It's funny, but election cycles have their predictable patterns. One common one is the "underdog" candidate that the press pumps up for a few days or weeks, and then obliterates when they get tired of it. (Howard Dean and Gary Hart good examples.)

But Scherer demonstrates another one that is happening right now: the story about the "disaffected minority" in a particular party that is threatening to peel away. We've heard it before, of course. Lately, it has been the religious right most frequently making a threat. But we have also seen Catholics, "NASCAR Dads," "Soccer Moms," African Americans, Jews, and plenty of others under this story line.

Now it is of course a possibility--probably a strong one--that a candidate with a history of pro-life, pro-immigration, and pro-gay-rights views could cause the evangelicals to stay home in enough numbers to tip the election? But vote for a Democrat, or run their own third party candidate? Please.

I predict that the same thing that usually happens in these cases will happen again this year: the christian right will hem and haw and threaten and bluster, but come election day will yank the lever for the Republican candidate. Who else would they support? The desire for political power will, as it almost always does, outweigh their loathing. And then it will be time to talk about the new splinter group, whichever one the press makes hay out of the next time.

(I don't blame Scherer; I really feel sorry for he and Shapiro and other political reporters. I mean, 18 months of campaign reporting; finding topics must simply be brutal after the first few months.)

A vegetarian lifestyle is undoubtedly the best thing from both a moral and a "save the world" perspective. PETA is right about that.

Unfortunately, PETA long ago jumped over the top in the same way that direct action environmental groups, anti-abortion protesters, and forced-outing gay activists did. Their message is either completely lost due to their outrageous tactics, or they are completely tuned out as a lunatic fringe, even by hardcore socially left-wing types like myself.

So PETA can rant and rave all they want, but it won't matter, because very few folks either listen, or take them seriously. Which is a shame, because the ultimate message is the right one.

Rebecca may be right that Rowling is overdoing it; I hadn't thought of it, because I'm not a reader of the various Harry Potter websites, and don't keep up to date. But take it from this Red Sox fan: "the satisfying pleasures of perpetual yearning" can be over-rated.

Actually, Farhad, the rumor I've heard (Gizmodo, perhaps?) was even more intriguing to a certain class of nerd: an Apple notebook computer. Bigger display, multimedia capability, touch screen interface, but with things like cut-and-paste, an ebook reader, and so on.

Maybe not, but it's fun to speculate.

The term "Orwellian" is bandied about awfully easily these days, and as such has lost some of its scary connotations. But seriously, every time I think this administration has hit a new low, they go and top themselves with something like this. (And Dana Perino provides daily amazement.) Can any word other than Orwellian describe this kind of thing? And coming so close on my reading about John Tanner of the Justice Department, who thinks that Voter ID laws are unfair to whites.

I continue to be surprised at my own surprise.

Sigh.

Why is it that films set in New England so often only take one of the two extreme views? You know: New England is only made up of rich folks with zillion-dollar waterfront homes who drive over covered bridges and through colorful falling leaves on their way to their sharp-steepled churches (e.g., The World According to Garp), OR it's a bunch of working-class lowlifes from Southie who only want to get ahead through violence and drug deals (The Departed). And don't even get me started about how little trouble people in movies have when they're parking in Boston.

(That's one of the reasons I liked Beautiful Girls--aside from Natalie Portman's wonderful performance--it seemed like a real town.)

Then there's Nicole Kidman, who always looks to me as if she's been coated in lacquer and preserved under glass. Brittle. Scary. When she smiles, it seems like she's about to burst out in rage, even when her character is clearly "happy." There's something about her that's incredibly off-putting, and it has always baffled me that she constantly gets such good reviews.

Somehow, I think I'll take Stephanie's advice and give this one a miss.

Not only will Apple upgrade the iPhone to 3G sometime next year, it's pretty much a given that they will up the available memory to at least 16GB (the Touch already has that), and if they wait until June, perhaps even more (32GB, perhaps?). And I think it goes without saying that there will be additional software updates and fixes as well.

I don't agree with Farhad terribly often, but this time I think he's right on.