keeping the peace in Europe for over 50 years.

Giving NATO a new mission � the combating of anti-Western global terrorism � and a more prominent role, rather than just mopping-up duties, should give the member states a cause to rally around and a purpose to unite behind. This would require some deft diplomacy, which has not been the Bush Administration�s specialty, as well as a return to common sense by the French and Germans, but it is clear that al Qaeda represents a threat to the interests of every NATO member. It would also require a more serious European view of security issues and a commitment to joint training with American forces. Yet, the U.S. should urge NATO to organize to fight and pursue al Qaeda, the least controversial target of the ongoing war, and should look for ways for NATO to recapture its unity and its relevance. It is in the interests of both the U.S. and Europe to fight the War on Terror under the banner of NATO, even if it ends up necessarily being the U.S. that does most of the heavy lifting.

While not NATO-specific, David Ignatius makes a similar point in today�s Washington Post.

Too busy to blog this morning -- I was late at the office last night and never got around to wrapping up my analysis of the Aleto opinion, which will have to wait until after Thanksgiving -- but I couldn't let the day pass without saying a word or two about Warren Spahn, who died yesterday at age 82. You probably know the details, but the key facts about Spahn:

*You can draw the line for "modern" baseball in a number of places, but for pitching records the clearest dividing line is the arrival of the lively ball in 1920, which required pitchers to bear down against every hitter or risk allowing a home run. Since 1920, Steve Carlton is second all time in wins with 329; Spahn is first, 34 wins ahead of him at 363. And unlike the stars of the 1960s-70s, only one season of Spahn's prime (1963) overlapped with a pitcher-dominated era.

*Winningest lefthander in baseball history.

*Served his country with honor and distinction in World War II:

In 1943, Spahn went into the Army. He served in Europe, where he was wounded, decorated for bravery with a Bronze Star and Purple Heart and was awarded a battlefield commission. He fought at the Battle of the Bulge and in the battle for the bridge at Remagen, Germany, where many men in his company were lost.

*Spahn's military service had the added result that he didn't win a game until age 25. Perhaps that helped him -- his arm didn't get worked hard until he was old enough to handle it -- but it's just as possible that he would have won 380-390 games if he hadn't served (much like Grover Alexander, who would have won 400 if he hadn't taken a year away at the pinnacle of his career to go to the front in World War I).

*Won 20 games a staggering 13 times.

*Loved the game so much he went back to the minor leagues for a few years after being cut by the Mets and Giants at age 44.

Now, to be fair, Spahn had a few advantages in his major league career; he pitched in pitcher's parks most of his career, and almost always had outstanding offenses behind him, led by Hank Aaron and Eddie Mathews. Baseball-reference.com doesn't list his context-adjusted career ERA in the top hundred. But then, between 1946 and 1963, his "ERA+" rates as better than the league by 10% or more 16 times in 18 years, and in all but two of those years he threw at least 257 innings (and the offseasons were one of 245 and the 1946 season, when he wasn't yet an established starter). He faced 1000 batters in a season 17 years in a row. That kind of consistency in a starting pitcher is one of baseball's rarest gifts in any era.

Rob Neyer has more.

The legendary Warren Spahn, who won more games than any lefthander in history, has died.

Spahn was a decorated World War II veteran and loved the game of baseball so much he would pitch until 1967, retiring after stints in Mexico and the minors when he was 46 years old. One of the all-time great Braves, Spahn won 20 or more games 13 times in his career. Never a dominant hard-thrower Spahn was the quintessential pitcher and his durability and consistency, after a late start, were the most notable qualities of his outstanding career.

The Crank will probably have more on this later, but Spahn was one of the great pitchers of the 20th century and his passing is worthy of remembrance.

Well, so much for the slow news week . . . one of the problems of writing for a long-running television show, or a series of books or films -- this problem is particularly acute for soap operas -- is what you might call "drama fatigue": the difficulty of getting the audience to emotionally invest itself once again in some crisis of the characters, after the viewers/readers have been through the wringer so many times with the same characters and/or similar plotlines. The TV show ER has had to work incredibly hard to sustain this kind of tension; JK Rowling has excelled at recreating it anew in each of the Harry Potter books, at each stage escalating both Harry's social humiliations and his peril.

