I have a close friend who also happens to be the wisest guy I know. Earlier today, I was whining to him via email about an extended-family situation.

When he wrote back, he told me what I needed to do, rather than merely whining. He then added: "That doesn't sound sympathetic, but we aren't girls."

Classic. I'm glad some men are still men, and can offer wisdom when I'm failing to be one.

As regular visitors know, I've often vented about my frustration with the lunkheaded lack of manners on the part of clerks, drive-through attendants, and other customer service agents.

I never read Florence King (or the National Review, for that matter) when she was still writing for NR, but they occasionally reprint one of her "Misanthrope's Corner" columns online. The one they have up today perfectly encapsulates my frustrating experiences, including a quintessential illustration:

Take my catalog order. In the "Color" block I wrote "1st choice, blue; 2nd, green," but all I got was a postcard saying, "We are unable to fill your order. Please call our toll-free number." I did. When the rep came on, I gave her my order number and she pulled it up on her computer and read my name and address back to me. "Right," I said.

Then, silence. A long silence. I thought she had put me on hold but there was no rock music, and it didn't sound like hold somehow. The silence had a nice antiquated sound, making me think of the days when a clerk simply laid the phone down and "stepped away from her desk" to retrieve an actual file from an actual file cabinet.

As my reverie faded, I had an eerie feeling that she was still there. "Hello?" I said.

"Yes." Just that, no more, not even an inflection.

"I got a card saying you're unable to fill my order but it doesn't say why."

"We didn't know what color you wanted."

Nearly two minutes had passed in total silence, yet she had sat there in ox-like placidity, waiting for me to speak first, unable even to bring herself to prompt me. I had to supply all the initiative.

Ever experienced the slack-jawed stare of a moron who's just handed you a bag of McDonalds, and because he hasn't said "thank you" or "have a nice day," or whatever, you don't know if the order is complete yet or not?

Many know my pain, but Florence has expressed it perfectly.

More of Those Progressive Europeans:

The German guy who was convicted of murdering, dismembering, and eating another guy has been smacked with a draconian 8 1/2 year sentence:

Armin Meiwes, a 42-year-old computer expert, had no "base motives" in the crime, a state court ruled, sparing him a murder conviction. Explaining the verdict, the presiding judge said Meiwes' intention was not evil but "the fulfillment of his fantasy."

His primary motive was "the wish to make another man part of himself," Judge Volker Muetze said. "Meiwes reached this bonding experience through the consumption of the flesh."

Oh, I see. He had good intentions when he ate the guy. It was a bonding experience. A little quality time. Some people show love for their fellow man by buying a gift for him, and others by eating him. Who could send someone to prison at all for such a display of magnanimity?

To paraphrase an old Steve Martin joke about smoking marijuana in California: Boy, I wouldn't kill and eat a guy in Germany these days. You can get a ticket for that.

Those Progressive Swedes:

Sweden is frequently held up to us as the model of where America could go if we were only more civilized like our Swedish friends.

Our more evolved role-models from across the pond are now reporting some negative consequences from their recent illegalization of child pornography (which occured as recently as 1999, because sophisticated societies don't rush into something like a kiddie porn ban haphazardly). Evidently, the resulting pent-up frustration is now being taken out on Fido:

....[E]very year between 200 and 300 pets are injured because of sexual assaults.

....“We have seen an increase since 1999 when child pornography became illegal,” said Johan Beck-Friis. “It appears, in other words, as there are some people who have replaced children with animals. In both circumstances, it is sex with defenceless individuals.”

Maybe those pet injuries will eventually be covered under our forthcoming, single-payer, Swedish-style, federalized medical coverage.

Jonah Goldberg today takes apart the doltish "undecideds" whom the media slavishly adore:

Being undecided, in and of itself, is not a mark of seriousness or intelligence. If you really are undecided between having a bowl of strawberry ice cream and being smacked in the forehead with a garden rake, you're not very intelligent; you're just very, very stoopid.

No, I'm not saying that all undecideds are dumb, and I'm not saying that the choices in presidential elections are as cut-and-dried as the strawberry ice cream versus the garden-rake smack. But what I am saying is that the rush to show one's independence of mind in contests between Republican and Democratic candidates usually stems from intellectual vanity and insecurity, not intellectual discernment or rigor.

What it actually is, is the Clinton Syndrome. When one has no principles, one must laboriously anguish over each issue before any decision (if ever) can be made. This is mistaken by many for depth, when in reality it is the utter absence of any coherent worldview.

