Bobby: "We're going to see the training camp of the Dallas Cowboys. They used to be in Austin till...well, you know. But like my dad says, 'Cowboys will be Cowboys.'"
Hank: "I say that in private, Bobby."

Bobby: "Irvin's looking good this year, huh, Dad?"
Hank: "Yep. I'm giving him a A minus."
Bobby: "I'm giving him a B plus. That gives him some room to improve."
Hank: "Good thinking, son."
Bobby: "And I'm giving Troy Aikman a B plus too."
Hank: "That's not funny, Bobby."

Soup had a post up about the new CBS hit (really) show "Nummb3rs." I watched the first two episodes, and was thinking about posting on it, but Soupie beat me to it. And then I started to write a long comment there, but I decided to do this instead. If you're not familiar with the show, it stars Rob Morrow, the former Dr. Joel Fleischman from the great show "Northern Exposure." (Aside: I didn't even know they had sharks to jump in Alaska, but when that show went over, it went way over.) Morrow is a bad-ass FBI agent, and his brother is a nerd-ass math geek. And the math geek brother helps the FBI agent brother solve crimes...with math! It's like "Sliderule and Hutch." Or "Tangent and Hooch." Or "Calculus and Lacey."

Anyway, I'm not sure what to make of this show. From a crime-show standpoint, it failed the semi-believable test in the second episode when a bad guy stood over an FBI agent, fired a gun, and missed. And then it turned out that the bad guy was a highly-trained former Green Beret or something. Riiight. Even assuming the Feds would engage in a shootout with automatic weapons in the middle of a city street that lasts long enough for Morrow to arrive in his car after hearing about it on the radio, a Green Beret would blow his butt back to Cicely, Alaska if he had a shot from three feet away.

I'm also leaving aside the notion that the FBI would let the younger brother commandeer the office for a math lesson, and then essentially dictate tactics based on his scribbling. But the central premise of the show is that, instead of the CSI- or Law & Order-style police work in most cop shows, the crimes are solved by the math whiz. It reminded me of the famous quote by Arthur C. Clarke that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Basically, the Mathemagician conjures spells and says "Arrest that guy."

The last math class I took was AP Calculus my senior year in high school. I'm no math whiz. But I got an A in that class, and I'm a reasonably intelligent person. I mean, after all, if I'm geeky enough to be home on a Friday night to watch "Numb3rs," I ought to be able to get the show. And on a rudimentary level, I guess I do. If, that is, I accept the notion that one can develop an equation or formula complex enough to account for the myriad variables that go into crime-solving, and that produces a set of outcomes sufficiently small enough to narrow in on the criminal.

Maybe there are some math afficianados reading this who will assure me it's not only possible, but actually happens. Maybe so. But I don't believe it based on what they show me. I see him sawing the girl in half, but there's a lot of smoke and mirrors. I saw this line from the show's creator: "[W]e think most viewers are fascinated by mathematics and are curious about how the world works around them." Not so fast, hoss. My sense, albeit tainted by law school's general hatred of numbers, is that people are boggled and scared by them. So the show has to walk a fine line that a lot of niche shows have: it has to be realistic and detailed enough for the eggheads and jargonistas, but not boring and off-putting for the novice. A show like this that comes to mind are those Supreme Court dramas that came out a few years ago. I watched one episode of one of them, and my conclusion was that the law details were too wrong for me to appreciate it on a legal level, but if they showed what it was really like, non-lawyers would turn away in droves. (One example: a parental-notification abortion case getting to the Court quickly enough for the mother to still be pregnant, and in the courtroom, at the oral argument, and the Justices deciding to question her instead of the lawyer. I didn't catch much after that because of my guffaws, but I did also note with amusement a clerk deciding to quit on principle because the Justice didn't adopt his view in a case. I'm sure the Article III Groupie could tell us how many times that's happened!)

Another digression. Did anyone see the Japanese version of The Ring? In the American version, the star begins to figure out the deal through a fascinating and clever bit of detective work, and it makes sense. In the Japanese version, a character accomplishes the same feat because he's psychic, and it comes to him in a flash, and it's a gyp.

"Numb3rs" works the same way -- the math geek gets a brainstorm, and the mystery is solved. But I don't know how it happened, just that it did. If viewers are really as curious about math as the creator thinks, why don't they show their work? In the end, it was unappealing either as a cop show or a math show. If it succeeds, it will do so even though the future can be plotted on a graph where X = {number of viewers of first two episodes} - Me.

