Month: April 2007

Finally – an explanation for why diet sodas suck. I have to say, though, that I’ve become a convert to Coke Zero.

"The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman.

The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly–the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light

The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others," – Robert E. Lee. A reader emailed me suggesting it as a helpful complement to this post.

When your husband is in jail. Half a million American women are in that position.

In a good way.

The data suggests so.

If this doesn’t cheer you up, nothing will:

"When a newly revitalized al-Qaeda carries out a 9/11-scale attack, you will own that one," – Senator Kit Bond, yesterday, to his Democratic colleagues in the Senate.

Here’s a tag-cloud of everything Senator Clinton said last night in the debate. The words are weighted depending on the frequency of her use of them. For all the candidates’ tag-clouds from last night, check this out. Forgive me, but I had a dinner with a friend.

Ahh, the culture war. Sometimes it’s too good to miss.

There will come a moment, I think, when even president Bush will realize that he cannot simply buck a majority of the American people, a majority of the Iraqi people, and a majority of the Congress in defense of an Iraqi parliament that is going into recess for two months this summer. There will therefore also come a moment in which the fear of the violence that will doubtless follow redeployment/withdrawal will seduce Washington into seeking a new "strongman" to keep Iraq whole. Con Coughlin thinks Sadr would never be able to pull this off, without a massive civil war. He wants a new dictator that’s both secularish and able to restore order. It’s the Saddam argument all over again. The trouble is two-fold. How does Bush square imposing a new strongman when he went to war to depose the old one? Secondly: there isn’t anyone out there right now. If America were to try and find and impose a new Saddam-lite, he would instantly lost whatever shred of legitimacy he might have had. This is not, in other words, a solution. It could compound the problem. The neocons wanted to foment unrest in the Middle East. In this, at least, they are going to succeed.