After a while, you start to run out of room to stretch out the tension. Madonna, for example, has reached a similar point with regard to being shocking; she's running out of new tricks. Every saga that depends on new and more stunning revelations eventually comes to and end.

Except the Red Sox. Just when Sox fans thought they couldn't come any closer to victory, couldn't taste any bitterer defeat, wouldn't again fall into the trap of hoping and believing, along comes a 3-run lead against the Yankees in a 7-game series, with Pedro in command . . .

And after that, the cries went up anew: we will never believe again. We won't have our hearts broken again. How, you might ask, does one tug at those heartstrings again? How do you shock, again?

Trade for Curt Schilling. There's nothing but good in this move. It's raising the ante, calling Steinbrenner's bluff, and attacking the Sox' perennial weak spot, depth in the starting rotation. (And the early ESPN report on this deal, assuming it pans out, also explains why Peter Gammons gets the big bucks).

And somewhere in this favored land, the Mudville fans are dreaming once again . . .

InstaPundit discusses and links to Jonah Goldberg discussing and linking to an article by Brian Anderson in the City Journal (got that?), proclaiming progress by conservatives in the �culture wars� and citing the emergence of �South Park Republicans� as a large part of his evidence. As usual, I agree with Goldberg who entertainingly throws some cold water on this theory.

In addition to Goldberg�s points, I would note, just on a semantic level, that �South Park�, while it frequently does skewer liberal targets, is by no means conservative. Instead, with its extraordinarily anti-P.C. themes and premise, it is a very libertarian show. It is stridently anti-Big-Government, and pro-personal responsibility, but it is also spectacularly vulgar and proudly subversive. (In the face of all good taste, I also usually find it hilarious when I stumble upon it). Anyway, both articles are worth reading, but I think that Goldberg has a better, and more realistic, handle on the actual significance of the political leanings of the foul-mouthed kids of �South Park.�

Speaking of strange news articles, this item from last Wednesday on Albany's reaction to the Massachusetts decision contains this head-scratcher:

In New York, which has a strong leader form of government, it is almost unheard of for legislation to be approved in the Senate without the majority leader�s backing or in the Assembly without the support of the speaker.

(Emphasis added). Now, I suppose the meaning is clear enough -- the state legislature is run by the leaders -- but this conjured up images of downtrodden New Yorkers walking to work under the shadow of massive graven images of George Pataki.

It took a while, but on Thursday, the NY Times finally addressed the memo from Douglas Feith laying out the evidence of longstanding connections between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qaeda; whatever you think of the credibility or novelty of the memo, it's unquestionably newsworthy to have all the evidence laid out in one place.

So, what does the Times do, but include this line:

"With the disclosure of Mr. Feith's memorandum, some conservative commentators have resurrected claims of a link between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks, even though President Bush said in September that he had seen no such evidence."

Now, for the millionth time, evidence of connections to al Qaeda is not necessarily the same as evidence of connections to September 11; opponents of the Iraq war have repeatedly obscured this distinction to accuse conservatives and the Administration of making the latter charge (which is supported by only very tenuous evidence) when most have made the former, which is supported by a more substantial body of allegations. But what stinks here is the way the Times makes this assertion: it doesn't quote anyone, thus leaving the impression that it's talking about leading commentators (the Sept. 11 point is not really being pushed by any of the leading lights on the Right), and then it just dismisses those arguments without giving the unnamed commentators at least a sentence or two to say what their argument is.

Instapundit linked on Thursday to an article about a handful of AARP members burning their membership cards to protest the group's support for the Republican-backed Medicare prescription drug bill, which contains some tepid reform provisions but is objectionable to the Left mostly because it's supported by President Bush and might help him get re-elected.

Now, if you read his blog, you know that Josh Marshall is perennially outraged -- shocked, shocked -- about what he calls "Astroturf" -- events designed by professional political activists and calculated to look like genuine grass-roots uprisings. Now, my first instinct was that the AARP protest by 'ordinary senior citizens' -- coming on the very day that Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton were tearing into the AARP in a coordinated attack -- smelled to me an awful lot like the same thing. Turns out, in fact, that MSNBC reported that "[t]he protest was organized by two liberal advocacy groups." Hmmmm.

