The Shower Drain

A Short Story

I am 60 years old. In the 50 years that I've showered, which are all the showers of my life, I have never stepped on the drain. Not in basic training, not in my $81 per month early adult apartment, not in the 48th floor suite in the Four Seasons, not at my home of 20 years. Never.

Simple prudence dictates the care with which I've carefully shuffled my feet across the limited stage of 18,000 solo shower performances. So far, my care has been well taken. While I’m comfortable that the risks of accidentally sliding down the drain are limited, I figure them to be less than one in six, elementary math informs me that the alternative approaches certainty. Should I ever, even once, put so much as a toe on the drain, it will be instantly grabbed in a grasp I will be unable to break. By that toehold I will then be dragged, nearly instantly but certainly not silently, body and soul to where my nightmare lives and where it has waited my entire life for the singular opportunity presented by even a fraction of a second of my inattention.

I do not know why it is so particularly attracted to me, why others have no apparent need to fear. I cannot tell you how it knows above which portal I will dance every morning, most days at home but on others in venues across the country. All I know for certain is that it abides, and watches and tenses with anticipation while waiting for my single misstep.

I know that others hold little, or perhaps no, attraction for it. They step about, and on, the shower drain with impunity, without a care or concern or an inkling of the risk, completely oblivious to the mortal danger less than an inch away. How fortunate to them is the bliss of their innocence.

I wish I could be as carefree as they, how simple life would then seem. But vigilance is my only security and I cannot relax. Even a single blink of inattention would bring me to terminal, and for all I know, eternal, doom.

Fortunately for me, my family and friends, coworkers and colleagues, the diligence I’ve practiced so very carefully every day as I soap and lather, scrub and rinse, has worked.

I’m still here.


Until tomorrow.

Will Benazir Bhutto be the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Our Time?

A lifetime ago, the earth's first war to spread across four continents and all its major oceans began with the deaths of an heir to a declining empire and his wife, for whose love he had foresworn any right of succession to the throne for their children.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Sophie, Duchess of Hehenberg, were fatally wounded on the streets of Sarajevo and died shortly after. He was not the first choice as target; her death was not planned at all. The assassins' goal was modest, a minor piece of secession of no consequence to anyone more than a few miles removed from the southern-slav provinces of Austria-Hungary.

Their results, though unintended, were consequential: 20 million dead and 21 million wounded over the next five years, arguably followed by another 100 million dead over the three decades that followed.

All at a cost of less than a handful of bullets.

Yesterday's murder of Benazir Bhutto, accomplished by assassins presumably intent on broader effect than those in Sarajevo, has the potential for far greater harm than the 20 million or 100 million lives cut short on the streets of an inconsequential city of an antique empire.

Bhutto's death will likely tear Pakistan as much as did Ferdinand's finally render his empire beyond repair. Her murder has the capacity to destroy not only democracy in that frail land, no matter how fragile, no matter how corrupt, but also to destroy any pretense of civilization within that country's porous borders.

Truth to tell, not much of the world has reason to care whether Islamabad is governed by a former general Musharraf or a former Citibank VP Aziz. Except that…

Pakistan is the only declared Muslim nuclear state, with delivery systems, and
Forces aligned with those of Osama bin Laden are among the most likely to succeed if there is a change of control.

How much disruption could bin Laden cause across the world, across civilization itself with 60 nuclear weapons and an aggressive will to trigger havoc?

We may find the answer before too many months have passed.

Imagine one a week over the course of a year. A harbor here, airport there, capitol city on one day, your city on another. Think of 100 million dead, 200 million refugees. Radioactive air and water. Western civilization unable to respond effectively, uncertain.

Merry Christmas! from Fred Thompson and Me

All of the candidates have Christmas messages out.

Most are nice.

A couple are worrisome.

One in particular is tone deaf.

This one conveys the spirit of Christmas best of all.



Shalom.

Merry Christmas, and on Earth, goodwill toward men.

Say "Thank you" today and every day.

An Apple A Day Helps Keep The Bad Guys Away

The U. S. Army has confirmed that it has been for two years quietly adding Apple Macs into its computer mix in order to foil cyber attacks or minimize their damage.

