Inspired by Brandon's recent post, I thought about what I would do with a Ferris Bueller-style sick day. Which city would I choose, and what would I do? I decided that my entourage and I would hit that jewel of a city, San Diego, California.

Our itinerary would consist of a morning at Legoland, followed by a trip to Sea World and a boat tour of the harbor. Then, we would lunch at Star of the Sea and let our meals digest while we enjoyed a tour of the Channel 4 Newsroom and did a little shopping. After that, we would borrow Milbarge's dad's Ferrari and make a quick trip down to Tijuana before returning to San Diego for a stroll through the heart of the city, Balboa Park (during which Milbarge would go catatonic because of the damage his father's car sustained in Mexico). Once he snapped out of it, we would do some late afternoon surfing at Coronado.

So, if you could take a sick day like Ferris, where would you spend it and what would you do?

"Free" city-wide Wi-Fi

Sell. I'm not an expert on this, so this won't be much of an answer. I think the big drawbacks are going to be speed/quality, privacy, and the cost of wi-fi ready computers. The real growth market in internet service is low-end access, including dial-up, for those not already online. Plus, people don't hang around in open spaces in cities anyway -- are people really desperate enough to be online while they're walking their dogs? At best, this would facilitate craigslist hook-ups in public restrooms.

Instant replay in MLB

Buy. Strong buy, in fact. It's coming, and sooner rather than later. It's worked too well in other sports, and there are too many examples of bad calls in baseball, for it not to happen in baseball. It's the little things in baseball that demand it, too -- like every stadium being different, so umpires have to be familiar with every little nook and cranny of the place, every batter's strike zone being slightly different, etc. But the baseball purists will keep it from going overboard. They'll have a limited number of challenges system, like the NFL, and very limited uses for replay: whether a hit was a home run or fair/foul or not, whether the tag beat the runner, whether a runner missed a base. They won't use it for judgment calls like balls and strikes, balks, interference (maybe), etc -- and probably wouldn't use it on dropped third strikes, like the one that renewed this whole debate. And that will work fine, and people will get used to it.

The Iraqi Constitution

Hold. I'm not an expert on this, either. I think the referendum will pass, but I'm sure it's not the last word in Iraqi governance. And the Sunnis don't appear to be very happy. So I can't count is as an unqualified success, but in Iraq, just buying time is a positive.

Michelle Wie

Buy. I've bought the hype. The women's tour isn't as deep as the men's, so Wie will tear it up soon -- winning like Annika Sorenstam has been. She'll keep playing against men periodically, and I expect to see her playing there full-time within five to ten years. She'll win on the men's tour before she's 30.

iPods

Hold. Hasn't everyone already bought? I don't have one, but it seems like everyone else does. I don't think the new video iPod will make such a splash -- the kind of early adapters who would buy that one probably already have video capabilities on their cell phones. So, I say hold on to the iPod you have for now.

A Chinese Moon Base

Sell. I don't think the Chinese are dumb enough to do that. Plus, what would they build it with? All the concrete in the world is going to that huge dam.

The survival of Motley Crue

Huh?. Wow, last week Nick Lachey, now this? I guess sell, only because I didn't think their survival was an issue because I thought they were already dead.

The survival of Harriet Miers

Sell. I tend to agree with this post from The Corner that the following will happen. Something comes out (either through vetting or oppo or just out of her mouth, no matter how thin) that gives those on the fence cover to oppose her. The Dems will start grumbling about that and/or her qualifications, Harry Reid notwithstanding (he's not on the SJC, of course), and the GOP won't be able to muster enough enthusiasm to fight for her. The best she could hope for is to be voted out with a negative recommendation, like Bork had, (or no recommendation) but my guess is she wouldn't insist on a floor vote (like he did) if the SJC votes weren't there. I'm not saying I'm hoping for or against this scenario, but it's what I think will happen.

Another installment in the occasional series of "Buy, Sell or Hold?" queries put to me by my fellow blogger.

Striped shirts catching on with non-metrosexuals

Sell. I own only one striped shirt, but I've been tagged as a metrosexual, so I'm not so sure that the trend will percolate down to from the fashion Brahmins to the Panchamas.

Karl Rove

Hold. You think he's going down over the Plame deal? Only in Dr. Dean's wildest wet dreams could it happen and even then it won't be because of any violation of the espionage law. He's been through too much for this to be the event that takes him down. And to the people who are dancing a jig and expecting an impeachment proceeding when this is all said and done, all I can say is "Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahaha!!!!!" (you know who you are, and I'm laughing right in your faces)

Katrina mercy killings, either on the merits or just whether the story will have legs, lead to investigations, charges, etc.

