I don't know how good the science was behind the cited studies, but I do know what I see. And while I also know the risks in relying upon anecdotal evidence, I spend an awful lot of time on the roads in and around Chicago, enough that I think my own data rises from merely anecdotal to solid observational.

Show me a driver who looks like he's drunk from behind and at least 7 out of 10 are instead yapping away on their phones.

And for all those who've suggested that driving more slowly is a GOOD thing, I'm sure you love your little spins through the countryside, but in a big urban area, where speed limits are a joke, driving too slow seems more to my mind more dangerous than driving too fast. "Huh" you say? Yeah. When traffic is moving along at 75 MPH, we all may be speeding, but it's the knucklehead doing 50 in the left lane with his Moto plastered to his ear that's the danger. Come to Chicago and try doing even as low as 60 on the 55 MPH I-290 extension (as just one example) -- even those little old ladies in white Buicks will be zipping by you on both sides like you're standing still. And THAT, my friend, is a recipe for gettin' someone killed.

The point is, whatever the speed limit is, the most dangerous driver is the one doing significantly more or less than what the average speed is at that particular place and time. And cell phone users behind the wheel are oblivious to that average speed, and most everything else around them, too.

Hang up and drive.

I had no problem with Mitchell noting it the first time they went to her. But she did seem to keep harping on it.

Perhaps it was to compensate for Chris Matthews' sycophantic drooling over how smart and professional the Clintons are.

Still (as I've noted elsewhere, www.beachwoodreporter.com), the most bizarre part of MSNBC's coverage was Tim Russert's explanation of why the particularity of Iowa is important: that the citizens ask tough, serious questions of the candidates, and force them to answer. All due respect to Mr. Russert, but isn't that what journalists used to do?

I'm still on the fence about which of the 3 still-viable democratic candidates I'll be supporting -- my Illinois primary isn't until February 5. I like all three to varying degrees. (I'm disappointed, however, that Joe Biden is out of it; the campaign will miss his insights on foreign policy.)

I have to say a lot of folks are missing a key element in Obama's Iowa victory, however. It was damn near a home game for him.

As someone who's been involved in a lot of Illinois campaigns, I'm on quite a few email lists, and I can tell you that the number of Illinois elected officials putting together bus trips to Iowa over the last few months has been staggering. Obama's Chicagoland supporters alone -- a not inconsequential number -- have been spending many weekends working the precincts in Iowa, just a 2 1/2 hour bus ride west on I-80.

This is not to discount his success. The margin was significant. But almost everyone has ignored the comparatively easy time Obama's campaign had in managing the logistics in Iowa.

The dry-eyed weepers in the audience remind me quite a bit of the guy that buys a house three miles from the airport because he travels a lot, and then starts a petition drive to force the government to restrict flight paths and sound-proof their home.

My only real problem is McClelland's seeming belief that we in the upper midwest can just piss our water away with nary a care. To the contrary, our own collective lack of conservation is as big a threat as New Mexican water pirates. If we're going to preserve the Great Lakes, we must fight waste at home as well as diversion to points south.

Without trying to sound like sour grapes, I have to say that the officiating in the title game was horrible. I suspect OSU still would have lost, but I'm still scratching my head over some of the personal fouls called.

Even worse than the officiating though was the TV coverage, from pre-game through the play-by-play.

And finally, re King's suggestion that OSU be omitted from championship games for a while, instead I'd like to see the Big 10 team get to play a home game in a bowl. Yes, Illinois and Ohio State both got beat badly, but their opponents were both essentially playing home games, and to their credit, neither Big 10 school used that as an excuse. I don't think I'm quite that "sporting." The yammerheads dissing the Big 10 could at least mention that.

And yes, I'm a bitter Big 10 fan. Deal.

"You've got to put some points on the board. You can't just let the other guys run up the score and expect to come back in the fourth quarter."

What about the 29th inning?

As to Gibbs and your assertion that he wasn't the same as his first time around the league, it seems to me that speaks volumes: even losing a step, he was still better than most at the profession.

As to Rock Raines, I'm not sure he belongs in the HOF, but you're right about one thing: he deserves a better vote showing. His numbers are very respectible, and few guys ever played harder. He's also turned into a half-way decent coach.

Matthews says all kinds of ridiculous things. I don't think any of them "mean" anything, but instead are a result of his utter hatred for a world without his voice blaring through it. Even when even HE knows he has absolutely nothing to say, Matthews is compelled to say SOMETHING, so he gets on one of his little rolls and the most bizarre stuff tumbles out.