Platform diversification is a sophisticated approach that's being studied by a number of the country's largest computer users. The basic idea to to prevent any one attack from bringing an entire system to its knees by having a percentage of the installed base running on less vulnerable Macs.

Lieutenant Colonel C. J. Wallington, a division chief in the office of enterprise solutions was interviewed at some length by Andy Greenberg, writing in Forbes

Though Apple machines are still pricier than their Windows counterparts, the added security they offer might be worth the cost, says Wallington. He points out that Apple's X Serve servers, which are gradually becoming more commonplace in Army data centers, are proving their mettle. "Those are some of the most attacked computers there are. But the attacks used against them are designed for Windows-based machines, so they shrug them off," he says.

This will become self-fulfilling at some point. Security auditors are never happy with sole-source suppliers. Nor do they appreciate bet-the-farm IT deployments where a single strain of virus or episode of malware could erase data or otherwise make it unavailable or, even worse, make it available to the wrong people. These folks will push for diversity. They'll push for a safe harbor or reservation.

How much better to build a 10% parallel capability that once built provides the resources to expand rapidly if the main system fails or needs to be shut down for an inoculation?



With the Army willing to take such a high-profile lead, it will not be long until IT departments in very large organizations decide that the Apple way, while not blue, is the most acceptable of the alternatives.

What will surprise many will the the rapidity with which the token percentage grows. After all, it is not the end users within the large companies, basking in warm wave of satisfaction with Windows, that are clamoring for Wintel. Once even 10% get their minds around and hands on a Mac, their colleagues will want one too. Apple's share of the corporate base will look start to look more like its share in the lower end, where end users make their own choices.

Merry Christmas, Apple!

Greenland Ice Melt May Solve Pressing Political Problem

An Arctic expert at the University of Colorado in Boulder has made one of those brilliant leaps of rhetorical invention that unintentionally solves a problem beyond the speaker's immediate view.

According to the McClatchy News Service

"The amount of ice lost by Greenland over the last year is the equivalent of two times all the ice in the Alps or a layer of water more than one-half-mile deep covering Washington, D.C.,'' said Konrad Steffen, an Arctic expert at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

Do we need to sign anything, or can it just be arranged? I'd prefer to evacuate the important historical papers first, the Constitution comes to mind, but there's certainly no need to disturb Congress' current laborings on 10,000 earmarks in D.C.

Let's just do it. Two thousand feet or more of water should be just about right, I'd think.

And when the water has served its immediate purpose, we'd have one of the grandest dive sites in the entire world!

The Leader of the Band Has Died, Before The Song Should Have Ended

Dan Fogelberg, a songwriter and performer who defined a goodly portion of a life or two, died this morning at his home in Maine.
His music and his appreciation for life will survive for decades to come.


"A quiet man of music..."

Female Church Member With Personal Pistol Kills Assassin, Saves Lives

Condolences and prayers are due those church members in Colorado whose family members were killed or wounded by the deranged loser who attacked young people at two locations on Sunday.

Prayers of thanks are due for the heroic actions of Jeanne Assam, a church member, a civilian, a volunteer with a gun who killed the 24-year old assassin before he could do more damage.

In spite of nearly a day of reports that an "off-duty" police officer stopped the shooting spree of the armored and armed killer, CNS is now reporting

Many people are expressing relief that a volunteer security guard used her own gun to stop a man on a shooting spree Sunday. "She probably saved over 100 lives," the Brady Boyd, the pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, said on Monday. The female guard, a church member dressed in plain clothes, killed the gunman after he opened fire at the mega-church. Boyd said she "rushed toward the attacker and took him down in the hallway" as he entered the building.

It gives one pause to realize that in many states, though thankfully not Colorado, church members are banned by law from carrying concealed weapons in church.

It also supports the perception that while there are always civilians on the spot when bad guys attack, too often their only role is victim. Here is case where one person, out-gunned and on the wrong end of the surprise continuum, defeated a man who was willing to kill as long as his victims cooperated.

To those who say one person cannot make a difference, the lesson from New Life Church is proof that reality is different.

The police will respond to these senseless attacks, as they always do, but lives are saved only when at least one of the victims decides to resist effectively. In nearly 100% of the incidents of multi-victim shootings in "gun free zones" the end comes in only one of two ways, death by suicide or death by a civilian shooting the bad guy.