Whether on the merits or simply asking whether the story have legs? Sell. We won't still be talking about this in November. And of all the bad choices made in the aftermath of Katrina, this one is pretty low on the scale.

Blogging

Buy. It's only now coming into the mainstream. There will be more growth, then some consolidation. I think that the number of bloggers will continue to grow for awhile, then it will level off and remain more or less constant, but with a lot of change. That is to say, I think the number of bloggers won't change much, but there will be a lot of turnover. As for blogging-for-profit, I say sell.

"Lost"

Buy. Kate took a shower this week (or so I was informed by a co-worker). If she's showering now, I can only imagine what the show has in store for Sweeps Week.

Hockey

Sell. What the hell do I care about hockey? It's nice to see they got rid of the stupid icing rule, but I just can't be bothered to watch another low scoring sport. It's taken me almost 30 years to finally get into soccer. Hockey will have to wait at least another 30. By then, robots will be playing and it will involve an exploding puck. Now THAT would be worth watching!

U.S. troops in Iran by 2008

You mean besides the ones we already have there? Sell. Bush doesn't have the political capital to make it happen. Not that is shouldn't happen, only that it won't.

The new James Bond

Hold. He's a better choice than Clive Owen (despite the groans from the ladies). At least he has a shred of charisma. So he's blonde. Meh. Personally, I would have preferred to see Sean Bean as 007, but he's already made an appearance as a villain in the spy series.

Attention my would-be assassin: Sending me death threats, especially to my official work email address from your personal email account, is probably not a "smart" thing to do, but then I've never thought of you as a smart man. Dumb as you are, let me hit you with some knowledge: I've reached my limit and I'm not going to tolerate it any more. I've tried to let it go. I've tried to ignore all your lunatic ways, but this is too much. Hate me? That's cool. Threaten to kill me? Now we have a problem. To paraphrase Brewmeister Konrad Meinhoffer IV, I am not a litigious man. That's why I have lawyers. And I don't threaten people. That's why I have security.

Before you send me another email telling me how much you look forward to killing me for the imagined wrong I've inflicted upon you, you should consider the following statute:

NRS 200.571 Harassment: Definition; penalties.
1. A person is guilty of harassment if:
(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:
(1) To cause bodily injury in the future to the person threatened or to any other person;
(2) To cause physical damage to the property of another person;
(3) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or
(4) To do any act which is intended to substantially harm the person threatened or any other person with respect to his physical or mental health or safety; and
(b) The person by words or conduct places the person receiving the threat in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out.
2. Except where the provisions of subsection 2 or 3 of NRS 200.575 are applicable, a person who is guilty of harassment:
(a) For the first offense, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) For the second or any subsequent offense, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
3. The penalties provided in this section do not preclude the victim from seeking any other legal remedy available.

Simply making the threat is enough to get you some jail time, cabron. So, enjoy your big talk now. I doubt you'll have much internet access in the big house.

Let's be clear, I don't think you have the guts to carry out your threats, but I've informed the police just in case and I'll be visiting the pistol range this afternoon. When paired with your other recent, bizarre behavior, I'm not prepared to dismiss your threat out of hand.

(shamelessly stolen from The Hot Librarian)

I've been trying to make sense of my life lately, trying to put the pieces together, trying to figure out what I need out of life - to no avail. Then, along comes THL with the solution to all my problems. The answer was right in front of me all along! I simply needed to ask Google what it is that I need. And so I did. The results (cataloged below) may or may not surprise you.

According to Google, I need "someone to bend [me] over and give [me] 20 paddles in [my] shorts." I've always suspected that's the case, but I've never known anyone willing to do this.

Also, I need a new liver. And money. To buy a new liver.

Furthermore, I need to stay awake. Hard to do when I spend all my time searching for a new liver, but the 20 paddles in my shorts might help stave off sleep.

To make the grade, I need a fine instrument. The thing is, I only "practice my trumpet" for 20 minutes. Google thinks I need to spend 45 minutes - 1 hour practicing my trumpet. I guess I'll have to work on my stamina.

Apparently, I need to start selling large blue foam "We're Number One!" hands. Of course! That's how I'll get the money I need to buy my new liver.

Google says that some people think that I need therapy and military school, but mostly that I just need to go away. Hmph. Maybe I will. And when I'm gone, you'll see just how much you need me. And then you'll beg to have me back!

