First, I'm sorry I haven't posted in the last couple days. Things have been, well, hectic -- but they should get back to normal by tomorrow.

Second, a reader wrote in to say that one of the PPC Links has turned into an "adult" redirect. I'm sorry, and I've now removed it.
--------

The folks over at the Wall Street Journal aren't happy with the Bush administration.

This isn't yet the gang that couldn't shoot straight, but without a course correction it may get there. The Administration that once dominated events now seems hostage to them. If we had to pick a date when this slippage began, we'd choose March 5. That was the day Mr. Bush imposed steel tariffs for domestic political reasons. The decision irritated most of the world, but that is not always bad. What made that decision so damaging was that it repudiated a core principle of Mr. Bush's foreign policy: free trade.

The policy mattered less than the abandonment of principle. It signaled to the world that Mr. Bush was not the President he had seemed after September 11; his moral and strategic clarity could be compromised for a price.

It's interesting that they tie their disillusionment to a decision made by the president's chief political operative. Should we be on the lookout for a Who Is Karl Rove? piece in the not-too-distant future?
--------

Mickey Kaus explains why the McCain-runs-as-a-Democrat boomlet isn't going anywhere... so The O'Toole File doesn't have to.
--------

This post has absolutely nothing to do with our stated purpose here --politics, and the business thereof. On the other hand, this is my site. And if somebody has something good to say about about the funniest writer in the English language (and, yes, the name you're hearing in your head is Wodehouse), I'll link to it.
--------

The Supremes have struck down a law banning "virtual" child pornography (porn that simulates the activities of children rather than actually using kids in its creation). Interestingly, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in a separate opinion.

The O'Toole File, which is no fan of Justice Thomas', suspects the worst: Some liberals will snarkily suggest that his supposed taste for porn influenced his decision.

As disgusting as this fake kiddie-porn stuff is, there's a legitimate First Amendment issue here. And Clarence Thomas deserves credit for understanding that fact.
--------

I probably have more misgivings about the recent Israeli incursions into the territories than NRO's Jonah Goldberg, but he gets this point about homicidal suicide bombers absolutely right (ed: "homicidal suicide bombers" -- how's that for finding the muddled middle?):

The people who love this innovative way to murder are not rational. And, by extension, those who defend it are in denial. Look at this girl. She's, what? Eight years old? In the United States it is increasingly believed that if you smoke or, even worse, use racial epithets in the proximity of your children, you are a bad parent. This guy thinks it's noble to strap make-believe dynamite to his daughter, as if it's some sort of dream that she might one day vaporize herself in the proximity of Jewish children.

This is insanity and it is evil. And if you think future generations won't see it that way, you are fooling yourself or you are a fool or you are deeply, deeply pessimistic about the future of humanity. This death cult is so blatantly obvious for any who are not too enamored with such romantic notions as "wars of national liberation" or "anti-imperialism" that it honestly baffles me when people cannot see it.
--------

A reader writes in to say that he's not, well, overly impressed by The O'Toole File's takes on the day's news.

Looking for something since you were "tapped." Found absolutely nothing but narcissism and a desire for bucks as I moved down the column to your blogging-empire desire.

If you are a Demo, you're classic case of what's wrong with 'em.

Hmmm... narcissism and buck-raking. Maybe I do have a future in big-time journalism.
--------

A smart piece by Tim Luckhurst explains why British PM Tony Blair's current political problems have more to do with his rogue state than Saddam Hussein's.

[T]he primary reason isn't Iraq. It's that when it comes to the core public services Blair was elected to reform, the electorate believes things have gotten worse, not better. The same poll revealed that only 29 percent of Labour voters believe public services have improved since Blair became prime minister. Small wonder. The National Health Service is staggering under a burden of long waiting lists and historic underinvestment. The railway network, incompetently privatized by the Conservatives and still less competently partially renationalized by Labour, is inefficient, plagued by strikes, and seemingly incapable of delivering commuters to work. Standards in state schools are in decline, and teachers are threatening to make things worse by striking for shorter hours and higher pay. Meanwhile the Post Office, teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, openly admits its inability to provide expected levels of service.
--------

Brink Lindsey's analysis of the new Oxfam study showing that international trade is the best hope for the world's poor is just about pitch-perfect. Here's the nut graph:

If the Oxfam study's shortcomings are considerable, they pale in comparison to its virtues. The report shows that embracing international markets is consistent with left-of-center sensibilities -- that's huge. Furthermore, it provides a "progressive" rationale for reducing trade barriers here at home -- at a time when support for market-opening agreements has all but disappeared in the Democratic party. Oxfam aims to launch a major trade campaign based on the analysis and proposals in its study. Friends of open markets should wish this new ally all the luck in the world.