I'm really beginning to hope John Kerry wins the Dems nomination. That wife of his will be non-stop entertainment. She makes Watergate-era sideshow Martha Mitchell look like George Will.

Meanwhile, in the Nigerian scam email correspondence, Brian/Clayton ups the ante with the suddenly-silent Dr. Amudo by CCing him on an email from his lawyer advising Brian to pursue a different venture in the emerging biomedical field:

>Unless you've heard something, I think we should consider taking a pass on
> [the Nigerian Deal] and go check out the pancreas farm up in Indiana. I talked to
>one of my old frat buddies who is a doctor now, and he says these internal
>organ ventures are going to take off within the next year and a half.

The reasons for the fall of Howard Dean are many and diverse. Most of us recognized very early on that his campaign would never be able to attract more than the radical fringe of his party--which is enough to make a name for one's self, but not enough to win anything on.

Because history has a way of boiling things down, however, I believe posterity will ultimately remember the "The Scream" as the thing that did him in. Remember, The Scream actually occured after Dean had already lost big in Iowa, but it will be seen as the defining, symbolic moment in his campaign, and will take its place in the gallery alongside Muskie's crying, Mondale's pledge to raise taxes, Dukakis' tank ride, and Clinton's Jennifer Flowers tapes.

What's that? Clinton won? That's impossible....

As the late Jack Paar would say, "I kid you not." I received a Google hit yesterday for "Howard Dean Transgendered Wife."

With the primary season in full swing, the death of Jack Paar yesterday at 85 has registered as barely a blip on the radar screen. That's a shame.

Paar was one of the greatest true broadcasters who ever lived, and perhaps the last (except for Johnny, who has no peer) of a generation of them. Along with his predecessor on the "Tonight Show," Steve Allen, Paar used the then-young medium of television to its fullest potential, managing to be funny, entertaining, suprising, volatile, and absolutely compelling every night.

Because of his sharp wit and tremendous storytelling ability, Paar remained one of the most entertaining talk show guests around in his rare appearances on Carson and Letterman well into the 80's and 90's. But because he essentially retired from television in the mid-'60's while at the top of his game, an entire generation of television viewers has little idea who he was or the impact he had in his era.

If you ever have a chance to watch a video or a documentary featuring some of his stuff, I can't recommend it highly enough. If there were about a dozen more Jack Paars, television might actually be worth watching again.

You know those Nigerian scam emails where they, with the use of much tortured syntax, try to get you to send them all your bank information so they can use your account for a major bank transfer, with the promise they'll let you keep $10 million (or however much) for your trouble?

The intrepid Brian at Terrible Swift Word actually decided to respond to the inquiry, and a fascinating email interaction has begun as a result.

The saga began (as it always does), with the request for information:

If this proposal interest you of which I hope it would, please forward to me immediately the followings by e-mail address above.

1. Full company's Name and Address
2. Private telephone and fax numbers
3. Your full bank name and address
4. Bank account number, account name, telephone and fax numbers

However, there is one proviso, of course.

You must maintain the topmost confidentiality of this transaction because we are top civil servants who would not joke with our reputation.

Certainly not.

Brian (as "Clayton V.") responds, saying:

I am certainly very interested in exploring the opportunity you have presented. Once again, however, I must apologize. I do have a few questions before we proceed. I'm sure you and your colleagues are quite anxious to consummate this deal, and I certainly don't want to lose out on the opportunity by being too careful. At the same time, I didn't become the "Applesauce King of the Ohio Valley" by entering into deals uninformed.

He asks the Nigerian ("Dr. Amudo") for a face-to-face meeting, though he will need to find an alternate pilot for his time-share private jet, since his "regular pilot, Armand, refuses to fly to Nigeria (something about an old soccer grudge - he's very passionate about his sports)."

Quivering with excitement and moving in for the kill (having no idea what he's in for), Dr. Amudo informs Brian that a meeting can be arranged in Amsterdam in a few weeks. But rather than wasting time just waiting, he encourages Brian to take some prelimenary steps towards finalizing the transaction:

I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO RECEIVING YOUR PRIVATE/CONFIDENTIAL TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS BY TOMORROW BEFORE THE OFFICER LEAVES NIGERIA SO THAT HE COULD GET IN TOUCH WITH YOU AND KNOW WHEN YOU WILL JOIN HIM THERE FOR THE MEETING. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF IT WILL NOT BE FEASIBLE FOR YOU TO MAKE THE TRIP TO AMSTERDAM, I SUGGET YOU FORWARD THE DATA AS STATED ABOVE TO ENABLE ME PROCEED WITH THE TRANSACTION. DO NOT HAVE ANY DOUBT OR FEAR AS YOU ARE FULLY PROTECTED.