I need to be consoled by a man in a hood. Ex-squeeze me? Baking powder? I'm not sure that I can agree with this one, unless the man in the hood was also shunned by his friends because he needed a new liver. Even then, guys in hoods creep me out.

I need to cut out the touchy-feely action and I need a good smack in the face! First 20 smacks in the shorts and now a smack in the face? I guess Google thinks that I like it rough. Oh, who am I kidding? Of course I like it rough. And touchy-feely, if you know what I mean (and I think that you do). Which segues nicely into the next bit of advice...

I need "it." That's true. I need "it" like whoa. You can never have too much of "it."

And to get "it," I need to let go of my preconceived notions and discover the intelligent woman under the gloss. I had no preconceived notions. I admit that I like the gloss (a lot), but I love the intelligent woman under it. She's the reason I'll now be practicing my trumpet for 45 minutes to an hour per day.

But above all, Google says that I need prayers, and help and maybe just a balloon, a rainbow or a little fairy dust now and then. Truer words have never been written. Finally, with the help of a little fairy dust, maybe all the pieces will start falling into place. Thank you, Google! God bless you!

One of my favorite things to do is go to the Amazon.com recommendations generator and see what Amazon thinks I would like to add to my collection of books, movies, music, and sundries. I don't take the "average ratings" generated by other Amazon shoppers as a sign of the quality of a product because, just as an example, Airheads has a rating of 4 out of 5 stars. Instead, I'd like to get some reader feedback on some of the recent recommendations, including:

1. Shadow of a Doubt DVD (Alfred Hitchcock), which was recommended because I own To Catch a Thief and North by Northwest.

2. The Secret Agent: A Simple Tale (Joseph Conrad), suggested because I own Conrad's Heart of Darkness.

3. Intimacy (directed by Patrice Chereau), listed because I rated the movie Swimming Pool.

4. Irreversible (directed by Gaspar Noe) also because of Swimming Pool.

5. Hotel Rwanda, because I love Dirty Pretty Things.

6. A Portrait of the Artist as Young Man (James Joyce), because of Heart of Darkness.

7. Funeral (by Arcade Fire) because I rated The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.

8. Chanda's Secrets (Allan Stratton) because I own The Bridge on the River Kwai.

9. Shalimar the Clown (Salman Rushdie) because I rated The Atlantic Monthly.

and finally

10. Breast Petals!!!!! (image probably NSFW, but they are flowery-shaped pasties). Why? According to Amazon, this recommendation was also made because I rated Swimming Pool. I wonder what algorithm they use to obtain such a result. The movie contains breasts, therefore anyone who watches the movies must need breast petals...if there's a logic to it, I don't follow it. It's one thing when Gmail thinks I'm gay - I buy enough products and "girl jeans" to earn the moniker "The Clinique Cowboy". I can accept that. But when Amazon thinks I'm a prudish woman intent on hiding her nipples while I read James Joyce, I have to begin to question my sexuality.

Any thoughts yay or nay on these selections (BESIDES the Breast Petals, which I've already ordered a dozen of)? Any other recommendations you would make based on this list?

I thought I would note an item entitled "Worth Noting" in the Duke Basketball Report, the premier basketball fan site on the internet. The post points out a troubling spate of recent bomb-related stories from college campuses. First, there was the very odd death of a bomber just outside a football game at the University of Oklahoma. It's not clear whether the kid intended to take anyone with him, or what his motivations might have been. Powerline, among a few others, is wondering why the major media outlets haven't been pressing this story.

In addition to the OU bombing, bombs were found recently on the campuses of UCLA and Georgia Tech. And, a Rolling Stones concert on the UVA campus was interrupted by a bomb threat last week. While a bomb threat is probably less dangerous than finding an actual bomb, there is still the possibility that a threat could be a dry run (to test police response, for example, or in a "cry wolf" scenario, to jade people so that they don't evacuate when there's a real bomb) or meant to induce panic and riot without the expense and danger of making a bomb. It's not clear what role any particular kind of terrorism (for example, extremist religious terrorism) might have played in any of these events, but I think it's safe to say that pretty much any bombing is an act of terror.

I don't have any great insights here, but these news items have got me thinking about bombings and colleges. Why might college campuses be especially susceptible to terrorist bombings?

I think some obvious explanations are: (1) There are lots of people around. In addition to the many thousands of students, faculty, and staff who populate a major college campus all the time, sporting events draw thousands more. On-campus football stadiums hold 60,000 or 80,000 or even 100,000 people. It's not a new idea that a venue like this might be appealing targets for terrorism. (Interesting historical footnote: the Jan.1, 1942 Rose Bowl was played at Duke University instead of Pasadena, California, for fear of large gatherings on the west coast so soon after Pearl Harbor.) It's scary to think about the potential for panic and trampling (like we've seen at soccer stadium riots in Europe) causing more damage than an explosive device when the potential loss of life is so much greater than any previous terrorist event.