Tug, the P.A. Announcer: "Number 33, David Kalaiiki-Alii, the Flyin' Hawaiian! He says 'aloha' to the end zone and 'aloha' to the Temble Tigers! It means both hello and goodbye! My wife is Polynesian! Arlen High's unstoppable!"

Booster: "She flunked David and put him on three weeks' academic probation. You know what happens in those three weeks? San Marcos. Belton. McMaynerbury. McMaynerbury, Hank!"

You've probably seen this already, but Ossie Davis passed away last night. I'm sure you all have your favorite Ossie characters or movies - Sebastian, no doubt remembers him best for his portrayal of John F. Kennedy in Bubba Ho-tep - but for my money one of his most entertaining roles was Marshall the limo driver in Joe Versus the Volcano:

Marshall: They just pay me to drive the limo, sir. I'm not here to tell you who you are.

Joe Banks: I didn't ask you to tell me who I am.

Marshall: You were hinting around about clothes. That happens to be a very important topic to me, sir. Clothes, Mr. . .

Joe Banks: Banks.

Marshall: Banks. Clothes make the man. I believe that. You say to me you want to go shopping, you want to buy clothes, but you don't know what kind. You leave that hanging in the air, like I'm going to fill in the blank. That to me is like asking me who you are, and I don't know who you are. I don't want to know. It's taken me my whole life to find out who I am, and I'm tired now. You hear what I'm saying?

I'm working on some of the requests submitted below, but I'm gonna need some time to get those posts finished. In the meantime, here's a collection of links to some of my favorite reads from the last few days to get you through the weekend. Interesting, humorous, well-written, thoughtful, and thought-provoking. They've got it all!

1. A new addition to my blogroll: Highways West. It's all about my new neck of the woods.

2. Prof. Volokh on the Ward Churchill brouhaha, the First Amendment, and academic freedom.

3. Centinel, a suppository repository of great stories, tells of the real-life X-files.

4. Legal Quandary on Santa Maria barbecue and other things (per my request).

5. "In every country the Communists have taken over, the first thing they do is outlaw cockfighting." - John Monks, Oklahoma state representative, arguing against a bill that would make cockfighting illegal in his state (via Robert Prather)

6. Here is your chance to guest-blog at SMP?.

7. Via The Corner, by way of BW&V, Rob Shneider's response to a L.A. Times critique of his new movie (a sequel to Deuce Bigelow). Ouch! Somebody hit a nerve.

8. kmsqrd demands that you interact. Resistance is futile. She wants book, movie, and music recommendations. Give her what she wants.

9. Kristine is taking requests. Click over to divine angst and tell her what to write about.

10. Finally, a bunch of music links. Slate has a piece by Evan Cornog (I think his name's missing a "d") on how to tweak you iPod for maximum enjoyment. Stuart Buck has made some of his personal recordings available on line here, and Ernie the Attorney notes that you can now purchase from iTunes music by Ernie's friend Chris Cortez. (tangentially related is this post in which Ernie describes the new offerings from Apple Computers)

Mr. Funball, sporting a cool new look, has this High Fidelity-inspired post where he asks readers to name five essential albums that everyone should own. Check it out and leave your list of essential albums in the comments.

Last, but certainly not least, bikini-blogger E. McPan says, "If I could have a 'power' (note that I didn't use superpower), it would be the ability to have an out-loud soundtrack controlled by me. You know, to chart my life. So, like, I could add sound effects and stuff." Cool idea. Inspired by Ms. McPan, I'm working on a playlist (that's a mixtape for the OGs) that would describe my typical day. I'll try to get that posted in the next couple of days.

Energy Spatula requested the story of our first kiss. (Here's hers, by the way.) I hope she means for us to tell our individual stories, because I don't recall ever sharing a kiss with Fitz. *sigh*

Anyway, I think I might have had some minor pecks with girls in junior high, but the first kiss I remember, the first of any significance, was shortly after I started high school. A girl who was a couple of years older took a fancy to me, and we started dating. She had just dumped her long-term boyfriend, who turned out to be a jerk. His name was Kip, so it's hard to blame him, though. Anyway, they ended up getting back together, but the few months we dated was pretty nice, especially because she was old enough to drive and we could go places without having to have a parent drop us off.

