Kurt did NOT MAKE MUSIC FOR "PRODUCTS", ASSHOLE, and he never wanted his music to be treated as a commercial commodity.

Sure. That's why he gave away his music,right? Oh no; he didn't. He sold it and it therefore became a "commercial commodity" by definition. What are you, 12?

By the way, I would second the notion that U2 is the pre-eminent Gen-X band. U2 are all born in '60 & '61, which would put them at the very beginning edge of the so-called generation. They were certainly the bands that seemed a generation younger than Springsteen & his 70s cohort.

You're joking, right?

Basketball couldn't see fourth with a telescope. If one were making an order:

Gaelic games (hurling/Gaelic football)

Soccer

Rugby

horse racing

golf

formula one

track and field (which they actually cover, on the nightly news)

cycling (at least during the Tour de France)

then in the statistically insignificant lump at the bottom:

tennis

swimming

cricket

field hockey

basketball

I don't know if it is wallowing or not, but I do think it is appropriate to hold people to the standard, weekly or otherwise, which they set for themselves when the main actors were of the other party.

When Clinton was under investigation, Kristol beat the drum constantly declaring that lying under oath no matter the topic and obstructing a federal investigation was a fundamental assault on our nation. That's fine. But when the same thing happens under a Republican administration, we're supposed to accept the notion that there's 'lying' and then there's a "serious meaning of lying"? Well, frankly, fuck off. That is not acceptable.

Here's what Kristol had to say about Clinton:

"Abuse the public trust Bill Clinton certainly did, in ways small and large. The lies he told under oath, in his Jan. 17 deposition in the Paula Jones case and his grand-jury testimony on Aug. 17, are perhaps individually small. But they were real, and purposeful, and premeditated. On Jan. 17. Clinton claimed not to remember any specific private encounter he had with Monica Lewinsky. Only three weeks before, he and Lewinsky had met alone for the final time, discussed her cover story and then engaged in a "passionate" kiss in a doorway to the Oval Office. The claim by the president that he could not recall being alone with Lewinsky was a perjury."

He concluded: "This is only the most recent manifestation of what has been the president's strategy all along. He has spent the last year making the discovery of the truth an ordeal for the country. At every stage, the president has calculated that if he made it painful enough to uncover the facts and to vindicate the rule of law, Congress, and ultimately the American people, would yield. To protect his indecent behavior, he has sought to exploit our decency. The only response to this particularly insidious abuse of the public trust is impeachment. Only impeachment, and a subsequent Senate trial, can remedy the damage this president has so recklessly and selfishly inflicted on the nation. Such a trial need not last long. It need not be a "horror." It will undoubtedly have its awkward moments. But it is the only way to reassert the rule of law and the primacy of the constitutional order. Only the solemn deliberations of United States senators, in a trial of impeachment, can now repair the damage done to our politics by a man who, entrusted with the greatest honor an American can have, thought nothing of violating his oath as a citizen to tell the truth, and thought nothing of mocking his oath as president to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." (Newsweek, December 21, 1998)

Well, again, if that was true then, how is it not double-plus-true now?

So, presuming Bill Kristol is a man of his word and of honor, I am sure that he now realizes that what was good for the goose is good for the gander and he'll soon agree in print that we should immediately begin impeachment proceedings against VP Cheney.

That's not wallowing. It's justice.

... I was being ironic when I suggested that Kristol might be a man of honor and would now come out in favor of impeaching Cheney.

Leaving aside the silliness that acting in commercial films or publicly advertsing your prostitution services could be 'private' in any sense of the word, Mr. Sanchez does realize that the great jurist Antonin Scalia and his minion Clarence Thomas both asserted that there is no constitutional right to privacy.

I know that the standad tagline of the right about the left is that hypocrisy is the only remaining sin, and we can debate that. But does the right have to embarce hypocrisy so much just to differentiate themselves?

While I have enjoyed watching this cabal of criminals get their panties in a twist trying to explain why this perjury is meaningless, but Clinton's was the downfall of the Republic, I'd also like to see Democrats admit that this perjury was pretty meaningless if they said the same about Clinton.

Why can there be no consistency anywhere in our politics?

My feeling for Clinton was that although it was a witch hunt, he had no right to lie under oath. If you're asked what you weigh under oath, you don't get to shave five pounds off. You're under oath. I don't care what the question is: we cannot lie under oath. full stop. end of story. He lied under oath and therefore got impeached. (At the time, I thought he should have resigned to give Gore the chance to run as the incumbent.)

I thought Clinton's lie was a tragic miscalculation on his part and a crime.

I think Libby's lie was a tragic miscalculation and a crime.

Why do I feel like the only consistent person in the country? Because I sure as hell have not seen any commentators on TV or in the blogosphere make this point.