"Yes, he can see you fine through his solid-gold eyeglasses, he simply doesn’t have time to dally with the likes of you."

Modern Drunkard picks the 10 greatest alcohol icons of all time, beginning with "The Striding Man," who embodies Johnnie Walker. (Via Throwing Things.)

Vlog!

Based on your questions here...



... including discussion of the movie referred to here ("Rescue Dawn").

CORRECTION: In the video, I incorrectly state that "The Pianist" is a fictional story. I'm terribly sorry to have forgotten that it's a true story.

Justice Stevens on "super stare decisis" and whether it's believable that Clarence Thomas did not talk about Roe v. Wade when he was a law student.

I'm watching C-Span's coverage of Justice Stevens at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals conference in Honolulu (from July 19, 2007). He's asked about the term "super stare decisis," which came up in the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

Stevens says:

Well, I wasn't particularly persuaded by that suggestion. I think, after all -- he's talking about Roe against Wade there and so forth -- and I think there are powerful stare decisis arguments there, but it's also true that that has been a controversial decision in recent years.

Interestingly, though, it was decided just two or three years before I went on the Court, and at the time, I was not asked a single question about that issue, because it was not then controversial. That's quite interesting. It was a 7 to 2 decision, a sort of fairly routine decision at the time.

I remember during the confirmation hearings for Justice Thomas he was asked about his discussions in law school about that case, and he said he didn't remember having any, and that people thought, well, he's not being forthright. Well, he was being absolutely honest, because I remember, at that time, it was not something law students generally talked about. It was considered a fairly settled, noncontroversial matter.

It became more and more controversial as the years have gone on.

I don't like the way he strayed from the question. Why wasn't he persuaded by the "super stare decisis" idea? But -- I think at first -- it's nice to hear him back up Justice Thomas's credibility on an issue that he's been scoffed at for so many years.

And then I think: Was it really true that Roe v. Wade was not controversial at the time, that law students didn't talk about it when it came out? I remember -- as a young woman who worried a lot about pregnancy back then -- being floored when the Supreme Court came out and said I had a right to an abortion. It hadn't been that long ago that we'd had to think about traveling to Sweden if we needed an abortion, and the ability to go to New York for the procedure was quite new. Suddenly, it was not only not a crime anymore, it was a constitutional right. I experienced that as astounding.

But maybe if you were already initiated into the law -- I was a college student -- it would have seemed obvious and ordinary -- just another step down what was a predictable path. Stevens says so, and in saying so he backs up Thomas.

Ah! But see the cleverness of saying that now? Stevens seems to forget the question about super stare decisis, but did he forget? Or did he see a way to entrench Roe more securely than if he'd talked about the term super stare decisis? He shifted to talking Justice Thomas. He backed up his antagonist on the Court on an issue over which Thomas has suffered long and bitter attacks. But the way he found to support Thomas entailed the notion that Roe was a secure and clear articulation of the law in its time -- an easily perceived detail in the coherent fabric of the law.

Stevens leans back in his chair. He's an old man wearing a pink short-sleeved shirt, big outdated glasses, and a Hawaiian lei. Who can notice that he's just made a deft rhetorical move? Well played, Justice Stevens!

"If the truth doesn’t set you free, maybe being a crazy bastard will."

"The American psycho meets the German kook."

UPDATE: The movie is "Rescue Dawn," directed by Werner Herzog. I talk about it a bit in this new vlog.

Stop me before I vlog again.

Don't ask me any questions. Otherwise, I'm going to do another vlog later this afternoon.

ADDED: You scamps! You asked me questions. And I vlogged again. Here.

"Let's talk about this silly, frivolous, nothing stuff so that America won't pay attention."

Watching this video, I thought, first, ooh, he's good. And then, what's with his hair? It seems to be coming undone in the heat... is that... is that a toupée?

Anyway, I came to this video via Jake Tapper:

There's an interesting meme of Democratic victimology developing here…

In addition to former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, saying that media attention on his hair stems from powerful interests who "want to shut me up", it should be noted that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, is also wading a bit into the waters of victimology…

After being the first one to really amp up her disagreement with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, from Monday night's debate -- her campaign sent out the video of their respective answers before the debate was even over, and she was the first one to personally use perjorative adjectives against Obama -- she's now trying to raise money claiming he "attacked" her.