Anyway, I checked Marshall's blog just to see if he was suitably shocked, but assuming (given the increasingly partisan tone of his writings lately) that he would just be silent on the issue, and be shocked and outraged only when he sees such tactics used by Republicans. Ah, how naive I was. On Thursday -- the very day of the Democrats' publicity offensive -- Talking Points Memo had this item:

Money talks, and AARP walks.

To find out more about the ugly truth and what you can do to make your voice heard, go to this page at the Campaign for America's Future website.

The page being one that carries a picture of an AARP member burning his membership card, under a blaring headline Attention AARP members, and directs AARP members to take the following actions:

:: Organize your own protests in your community.
:: Email Bill Novelli and tell him what you think.
:: Go to AARP website and give them a piece of your mind: http://community.aarp.org/rp-health/start
:: Go to www.oufuture.org for more infomation and action ideas.
:: Go to www.retiredamericans.org/ for a retiree organization that stands up for seniors.

It's Josh Marshall's turf. Don't you try to play on it.

Still swamped at work, and in any event it's been a slow news time for baseball. On the legal front, I got to read the Ninth Circuit's gun case this weekend -- I should have my analysis up by tomorrow -- but I haven't had the chance to read through the Massachusetts Supreme Court's gay marriage opinion yet (more on that another day).

As you probably know, today is the fortieth anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The History Net has a characteristically excellent feature on the anniversary, �Four Days in November�, which focuses on the historical record and eyewitness accounts. Meanwhile, Gleaves Whitney over at National Review defends the conclusion of the Warren Commission against those of the various conspiracy theorists. The History Channel continues to run its �JFK: A Presidency Revealed� offering an all-too-rare focus on JFK�s actual record as President rather than the ample myths, notoriety and legend which surround him and his family. Finally, CNN Presents offers the simply-titled �President Kennedy Has Been Shot!�

It is easy to get tired of hearing about the Kennedy�s and the partially media-driven aura surrounding a President with a decidedly mixed record, yet the Kennedy assassination was undeniably one of the pivotal moments in American 20th century history, with a lasting impact which can still be felt today. Kennedy, for all his faults, was a popular, talented and charismatic leader whose death was senselessly premature.

Seeing the previews for the vulgar-looking "Cat in the Hat" movie has been pretty wince-inducing. The collection of colorful reviews over at the Internet Movie Database and Yahoo seems to back up my suspicion about the quality of the film:

The Los Angeles Times:

"Why oh why did they make it like that/Oh why did they ruin The Cat in the Hat?"

The Dallas Morning News:

"The book's charm is gone/And so is its grace/This Cat in the Hat/Really stinks up the place."

This one, from the Boston Globe, doesn�t rhyme, but it might be the best:

"If the producers had dug up Ted Geisel's [i.e. Dr. Suess�s] body and hung it from a tree, they couldn't have desecrated the man more."

Of course, as most reviewers point out, none of this will stop the movie from making a boatload of money.

UPDATE: Indeed, it didn't.

Baseball America lists the top ten Mets� prospects (some of this requires a subscription). Unsurprisingly, pitcher Scott Kazmir is listed at the top:

Kazmir is the Mets' most promising pitching prospect since Dwight Gooden, though he's much less likely to go straight from Class A to the majors like Gooden did. While Kazmir finished the season in St. Lucie, it wouldn't be a surprise if the Mets started him off back in high Class A in 2004 to avoid the April chills in the Double-A Eastern League. Wherever he starts the season, expect him to spend most of the year in Binghamton. He could see Shea Stadium at some point in 2005.

The overall conclusion is also somewhat heartening:

The Mets don�t have as many farmhands who will be ready to contribute in 2004, but their system has more depth than it has had recently. New York has done a nice job with its first-round picks, including righthander Bob Keppel and third baseman David Wright (both 2000), Heilman (2001)�Kazmir (2002) and outfielder Lastings Milledge (2003).