Sounds like Oxfam has figured out what the Democratic party still hasn't -- that Bill Clinton and the DLC were right about trade all along.
--------

Josh Marshall makes a smart observation about Al Gore's campaign 2000 veepstakes, and what it all could mean in '04.
--------

The O'Toole File is currently suffering from server problems of some kind, but the folks who know about such things are working on it. I should be able to get back to normal posting later today.
UPDATE: It took a little longer than we'd hoped, but things seem to be working again. Thanks for your patience.
--------

As Mel Brooks might have said, it's good to be Tapped.
--------

I didn't smack the Reverends Falwell and Robertson for their reprehensible comments about 9-11 because their fellow Republicans took care of it.

In the same self-policing spirit, I'd like to say that, as a Democrat, I'm outraged by the latest bilge being spewed by Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA). There's just no room for that sort of stupid, irresponsible, and, yes, -- anti-American -- conspiracy-theory crap in the Democratic party.
--------

Those who argue that the Bush administration is playing some sort of a slick PR game -- calling for an end to Israeli incursions while tacitly supporting the attacks -- need to take a look at this article in today's Washington Post.

Israel's continued defiance of President Bush's demand for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian cities and towns is eroding support for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon inside the White House, administration sources said yesterday. ... As part of the emerging shift of opinion about the Israeli leader, some White House officials are now making a distinction between support for Israel and support for Sharon.

When a US president allows his underlings to leak all over a friendly foreign leader in this way -- particularly one whose domestic political standing can be severely damaged by stories like these -- he's not playing a game. He means it.
--------

Political professionals have tried repeatedly over the years to explain why gun control -- an issue that, at one point, at least, polled well generally -- was a loser at the polls.

Basically, the argument boils down to this: People who favor some form of gun control don't vote for or against candidates based on that one issue; on the other hand, those who oppose restrictions do precisely that. The voting pattern amounts to a version of what consultants sometimes call a "referendum election."

The question O'Toole File asks today is this: Is "therapeutic cloning" (i.e., cloning parts for research, rather than people) the same sort of issue? Isn't it entirely possible that the millions of Americans who are waiting for a cure based on this technology will become, in essence, single-issue voters?

This is something that the pols, who are currently only reading the "top line" of the polls, need to consider very carefully before they vote to completely ban the procedure.
--------

The Moose gets it just about right today in his analysis of where the two parties stand at this moment.

The differences between the two parties are narrowing. The Rove-directed White House has demonstrated that it is willing to reverse course at the drop of a six gallon hat. The stimulus bill, airline security, tariffs, campaign finance reform, and even the Middle East demonstrate that this Administration will jettison principle if their political standing is at risk. The lapdog right does not seem to mind as long as they get White House access for their donors and clients. The conservative poo-bahs know that Mr. Rove keeps a list and checks it twice (daily) of who's been naughty and who's been nice.

This presents a difficult dilemma for the Democratic Party. ... Without either an economic justice or national security focus, the Democrats are defined by a range of culturally liberal issues - abortion on demand, anti-war tribunals and gun control. They would rather fight conservative judges than stand up for the little guy. The Democrats are in danger of becoming the electoral arm of the People for the American Way.
--------

James D. Miller has an interesting article on the future of blogging in today's Tech Central Station. An excerpt:

I predict that the best bloggers will eventually join branded, heavily advertised web sites. ... Soon, I suspect, the Internet will become a more profitable place to operate. When it is again profitable to attract a wide audience, bloggers will be hired by media companies. While not all bloggers will "sell out" / "sign up" those that do will get the advantage of working under a media brand name and will consequently grow in popularity and influence.