So this girl (I'd rather not share her name, because it's pretty unusual) and I went out one night, maybe to see a movie or go to the sock-hop or whatever the kids did those days. Actually, we were both in the band, so she might have been giving me a ride home after a football game. My driveway had this little turn-around area where we used to shoot hoops, and there was a big pine tree between it and the house, so anyone looking out from the house could have seen the car there but not anything inside. I don't remember whether it was rainy or anything. We were just saying goodnight and ended up kissing. You know, your average high school make-out session. She was nice and all, but looking back, I'm not surprised she went back to the jerk. Years later, though, I ran into her and she told me she regretted it and kind of thought of me as the one that got away.

Well, there you have it. Like a lot of other things in high school, I was too dumb at the time to try to remember anything about it. So I can't really fill in a lot of details. All I can tell you is that I had my first kiss of any significance across the center console of a burgundy Buick Skylark.

Philip: "I'm a sports psychologist. I worked with the Cowboys."
Hank: "When?"
Philip: "Last season."
Hank: "Goodbye!"

As promised, just in time for the Big Game, here is a post on Texas-style chili. If I leave any questions unanswered, or if anything is unclear, please use the comments section. Let me note here at the beginning that I don't claim this to be the definitive version of Texas-style chili, but I will tell you that the recipe below is a world-champion passed down to me by my father. I predict you're gonna enjoy it.

The Lowdown: What chili is and what chili isn't

Chili is meat and spices, those spices being chiefly ground red chiles and cumin. For our purposes, the term "chili" does not include any concoction containing beans. Period. If you want chili with beans, go somewhere else. If you want to debate beans vs. no beans you've come to the wrong place. In Texas we don't cotton to beans in our chili. It's that simple. Understand that I've eaten chili with beans in it, and I've followed chili recipes that called for beans. Chili with beans is fine for what it is, but what it is not is Texas-style chili. Now that we have that settled, let's move on.

The Basics

Chili is simple fare - just meat and spices. It gets its red color and heat from the chile powder (not tomatoes) and gets its smoky flavor from the cumin. Chili should be thick. Mine will typically have a slightly thinner consistency than risotto. Some folks serve chili so thick you can eat it with a fork off of a plate. You may want a thinner chili. If so, just adjust your liquids in the recipe below.

A chili begins by browning meat - usually beef, but not exclusively - in a large dutch oven. Then the spices and other ingredients are added to the meat, which is kept at a simmer until it reaches the right consistency and flavor. The spices are added at intervals, in what chili cooks call "dumps." The spices are added in stages to control the heat and to keep the chile flavor from being too mellow. The exact components of these spice dumps are usually closely guarded secrets. The dump is where a cook can really customize his chili recipe.

I recommend using ground New Mexico red chile peppers (if you can find them) for your chile powder. The stuff sold as "chili powder" in the seasoning aisle of the grocery store usually has cumin, oregano, and other spices in it. "Chili powder" will work just fine, but pure ground red chiles will give you a hotter finished product.

The Recipe

Ingredients

3 lbs ground sirloin (you can use ground chuck, but you'll need to drain a lot of fat)
1 - 8 oz. can of tomato sauce
1 tablespoon of lard (or substitute your preferred cooking oil)
1 - 14 1/2 oz. can of beef broth (I suggest using a reduced-sodium broth)
2 - 14 1/2 oz. can of chicken broth, divided (again, I suggest using a reduced-sodium broth)
2 serrano peppers, halved and seeded

For the first Dump:
1 tablespoon chili powder
1 1/2 tablespoons onion powder
2 teaspoons instant beef bouillon
2 teaspoons instant chicken bouillon
1 teaspoon cumin (for the most flavorful results, toast and grind your own cumin)

For the Second Dump:
2 tablespoons chili powder
1 tablespoon cumin
1 teaspoon garlic powder
3/4 teaspoon white pepper
1/4 teaspoon salt - optional (I use just a pinch because the bouillon is plenty salty)
1 packet of Sazon Goya - Google it to order some online or head to your local Latin market

For the Third Dump:
1 tablespoon chili powder
1 teaspoon cumin
1/4 teaspoon brown sugar

Cooking Instructions

1. Heat one tablespoon of lard or cooking oil in a large pot or dutch oven over medium-high heat. Add the meat and cook, stirring occasionally until browned.

2. Spoon off any excess grease, then add the serrano peppers, the can of tomato sauce, the beef broth and one cup of the chicken broth. Add your First Dump, bring to a boil, then reduce the heat, cover, and simmer for about 1 hour, stirring occasionally.

3. Remove the serrano peppers, then add your Second Dump. Adjust the liquid with the remainder of the chicken broth. I add the remaining broth from one can. You may want to add some of the broth from the second can. It depends on your preferences. Cover and simmer for 30 minutes, stirring occasionally.