(2) There are lots of strange people around -- it's hard to look out of place on a college campus, even if you're an unshowered foreigner talking to himself and carrying a heavy backpack. You might be a bomber, but you might also just be a Chem major. [Note: I'm not saying that all foreigners are terrorists or that all terrorists are foreigners. I'm merely saying that, in a lot of places in America, foreigners (and even non-white Americans) seem out of place and are greeted with suspicion. On campus, many people would just assume the stranger is a student.] About the only people who stand out on a college campus are old people, but most terrorists are young.

(3) There are lots of disaffected or depressed or pliable college kids who could end up going off the deep end. After all, how many suicides by other means take place at colleges every year? See also John Walker Lindh, who had a lot in common with a lot of college kids. Plenty of college kids are looking for a new crowd of friends, something to be a part of, some way to place meaning in their lives or rebel against something or change the world. None of that is necessarily bad, but can be put to bad ends by bad people. Fraternities and sororities and clubs and service organizations and many other groups on college campuses make good use of this need, but cults and bookies and others make bad use of it. Terrorist organizations could recruit as well on college campuses as almost anywhere, I would imagine.

(4) In the same way the WTC and Pentagon were symbolic of a lot of "American" things, so are colleges: free thought, diversity, provocative women (both sexually and intellectually), general heathenism, etc. Note how colleges are often the sites of protest movements -- everything from free speech at Berkeley in the '60s, to communism and unions and affirmative action and the civil rights and women's movements, and now with the Palestine/Israel conflict, not to mention the Ward Churchills of the academy. In short, every other protest movement in American history has been fought, in one sense or another, on college campuses, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the battle with extremist terrorism is being fought there, too.

(5) It's really to get onto and around most college campuses, especially the large ones. Yeah, parking is a nightmare, but that's not the kind of problem a terrorist would worry about. You usually don't have to show any credentials or buy a token to get on campus (and student or staff i.d.'s are often easy to fake). And even if a terrorist isn't planning on committing suicide, it's easy enough to blend in (see (2) above) or get away. If Tim McVeigh could disappear in Oklahoma City before his bomb went off, someone planting a bomb at UCLA wouldn't have much trouble fading into the smog of Los Angeles. If Bryan Nichols could shoot a judge in Atlanta and elude police by hopping on the subway, a bomber at Georgia Tech wouldn't have much trouble getting away. Or, perhaps most likely, if the terrorist is a student, he or she could simply stroll back to a dorm room and not have to worry about escaping at all.

So, combine (a) all that with (b) the fact that in many places, college police forces aren't exactly worthy of a "Law & Order: SUNY" or "CSI: UNLV" series, and it's a bad recipe. I don't know what the answer is. I'm certainly not suggesting turning the Foreign Language House into an internment camp or having machine-gun toting soldiers searching everyone who walks across the quad. But, I think we should be paying more attention to figuring out what went down in Norman, Oklahoma. And I think that everyone from policy-makers to administrators to first-responders should be keenly aware of the unique risks for terrorism on college campuses.

A senior aide to Russian dictator president Vladimir Putin recently suggested that the time has come to remove the wax-dipped corpse of V.I. Lenin (or, as Walter Sobchak put it, "Shut the fuck up, Donny! V.I. Lenin. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov!") from his tomb on Red Square and have the remains buried in a cemetery with other Bolshevik leaders. The Communist Party vigorously opposed Boris Yeltsin's attempt to have Lenin's body removed back in 2001. At the time, Putin did not support removing the body, saying that such a move would foment civil unrest (and that to many Russians, "Burying Lenin would mean ... that they had lived in vain." Yeah, that's the only sign that they lived their lives in vain). I couldn't find any source attributing the new interest in burying Lenin to Putin himself, so maybe this is just an aide spouting off. An aide whose mangled body will probably show up in the woods outside of the city any day now.

