Waiting for the South Carolina results.

CNN has an on-screen countdown. 3:09 and counting down!

UPDATE: They plan to project the winner immediately. 22 seconds to go.

UPDATE 2: CNN projects "a strong victory for Barack Obama."

UPDATE 3: CNN shows Edwards and Clinton in a close fight for second, with Edwards getting more of the white vote than Clinton (39% to 36%).

UPDATE 4: There he is! Barack Obama! CNN has just told us that Caroline Kennedy endorses Obama and thinks he's like her father. And now we see Barack hand in hand with Michelle, who's wearing a Jackie Kennedy-invoking pink suit. "We are hungry for change, and we are ready to believe again." Chant: "We want change! We want change!" The huge banner in back of him says "CHANGE we can believe in." The lectern in front of him says "Change." People want to tell you that white people won't vote for the African-American, but "we are here tonight to tell you that is not the America we believe in."

Austin protest #2: "Hey hey ho ho, Roe v. Wade has got to go."

Same afternoon. Austin, Texas. A big, organized pro-life march heads north on Congress Avenue toward the Texas Capitol.

ADDED: I wasn't standing around waiting for this march. I just happened upon this corner and had my little camera in my hand. I couldn't edit this clip, so this is just what I caught. It's just by chance that someone drops the American flag right in the beginning, something I didn't see until I uploaded the clip.

Austin protest #1: 9/11 conspiracy + anti-war + pomeranian.

"WAR is Hell/Heaven is PEACE/can't Support BOTH!"



"It's a FACT at least 7 of the 19 named Hijackers on 9-11 are still ALIVE."

Well, they've got dog on their side.

The interpretation of carpeting.

Remember the way Jeffrey Toobin — in "The Nine" — belittled Justice Anthony Kennedy through the interpretation of carpeting?

[Justice Anthony] Kennedy's vanity was generally harmless, almost charming -- sort of like the carpet in his office.

Understatement was the rule for the decor in most justices' chambers. Everyone had a few personal touches -- O'Connor employed a southwestern motif, with Native American blankets and curios; Ginsburg had opera mementos; Stevens had the box score from the World Series game in 1932 when Babe Ruth hit is "called shot" home run against the Chicago Cubs. (Stevens had attended the game as a twelve-year-old boy.) Kennedy, in contrast, installed a plush red carpet, more suited to a theater set than a judge's chambers. Worse (or better, depending on one's perspective), the carpet was festooned with gold stars -- garish touches that made the office a sort of tourist attraction for law clerks and other insiders.

When I read the book, I wrote:

What the hell? So what if Kennedy has proletarian taste in carpet? Does that mean anything about him? And, supposing it does, why would a man who likes thick carpet and bright colors be less suited to make decisions for us than someone with high-class, refined tastes? Who are these asinine clerks who are trying to take the justice down a peg because of his carpet?...

[Toobin is] promoting the theory that Kennedy -- as the next sentence reads -- "tried hard, maybe too hard, to impress"... Kennedy is a ridiculous man, don't you know...

I'm thinking about that now, as I eat breakfast in the elegant restaurant in a beautiful, historic hotel in Austin, Texas and stare at the floor:



Maybe it's not so much about high and low class taste as it is a matter of Eastern and Western taste. Yes, I know Sacramento (Kennedy's home town) and Austin are far from each other. This hotel reflects the styles of 1886 and the tastes of a cattle baron. Sacramento was a gold-rush town in the 1800s. But some rough, adventurous people got rich in the 19th century. Shouldn't east-coasters like Jeffrey Toobin — he was a New York City preppie — and — I'm thinking — those law clerks — show a little respect for the sweep of American culture?

The NYT endorses Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Here and here. I was going to mention it yesterday, but it's a travel weekend for me and, also, I found it boring.

I do find it amusing that as I was typing the previous sentence — in this restaurant, The Driskill Grill, where I'm eating breakfast — I overheard a man at the next table say: "I like Obama. I like Edwards. I don't like Hillary Clinton."

From the Times:

Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe.

Why does that apply to Mitt Romney, who doesn't seem like the angry type? I think we could sort all the candidates — from both parties — by the level of their emotional heat. Giuliani and McCain are hot. Romney and Huckabee are cool. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are hot. Barack Obama is cool.

(There's a sense in which Mitt Romney is hilariously uncool and utterly not in the same category as Obama, but I'm not talking about that.)

To be fair, the NYT referred not to the emotional style of the candidate, but to the emotional quality of some "small" "fringe" that a President would govern "from and on behalf of." But how does that apply to Romney? Here's their disqualification of Romney:

Mitt Romney’s shape-shifting rivals that of Mr. Giuliani. It is hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts. It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country.

Shape-shifting? In other words: flexibly and pragmatically bending one way or another in an effort to respond to constituents. Isn't that exactly the opposite of "of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe"?

The NYT rhetoric is absolutely incoherent.

Ha, ha, suddenly I don't find the NYT endorsements boring at all. It must be these Texas scrambled eggs and sausage fortifying me.

So let's see why we're supposed to like Hillary Clinton more than Barack Obama. If the idea is to get away from "governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe," isn't Obama perfect?

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

Oh, now it's all about experience and expertise.

Why worry about governing "from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe" when it's your small, angry fringe?

"Sometimes you have to be a Leon."

J.B. Smoove.

''Testosterone to me is so important for a sense of well-being when you get older."

''Everyone over 40 years old would be wise to investigate it because it increases the quality of your life. Mark my words. In 10 years it will be over the counter.''