4. Add your Third Dump. Reduce the heat and keep the chili at a low simmer uncovered for about 10 to 15 minutes.

5. Eat. This should serve 6-8 people in mixed company or 2-4 guys on the day of the Big Game.

Variations, garnishes and accompaniments

I like the chili just as it is, though I will admit to garnishing my bowl with finely chopped white onion and shredded cheddar cheese from time to time. I've been known to spoon my chili over a bowl of Fritos corn chips - a dish known as Frito pie - and I've served chili with cornbread. Some people serve chili with saltine crackers. I've even heard of people putting a dollop of sour cream in their chili to cut the heat, but that doesn't do anything for me. Some folks dump a can of beans in there, too. If that's your thing go for it. I'm not here to judge you. Just note that you'll need to add more liquid if you add beans.

For a nifty variation on this recipe, buy sirloin steak instead of ground beef and then cube the steak in 1/4-inch or 1/2-inch cubes. You'll want to buy about half a pound more meat because you'll lose some of it when you trim the fat from the steaks. Using cubes of sirloin makes for a chunkier chili and is reminiscent of New Mexican chili verde, which is usually made with chunks of pork or goat. You could use the chunked meat sold as "stew meat" but I would recommend that you spend the extra money and time and buy some decent sirloin and cube it yourself. Venison or elk makes for a great chili, too.

Final thoughts

So there you have it. A killer chili recipe that doesn't require any special skills or take up your whole day like a brisket does. However, it's wise to plan ahead, because chili, like beouf bourguignon, tastes better a day later once the flavors have really had time to come together. For the Big Game, chili works great because you can make it the night before and then dump it in a crock pot on Sunday morning.

For more world-champion Texas-style chili recipes, check out the folks at the Chili Appreciation Society International (CASI) here.

If you've got any questions, critiques, recipes, or chili stories I'd love for you to share them with us in the comments section.

We were going to do an all-request day, but since it's February 2, and we're both hella busy, and both of us are having a hard time coming up with stuff to write about, we decided, in honor of the classic Groundhog Day, to get stuck in a loop for a while and have an all-request month. You know how this works by now, so let us hear 'em. We'll try not to go completely dark if nothing comes in, but we'll be taking your requests or suggestions for post topics for the rest of the month. Thanks for your support of BTQ.

In honor of the State of the Union address:

Hank, looking at Bobby's report card: "C. C plus. Two B minues. You really did it, son. You set realistic goals and you reached them. Way to go."
Peggy: "With grades like that, you could become Governor and then President someday."

Please. That look is soooo 1480. Botticelli was keepin' it real 500 years before Eminem arrived on the scene.


This post was prompted by a Botticelli painting I saw recently, entitled "Portrait of a Youth" (linked above). When I first saw it out of the corner of my eye, it looked like Eminem. Then, upon closer examination, I saw that it was not Eminem, but, in fact, a 15th century painting. Same punk-ass look, different century, another reminder that "there's nothing new under the sun."

This is a sports-heavy post, and I don't have time to go through all the exposition and the introductions of the various characters, so feel free to tune out if it's not your thing. I was reading Yoni Cohen's amazing College Basketball Blog and noticed a comment Yoni had in response to a reader's complaint that Dick Vitale was talking too much about North Carolina during his coverage of the Illinois-Michigan State game. Yoni said he would love to know just how much Vitale talks about Duke or the ACC during non-Duke, or non-ACC games. I'm sure it's a lot. But he also talks a lot about, say, Illinois, during ACC games. Plus, he picked UNC to win the championship this year (he made the pick before the season and is sticking by it), and I think it's reasonable to defend that choice during a game when #1 Illinois is looking freaking unbeatable.

