"Clutching a beer in one hand and my laptop power cord in the other."

Jeremy's hilariously tragic photo. And here's the post explaining the tie, chosen to match his Powerpoint slides. Has there ever been a self-effacing academic blogger to rival Jeremy?

Me, I don't go to the Pajamas Media website anymore.

But some folks are still watching, and I want to link to a few of them.

1. Jim Hu, trying to understand what is going on with the Dongzhou massacre, went to Pajamas and found an embarrassing snark and a link to an obnoxious post.

2. Anechoic Room thinks Pajamas killed a blog.

3. Hog on Ice sees more widespread doom -- and likens Pajamas to Howard Dean.

4. Dan at Riehl World View wonders why a blogger would sign up for Pajamas while believing that BlogAds would pay more.

(By the way, my BlogAds are currently paying me at a rate of more than four times as much as Pajamas offered me to yoke myself to them for 18 months.)

UPDATE: I just accidentally got sent to the Pajamas website when I clicked on a link that said Eugene McCarthy has died. I felt a sense of outrage at being sent there. I don't like it when Pajamas insiders report news and then blind link to Pajamas. Clicking, thinking I'm going to a news site, I see the blue and orange bathrobe and cringe in the way I used to react when playing Old Maid and drawing the Maid.

IN THE COMMENTS: Do other folks feel like me about the rash of intra-Pajamas linkage? Yes, they do. There's advice about how to use the "status bar" -- something I'd never even heard of -- to see where a blind link is trying to send you, which will help me keep reading some of the Pajama people I still like. The question is, how long will we still like them if what we see is Pajamas, Pajamas, Pajamas. A link used to mean the blogger was interested. It still does, of course, but the word "interested" has more than one meaning.

MORE IN THE COMMENTS: I have occasion to respond to a commenter by writing:

The charges that I've lost my "grip" because I'm paying attention to what is a prominent event in blogging are blatantly ridiculous. Stop trying to control speech through name-calling. That's been the Pajama pattern since Day 1 when Charles Johnson portrayed me as crazy and unleashed his hounds on me. Disgusting. Deal with the substantive merits, like the fact that the website is embarrassingly bad and that insiders now have the appearance of self-interest when they link to each other. There should be MUCH MORE discussion of these things, not less. Many people are afraid to lose links if they speak up. They can see how nastily I've been treated, in the Pajamas tradition that YOU are carrying on.

Goodbye to Richard Pryor.

What a brilliant comedian! I remember him as the beautiful, charming young guy who was a very frequent guest on the Merv Griffin Show back in the 60s. Then later he became the startlingly angry stand-up comedian, who was, despite all that flashing anger, always funny. There was a time in the 1970s when he was the most popular movie star. Everyone loved him.

He died today.

"He did not suffer, he went quickly and at the end there was a smile on his face," his wife, Jennifer Pryor, said.

UPDATE: Dan at Riehl World View has a lot of links to clips of Richard Pryor being really, really funny.

The Oscar ads for "Brokeback Mountain."

Notice anything? How about this one? And most absurdly. Here's the whole set of Oscar ads. Compare those to the original movie poster. Comments?

IN THE COMMENTS: "Pathetic. But predictable from the so-called progressives in Hollywood, who play liberaler-than-thou but would rather commit actual suicide than the career suicide they fear would come about if they succumbed to 'the gay.'"

"I have no friends."

Said Howard Stern to Bill O'Reilly on the third of the three interviews he did this week. Stern admitted this was a character flaw of his. He also said that he goes to a therapist four times a week and is trying to learn how to become a better father. O'Reilly had been trying to flail him for living large, and had managed to extract the shocking news that Stern has a nice apartment. Doesn't O'Reilly live somewhere nice? O'Reilly tried to act like maybe his house wasn't all that nice, but who believes him? Stern says he goes to bed at 8 (or maybe he said 8:30) every week night, and has dinner at home with his girlfriend. O'Reilly seemed to think he could make something out of the fact that Stern goes to expensive restaurants on the weekend -- as if that's outrageously decadent.

There's got to be one recording...

That most impressed you as being exactly what you liked when you were a teenager, that, when you hear it today, brings back the whole feeling of loving the music of a particular place and time. For me, it's "I Can't Explain."

By the way, did you know they are making a biopic about Keith Moon? Mike Myers is playing the role. I don't know if I like that or not. Okay for the messed up, older Moon, I guess. Maybe they'll have someone else for young Keith. A good suggestion: Jason Schwartzman.

