AGAG: I can neither confirm nor deny that the chicken actually crossed the road, given the parameters already set forth here. The president must be able to have full faith and confidence in his advisers, and that would not be possible, if any of us can be coerced into answering such questions.

(unidentified) Crawford resident: Hmmm... probably to visit the turkeys and hogs that once lived at Prairie Chapel Ranch, but have since been removed. I expect that the chicken will return to this side of the road in due course.

Karl Rove: The chicken knew that the political portal to our Reality is just across the road, and so she decided to join us by crossing over.

Scooter Libby: What chicken?

Laura Bush: [sigh...] to seek some respite from all of the roosters crowing about god only knows what. So she could have a cigarette in peace, and read a good book without being interrupted with stupid questions.

Dana Perino: The chicken crossed the road, as you would know if you'd read your schedule for today, in order to be available for some photos; however, there will be no questions for the chicken at this time.

Barbara Bush: Well... for better housing, obviously.

Not buying the head hitting a "latch" at all.

That change in story does seem calculated to minimize her martyrdom. Along the lines of our not counting our war casualties if they are "only" injured or killed by some means other than an enemy's weapon.

* * *

WT, No one could mistake you for a misogynist.

ondelette, bystander, dirigo, and others... thank you, again, for all of the links and insights...

...and thanks, too, to RMP and Jim W. and the rest of the coop for some inspired humor.

The photos are wonderful!

(What do you think of "poohlar" bears?)

Soluble or insoluble?

I only ask because I've learned how important the difference can be.

The title sounds as if the Oligarchy is decaying... but it isn't. In fact, the point of this post seems to be that it is still strengthening.

Perhaps "Oligarchical concentration?" Or something similar?

Just because a regulation results in answer to a perceived problem doesn't mean that it's all government's idea. Frankly, government often appears reluctant to implement or enforce such regulations, and must (at least sometimes) be dragged kicking and screaming along...

Usually, it's the considered and collective opinion of experts in the field that results in recommendations for special bottle caps, or for, more recently, smaller bottles of OTC medications (to help prevent accidental overdoses), or, to provide warnings that costumers should be aware of the total amounts of NSAIDs they consume, or to limit sales of cold medicines.

Physicians who are also researchers are really the original source of such regulations. They just have to convince (an often reluctant) government to go along with their scientific recommendations in order to serve their notion of Public Health.

* * *

Pssst! Pedinksa-- I think you're right. I was going to mention the obsession myself, but you phrased it better.

Sorry, I meant customers. Just a simple transposition of vewols, folks. Nothing to see here... just move along.

Yes, that utilitarian-style argument that I like to rail against.

What is so ironic is that one would expect those with a preference for less government "interference" would also dislike utilitarian arguments, precisely because they calculate the "acceptable sacrifices" for other folks. (So unlike what they should have learned while sitting at Ayn Rand's feet.)

Can anyone imagine John Edwards ever using such a utilitarian argument, except to make the point that it is a bad argument? I can only imagine him arguing for what is inherently right in a particular situation. I also think that about Dodd, but I'm not sure I do about any of the other Democratic candidates.

Otoh, I have no doubt about the GOP side... most of them love and thrive on cost/benefit analyses involving "other" people.

The other irony is that after the Times' mea culpa about not being skeptical enough in the run-up to the Iraq war, and saying they'd be better in the future seems to be total baloney, otherwise they would never hire someone like Kristol. Even the famous broken clocks of the world are right more often than he is! How does he live with himself with all that blood on his hands (and it is on his hands as he's so desperately trying to get another war going now with Iran!)? --Ron Robertson

I never thought the Times's mea culpa was enough, since they only sort of apologized for the run-up to the war, not nearly enough... and never once mentioned their vendetta against Bill Clinton. Given the effect that debacle has had (and continues to have) on our public discourse, they still owe all of us for that one, but apparently have decided instead to shoot themselves in the foot by hiring Kristol, who will cause such an abrupt decline in their credibility index, that the public editor will be left gasping for air.

I'll be very surprised if Kristol really lasts the entire one-year contract. (Who knows what clauses it contains.) I cannot foresee the specific circumstances that would cause him to leave, but I have a similar reactin to the one I had when I first heard that infamous quote from Tom DeLay (I AM the Federal Government!): that his days were numbered.

There is something so unseemly about Kristol's (to my mind) over-reaching enough to think he can accept a position at the Times and not finally be held accountable. And, as the Greek poets would remind us, that kind of hubris is a fatal flaw.

Otoh, perhaps this really is the final clue that the Times no longer is the "Paper of Record," given Kristol's history of inaccuracies. Since more and more former newspaper readers find their news online, perhaps there is now room for McClatchy, for example, to claim that spot.

Reality, when ignored, knows how to bite back, too.