Imagine my surprise at being ID'd by Joan as one who did a google search and came up with a possible match. It's a good cop, as they say.

But I've got to say, I read Edelstein's piece and wondered, "Where's the quote from Corliss?" Interesting sidelights about movie criticism in the '70s aside, I think our guys need to do legwork, and leave the "informed speculation" to CNN and their ilk.

Though of course it's possible that Corliss is denying something because he's embarrassed by the story, enough of speculation. We're dyin' from it.

What's the likelihood that we could build up our nuclear power to the level, say, the French have, and there be no serious accidents for ten years? Pretty good. A hundred? A hundred thousand? That's the problem. Particulates are almost endearing if you look towards the high probability of one of these plants going critical in 50 years or 5,000.

And as for the person whose sole political point is reminding us that the original message here was carried by some aging celebrities: congratulations. Your cause, whatever it is, is being carried along by people who don't age and who aren't famous? Does that make it just? Or is your ironic gaze the best you can do, because your mind is empty?

Per Wikipedia:

"When Rustin and Randolph organized the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963, Senator Strom Thurmond railed against Rustin as a "Communist, draft-dodger, and homosexual" and produced an FBI photograph of Rustin talking to King while King was bathing, to imply that there was a homosexual relationship between the two. Both men denied the allegation of an affair, but despite King's support, NAACP chairman Roy Wilkins did not allow Rustin to receive any public recognition for his role in planning the march."

Now, the right wing is trickier. They've found an ally, on this one point, at least, in parts of the black church. Face it: homosexuals are the new commies under the bed. Think how much of their political success is due to fear of teh gay.

It's one of those peril/opportunity things for Obama.

I wonder if the General (or his staff) consider that they are putting down an insurrection in Iraq or in the U.S.? What will happen when these political extremists come home?

Or maybe the shrinking violets of the party were wrong, and MoveOn was right, to call the man that name that sent shudders through Washington and ragegasms through the right wing.

New, Leatherface Man sees DoublePlusGood!

If anybody takes the NBC heavy-hitters as somehow less partisan than FOX, they're fools. Russert is an evil toad. Matthews is nuts, and the newsreader guy floats like a butterfly and like a butterfly. But he dresses well. This was a setup. NBC laid down the challenge to Hillary, not the other Dems. They eventually got her to buckle a bit with one of Russert's little carefully-selected trick questions. The same thing could have buckled Obama, who seems more and more clueless, and Edwards and the rest.

Now, just watch. The Catholic Mafia is ranging for Hillary. They've already tried the books. Didn't work. The exposes: sometimes political donors have secrets. Didn't work. Now they practically ORDERED the others to attack Hillary. Notice: the subject in the GOP debates is Hillary. The subject in the Dem debates? The same. Great going, Dem strategists?

Oh, and the Social Security question was a bunch of crap.

Of course she can "take it." She's a tough cookie, and all that criticism just allowed her to show how tough she is. What wasn't fair wasn't that the men picked on a girl, but the MSNBC chuckleheads put their thumbs on the scales against the Democratic frontrunner. If people thought that was a good "debate," or especially if they think Russert's questions were fair but tough, I'd direct them to www.dailyhowler.com. Jack Welch's Lost Boys and MoDo and Gail Collins are Hunting Hillary now, the same way they Hunted Bill, and the same way they hunted Gore and Dean. These are deeply sick and twisted people, and they have no business deciding our elections, which apparently they think they can do.