For a woman to use her own pistol to kill a 24-year old murderer armed with a semi-automatic weapon, wearing body armor and an armored helmet is impressive as it should be.

UPDATE: According to an eyewitness, Larry Bourbonnais, quoted in the Denver Post, two male security guards with guns drawn refused to return fire and also refused to give their pistols to church members willing to shoot the assassin.

UPDATE: The Colorado Springs police force responded very quickly, but still it took two minutes for the first officers to reach the scene, by which time it was all over. Most departments stress tactics that call for the first responders to wait for overwhelming force before attempting to enter an active shooting scene. If this is true in Colorado Springs, it could very easily have taken police officers 30 minutes or longer to subdue the shooter.

There is no substitute for necessary (and courageous!) action by those whose lives are actually at risk.

UPDATE: The shooter left behind substantial evidence that his was a hate crime directed against Christians.



We all owe a debt a gratitude to those who carry and use weapons in our defense, whether in uniform or dressed for church. We are all the safer for it.

It will be awhile before a copycat takes the path that this killer did, as there is absolutely no "amp" in being gunned down by an ordinary lady.

"Should a President Extend Secret Service Protection to His Mistress?"

Conventional wisdom is that Rudy Giuliani did a superb job beating back Tim Russert's attack on Meet the Press.

That may not be correct. Giuliani spent a great deal of energy attempting to explain the unexplainable: his client list at Giuliani & Associates, his too-long support for Bernie Kerik, his on again, off again membership on the Iraq Study Group.

Russert's most telling unanswered unanswerable question though, pushed into the future Rudy's decisions of the past. While New Yorkers may be jaded into boredom by the constant coverage of the Mayor's scandalous behavior while it was happening, most of America was shielded from the tawdriness by distance.

The short version: the then-current Mrs. Giuliani continued to reside with their children at the mayoral mansion while the mayor engaged in a lengthy and very public courtship of his mistresses, the last of whom, Judith Nathan, eventually became the third Mrs. Giuliani. Public records show that Ms. Nathan received protection by the NYPD for at least three years before she and Mr. Giuliani married.

Russert's point is whether this sort of behavior would be acceptable within the White House or would it be disqualifying of a presidency? If JFK had offered a protective detail to Judith Campbell or Marilyn Monroe, and been discovered while he still lived, would the country have accepted his behavior or been repulsed? If Bill Clinton had been more of a mistress-keeper and less a philanderer, and requested Secret Service coverage for a mistress, what would we have said or done?

Is it hubris or arrogance that a man of Mr. Giuliani's intelligence could expect that a three-year affair conducted in public view with all the pomp of high office, much of it supported by taxpayers, would be just a bump in the mattress on the way to the presidency?

How we treat those close to us is a strong indicator of how we'll treat others further removed from our affections. While divorce is tough enough on all involved, to then go out of one's way to publicly humiliate a former spouse is beyond the pale. The former Mrs. Giuliani and their two children deserved better than to find out from the press that husband and father had left, that he'd filed for divorce, that he'd negotiated away custody for a new love, the new Mrs. Giuliani III.

Russert's question has brought Rudy's character into focus. He's not fit to be elected President and for the Republican Party to nominate him is inconsistent with its values and beneath it.

RELATED LINKS: For Giuliani, the Canary is Dead, Dead, Dead
Rudy Giuliani, Incoherent on the Constitution

Rudy Giuliani is one of those politicians, of which there are far, far too many, who needs to be President. They are the most dangerous of them all.

Catholic Mass in Baghdad with Iraq's First-ever Cardinal

Benedict XVI named 23 new cardinals two weeks ago, including Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly, Iraq's first ever prince of the Roman Catholic Church.

The cardinal has returned to Baghdad and taken up his shepherd's staff to lead the faithful along the road to peace.

This morning, under tight security, Cardinal Delly presided over Mass at the Church of the Virgin Mary in mainly Shiite eastern Baghdad.

The cardinal's message was straightforward

We pray today for the sake of each other and to forgive each other, as well to be directed to do good deeds.

In an important display of Iraqi unity, the cardinal was joined in celebration after Mass by Imam Jassim al-Jazari, who added his congratulations for the cardinal.

Pax tecum.
Et cum spiritu tuo.

What Did Pelosi Know and When Did She Forget It?