There are two major problems with Vitale: He's a front-runner, and apparently Dennis Hopper has rigged a bomb to him, so if Vitale speaks fewer than fifty words a minute, he blows up. Is Vitale biased in favor of Duke? Sure -- just like he's biased in favor of Kentucky and Illinois and and Kansas and Carolina and any other team that's doing well. Vitale always talks about the hot team or the hot coach, and because he can't shut up, whenever there is a moment of dead time during a game, he falls back on his talking points about the teams to watch. Whenever someone has a great pass, Vitale has to give us his list of the best point guards in America; whenever someone blocks a shot, Vitale has to list his favorite big men. Unfortunately, Vitale's compulsion to tout often interferes with getting necessary information about the game, such as who committed a foul, and how many fouls that player has. The worst thing about Vitale's boosterism is that, perhaps because college basketball can be somewhat dynastic, it's so darn unoriginal. For Pete's sake, he's still lauding "Michaelangelo" Dean Smith now -- some six or seven years after he retired! I guess there's a third problem too -- Vitale's complete inability to be critical, as in the negative sense. When was the last time you heard him say a coach ought to be fired? Heck, I heard him say something nice about Jerry Tarkanian recently, and if you can't say something negative about the Shark, you're not trying. OK, a fourth problem -- he's not critical in the analytical sense either. If my entire job were studying college basketball, I could tell you who Creighton's coach was, or who the leading scorer in Conference USA is. Vitale knows a lot, but knowledge and wisdom are different things. Despite his love of the telestrator ("Freeze it!"), Vitale rarely imparts insight other than fairly facile observations. He's descriptive ("see how he curls around this screen") but not insightful (tell us how the screener knows where to set up, or what the defender should have done, or something). Let me be clear that I'm not recording Vitale's performances and closely analyzing things. This is just my general perception of watching a game Vitale is calling, and I'm sure it suffers from the same kind of selection bias that makes others cringe when they hear Vitale say the word "Duke" -- it stands out a lot more than when he says "Syracuse."

I should also say a quick word in defense of Vitale. I like that he's enthusiastic about covering the game. It's really amazing the pure joy he has about getting to be involved in basketball. (This is the big reason the Cameron Crazies like him, because they're so enthusiastic too. Obviously, they can't hear what he's saying during the game, but they love basketball nuts like him and Al McGuire. They pass Vitale around in the crowd partly because they're media whores -- I saw us go nuts for Brent Musberger of all people when I was there, so I include myself -- but mostly because he lets them. They'd try the crowd-surfing thing with Rick Majerus if his doctor cleared him for it.) I can only think of a few announcers who so clearly and deeply loved the sport they cover -- John Madden in his heyday, Howard Cosell and boxing (hypo -- Cosell: Ali :: Vitale : Duke ?), maybe Chris Berman when he used to call more games. But none of these folks are as unabashed in their love for the game as Vitale, and that registers with me. He's a front-runner because he likes watching good basketball. So I don't really blame him for his incessant yammering about the tops teams in the country, because I can understand where it's coming from. It's just that his schtick gets old, even if your team is one of the ones he talks about.

And yes, he talks about Duke a lot. You got me. He talks about every team that wins five conference championships in a row and makes it to ten Final Fours in the last twenty years. Color me shocked -- next thing you know they'll be asking John Madden not to mention the Patriots, or Tim McCarver not to talk about the Yankees. It seems like a lot of "Dukie V" critics want to get Duke fans to "admit" something or other. But we're not keeping any secrets. Yeah, Vitale loves Duke. So what? First of all, I don't think Vitale owes anybody any objectivity, and in fact is paid to provide his own commentary on the game, which you're free to mute as desired. Second, Duke isn't the only team Vitale loves, so go pick on them. (Exhibit A in defense of Vitale is his love for Carolina, which no one who is truly biased for Duke could genuinely feel. Also, if he's at the Duke-Wake Forest game tonight, count the references Vitale makes to non-ACC teams like Illinois.) And finally, the easiest way to make a front-runner stop touting a team is to beat them, so bring it on and do your part if you want him to shut up.

By request from Frolics & Detours, here are a couple from the episode where Bobby joins a church youth group made up of skateboarders and punks. (It's also the one where Bill, Dale, Boomhauer, and Kahn have a last meal like the guys on death row.)

Hank, when he sees Bobby's "Satan Sucks" t-shirt: "Bobby, take that off! You can not wear a t-shirt with that word on it."
Bill: "Such vulgarity! Wait, which word, Hank, 'Satan' or 'sucks?'"
Hank: "Well, either one."
Bobby: "Why not, Dad? Satan does suck."
Hank: "I know, but..."
Dale: "He's right, Hank. What does your t-shirt say? 'Satan Rules?'"

Hank: "Can't you see you're not making Christianity better, you're just making rock n' roll worse."
Pastor K: "You people are all alike. You look at us and think we're freaks. Come on, even Jesus had long hair."
Hank: "Only because I wasn't his dad."

And of course, the classic:

Bobby: "I can't believe you're making me do this. It's so uncool."
Hank: "You know what's not cool, Bobby? Hell."