Kazmir, Matt Peterson and Keppel project to front New York�s rotation of the future. Milledge, Reyes and Wright could form the top of the lineup. Phillips isn�t the only candidate to succeed Piazza behind the plate, as Justin Huber and Mike Jacobs, who emerged with a breakout year at Double-A Binghamton, give the Mets two more offensive-minded catchers. The system�s biggest weakness is in the outfield, though Milledge has exciting upside and that may be the ultimate destination for hard-hitting Craig Brazell.

Mets fans will have to be patient as their club goes through an overhaul. But they do have some young talent to bank on, and just as important, the team has a long-term plan in place rather than playing for only the immediate future.

Let�s hope.

Writing in The Spectator, Theodore Dalrymple dissects British youth culture and its American influences, arguing that British youth are aping all the wrong aspects of American society. Not sure I buy all of this, including the grumpy conclusion that �the British are increasingly a nation of angry slobs�, but it is a provocative read.

Eugene Volokh has multiple posts tearing into the Ninth Circuit's decision today in Ileto v. Glock, Inc., No. 01-09762 (9th Cir. Nov. 20, 2003), authored by controversial liberal Clinton appointee Richard Paez. Apparently, the decision holds that the "negligent oversupply" of guns by Glock -- including legal sales of guns in states with lax gun laws, allegedly with the knowledge that they would make their way to states with more restrictive gun laws, such as California -- could subject Glock to liability under the common law of negligence in California. Volokh argues, among other things, that the decision severely oversteps the boundaries of state negligence law by imposing restrictive California laws to the legal sales of guns in other states.

I'll have to read the 61-page opinion soon (it's on the list along with the gay marriage decision in Massachusetts, which may similarly threaten to export a single state's judge-made law to the whole nation), and I'll have more to say then. (Unlike Prof. Volokh, I feel pretty confident that I know the dormant Commerce Clause cases in this area quite well, having briefed similar issues fairly exhaustively a few years back and continued to follow developments in the area.). For now, you can read my take here and here on why I think the 'oversupply' theory violates the dormant Commerce Clause; a sample:

The problem with this theory is twofold. First, this directly imposes liability on the very act of interstate commerce - a serious problem under existing Commerce Clause cases. Second, by making legal sales in State A illegal under State B's law because of their impact on State B, State B has effectively overstepped the very boundaries that the Supreme Court's State Farm v. Campbell decision purports to police.

For more on the theory of Federalism's Edge that unites the gun issue, the gay marriage issue and a host of other hot-button issues, see my lengthier essay here.

There were major developments in the war on terror today with bombings against British interests in Turkey, the second set of bombings in that country in a week. The tragic loss of life is very likely the work of al Qaeda and may have important geopolitical ramifications in the reactions of Britain and Turkey, both NATO allies.

Of course, what is all over the news? As we speak, all three of the major cable news networks are circling over some airport parking lot where Michael Jackson may or may not turn himself in, as talking heads chime in with useless, premature analysis. The Jackson story is news, on some level, but not nearly of the significance of the Turkish bombings or other ongoing developments. This is a telling reminder of the difficulty for political leadership of keeping the American people focused on the issues that truly matter.

I try to read Will Carroll's columns at Baseball Prospectus when I can; Carroll does a great job reporting on and analyzing injuries, and there's really nobody else out there who compares to his work in this area. Carroll alone is probably worth the subscription price. Anyway, Carroll's fairly optimistic about Mark Kotsay's ability to recover from the back trouble that ruined his 2003 season. The addition of Kotsay, the poor man's Trot Nixon, suggests to me that the A's are continuing their recent trend of moving towards valuing defense and away from their earlier emphasis on high-OPS players as the likely candidates for bargain shopping. But throwing Ramon Hernandez into the deal does suggest to me that the A's are up to something else and looking to clear roster space.

I'm less enthused about them dealing Ted Lillly for Bobby Kielty, but more on that later.