"Last week, one of the leading Republican candidates equated Hillary with Karl Marx. Yesterday, one of the leading Democratic candidates called her 'Bush-Cheney lite,'" wrote Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle in the e-mail. "Hillary is under attack from opponents on all sides. When you're attacked, you expect your family and friends to stand with you…"

The short, 440-word fundraising appeal uses a form of the word "attack" six times. With Clinton as the victim, naturally.

But of course we should attack them! They can fight back, and then we can respond to that, perhaps by saying that they're indulging in "victimology." They need to think through whether it helps their cause very much to seem thin-skinned and to act prudishly offended when we speak of superficial things.

You know damned well that they are using image to try to manipulate us. (They never complain when we say they look fabulous.) They'd like to be free to pursue their political ambitions by taking advantage their good looks -- why has Edwards done so well over the years? -- but to stop us from engaging on the image level. They'd like all their subliminal campaigning to slip into our subconsciousness unchallenged.

They want all their critics to engage with them only on the substantive policy analysis level where, frankly, America won't pay attention whether there's also any silly, frivolous, nothing stuff to distract them or not.

"Rich people read."

Glenn Reynolds writes:

IN LIGHT OF YESTERDAY'S POST ABOUT TV, ARNOLD KLING SENDS THIS:

Back when I had my relocation web site, we got hold of some zip-code level marketing data. When I looked for purchases that correlated with affluence, hardback books was one of the strongest.

Rich people read. Books.

I'm not surprised to hear that.

I'm skeptical. What's the correlation between buying hardback books and actually reading serious writing? A few thoughts:

1. People with less money use the library, swap books with friends and family, and buy paperbacks.

2. Look at the hardcover bestseller lists. Most of this is junk reading. People who go for hardbacks tend to be people who want the latest thing. It's not especially deep. "The Secret" and "21 Pounds in 21 Days" are typical popular hardcover books. Cookbooks tend to be purchased in hardback form. Books that you look at but don't really read -- coffee table books and art books -- also tend to be hardbacks.

3. Most of the serious literature out there is available in paperback: All the classic novels and nonfiction are going to be in paperback. Take a trip to Borders. Are the most serious readers the ones at the front tables full of new novels and political books that will be gone in 5 years or back in the shelves labeled "History," "Philosophy," and "Science" -- which are full of paperbacks?

4. Hardcover books make nice gifts. You may buy them, but are they for you? And will the person who receives your gift ever read it?

5. Lots of children's books come in hardcover. Of course, rich people delight in supplying their children and grandchildren with copious quantities of books -- and in telling others about what readers the little angels are.

6. When you have the money for it, buying books can be a satisfying pastime. You pick up one book because the cover expresses who you like to think you are. There's that guy with "How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency." Go ahead, pile on another. "Anatomy of Deceit: How the Bush Administration Used the Media to Sell the Iraq War and Out a Spy." A couple more and the cute girl at the checkout will surely glow with admiration.

Aspiring to be "Mommie Dearest."

Here's a NYT article about how parents are giving birthday parties without presents for their kids:

In part to teach philanthropy and altruism, and in part as a defense against swarms of random plastic objects destined to clutter every square foot of their living space, a number of families are experimenting with gift-free birthday parties, suggesting that guests donate money or specified items to the charity of the child’s choice instead....

Bill Doherty, who helped create Birthdays Without Pressure, a Web site opposed to expensive, competitive parties in the Nickelodeon set, said the no-gift notion was “great, especially if the child is involved in choosing the charity,” but cautioned that “it could become another source of competition.”

In Randolph, N.J., Jack Knapp’s family has a five-year tradition of redirecting birthday benefits: They have collected dress-up clothes for a girl with cancer, items for the pediatric emergency room at Morristown Memorial Hospital and groceries for the Interfaith Food Pantry.

After seeing her two older siblings treated like heroes when they dropped off their haul, the youngest, Emily, recently told her mother, Mindy Knapp, that she wants gifts for her 4th birthday next month to go to the neonatal unit. Not that she can define neonatal.

“She said, ‘Could we give stuff to the babies at the hospital?’ Mrs. Knapp said. “Now they wouldn’t think of doing it any other way.”

Mrs. Knapp said her children’s grandparents “always support whatever cause the kids are into,” but also insist on giving them gifts, noting, “Otherwise it would be like a scene from ‘Mommie Dearest.’ ”

I was wondering if they were ever going to get around to mentioning "Mommie Dearest." It seems to be only the grandparents who remember the time when we delighted in loathing the mother who would give a birthday party and then whisk away all the presents to be sent to less fortunate children.