I visited Lenin's tomb while on a six-week trip to Moscow in 1995. I didn't sense any particular nostalgia for Lenin, though at the time many statutes and monuments to Lenin were still standing throughout Moscow. There was an air of reverence at Lenin's tomb, though, and the rules of no talking inside the tomb and no photography were strictly enforced. In fact, I witnessed an American tourist thrown bodily out of Lenin's tomb and his camera smashed to pieces by the state police because he was caught trying to snap a photo of "the Candle" (as my guide explained Lenin's corpse is sometimes referred to due to the purported method of preserving the body - dipping it whole into a vat of wax). When Mr. Flaunt the Rules turned on his camera, the whirring noise was very distinct in the quiet tomb. He thought he was being sly, but everyone heard the noise, including the baton-equipped guards. They pushed quickly through the crowd, seized the man by the arms and drug him out of the tomb and into Red Square. Once outside they began yelling at him in Russian, stripped him of his camera and threw the camera to the ground. A few whacks of the baton and several boot heels later, the Canon EOS Rebel was nothing but a pile of cracked plastic and shattered glass. The tourist had no recourse, either. He just stood there dumbfounded, trying to justify himself to anyone who walked by or made eye contact. I didn't sense a whole lot of sympathy from the passersby. Frankly, I thought he was lucky that they didn't beat him after they destroyed his camera. Or worse, send him off to Lubyanka Square.

For my part, I did not secure any surreptitious photos of the dead communist. My souvenir from Red Square was probably just as illegal, but no one noticed as I used my multi-tool to carve a small brick out of Red Square and sneak it into my daypack.

Fitz shouldn't feel too badly about being a day late in acknowledging International Poetry Day. It took me even longer to find something to post. But here's one I like. It's called "Yes, and yes," but my search for attribution leads me to the prolific Anonymous. I won't foist upon you my interpretation of what the unspoken subject matter is, but I like how the absence of quotation marks makes it ambiguous as to who is asking and answering a given question. Anyway, thanks to Amber for inspiring Fitz to inspire me.

Yes, and yes

Would you? Will you?
Yes, and yes.
I would, I will,
I must confess.

Can you? Have you?
Yes, and yes.
But it's been years,
I lack finesse.

Could you? Should you?
Yes, and yes.
But I don't know,
It's just a guess.

Do you? Are you?
Yes, and yes.
In ways I fear
I can't express.

May I? Shall I?
Yes, and yes.
You must, you shall,
Deserve no less.

I would, I will,
I do profess.
In all you ask,
My answer's yes.

1. I'll chime in on Fitz's query about LSAT prep courses. I may have told this story on here before, but I don't recall it. I wasn't sure I even wanted to go to law school, so I wasn't too committed to the LSAT during my senior year of college. I took a cut-rate prep course and half-assed a few of the practice sections. Not much "prep" at all, in retrospect. A good friend took Kaplan, worked like a man possessed, and banged out a 172. Naturally, he didn't even apply to law school, went to work in the athletic department of a major university, and now wears a national championship ring. My slacker ways earned me a 160. That's a pretty decent, but not stellar, score. I applied to, I think, six schools. Four rejected me and two (ranked in the 20-30 range) wait-listed me but never admitted me. The next fall, once I had decided that I really did want to go to law school, I figured I would try it all over again. I took Kaplan this time, and put in some genuine effort. I got a 167, which combined with my undergraduate record was good enough to get me into a top-twenty school I was happy to attend.

Of course, I'll never know if I was capable of getting a 167 the first time if I had worked harder, or if Kaplan was more responsible for my improved score than simple hard work and my familiarity with the test. But I don't regret the decision for two reasons. First, like the bar exam prep course I took, I knew I needed some outside discipline to get me to spend any time studying. (See also Rousseau's comment.) Second, I wasn't taking the LSAT just to get into a law school; I wanted to go to a good one. (However, I wasn't so motivated to go to an even-higher-ranked school that I put in the maximum possible effort.) Anyway, to sum up, it's important that a prospective prep-course-taker know why he or she wants to take the LSAT in the first place, what kind of position he or she starts from, and whether he or she is the kind of person who benefits from structured study programs versus self-study. If you're not sure and you have a few thousand dollars to throw away, I guess it couldn't hurt to take a prep course, although I'm sure there are people whose scores went down after taking the course. It doesn't work for everyone; it did for me. Good luck.

From the sound of his latest release (streaming music video of the catchy pop tune here), it seems like his recent stint in college had quite an influence on Tommy Lee's music. I wonder whether the Crue will mellow with him.

I was asked by the parent of a prospective law student today about the efficacy of LSAT prep courses. I offered only that I didn't see any personal advantage in spending $1,000+ to have someone else teach me a review course I could teach myself, but that other people might feel differently. If any of our readers took such a course I would be interested in hearing your thoughts and then passing them on to my co-worker.

U.S. closes Rhein-Main Air Base After 60 Years (via MSNBC)