Tom at Shallow Center took issue with my analysis of the Billy Wagner trade, in which I argued that "Wagner has to help [the Phillies'] bullpen, but the victory will be Pyhrric if they can't re-sign Millwood." His point:

Millwood was exactly the stud we hoped he'd be in the season's first half, even mixing in a no-no to boot, but fell apart in the latter half of the year. Scott Boras, his agent, will shop him hard, and probably will land him somewhere, at a huge cost -- that's what Boras does, after all. Millwood's new team then will cross their fingers and pray that he's a legit No. 1. Millwood never was that kind of guy with the Braves, and he wasn't one with the Phils. He's a good pitcher, but until he shows me a Maddux/Schilling/Clemens level of domination, I don't think he should be paid as such.

That's a fair argument, and I agree completely with Tom's drumbeat in favor of bringing back Curt Schilling instead of Millwood. I still think Millwood's a solid pitcher, assuming he's healthy, and thus a good investment in the abstract, but I can understand the frustration of Phillies fans for his reversal of his usual pattern in falling apart in the second half this season, and the fact that Millwood is useful doesn't mean you bring him back if he's asking for an unreasonable pay raise. My point is a more basic one: if you don't re-sign Millwood and don't replace him with a comparable starter or one who's an upgrade, such as Schilling, then spending the money to shore up the bullpen instead by the addition of the highly-paid Wagner is no substitute, and in fact is a bad idea if it means you passed on keeping that money available to spend on starting pitching.

Wesley Clark is drawing some fire from his fans on the left for his support for amending the constitution to prohibit flag-burning. Personally, I'm all in favor of keeping flag burning legal. Why stop the enemy from identifying himself? Every time some nitwit college student burns a flag on camera, that's one less idiot who can ever run for public office.

I've tried to follow the whole prescription drug bill story, honest, but it can be hard to keep score of which way the bill is going. This has to be good news, though: Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy are vowing to defeat the bill. Assuming they're doing this out of something other than mere partisan pique, this means that (1) the private choice provisions are not just window dressing, but are substantial enough to worry Ted Kennedy, and (2) if they succeed in stopping the bill, Democrats will get the blame for scuttling a popular but expensive and imprudent new entitlement. Win-win!

Seriously, the more interesting tidbit here is this:

In her remarks at the rally, Pelosi also took a swipe at the AARP and its leader, William D. Novelli. The seniors organization endorsed the bill this week and is advertising on television to help secure its passage.

The Californian noted that Novelli wrote the preface to Gingrich's recent book on health care, and she said, "AARP's leadership has been in the pocket not only of the Republican leadership in the House, but they helped write Newt Gingrich's book on how to destroy Medicare."

Now, the AARP is one of Washington's most powerful lobbies, and like the NRA, its power comes not from money or organization but from the simple fact that millions of its members take the organization's guidance seriously in deciding how to vote. And the AARP has led the charge in some past Democratic campaigns to scare the old folks (think back to 1982 or to the catastrophic health insurance debacle). The idea that the organization may be on the GOP's side has to warm the heart of any Republican partisan.

Borowitz Report has the scoop.

Location, location, location. This story reminded me of the old Saturday Night Live sketch: "In New York City, a man is mugged every 11 seconds. This is that man . . . "

Ken Brett, George's older brother who was known as a good hitting pitcher (George called him �the best athlete in the family,�), has died; Brett was only 55 and had suffered from a lengthy battle with a brain tumor. Brett is only the latest member of the Royals teams from the George Brett era to pass on at a relatively young age: Dick Howser and Dan Quisenberry also died of brain tumors, Darrell Porter died suddenly last summer, Al Cowens died last April, Tony Solaita was shot to death in 1990, and Vada Pinson died in 1995. (Aurelio Lopez, who pitched briefly for the Royals in 1974, was also killed in a car accident in 1992).

A lot of rhetoric you hear about John Ashcroft trampling all over the Bill of Rights is just hot air. For example, I fully support the PATRIOT Act, which passed with bi-partisan support, and its necessary efforts to close investigative loopholes/coordinate anti-terrorist efforts, as well as the decision to indefinitely detain foreign enemy combatants in Cuba. Neither presents a major legal problem in my view and both policies can and should withstand judicial review. Of course, with judges these days, one never can be sure.