Now, parents are proud of their resemblance to that crazed vision of parenthood!

I eagerly await a NYT article about the way the superparents of today are schooling their kids in the rigors of housework.

"I hope that there was considerable controversy in your newsroom over the decision to run a story posing as a 'fashion' piece..."

Hillary shows cleavage. WaPo readers show disapproval that fashion and politics columnist Robin Givhan wrote about it.

From Letter 1:

...Robin Givhan wrote, without irony, that looking at Clinton's breasts felt voyeuristic and that her small, "not unseemly" amount of cleavage is the equivalent of a man's unzipped fly, as if Clinton deserved the sexualized attention thanks to a shameful social faux pas....

When I am at work, as a young woman often surrounded by older men, I want my mind to be on display and my body to be relatively invisible....

Presumably, then, she doesn't wear low-cut tops! Or is she insisting that the world be magically transformed so that women can wear anything and no one will talk about what they are wearing or even think about their bodies? If that transformation were possible, would we want it?

Letter 2:

What's next? An article on viewing men's crotches generally or seeing a difference when they are watching her speak?

There should, of course, be corresponding writing about men's clothing and any sexual messages it may communicate. I note that male Senators wear such extremely conventional clothing that it's very hard to find anything sexual about it or, in fact, much of anything interesting to say about it.

The first two letters are trying to work the theory that you wouldn't treat men with such disrespect, but both letter writers fumble with the problem that there is no equivalent thing that a man would do. Both resort to referring to a predicament that might happen without intentionality. An open fly and a noticeable erection are scarcely parallel to a woman's chosen low-cut top. If the Post had published an article about menstrual blood stains on a female politician's skirt, the first 2 letter writers would have a good point.

But Givhan herself brought up the subject of a man's open fly:

The cleavage... is an exceptional kind of flourish. After all, it's not a matter of what she's wearing but rather what's being revealed. It's tempting to say that the cleavage stirs the same kind of discomfort that might be churned up after spotting Rudy Giuliani with his shirt unbuttoned just a smidge too far. No one wants to see that. But really, it was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!

She goes on to speak of a female politician in Britain who showed much more cleavage and to deal with the way showing just a little cleavage creates ambiguity about whether it was intended. ("With Clinton, there was the sense that you were catching a surreptitious glimpse at something private. You were intruding -- being a voyeur.") Givhan is analyzing the complex gesture of showing but only showing a little: The possibility that it is unintentional or not meant to imply sexuality makes the viewer uncomfortable. This is a sly political joke: Clinton is "tentative" and "noncommittal" in "matters of style."

Letter 3:

Robin Givhan's attempts to turn Hillary Clinton's choice of a scoop-necked shirt on a hot day in the District into social commentary failed miserably. Givhan crossed the line by suggesting that the shirt revealed Clinton's changing comfort level with her sexuality....

The "hot day" explanation is quite silly. The Capitol building clearly must be air-conditioned to the point where all the men are comfortable in suits and in no danger of sweating, so there is no way the low-cut top was serving an important summertime physical need. In any case, Clinton was wearing a jacket too. How desperately hot could she have been? Is cleavage some special heat vent?

Letter 4:

Most disturbing... was the misogynistic tone Givhan took, most notably with her comment, "No one wants to see that . . . Just look away!" It really should come as no surprise that women tend to have breasts. With breasts come cleavage. They are part of the female body...

This is a rhetorical move I've seen before. Talking about how a woman has chosen to highlight her breasts is portrayed as an objection to the woman's having breasts at all. And one is called misogynistic. But good Lord! What a misreading! Givhan's "Just look away!" didn't express her distaste for breasts. The next paragraph expresses enthusiasm for the British home secretary with the lavish display of cleavage! "Just look away" was Givhan's impression of what Hillary seemed to be saying with the "tentative" cleavage.

Letter 5:

I can't decide what horrifies me more: that The Post, which I have often touted for its intelligent reporting, would publish such a sexist, dated article, or even worse, that the author was echoing a common viewpoint still prevalent in society.

As a mother and a professional analyst for the government, I have always believed that my colleagues have respected my work, my mind and my opinions, not whether my cleavage was showing. I dress as I believe all women should: with the ability to choose clothes that represent who they are, be they feminine, nurturing, intelligent, sexy or fashionable. But I do so with the hope that clothes represent my style -- not how much skin is exposed.