At this point, we begin to see Dr. Amudo's syntax beginning to rub off on Brian. It is rather infectious, I must admit. Says Brian/"Clayton":

My apologies. I'm not sure where we got our wires melted. I did not receive your emails of last week. Yesterday's (Wednesday) e-mail was the first contat I've received from you in the last couple of weeks.

Many thanks for the discrete and metallic manner in which you addressed my concerns. Also I thank you for updating me on your culture and the role of a civil servant like yourself. Until you enlightened me, I was totally endarkened in regards to such things.

A tentative meeting is scheduled in Amsterdam, provided, of course, that Dr. Amudo's associate isn't actually in Amsterdam to "score opium."

The opium implication (which Brian makes several times) grievously wounds Dr. Amudo, who notes that it was "uncivilized and very abusive." His patience is waning:

I CONFIRM RECEIPT OF YOUR MAIL AND THE CONTENTS ARE WELL NOTED. I QUITE FELT THAT IT IS HIGH TIME WE STOPPED THIS LONG STORIES AND PERSONAL TROMPET BLOWING....

....NOTE WE DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH DRUG OF ANY KIND. IF YOU COULD BELIEVE ME, PERSONALLY I HAVE NOT EVEN SEEN OPIUM FOR THE FIRST TIME BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE ANY THING TO DO WITH IT. PLEASE LETS BE CAUTIOUS WITH OUR PARLANCE WHEN COREESPONDING. I DO HAVE MUCH CONFIDENCE IN YOU AND THAT IS THE MAJOR REASON WHY I CONTACTED YOU FOR THIS TRANSACTION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Noting that the window of opportunity is closing for the face to face meeting in Amsterdam, Dr. Amudo says that if

...IT WILL NOT BE CONVENIENT AND HENCE POSSIBLE FOR YOU, THEN YOU SHOULD FORGET ABOUT THE MEETING AND LETS MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TRANSACTION. I HAVE ASSURED YOU THAT YOU ARE DEALING WITH GENTLE AND RESPONSIBLE MEN. SO YOU HAVE NO CAUSE TO BE AFRIAD.

To cool things down, Brian has wisely enlisted his "attorney," Thomas S. Hamblin, who defends Brian's long stories and "personal trompet blowing" by saying that he advised Brian "to throw in some business anecdotes simply to calm any fears you might have about partnering up with him."

The ball is now in Dr. Amudo's court.

I don't know that I've ever enjoyed reading anything more on a blog. This ought to be a book. I'm tempted to send my own bank account just to keep the correspondence going.

Al Franken is in the news yet again. He was only about 20 years off in his prediction; as it turns out, the 00's are the "Al Franken Decade."

This time he's made news for attacking a Howard Dean heckler in New Hampshire yesterday. The heckler was one of those Lyndon LaRouche kooks, and when he began shouting at Dean, Franken "body-slammed" him to the ground, according to the New York Post.

The story goes on to point out that:

Franken said he's not backing Dean but merely wanted to protect the right of people to speak freely. "I would have done it if he was a Dean supporter at a Kerry rally," he said.

I just want to make sure I have this right. A guy at a rally started excercising his free speech rights by speaking out, and Franken attempted to silence him by body-slamming him -- in order to protect free speech.

Makes sense to me.

Here's something to ponder. With the nomination of Bill Murray this morning for the best actor Academy Award, two of the four Ghostbusters have now been nominated for acting Oscars (the other being Dan Aykroyd, who was up for best supporting actor for "Driving Miss Daisy" back in the 80's).

Or, to look at it even more poignantly, both guys who played goofball greenskeepers in "Caddyshack" films are now Ocsar-nominated actors.

I wonder if Murray will do his recurring "Oscar Picks" bit on SNL this year?

While I was out of town and not paying attention, Jon Barlow went and became famous.

He's been written up this week in the BBC, Newsweek, E!Online, and about a million other places. Tonight I even heard his Howard Dean mix over the closing credits of a show on VH1.

Who'da thunk it?