I was looking for something in the archives and realized that next week will mark a year since Fitz had a brainstorm that doing a "this week with Fitz-Hume" post would allow him to post fishing pictures. (Then, like pretty much everything else around here, I co-opted it.) So that got me thinking about these bio posts we do. The cool thing is that the template seems to have caught on around the blogosphere (see Soup for the latest imitator flatterer). So, I decided to round up all the bio posts we've done and put them in one spot. If you read them all, you'll get a nice snapshot of our ups and downs over the last year, although I'll admit that some of these posts are better than others. Kind of like our ups and downs. Anyway, here they are:

Fitz-Hume: The authorized biography (2/6)
All About Fitz-Hume: Chapter 2 (2/17)
Fitz-Hume Chapter 3: Stop me if you've heard this one (2/23
Fitz-Hume Chapter 4: The legend of the rent was way past due (3/8)
Fitz-Hume the Autobiography: Stop me if you've heard this one (4/13)
Fitz-Hume bio posts: Atkins Diet :: ______ : Carbs (5/21)
Fitz-Hume 411: Waking Up in Reno (with apologies to Billy Bob Thornton) (6/29)
Final bio post and a farewell from Fitz-Hume: *sniff* I hate goodbyes! *sniff* (8/2)
Fitz-Hume: I'm back, baby, I'm back! (9/14)
Fitz-Hume: This is a guy who gives dating advice to Milbarge? (10/4)
Fleshing Out Fitz-Hume (12/1)
All About Fitz-Hume: "These stories are unusable! I mean, some of them aren't even stories! Look, this is just a list of things in his apartment!" edition (1/3)
The Fitz-Hume 411: For those of you still reading this, we salute you (1/31)

Milbarge: The Authorized Biography (2/6)
Milbarge, The Autobiography (cont'd) (2/17)
Milbarge at Large (2/23)
Milbarge: Large and in Charge, cont'd (3/1)
No Charge for Your Milbarge (3/8)
Milbarge at Large (3/15)
Milbarge at Large, Post-Sabbatical Edition (3/30)
Milbarge at Large: An Irregular Autobiography (4/13)
Milbarge at Large (5/5)
The Continuing Chronicles of Milbarge at Large (5/20)
Milbarge at Large (bad language edition) (6/2)
Milbarge at Large: Back in the Saddle Edition (6/29)
Milbarge at Large: Post-Blakely Edition (7/15)
Milbarge at Large: Writer's Block Edition (8/6)
Milbarge at Large: Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me Edition (9/13)
Milbarge at Large: "Oh, lonliness and cheeseburgers are a dangerous mix!" Edition (10/6)
Milbarge at Large: I Haven't Done One of These in a While Edition (11/12)
Milbarge at Large: Somebody's Got a Case of the Mondays Edition (11/29)
Milbarge at Large: Second Verse, Same as the First Edition (12/7)
Milbarge at Large: "I'm 37?!" Edition (1/3)
Milbarge at Large: Nothing Else to Post About Edition (1/20)
Milbarge at Large: "Memo to Myself -- Do the Dumb Things I Gotta Do" Edition (1/31)
Milbarge at Large: Prisoner of the White Lines on the Freeway Edition (3/16)

As you might notice, I've done about twice as many bio posts as Fitz, but that's only because he's been doing twice as much living and I've been doing twice as much blogging. My favorite moment in compiling these has been the chuckle I got at Fitz dropping out for a while, only to make a triumphant return, illustrated so perfectly in those back-to-back post titles. Anyway, I echo the salute in his latest title. Enjoy these, and realize how much worse you could have it.

What I'm doing at work: I worked on Saturday and Sunday. That's not my favorite way to spend the weekend, but I will survive. I wish I could provide some of the details of my work, but, alas, client confidences and workplace rules prevent me from doing so. Suffice it to say that the work is interesting, the pay's not bad, and my co-workers are mostly decent.

What I'm doing at home: Recently I was asked to sign a copyright release for the journal I worked on during law school. Apparently, there has been some kind of dustup over online databases, law journals, and copyright infringement. I'll leave the details of that to my partner in crime. I gladly signed the copyright release. I just wish I could disclaim authorship as easily.

I find it really funny that some treatises, books and other articles have cited some of my work. Funnier still that I was once asked to consult on a case because someone ran into the very issue I wrote about in my article (don't ask if I am still bitter at having to turn down a substantial retainer offer because I was clerking at the time). Oops, not "my" article anymore. The article I wrote for the journal.

What I'm reading: I finished 92 Degrees in the Shade. Quick read, like most of McGuane's work. I'm working through Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, Lost by Gregory Maguire, and Blue Blood by Edward Conlon (reviewed by Milbarge here).