This week Senator Ted Kennedy, the man from Knob Creek, stood in the Senate to compare the destroyed CIA tapes of interrogations of our enemies with the missing 18 and one-half minutes in the Nixon tapes. Kennedy explicitly blamed President Bush and then-Attorney General Gonzales for the fact that the tapes were destroyed.

Granted that Senator Kennedy, hic, knows more about missing memories (is that you, Mary Jo?) than almost anyone else in government. The man is a walking encyclopedia of missing memories (Palm Beach? Never been there), but in this case he has his facts and his accusations just plain wrong.

The bigger story, though, is the outright dishonesty on the part of the Democratic leadership, who were briefed on CIA interrogation techniques in 2002. Rather than disapproving, they wondered if the CIA couldn't be even tougher. According to the Washington Post

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Is this another case of Ted Kennedy's missing memories? Not really. This is not a story of a one-off briefing, but one of 30 briefings spread over several years, part of the oversight mechanism required by law. Those 30 briefings each involved between four and six lawmakers, yielding between 120 and 180 opportunities for a lawmaker to object. Only one objection was ever filed.

It was only after the CIA began briefing the wider Congressional committees that information about waterboarding began to leak and pick up opposition. By that time the CIA, which had used the technique only three times, had already stopped waterboarding.

Nancy Pelosi, among others, has known about waterboarding since 2002. Her office has been coy, but the bottom line is not avoidable

Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.

She has known about it for five years, yet she has allowed her political colleagues to run wild since with accusations that waterboarding was

a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort.

Nancy Pelosi had been briefed on the technique, and presumably, its results. Nancy Pelosi did not object for almost five years. She was, at a minimum, present when others suggested even stronger actions.

And now, she's asking, "Who, me?"

UPDATE: I'm reminded that Nancy Pelosi ordered the replacement of Rep. Jane Harmon as Chair of the Intelligence Committee. Rep. Harmon was the only legislator to file an objection to waterboarding.

Deceit permeates the Democratic leadership, whose sense of shame is shadowed even by that of the Senate's senior memory hole.

Hillary's Mom: Out of the Closet in Iowa, Speechless

Hillary Clinton has done an exemplary job of defending her family during tough times and shielding them from paparazzi in the good times. She obviously cares deeply that their privacy not be invaded… except when she needs them for her own purposes.

Ben Smith reports this morning on the appearance for the first time on the campaign trail of Mrs. Dorothy Rodham, Mrs. Clinton's mother.

At an appearance in Des Moines, Iowa, Mrs. Clinton introduced her mother to the crowd with "Thank you for being here, Mom. Thanks for coming back to Iowa with me."

Mr. Smith is curious that Mrs. Rodham didn't speak.

Recalling Hillary's repeated stories of her upbringing in a conservative Republican household, perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised at the tightly pursed lips. After all, "I love you Hillary, but I'm not voting for you," wouldn't be the kind of statement the campaign would appreciate at this stage of the effort.
Later, Chelsea joined Mrs. Clinton at a photo op. Unlike her grandmother, Ms. Clinton was in full and vocal campaign mode for her mother.

Banned by NBC

UPDATE: Drudge is reporting that NBC, under enormous pressure from viewers, has reversed its earlier decision not to show this paid commercial.

The Legacy Media just isn't what it used to be, a very positive development.

NBC has banned this commercial.




The folks who used radio-controlled ignitors to blow up GM pickup trucks and their ratings are the folks who used the Virginia Tech shooter's photos and statement to increase their ratings and they are the same folks who say this paid commercial doesn't meet their standards.


NBC should be too ashamed to show their colors.

New York Police Department Issuing iPods

The New York Police Department has begun issuing Apple iPods to its recruits. NYPD iPods come preloaded with course material so the the police recruits can study while traveling between home and class. Reuters reports that department believes this will save the students the burden of carrying class books on New York's public transportation.

This seems like a really, really good idea. No word yet on whether special permits are required or whether the students can carry their department-issue iPods concealed or not. But, still a good idea:

• Students can study the legalities of search and seizure while riding home on the subway;
• With more recruits carrying openly, New York's thugs may turn their focus from tourists; thereby
  
• Giving the recruits a head start as to what constitutes theft and robbery; and
• If the robbers will watch a little of the content before turning the iPods into coke or meth, perhaps professionalizing the the thuggery class! No, officer, according to current legal thinking it wasn't battery, only assault!