I've been out-of-pocket for the past few days, so I apologize for the lack of activity here. I did want to pop in for a reminder, though. Dennis Miller's new nightly show on CNBC kicks off at 9pm Eastern tonight, and promises to be worth watching if your sense of humor isn't too delicate.

I'm in Nashville tonight for some work stuff. It's currently 29 degrees.

This South Florida boy hasn't been in this kind of temperature in six or seven years. I had forgotten what it felt like to have my face numbed after a few minutes outside. I had also forgotten how much I really don't like cold weather.

On to Baton Rouge tommorrow--hopefully it'll be a tad warmer there.

Unfortunately, even many self-described "conservatives" don't understand the concept of judicial conservatism. They are so steeped in the notion of an activist judiciary that they are now intent on getting judges appointed who will impose by fiat a more "correct" agenda.

This is demonstrated by one of the responses to my post from yesterday on the Charles Pickering appointment. The anonymous respondent posted something from what he described as "Log Cabin Republicans - GOP Sodomite Publication":

WASHINGTON -- "I have spoken with Judge Pickering at length, and have reviewed his record and consulted with several people around the country. Judge Pickering reiterated to me his strong belief that all Americans should be treated equally under the law, including gay and lesbian Americans, and his record as a federal judge clearly demonstrates it," said Rich Tafel, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans.

This was posted anonymously, without comment, as if it were some sort of self-standing, knockdown conservative argument against Pickering's appointment to the bench.

It isn't.

Even if the anonymous poster is correctly relaying the article from the Log Cabin Republicans, based on a conversation one of them allegedly once had with Pickering, nothing in this third-hand report militates against Pickering's credentials as a judicial conservative. The reason is that when judicial conservatism is applied, it doesn't matter what a candidate's personal beliefs are. All that matters is what the law says. Indeed, that's the entire point of judicial conservatism--returning the power to make laws back to the electorate.

A true judicial conservative enforces duly-passed laws he doesn't agree with. He applies each law equally, according to its plain meaning, forgoing the opportunity to force his own philosophy (even if his philosophy is noble and correct) on the people, to whom he is not even accountable.

If the people pass bad laws, then we need to work to change those through the democratic process. But lawmaking is supposed to be a political process. Judicial rulings are not. Judges are not supposed to be a corrective to bad laws--they are simply the appliers of them.

I don't care what a judge's personal opinion on homosexuality, abortion, or any other issue is. What I care about is that he will correctly interpret and apply the laws that the legislature has given him. If Charles Pickering will refrain from distorting laws to further his own agenda, then his personal opinion on homosexuality matters little to me. It seems we've gotten so used to judicial activism that conservatives now want their own activists.

Incidentally, I'm also curious as to what Pickering actually said in the quote above that would be disagreeable to a conservative. Note that Pickering allegedly said that all Americans, including homosexuals, should be treated equally under the law. Does anyone disagree with that? He didn't say they should all be treated equally. He said they should all be treated equally under the law. It's a simple statement on due process.

Since a judicial conservative doesn't make laws, Pickering is simply accused here of saying that a judge should apply the law--as written--regardless of a person's race or sexuality or whatever. He says nothing about what kind of laws can exist.

If any "conservative" has a problem with this, he needs to read his Constitution again. It's the Fourteenth Amendment.

I guess Janeane Garofalo, in Iowa to support Howard Dean, must've put that Midwestern, soft-spoken charm of hers to work. Dean's numbers only went down about 20 points there in the last few days.

If working folks in Iowa can't get behind an emotionally unstable, dyed-blonde, Hollywood actress wearing (according to Dean's blog) "a red Perfect Storm hat, a Stand up for Choice Sticker, a Generation Dean sticker, a pink shirt with FREE SPEECH she made herself with a magic marker (and a pen stuck in her pink shirt), a TEXAS DEMOCRAT pin, and on her backback a Dissent protects Democracy pin, Give ?em Hell Howard pin, and I won't Cross the Line pin," who can they get behind?

If you haven't listened to Howard Dean's WWF performance from last night's Iowa Caucuses, you really need to, for the sake of the nation. I know the chances are very, very slim, but this guy theoretically could be president someday (if the President, the Vice President, and also John Kerry, John Edwards, and Wesley Clark were all to suddenly die in the next 10 months).

Here's the 13 second MP3 clip from the Drudge Report. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

UPDATE: Byron York at NRO says last night's speech may have been the death knell for the Dean candidacy.

So, Dick, who's the miserable failure now?