What I'm listening to: All sorts of things. Let's call it an eclectic mix: Damien Rice's O, U2's Achtung Baby, Smashing Pumpkins' Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness, Coldplay's A Rush of Blood to the Head, Los Lonely Boys' self-titled album, The Flaming Lips' Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots, and GnR's Greatest Hits. And NDC thought his music would incur the derision of his readers.

What I'm watching: HBO. Reruns of Deadwood, new episodes of Carnivale and the HBO original movie Dirty War.

What I'm thinking about: Trying to contain my rage at the treatment Soupie was subjected to this weekend when he "lost" a chili cookoff to a pot of runny baked beans. Stand by for a post on what is and what is not chili.

What I'm not thinking about: This one's a toss-up between the Super Bowl, Sponge Dob Squarepants, and whether the Passion should have been nominated for any of the major Oscars.

Shout-outs: I suggest that for a blogger nothing feels quite as good (and by "good" I mean "bad") as checking your sitemeter statistics and seeing the entry "http://kinja.com/removeweblog.knj" show up about twice a week. It's nice to know that BTQ is so bad that people actually make the effort to remove us from their aggregator lists.

Courage, Milbarge.

I wonder what thoughts were in the head of Kathryn Jean Lopez, the editor of National Review Online. At 11:48 this morning, she had a post up in The Corner discussing the types of posts there that generate the most reader feedback: "Though once a Hillary post goes up...she's always a lightening [sic] rod."

Little more than an hour later, at 1:06 this afternoon, she had a new post up: "YIKES: Hillary Clinton just collapsed during a speech in upstate NY (non-online reports)."

Quickly thereafter, perhaps to protect herself from questions about just what sort of spell she had cast on Sen. Clinton, or to make clear that Clinton was not turned into an actual lightning rod and struck down by a bolt from the sky, Lopez published a note that Sen. Clinton had been complaining of a stomach flu. Well, that's convenient. But who gave her the flu, Ms. Lopez? Hmm?

What I am doing at work: The same old, same old most of the time, but I've also been giving a lot of thought to Booker. Specifically, I've been wondering about a court's obligation to raise the issue of Booker error in the context of an Anders brief. (For more on Anders briefs, see my post here.) Ordinarily, the court in those cases has a duty to raise and address any arguable issue, and in most cases the Booker issue is at least going to be worth looking into -- at least something above the frivolous threshold. But, two problems emerge. First, does this give an advantage to appellants whose counsel filed Anders briefs over appellants whose counsel filed a regular brief, no matter how bad? Second, if the court remands because of Booker error, the district court might be able to impose a stiffer sentence in a new proceeding, which would really stink for the appellant. ("The good news is the court found error in your case and sent it back to the trial court! But the bad news is that now you're worse off than if the court hadn't reversed at all.") Maybe the filing of an Anders brief is the attorney's signal that the Booker issue isn't one that would be helpful to the appellant (although, to be honest, attorneys who file Anders briefs, in my experience, haven't been known for that kind of thorough analysis of the record). Maybe the answer is something hinted at in some posts at Prof. Berman's Sentencing Law & Policy blog, about due process rights and sentencing. Maybe the appellant has some right to avoid a higher sentence that would be imposed just because a court got motivated to notice unargued error. It's one thing for someone to appeal an issue and wind up worse off (the recent story about a party appealing a $1.3 million judgment, only to get hit for $30 million at the re-trial, is a nice example), but that's a strategic risk an appellant has to take. It's another for an appellant to get shafted through no fault of his own, when the appellant and counsel didn't make any attempt to raise the issue (and usually in Anders cases the Government doesn't file a brief, and if it does, it's pro forma and doesn't raise new issues). That just seems unfair. Any thoughts on this?

What I'm doing at home: I had some family in town, and between that and the distinct possibility that I might have non-family company thrust upon me because of a social event this weekend, I had to clean my place better than I had in a while, and I even bought some furniture so people would have a place to sit. (Mr. Burns: "Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?") I'll post a picture soon. As it turned out, no one ended up coming, but that's ok. I've been a lot more social here than I was in my last city, and met lots of fun people (and a woman grabbed my ass Saturday, so that was nice). I'm not sure why that is. I think it's partly due to the kind of city I'm living in, and where I am in it, and the fact that my colleagues are all younger than me instead of the married suburbanites I used to work with (who were nice and fun, but rarely dragged me out to a happy hour). I don't think I've changed. I was out in a group of people, and the friend who invited me, knowing that I'm fairly anti-social, asked if I was okay with the crowd. I said, "It's not the fact that there's a crowd that bothers me. I don't mind the number of people as much as having to interact with them." But it went well and I had fun, and now my place looks decent.