However, in two areas related to the war on terror, both in the news recently, I think Ashcroft�s Justice Department is out of line:

1) The detention without due process of U.S. citizen and �dirty-bomb� suspect, Jose Padilla. This seems to me to be clearly unconstitutional and would be cause for more outrage were it not for the accusations and circumstances involved. The government should be able to detain foreign combatants captured overseas and should be able to liberally investigate, detain and deport foreign nationals living here, but U.S. citizens are an entirely different matter. Locking up an American citizen on questionable evidence, denying him due process and access to lawyers while simply classifying him an �enemy combatant� is flagrantly illegal � exactly the sort of thing the Bill of Rights was set up to prevent. If Padilla is truly guilty, and he probably is, the government should be able to convict and put him away with little trouble. If they can�t, they should still be able to keep an eye on him. Either way, he deserves his day in court every bit as much as the likes of John Muhammad and Gary Ridgway did.

2) The decision, apparently ideologically-motivated, to prevent federal investigators from cross-checking terrorist watch lists against lists of gun-owners. Granted, I understand the rationale here and doubt too many terrorists would be on these lists, especially with their real names, but this is still a stupid policy with wrong-headed priorities. In an often life-or-death game of connect-the-dots, we shouldn�t be foreclosing any reasonable paths of inquiry for anti-terrorist agents.

So, in one case, something is being allowed which shouldn't and, in the other, something is being prevented which shouldn't. Both policies should be corrected in order to more justly and sensibly fight the legal battles in the war on terror.

I haven't had time to digest this one, but don't miss conspiracy theorist Edward Jay Epstein's piece debunking the debunkers of the reports that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague in the spring of 2001. Epstein's verdict: we still don't really know.

I'm overdue to update my seat-by-seat rundowns of the Senate races from last November. One thing that's changed is that rumors of John McCain's retirement haven't panned out, and McCain seems likely to cruise to re-election now that Congressman Jeff Flake has dropped a potential primary challenge. Moreover, as to desultory rumors of McCain challenging Bush in 2004, "McCain . . . answered the question of what he's going to be doing in 2004 pretty decisively when he signed on as co-chair of President Bush's re-election campaign in Arizona. "

Then there's Louisiana, a Democratic lock if moderate John Breaux runs for re-election but another major potential GOP pickup in the South if he doesn't (notwithstanding the Louisiana Democrats' last-minute survival in the 2002 and 2003 elections). Breaux is still mulling whether he wants to spend at least the next four years in the minority, but he's promised to serve out his term rather than let new Democratic governor Kathleen Blanco appoint a successor. The GOP would presumably like to run Bobby Jindal, who ran a respectable race for governor and whose biggest liability may be his youth, but another thought occurs to me: isn't Tommy Thompson leaving office at HHS next year? Maybe Bush will appoint Jindal to succeed him. He's almost certainly the most qualified guy for the job.

This Andrew Sullivan item on how Bernard Lewis emphasizes the Islamist terrorists' belief that the US would be an easier foe to defeat than the Soviet Union is interesting on at least two levels (beyond the fact that these nutjobs think they were the sole or primary cause of the USSR's collapse):

1. They, like the Nazis, may be making the mistake of underestimating their enemies by equating ruthlessness with strength;

2. If true -- and Lewis knows this subject far better than I do -- Lewis' point actually underlines how little they have in common with the Western Left, which tends to see all things in economic terms. Anyone who pays attention to economics had to realize, at least in retrospect, that the US would present a far more enduring adversary than did the Sovient Union, with its doddering state-run economic system.

I found this column a few weeks ago by economist Daniel Gross interesting: he argues that the rate of new business incorporations in Delaware (a state with nearly as many corporations as people, owing to its use as a legal home to many national companies) is a good indicator of the potential for near-term growth in the economy.

Honestly, I don't have a strong opinion on the NL MVP race, and given my intense dislike for Barry Bonds, it's probably not wise to get in an argument about the issue. My sense is that if you just look at the numbers without context, Pujols should have had the award, because the difference in playing time makes up for Bonds' advantage in productivity (i.e., his astronomical OBP). But Bonds' missed time included a bunch of time following his father's death, and he could afford to take those days off in part because he had contributed so heavily to the Giants having a big lead. I can't really fault the voters for giving Bonds a break on that score.