They don't need to plant a tracking device on you.

Your cellphone is a tracking device. You planted it on yourself.

The government has routinely used records of cellphone calls and caller locations to show where a suspect was at a particular time, with access to those records obtainable under a lower legal standard. (Wireless operators keep cellphone location records for varying lengths of time, from several months to years.)...

Prosecutors, while acknowledging that they have to get a court order before obtaining real-time cell-site data, argue that the relevant standard is found in a 1994 amendment to the 1986 Stored Communications Act, a law that governs some aspects of cellphone surveillance.

The standard calls for the government to show "specific and articulable facts" that demonstrate that the records sought are "relevant and material to an ongoing investigation" - a standard lower than the probable-cause hurdle.

The magistrate judges, however, ruled that surveillance by cellphone - because it acts like an electronic tracking device that can follow people into homes and other personal spaces - must meet the same high legal standard required to obtain a search warrant to enter private places.

"Permitting surreptitious conversion of a cellphone into a tracking device without probable cause raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns, especially when the phone is monitored in the home or other places where privacy is reasonably expected," wrote Stephen W. Smith, a magistrate in Federal District Court in the Southern District of Texas, in his ruling.

"The distinction between cell site data and information gathered by a tracking device has practically vanished," wrote Judge Smith. He added that when a phone is monitored, the process is usually "unknown to the phone users, who may not even be on the phone."

Very interesting and important.

The Democrats' hostility to Joe Lieberman.

From the NYT:

In the last few days, the senator has riled Democratic activists and politicians here and in his home state with his vigorous defense of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war at a time some Democrats are pressuring the administration to begin a withdrawal.

Mr. Lieberman particularly infuriated his colleagues when he pointed out at a conference here that President Bush would be commander in chief for three more years and said that "it's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that."

"We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril," Mr. Lieberman said....

"Some Democrats said I was being a traitor," he said in an interview on Friday, adding that he was not surprised by the reaction, "given the depth of feeling about the war."...

Mr. Lieberman noted that his positions on Iraq had not changed over the years, dating from 1991, when he supported the first Persian Gulf war. In 1998, he and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, proposed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein official American policy.

"The positive and negative reactions may have less to do with the substance of what I said than with the fact that a Democrat is saying it," Mr. Lieberman said. "It reflects the terribly divisive state of our politics."

Lieberman is absolutely right, and the Democrats turn to attack him. They should listen to him.

The "white flag" commercial.

What do you think of the GOP's new "white flag" commercial? I imagine it's horrifying to Democrats and utterly devastating to Senator Kerry, whom we see saying:

There's no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children ... uh, uh, uh ... you know, women...

I note that the stammering was probably caused by Kerry's realization that he'd just said "kids and children" rather than "women and children" and that it had messed up what he'd meant as a profound attack. Or do you think he actually regretted saying "terrorizing" when referring to our soldiers?

I think the commercial is very powerful and effective. It gave me chills. Every word of it, every clip, is perfectly chosen to send the message that the Republicans in fact waited far too long to send.

Why Congress should impose TV cameras on the Supreme Court.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about a bill in Congress that would impose TV cameras on the Supreme Court, and I raised the question whether it might violate separation of powers. The other day, a journalist writing on the subject called me for an elaboration, and I had to admit that I didn't think there was much of any substance to the constitutional problem. Cameras in the conference room would be another matter. In any case, I think the public would be well served by the ability to see and hear these arguments, and much as I would prefer the Court to adopt cameras for itself and think it's rather intrusive for Congress to act, I think Congress should do it. I'll explain why.

First, let me point out this piece by Dahlia Lithwick that made me want to write about the subject again. She notes that it's blogging not television that threatens the Court's dignity these days and says:

If the high court doesn't make at least some concessions to the public, the American people will get to know its justices and their jobs through parody and politics alone.

Lithwick also notes how camera ready John Roberts is:

[Y]ou cannot attend oral argument these days without being slapped right in the nose by Roberts' youth. Not only is he significantly and markedly younger than almost all his colleagues, he's also clearly a product of the Age of Letterman. ... [T]he new chief is already making it clear that such acts of deluded grandeur are just not his style....

Indeed, one of the reasons Roberts fared so brilliantly at his confirmation hearings this fall was that he is so clearly a product of life after television (unlike, for one, the unfortunate Robert Bork). Roberts' total mastery of the medium—from his subtle comic timing to his gestures and demeanor—revealed right away that this was a guy raised on mass media....