What I am watching: I wasn't choosing the movies, but I rented The Village, Starsky and Hutch, and Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle. Quickly, I expected one of the big twists in The Village, but didn't predict the other. I thought it was okay, better than Signs and Unbreakable, but that isn't saying much. Starsky was fun for what it was, a piece of fluff. Vince Vaughan is going to be like Alec Baldwin, I think: the kind of actor that rarely leads a movie but steals every scene he's in and ends up being the most memorable character in the movie. And I would love to see him match Baldwin for number of times hosting "SNL." I think he'd be great at that, but he's only hosted one time, in 1998 to push Psycho. I wonder if he just hasn't been asked back, or if something happened then and he doesn't play well with others or something. Or maybe he's just too busy doing movies with Ben Stiller and Will Ferrell. Oh, and Harold and Kumar is just what you think it is, so if you go in with zero expectations, it's not bad.

What I am listening to: Some They Might Be Giants (the title of this post comes from the song "Put Your Hand Inside the Puppet Head"). This anthology I have is called "Dial-A-Song." When they were just getting started, the Giants set up an answering machine and took out an ad in the Village Voice. If you called the number, you could hear what they were working on those days by listening to the outgoing message on the machine. (There's now an online version too, if you don't want to call the number at 718-387-6962.) Sometimes I think of this place as Dial-A-Blog, because I saw an interview with TMBG one time where they said the great thing about Dial-A-Song was that it motivated them to keep writing stuff, because they always felt pressured to get a new song up on the answering machine. Although it may not seem like it, I spend a lot of time thinking about what to post here, almost to the point of "thinking in blog." (Google tells me I'm not the first to use the phrase "dial-a-blog," but I hadn't heard those references before.)

What I am reading: I'm trying to finish my January magazines by the end of January, a rare event for me. I was going to say I wouldn't make it, because I still haven't started this month's "Atlantic," but then I realized it's the Jan/Feb double issue, so I have more time. I haven't bought any books in a while, so I think I might go to the bookstore tonight. I'm trying to decide what's going to be next in the fifty book challenge. I think it's going to be a book about religion, and then a work of fiction, but we'll see.

What I am thinking about: Iraq, oddly. I say oddly because I haven't been giving it a lot of thought. But today Fitz and I were talking about Sen. Ted Kennedy's statements about the war effort there, I was reading about Sen. John Kerry's interview on "Meet the Press, and looking at some pictures from the elections in Iraq. I'm sure you've seen the photo of the Iraqi woman holding up her fingers in a V-for-victory sign, with her index finger covered in the ink they used to identify voters over there.

(I'll claim fair use for posting this because (a) I saw a credit listing it as a pool photo, and I think they ought to be a little more understanding about sharing those with other news outlets, and (b) I'm going to discuss the photo itself, so I'll claim benefit of the "commentary" exception to copyright infringement.) Anyway, that picture is compelling to me, even more than the one I've also seen (available at the Powerline link) of the woman with a tear in her eye as she holds up her inky finger. The V-woman picture is powerful to me because it reminds me of so many other images of people flashing that sign, from Churchill to, well, Nixon. Of course, the sign has the dual meanings of "victory" and "peace," and it seems like the woman is trying to symbolize both, if they're even something different here. I'm not saying Iraq is peaceful or that victory can be declared, but these elections are a significant step, and a hell of a lot better than those 100%-to-0% farces that Saddam used to hold. This picture has so much of a story behind it, and it draws the viewer in with its composition -- the viewer's eye goes from the inky finger to her hopeful eyes. Or maybe they're almost impish (note the little smile) at her gesture of defiance to those who would not have her vote. Anyway, I think it's a great photograph, and I think it has a good chance at a Pulitzer, although I don't know whether it would qualify as breaking news or feature photography.

What I am not thinking about: The Stupor Bowl, except for two things: (a) I think it's funny that all the ads have to use phrases like "win a trip to the big game in Jacksonville" or "have your big-screen tv in time to watch the big game" because they can't call the game by its name; and (b) the game will be followed by the premiere of "American Dad," although the full season won't start until May.

Shout-out: To E-Spat, for her amazing post, which is as good as it gets. Speaking of Pulitzer-worthy....