And here's the O'Toole File from March 18 (a post that Glenn Reynolds and several others were kind enough to link to at the time):

Rather, I suspect that the big bloggers will join Dan Pink's Free Agent Nation, moving their blogs to sites that are willing to pay for the audience, and the reader loyalty, they bring with them. (How much more often would you find yourself on TNR's website -- looking at their ads and reading their articles -- if that's where, say, Andrew Sullivan's blog were hosted? Or on the Reason site if that's where you had to go to read Virginia Postrel?)

This solution is such a win-win for everybody -- the websites get fresh, daily content that brings its own set of eyeballs, and the bloggers get an economic model that frees them up to concentrate on what they do best -- that I can't believe some version of it won't eventually take off.
--------

US News is reporting that the GOP has launched an unofficial boycott of CNN's Crossfire because the show's new liberal hosts, Paul Begala and James Carville, are "too good at what they do."
--------

If you don't read any other lengthy think-pieces in the next few days, read this one on what the rest of the world "knows" about America, why much of it is wrong, and why all of this matters in the current (and coming) conflict. (Via Arts & Letters Daily)
--------

Over at TNR, Michelle Cottle takes a hard look at the latest study linking TV viewing and violence, and finds some problems.

Researchers found that kids (average age of 14) who watch between one and three hours of television a day are much more likely to later exhibit aggressive behavior than those who watch less than one hour a day.

Less than one hour a day? I'm sorry, but these days, kids who watch less than one hour of television a day -- be it "Sesame Street," "Barney," or "Wrestlemania" -- are simply not normal. I mean that in the best way possible. Maybe their parents are deeply religious. Or hyper-intellectual. (Most of us know an idealistic academic who at some point threw out her TV set.) Or simply super-concerned with their child's upbringing. But any household in which youngsters are not watching even one hour of television per day almost certainly has some other socializing influence far more important than the presence -- or absence -- of "Power Rangers" on the tube.

A typically smart piece by one of TNR's best.
--------

Two interesting op-eds by prominent conservatives on President Bush's new Middle East policy: Peggy Noonan says he nailed it; Daniel Pipes, perhaps unintentionally, argues that Al Gore was right. (Pipes: "To watch Bush dealing with an increasingly acrimonious Arab-Israeli theater leaves me with two impressions: His larger vision--to support Israel against terrorism--shows a clear understanding of the situation. But his limited understanding of the issues leads him to adopt superficial, even counterproductive policies." [my emphasis])
--------

According to the watchdogs over at Spinsanity, "In the last few days, pundit Andrew Sullivan has been notably sloppy with his facts." I like Sullivan's work a great deal, but they're right; he has been playing a little fast-and-loose with the facts lately. (Note: In fairness, it should be pointed out that Sullivan publishes a letters page where readers can and do point out these errors, and he often acknowledges them in later posts.)
--------

We may be seeing the birth of something new today -- the world's first naturally-occurring Google Bomb. I'll be awfully surprised if searches on the words clueless and idiotic don't start returning the work of Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam before the week is out. (InstaPundit has the whole story; check it out here.)
--------

As the situation in Israel gets worse by the hour, two very unpopular things need to be said. One, the Bush administration's policy of disengagement has been exposed as a disastrous and ill-conceived abrogation of America's historic responsibilities in the Middle East. And two, Israel's military response to the unremitting terror war being waged against it, while entirely justified, won't succeed; democracies are simply incapable of the kind of sustained brutality required to subjugate a restive and thoroughly radicalized people. (What happens when sixteen-year-old Palestinian girls bent on martyrdom start throwing themselves under Israeli tanks? Does Israel really have the stomach to roll over ten of them? A hundred? A thousand?)

As much as it depresses me to say this, the Palestinians are right about one thing: Israel faces a choice between capitulation and ethnic cleansing, and because it will never choose the latter, it will ultimately be forced to accept the former. I hope and pray that all this is just my (occasionally) dark Irish soul talking, but I fear it's not. The terrorists are winning.
--------

Thanks to everyone who took a moment last week to hit the tip jar or buy a book. Your generosity and support are greatly appreciated.
--------