Sylvester Stallone recommends human growth hormone. "HGH is nothing."

Where am I?

Where have I gone to celebrate January Christmas? And did you, my dear reader, even notice that my December Christmas got ruined?

"He liked a cigarette, he liked a bottle of beer - he drank a bottle of beer like any man."

The bear that fought in World War II.

"I remember the first time my girlfriends and I admitted that we all felt the same about married sex as parents...."

"... we couldn't be bothered with it and felt guilty for not wanting to sleep with our husbands. It was a revelation. I remember thinking: 'Thank God! It's not just me!'"

Carrie Jones hasn't had sex with her husband in 4 years, doesn't intend to, and has written a book about marital celibacy.

Last night's debate.

I didn't post last night about the Republican debate because I was on an airplane, but since it was a JetBlue airplane I had TV reception and was able to watch the whole thing on the seatback in front of me. Admittedly, I slept through part of it, but I saw at least the first hour of it.

I turned on CNN in my hotel this morning and heard talking heads yammering about how there were "no fireworks." Oh, too bad!

On the subject of the media's ridiculous hunger for emotional outbursts, watch this "Daily Show" clip:



But let's discuss the debate. I thought Mitt Romney was especially good. Beginning with the first question, he let us see some of the depth of his expertise on economic matters.

Meanwhile, John McCain was challenged on a statement of his that conceded he was not well-versed on economics. McCain seemed to deny that he'd said any such thing. I say "seemed" because it was a little hedged: "I don't know where you got that statement." But as TPM makes painfully clear, he has disparaged his own understanding of economics on several occasions.

Romney must be terribly pleased that the central issue in the campaign is suddenly economics.

I'm assailed in the local paper for failing to take the 9/11 truthers seriously.

Oh, the pain! The pain that UW-Oshkosh emeritus biology professor Bill Willers imagines he's inflicting!

On Jan. 21, University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse wrote on her blog, “I don’t know why the University of Wisconsin has not rehired 9/11 conspiracy believer Kevin Barrett to teach a course on the history of Islam. But if we know a person believes something truly nutty, are we not entitled to use that as evidence of his intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness?”

Here's the blog post in which I set aside the facts I don't know and raise a question designed to help readers work toward a general principle that would distinguish between the discrimination against a political viewpoint and the proper use of evidence of a person's qualities of mind.

This is an amazing statement coming from a professor of law — a position that presupposes a respect for carefully considered evidence.

Presumably, by "position" he means that the position of professor of law presupposes respect for evidence. But it could more aptly mean that the position I took in my statement is, in fact, a recommendation that we ascertain the value of the evidence that a job applicant creates through speaking and thus a position that entails respect for evidence.

Her assault on Mr. Barrett, in which she makes no effort to consider the countless facts backing the so-called Truth Movement, is shamefully flippant — her word choice of “truly nutty” — and unworthy of an academic intent on attacking another.

Professor Willers, calm down and reread. I put to the side the case of Kevin Barrett and said I did not know the facts. Moving to the level of abstraction, I asked a neutral question that was intended to facilitate thinking about what to do in the case of a job applicant who takes a truly nutty position. By the way, it's the work of a law professor to propose hypotheticals to assist students in thinking about legal problems outside of the context of a particular case.

Without going into details easily found on the Internet...

Oh, my! It's on the Internet!

....a considerable army of architects, engineers, physicists, logicians, commercial and military pilots, first responders, military figures all the way to general officer, and government personnel including FBI and CIA agents has amassed a solid case countering the official story. That army is all the greater for the addition of similar experts from countries all over the world.

So, apparently Willers is himself a 9/11 truther. Sigh.

Ms. Althouse has refused to debate the issue in public forum. That being so, how does the objective observer avoid a conclusion of moral cowardice on her part? As a professional, is she not obligated to present evidence rather than indulging in personal attack?

Why would I debate about physics when I'm a law professor? Being "a professional" doesn't mean you're an expert in everything.

And again, I didn't make a personal attack.

By the way, Professor Willers, aren't you making a personal attack? Do you think you had the obligation to read my post with basic understanding before writing a letter like this to the newspaper?

There is irony surrounding Ms. Althouse’s questioning of Mr. Barrett’s intelligence...

Oh, irony! That's really... ironic... because I was just pointing out the irony of your absurd little letter to the student newspaper.

....judgment and trustworthiness, because it leads one to the question, “If we know that a law professor is willing to attack someone for no reason that she could defend in a courtroom situation, would we not be entitled to question her intelligence, judgment and trustworthiness?” And there is little doubt that in a courtroom, in which she would face that army of experts and their facts, she would be reduced to dust on the floor.

In answer to your hypothetical, of course you could take into account that the law professor attacked someone for no reason. I didn't do that, however, so that doesn't refer to me.

Nevertheless, I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness.

Our "script"... our "reality is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film," so we need a President "who's been in that."

Sylvester Stallone makes the pitch for John McCain.

So Huckabee's got Chuck Norris. And now, McCain has Stallone. Somebody needs a Schwarzenegger! Wait! Who's that on the phone?!

Churchyard signs.

(Enlarge #1. Enlarge #2.)

IN THE COMMENTS: Inwood says:

STRANGER if you, passing, meet me and desire to speak to me, fuhgedaboudit; get on a blog and we'll write.

The churchyard pumpkin.

"The desire to become 'tragic heroes' on the internet."

"Suicide had become a cool thing in our area."