So women should wear clothes that "represent who they are," but it's wrong to analyze this self expression? Your "clothes represent [your] style -- not how much skin is exposed"? What does that mean? The style of your clothes obviously includes the way it covers some parts and not others. Once you concede that clothes express the inner self, it follows that we should try to understand the meaning of the clothing worn by a person who seeks political power. Why would you censor this valuable line of inquiry?

Questions, questions....

I'm going to do a 10 minute vlog in one hour... but I need a few questions! And they don't have to be about the photograph, of course. That's just there because... it's a picture I took.

ADDED: Here it is:

Wussing out on the YouTube debate?

The Republicans? I thought they were supposed to be the tough guys!

What are they afraid of? A question about the war from a mother whose son died? Or are they just afraid to have fun? Romney:

"I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."

I'm picturing maybe a dog strapped to the roof of a station wagon.... A "Davey and Goliath"-style stop-action thing. And Davey's got a hose...

Dentist implants boar tusks on unconscious patient, photographs her, and later he wins $750,000 in a lawsuit about it.

How does that happen?

In a sprightly 5-4 decision, Supreme Court Justice Mary Fairhurst wrote that Woo's practical joke was an integral, if odd, part of the assistant's dental surgery and "conceivably" should trigger the professional liability coverage of his policy....

The backstory, the court wrote, is that Alberts' family raises potbellied pigs and that she frequently talked about them at the office where she worked for five years.

Woo said his jests about the pigs were part of "a friendly working environment" that he tried to foster.

The oral surgery on Alberts was intended to replace two of her teeth with implants, which Woo did. First, though, he installed temporary bridges that he had shaped to look like boar tusks, and while Alberts was still under anesthesia, he took photos, some with her eyes propped open. Before she woke up, he removed the "tusks" and put in the proper replacement teeth.

Woo says he didn't personally show her the pictures but staffers gave her copies at a birthday party.

So... why did he win? Because everyone hates insurance companies? Because women who talk too much about their oddball pets deserve humilation -- as long as they're unconscious?

The summer associate who sent a senior partner the text message: “Are bras required as part of the dress code?”

I don't know what's more absurd: asking that question of a senior partner or using a text message to do it.

A word of advice: If you're even thinking of asking the question -- that is, if you're not already noticing braless women in your workplace -- don't ask the question -- just figure out how to go braless without it showing. Camisoles with lycra content, jackets, layers -- there are many tricks. Don't forget nippies!

If none of the various tricks work to keep people from noticing that you are braless, you shouldn't go braless even in a workplace where you can tell women are going braless.

1,500 Philippine prisoners reenact "Thriller."

Here's the YouTube clip we're all watching and wondering about (noted on NPR.org the other day):

Obama calls Hillary "Bush-Cheney lite."

One more thing that tips me toward Clinton! Bush-Cheney lite sounds like just about what we need. Clinton declares the epithet "silly," but I think that secretly she knows the comparison helps her in some quarters.

And Obama came out with that in the context of trying to justify what was in fact a major gaffe at the debate:

In South Carolina and during a visit to New Hampshire earlier in the day, Obama compared Clinton to Bush because, he said, she has said she will not have unconditional meetings with foreign enemies.

He told the College Democrats that her approach showed "stubbornness" and in New Hampshire he referred to her as "Bush-Cheney lite."

"Stubbornness"? As opposed to what? Giddy impetuousness?

Clinton's retort:

"I've been called a lot of things in my life but I've never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney certainly," she said. "We have to ask what's ever happened to the politics of hope?"

Oh, come on. He's overflowing with hope! Hope that Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and Iran will play nice. Hope that saying Clinton is like Bush will cause voters to recoil in horror...

Radio alert.

I'm going to be on "Week in Review" at 8 AM, Central Time, today. This is the Wisconsin Public Radio show where we go over the week's news stories, and I count as the conservative. On the left will be Isthmus news editor Bill Lueders. You don't have to be from Wisconsin to call in with a question.

Go here to listen on-line live. Remember, we're on Central Time. If you go at 8 Eastern, you can hear about "The Simpsons" from Steven Keslowitz, author of "The World According to The Simpsons: What Our Favorite TV Family Says About Life, Love, and the Pursuit of the Perfect Donut" (Source Books). Both shows will later be streamable at the archive here.

ADDED: Stream it here.

AND: Here's Lueders' book "Cry Rape" -- and his website on it, which includes the underlying documents in the case the book is about.

UPDATE: Read far enough into the comments to see why I mistrust Lueders' judgment and fairness. I should emphasize that I haven't read his book, so please don't take my reference to it as a recommendation.