While iPods are great, iPhones might make more sense by giving a recruit a chance to phone for help.

Best yet, a Glock, some effective ammunition and a whole lot of range time.

SCOTUS to Rep. Jim McDermott; "Bad Boy, Leaker"

Ten years ago Representative Jim McDermott (D-WA7), known in more recent years as Baghdad Jim for his unqualified support of that city's former tyrant, was serving on the House Ethics Committee. Two Democratic Party activists, who had illegally recorded a telephone conversation between Representative John Boehner and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, delivered the hot tape to McDermott.

McDermott made a the first of a series of truly bad choices. Rather than pursuing his passion for Gingrich through the channels of the Ethics Committee, he delivered the tape to a reporter in what the trial judge ruled was a malicious attempt to politically harm his colleagues through an invasion of their privacy.

Rep. Boehner offered to settle the case years ago for $10,000 and an apology. McDermott, caught up in what might in later years be called Gingrich Derangement Syndrome, refused.

Today's decision by the Supreme Court not to hear Jim's arguments means that McDermott will be paying Boehner something in the neighborhood of $1 million, money that McDermott doesn't have.

RELATED LINKS: McDermott (D-WA), Guilty (Again)!

UPDATE: McDermott's legal defense fund reportedly took in about $15,000 in the last reported quarter, while spending more than $10,000 in the same period. At that rate it will take about 50 years for Boehner to collect.

UPDATE II: In his 2005 financial disclosure report, McDermott reported a net worth between $10,000 and $15,000, not including real estate. Talk about judgment-proof, wow. McDermott's raw financial filing for 2006, filed in May 2007, shows a total asset range between $562 thousand and $1.131 million. It appears that most of the assets are held in various styles of retirement accounts.

UPDATE: At least one of the reported contributors to McDermott's legal defense fund can afford to help big-time. Jim Sinegal, of Costco fame, kicked in $5,000 last year. As did one William Gates a year earlier.

Anyone who makes a 100-1 judgment mistake by refusing to pay $10,000 in order to later cough up $1,000,000, is too risky to keep in D.C.

Where's The Militia? I Want To Enlist!

Everyone is taking the 2nd Amendment more seriously and more literally these days. While I agree with the growing number of commentators who think it likely that the Supreme Court will not find it necessary to posit penumbras in order to find an individual right to keep firearms, I'm not adverse to a small covering bet in case the current Court chooses to embarrass itself.

So, just in case the phrase the people is found to really mean, men and women who work for and wear the uniform of a government, acting under orders of a state, I'd like to get a headstart on the rush that will result from such a decision.

I'd like to volunteer now for the to-be-formed militia(s) of whichever state(s) would appreciate and value my services and meet my, admittedly very modest, compensation requirements. (About which, see below.)

You see, under a "collectivist" decision by the Supreme Court, the various state militias would become on paper—and perhaps eventually in reality—among the strongest military forces on the planet.

There really can't be any other outcome:

1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
2. The various amendments were and are understood to have amended earlier versions of the Constitution. To the extent that there is a conflict between the body and the amendment, the amendment is superior.
3. Common law, statutes, interpretations or administrative decisions which were earlier understood to limit the individualist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment can't possibly limit governmental "rights." For example, where individual Americans haven't seriously attempted to push the envelope on laws that restrict ownership based on caliber, explosive potential, or platform, it would be unreasonable to think that a government could be limited to sub-.50 caliber rifles, restricted from inventorying hand grenades and RPGs, or precluded from stockpiling Bradleys and Strykers, Apaches and Warthogs.
4. Antigun commentators have had great fun over the years with strawman discussions about whether every NRA member should be able to buy a bazooka or join with their neighbors for a bunker buster. Any possible justification for such a discussion disappears with a states' rights decision. While Fred and Steve should probably never own a TOW, Montana and Louisiana could buy all they choose.
5. Given the explicit language, "shall not be infringed," and its placement as an Amendment authorized two years after ratification of the body of the Constitution, it will be difficult to argue that the language doesn't at least severely restrict the Presidential authority over state Militias contained in Article 2. Under a collectivist interpretation based on and explicitly recognizing the needs of "a free state," its difficult to see how the rights of the states to arm themselves can be limited or restricted or substantially interfered with by the other governmental party to the Constitution.