But being raised on TV does not ensure that you will be good on TV. Bork's problem was not merely that he didn't grow up with television. He was a man of significantly less than average physical beauty. A stylist could have helped with better hair and makeup. But still, he was no John Roberts. Roberts is telegenic, and he would be even if TV were invented yesterday. And it's not just looks. It's manner, verbal ability, and the wit to display verbal ability in short bursts. John Roberts has all that. Few others do -- whatever their age.

So, we can't predict that a generational turn will make the Justices want to invite TV cameras into their presence. There will always be Justices who are more television ready than others, unless Presidents limit themselves to appointees that have the whole John Roberts set of attributes. But we already know that isn't going to happen. Harriet Miers was not television-ready, and neither is Samuel Alito. There just isn't that much television talent among those with the experience, ability, and character to belong on the Court. Why would such stars have holed up among the books all their lives?

But there is an even more important reason for the Justices to resist the cameras, and it is the reason I think it is most important for Congress to take the lead. The Justices have life tenure, and they know how to use it. We just saw 11 years pass without a retirement. Presidents go through through entire terms without a single opportunity to choose a fresh voice for the Court. It has become the norm for Justices to hold their seats as they pass into old age and severe illness. With the support of four gloriously able and energetic law clerks and the silence of the other Justices, no slip in a Justice's ability ever shows in his writing. But the Justices do need to take their seats on the bench for oral argument, and it is here that the public has the chance to judge them.

This judgment may be unfair. Some Justices, as noted, are better looking than others. Some will subject themselves to hair and makeup specialists, and others won't tolerate it. And getting older damages even the prettiest face. Some Justices love the verbal jousting with the lawyers in the courtroom, while others think that all they need is the written argument and opt out of the live show. With cameras, Justice Scalia would win new fans, and "The Daily Show" would wring laughs from Justice Thomas's silent face. The read is inaccurate.

But the cameras would expose the Justices who cling to their seats despite declining ability. It is true that the journalists in the courtroom might tell us if a Justice no longer manages to sit upright and look alert. But the regular gaze of the television cameras would create a permanent but subtle pressure on the Justices to think realistically about whether they still belong on the Court. Self-interest would motivate them to step down gracefully and not cling too long to the position of power the Constitution entitles them to. I think this new pressure would serve the public interest. It would institute a valuable check on the life tenure provision, which has, in modern times, poured too much power into the individuals who occupy the Court.

And I want to watch the arguments on television too.

"There is no greater comfort than the joy of having a café crème avec un croissant, made with the sweet Normandy butter...."

Despite the snowstorm here in the Midwest, Nina makes it from Madison to Paris.

"Does it surprise me in Madison? No."

So said Ruth Anne Schoer, speaking of the decision to cancel a field trip for third graders here at Chavez Elementary School that would have involved, as in past years, ringing bells to collect money for her organization, the Salvation Army. This year, a parent complained about school children helping a religion-based charity, and the school administration chose to avoid the controversy:

Schoer said bell ringing is something that's very easy for kids to do, and they get a big kick out of doing it, especially when people fold up dollar bills to put into the red kettles.

"It's pretty exciting to a little kid when someone puts a $1 bill in, and when it's a $10 bill, they feel it's the best thing in the world," she said.

Schoer said it's disappointing that people believe the Salvation Army, founded by a Methodist minister in England in 1865, is simply a religious organization.

"All of the money we raise goes to feed, shelter and clothe people," she said. "It doesn't go to promote religion."

The word "volunteer" is just that when it comes to bell ringing, Schoer said.

"I don't want to attack the person who won't allow kids to do this," she said. "We don't want anyone to be forced to do it, but it would be nice for kids to have the right to ring a bell if they want to."

Lots of students in the Madison school district volunteer for the bell-ringing, but this is usually done on an individual sign-up basis. For these third graders, the teachers made the decision to volunteer for the entire class, and that really does present a special problem, so the parent who complained should not be demonized. But rather than give up on a valuable and rewarding experience, the school ought to just structure things differently, with a choice of activities, and let the children, with their parents' help, decide what they would like to do.

"Spielberg knows how to overwhelm."

"But I am tired of being overwhelmed. Why should I admire somebody for his ability to manipulate me? In other realms of life, this talent is known as demagoguery. There are better reasons to turn to art, better reasons to go to the movies, than to be blown away." -- Leon Wieseltier on "Munich."

