In the News: Some stuff in the news caught my eye, so let me briefly comment on them. First off, one ongoing thing I have commented on is the partial birth abortion ban (see, e.g., Oct. 23). It was signed into law and immediately a temporary restraining order by a Nebraska federal judge (an arguably quite similar state ban in Nebraska was struck down by the Supreme Court). So, I ask, just what is the point of it all?

Meanwhile, Bush is pushing the UN to totally ban cloning, as compared to just banning reproductive cloning. An alternate plan would leave the decision of therapeutic cloning up to individual nations or just do nothing for a couple years. It seemed shall we say (if we want to be nice) a bit ironic that the U.S. wants to push the U.N. to set moral restraints that are surely not universal, given the second option is supported by nations such as Great Britain. After all, in areas such as international justice, the environment, and even trade the U.S. is loathe to join such conventions because they threaten our sovereignty and force us to go along with the wishes of others. Or perhaps they try to do too much, such as conventions to support women that might in some way conceivably support abortion rights. This does not seem that, shall we say consistent, does it?

Is it "a political triumph political triumph for the anti-abortion movement, a reflection of its influence with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican president" and "a validation of the movement's long-term strategy of incrementalism, restricting abortion step by step?" If so, if it is just suspended by the courts, what is the ultimate point? More heat? More of the same? A symbol that helps push along less emotional restrictions or other symbolic measures? One thing it does not really seem to be is a path to a constructive middle ground. Legislation with a "health" exception would have done that. But, perhaps, a middle ground is not what those in power want.

CBS also decided to not air a Reagan biopic that conservative critics, from what they saw and heard about it, soundly criticized. As the NYT noted yesterday: "CBS's decision to hand the program off to the Showtime cable channel will leave it with a far smaller audience. Cable TV seems to have become the home of any programming with the least hint of political controversy. Meanwhile, the networks grow increasingly brave about broadcasting shows featuring lingerie models parading in the latest fashions, and ordinary people competing for cash by eating live insects." Not to worry, though. The story about the rescued female service woman, a prime propaganda event for the administration, will be aired. How about just not watching what you do not like? I believed that was the idea around here. See also, here.

William Safire on the same page as the CBS comments quoted above had a column on Putin's current selective campaign against Russian mafia that threatens his political power. He ends with this comment: "Which side to root for in the struggle for Russia's political soul: oligarchy or siloviki? Which door: the Lady or the Tiger? I remember the same choice in the war between Iran and Iraq. We can root only for both sides to lose." It made me think ... we actually did not do this. We rooted for Iraq more, helping Saddam increase power and prestige, and continued to assist him when we knew he was killing Kurds. Our selective memory now forgets this fact, blaming him for invasion and genocide as if he didn't have help.

Some interesting stuff: abortion's loaded language (written by the paper's ombudsman, an excellent concept), just how conservative is the Pledge?, and the book Food, Inc. by Peter Pringle. It is about genetically modified foods and besides being quick reading, it is evenhanded -- concern with guarded optimism about its potential.

Legally Blonde 2: Red, White, and Blonde recently came out on video and DVD. It was derivative, wasted the talents of such people as Bob Newhart, but did have a few good lines. Three of the lesser supporting cast members did the DVD commentary, and this is the way to watch the film ... at home, where you can make fun of it ala Mystery Science Theater 3000. As a time waster, this is the best way to go. Oh, they left out Elle's friend's dog. They put in a cameo for her husband and son, but leave out the dog, even though the film is about Elle going to DC to fight animal cosmetic testing [the film is a victim of the "not serious enough to carry such a serious theme" disease, Distinguished Gentlemen is also a victim]. This is a bit annoying.