Finally, it is difficult to see how the federal government could interfere with the structure, purpose, size or recruitment of any state's militia given such a decision. Given such an interpretation, shall not be infringed is just too broad in its coverage of the 50 states and too specific in its import. Perhaps we should be concerned about a New York/New Jersey arms race one day?

While the National Guard would presumably continue in its quasi-state role (have the collectivists ever wondered why it's called the National Guard?), a prospective collectivist decision opens up grand new vistas for state authority and responsibility. It would resurrect the meaning of federal as a subject fit for polite discussion and likely change the atmosphere and the politics of federal-state conversations. Taken to an admitted extreme, imagine the excitement should Montana or North Dakota mix a little eminent domain with a whole lot of states' rights 2nd Amendment and use the two to demand control of the couple of hundred Minuteman silos still buried in the high plains prairies. The two states would immediately become full faith members of the super power club. The poetic geometry of their militias holding Minutemen missiles would be… priceless.

I can see one of the progressive states, those already comfortable with the benefits of an armed citizenry, say Arizona or New Mexico, facing a military issue such as their presently porous borders and immediately calling upon a newly formed state militia to help supply the manpower necessary to stop the surge of invaders across their borders. With the right inducements, any state that wished could recruit ample numbers of skilled and law-abiding citizen volunteers in an instant. All at a cost that would make Scrooge squeal with delight.

They could require basic Militia members to take the same training as Arizona presently requires for a concealed weapons permit, adding substantially more range time as well as basic tactics training. They could run the background checks every year or two, even while recognizing that holders of concealed carry permits are already the most law abiding group in each one of the 41 states that allow concealed carry.

As a condition of membership in the militia, the sponsoring state could require citizen-members to actually serve by spending a weekend or two a year patrolling the border. I suspect that adding 50,000 men and women to that effort, even part-timers, would make a significant difference along a state's southern border. Governor Richardson, Governor Napolitano are you listening?

For compensation, I'd suggest offering basic militia members only the minimum wage while actually on duty, and only after successfully completing training.

Of course, so that members would be ready to answer the call to duty as quickly as possible, I'd also allow require members to carry concealed while traveling.

That's the big payoff, for individuals, for the sponsoring state, for everyone. Militia members would be armed wherever they go, whether while flying the friendly skies, or touring the crime zones known as D. C. and Chicago. TSA, which is presently failing 100% of its own tests, could be disbanded as redundant.

Such would be the strength of a Supreme Court decision that ties "shall not be infringed" to a newly found "right" of the 50 free states. No federal law, rule or regulation would be superior. And that's not all bad.

LINKS: More than ten years ago, Glenn Reynolds and Don Kates penned a prescient analysis of the presumably unintended consequences should the collectivist crowd actually win the decision they seek. For a thoughtful and authoritative look at the potential outcomes from the Supreme Court this year, I recommend a careful read of The Second Amendment and States' Rights: A Thought Experiment.


You know, a defeat at SCOTUS, though unlikely, might not be so bad after all. The possible unintended consequences are very interesting.

Strong Message to Hollywood: The Big $ Is In Family Films

You've heard of the neutron bomb-like damage delivered by the current crop of anti-war films. It is likely that none of them, not one, will return the costs of production. While names and reputations are often termed bankable in Hollywood circles, there's a limit to the credit that investors will put up to only to send an R-rated message and lose money, even when they're invited to rub elbows with the likes of Redford, Cruise and Streep.

The lesson runs deeper.

Of the top ten grossing films of the year, all but one are rated either G or PG. The outlier was the unique '300,' at number seven for the year with revenues of $210 million.

The family films? All together the top nine have brought in more than $2.3 billion so far, with more on the horizon.

That's a message that Sony, Columbia, Paramount, Disney, Warner, Universal and Fox can hear and to which they and their shareholders can relate. There's some evidence that they're responding, as major sequels are tuned to PG-13 and new releases such as Ratatouille follow along the path of American Tail.

Measured in dollars, the least of the top ten made at least twice as much as Redford's recent ly deceased rant has lost. Measured in terms of reputation?

Priceless.