I have no basis for an opinion on "Munich" specifically, but that statement hits home for me. It expresses so much of what keeps me away from the movies.

"Why not let the citizens of Wisconsin have a voice as to whether or not they think this would be appropriate here?"

No, the topic is not gay marriage. (See yesterday's discussion of a proposal to put gay marriage to a statewide vote.) Now we're talking about a referendum to adopt the death penalty here in Wisconsin, where we haven't had the death penalty in 152 years.

"100 Most Unexpected TV Moments."

Have you been watching the "100 Most Unexpected TV Moments" on TV Land? Here's the list of all 100 moments.

If you're not up-to-date on episodes of "The Sopranos," do not look at #56. And avoid #18 if you're not up-to-date on "Six Feet Under."

#45 made me cry! I am such a sap for certain 60s retro things. Actually, two things made me cry. One was Sonny and Cher getting back together to sing "I Got You Babe" on Letterman. The other was the interview part with modern-day Cher. Why did she ruin her face? (Won't the day come when puffed-out collagen-lips will seem as incomprehensible as giant shoulder pads?)

#42, James Stockdale: It's hard to believe it's not Phil Hartman playing James Stockdale, but that's really him, saying "Who am I? Why am I here?"

They keep showing teasers for #17: "Yolanda Bowersley, come on down!" We laughed hysterically for minutes when we saw that "Price Is Right" moment. Yolanda scampers down the steps, all excited, and the scampering makes her tube top fall down. You have to see it, maybe, to know how funny it is, but I'm laughing out loud just typing this. Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" comes in at #4, but I'm sorry, Yolanda Bowersley has it all over Ms. Jackson.

There's not much news or politics on the list -- by design -- but the Dean scream makes it to #7. To get to the next "most unexpected" political things, you've got to go all the way down to #21 (Walter Cronkite's "It seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate") and #22 ( Lloyd Bentsen's "you are no Jack Kennedy").

Anyway, cool show. I love this kind of TV.

Stern versus O'Reilly.

Have you been watching Bill O'Reilly interviewing Howard Stern this week? It's been highly amusing. In my view, Stern wipes the floor with O'Reilly -- though, as a visual image, I'd prefer O'Reilly wiping the floor with Stern, Stern bearing the greater physical resemblance to a mop. He's so tall and skinny and that hair! But the hair has lost its old Ramones feeling. Now each curl is meticulously arranged, including the long strand that hangs over his eye, trying to act like it just fell forward, but rigidly twirled just so. He must have a hairdresser who follows him everywhere (like Valerie Cherish's Mickey). What do you think Stern's curl-wrangler gets paid?

Stern is so sharp that he makes O'Reilly look smushy. The O'Reilly bluster just can't get going. O'Reilly seems cowed by the knowledge of how damned much money Stern is getting from Sirius radio. Is it $500 million? Stern wouldn't quite say. Is it $500 million? O'Reilly kept asking.

News Hounds -- "We watch FOX so you don't have to" -- summarizes last night's Stern/O'Reilly encounter:

"Who's your audience?" O'Reilly asked.

Stern set the tone for the rest of the interview by answering, "Strippers, hookers and crack whores." Then he tried to explain that he always envisions his audience as a guy going to to work, a buddy in the locker room talking honestly about reality....

From all this, somehow O'Reilly concluded that Sterns audience was a "blue collar guy." Stern shot back with the analysis of the Scarborough Report which concluded that his audience was highly educated and high income.

O'Reilly didn't like that and made a crack about having lesbians on his show. Stern didn't blink answering, "There will always be lesbians. I will give the people lesbian's because theres nothing sexier than two women getting it on." One can only imagine what Bill was thinking?

Before O'Reilly could respond to the lesbian comment, Stern turned to O'Reilly's merchandise sales making cracks about all the "kazari". "Who's walking around with a Bill O'Reilly briefcase?" he wondered. O'Reilly got all indignant and self righteous about giving 100% to charities like Habitat For Humanity but Stern claimed that he didn't believe it.

Making fun of O'Reilly he quipped, "Come outside with me right now!" O'Reilly then suggested that Stern could build houses for poor lesbians.

Stern then accused O'Reilly of selling the stuff out of ego and demanded a jacket for free. O'Reilly offered it on the condition that he wear it. "I won't wear it but I'll give it to a crack whore."

That caused great hilarity chez Althouse.