ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 30, 2005

WASHINGTON - - I don't know how many times President Bush can announce a "major" speech on the Iraq war that turns out not to be major, but he seems to be going for a record.

Wednesday's "major" speech at the Naval Academy was so un-major, only CBS carried it live among the big broadcast networks.

ABC decided that "Live with Regis and Kelly" was more important than live with George Bush. ABC may have been right.

The president spoke yet again in front of an all-military audience, which the White House believes guarantees him a sympathetic crowd. But he does this so often, it is beginning to look as if the president is afraid to present his views to anybody but soldiers in uniform and fat cats at fundraisers.

Since the president is trying to win over the American people, what would be so wrong with allowing a broader cross-section of the American people into one of his speeches? Would they not clap loudly enough every time the president pauses?

In any case, it doesn't matter much how much applause President Bush gets during his speech, when the analysis both before and after he speaks resembles nothing so much as a yawn.

After the speech Wednesday, the Associated Press ran a story that said: "Bush's speech did not break new ground or present a new strategy."

And NBC News White House correspondent David Gregory was exquisitely frank on MSNBC when, moments after the speech ended, he said: "In many ways, this was a spin job by the president, a re-packaging. Not a lot new here. He is trying to regain control of a debate that has gotten away from him and the White House. It's difficult for him because his popularity has fallen with the American people. A presidency once defined by 9/11 has now been taken over by Iraq….It's a mess."

To supplement the speech, the White House even released a 35-page document titled, "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," but there was nothing much new in that either.

The media usually like hard numbers in speeches, and President Bush obliged: $3.9 billion more next year to train and equip the Iraqi army and police.

But MSNBC's Chris Matthews sneered at that amount, pronouncing it a "Filene's Basement price tag."

Unfortunately, he is correct. Nearly $4 billion just isn't what it used to be, when, according to the New York Times: "The Pentagon now spends $6 billion a month to sustain the American military presence in Iraq."

The Times went on: "A senior administration official said Mr. Bush's ultimate goal, to which he assigned no schedule, is to move to a 'smaller, more lethal' American force that 'can be just as successful.' "

Just as successful as what? The insurgency (which now, according to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who apparently has never read "1984," must not be called that any more) has grown stronger, not weaker. The daily attacks against U.S. troops, Iraqi troops and civilians have increased over the last year. And the number of Iraqi forces actually able to fight for their country without U.S. support seems to be a shell game.

Nothing has really changed since October, when U.S. senators bristled after being told that the number of Iraqi battalions ready to fight on their own had shrunk from three to one. Which would mean about 750 men were ready to defend the country.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, that "things have not gone as we had planned or expected nor as we were told by you, General Myers."

Myers, who retired a few weeks ago, replied: "I don't think this committee or the American public has ever heard me say that things are going very well in Iraq."

But we've heard President Bush say it several times. He said it again Wednesday: "As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists."

He also said: "Most Americans want two things in Iraq: They want to see our troops win, and they want to see our troops come home as soon as possible. And those are my goals as well."

I don't doubt it. I just want to know how he intends to do it.

But maybe he finally will tell us. In his next speech. Which I am sure will be "major."

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 28, 2005

SIMON SAYS:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The early bird gets the worm, but it's the second mouse that gets the cheese.

Would everybody go out and buy one share of stock right now? I'd really like the Dow to

get past 11,000 by the end of the year so we can all just relax.

Worst new idea I've heard: A special tax on hybrid-car owners because they buy less gasoline and, therefore, contribute less to society in taxes.

True Confessions: I have had impure thoughts about Parker Posey.

I like the idea of college football players getting little stickers on their helmets for especially good plays. I think the same thing should happen in the real world: "Nice number-crunching today, Johnson, here's a sticker for your forehead."

Reply to Perplexed in Portsmouth: If President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert should all resign, Tom DeLay would not become president of the United States. The job would go to Ted Stevens, Republican senator from Alaska, who is president pro tempore of the Senate. Pro tempore is Latin for "nothing to do."

Painting a house is more difficult than it looks. But, then again, what isn't?

Things we learned by reading "Will in the World" by Stephen Greenblatt: In Shakespeare's day, actors were not allowed to wear their costumes outside the theater because by "royal proclamation, silks and satins were officially restricted to the gentry." Playwrights were called "poets." And - - this really surprised me - - "all performances of plays, whether tragic or comic, ended with complex dances." As Greenblatt points out, it is now hard to imagine that at the end of "Hamlet" or "King Lear," the actors, including those who had just died on stage, getting up, dusting themselves off and doing a little dance, but they did. Also, "Elizabethans perceived bears as supremely ugly, embodiments of everything coarse and violent..." If they had seen a panda, they would have changed their minds.

How come leaves are attracted to gutters?

My grocery store now provides "Hygienic Cart Wipes" next to the grocery carts . I have never seen anybody use them. And I am not sure what they are supposed to be cleaning up.

Google Earth (which is a free download) is really a hoot. You can look up virtually any address on earth and see a close-up satellite picture of it. Warning: watching the satellite zoom in from space (though the picture is not live) can make you dizzy enough to fall off the computer chair you have been sitting in for far too long.

I know plenty of people who pretend to like fruitcake, but I don't know anybody who really likes fruitcake.

One cure for boredom: Go to wikipedia.org and keep hitting the "random article" button. Or…just get out of the house!

The National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center out by Dulles International Airport in Virginia is worth the trip. The center has the Space Shuttle Enterprise, the Enola Gay, and, best of all, the SR-71 Blackbird, which is so long, sleek, matte black and "stealthy" looking you would think it was only a few years old. But it was built in 1964 and is still the fastest plane in the world. When it was flown from Los Angeles to Washington to be put on display, it made the trip in an incredible 1 hour, 4 minutes and 20 seconds. That's quicker than it now takes to get through security. If you're really lucky, the docent (a fancy word for guide) who takes you around the center on a free tour will be a former Blackbird pilot. How cool is that?

It troubles me that Good & Plenty now comes in a bag. You can't shake a bag and make "Choo-Choo Charlie" noises.

To-do lists are good only if they induce guilt. If all those uncompleted tasks don't make you feel worthless, you will never get them done.

Paperback Pick of the Month: "Armageddon: The Battle for Germany, 1944-1945" by Max Hastings. Hastings has some startling things to say about the performance of the U.S. military.

There is nothing quite like a Double Dutch tournament.

The New York Times reports that the city is infested with bedbugs and that some New York hotels, even some fancy ones, are crawling with them. The bugs, which are tiny, can hide in your suitcase and travel home to infest your house! Yet another reason to go to Chicago instead.

Some things not worth economizing on: toilet paper, Kleenex, beer, chocolate, fast cars.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 23, 2005

WASHINGTON - - When U.S. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq last week, the White House quickly denounced him.

But this week U.S. military officials were leaking word of their plans to withdraw around 50,000 troops from Iraq next year.

A phased withdrawal of troops has been talked about for a long time, even though it is clear the United States is not winning the war in Iraq. As Murtha, the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Defense, pointed out, insurgent incidents have increased as the fighting has continued.

"Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically," he said. "Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism."

But that is not the reason we are planning to withdraw troops from Iraq next year. We are withdrawing them, because every member of the House and one-third of the Senate is up for re-election next November, and Republicans have made clear to President Bush there has to be some kind of troop withdrawal or they may lose control of Congress.

President Bush denies that policy in Iraq is tied to politics in America, but in the modern White House politics and policy are inextricably linked.

Officially, Bush's policy on troop withdrawal is very simple. It is fewer than 10 words long. And he likes to repeat it.

June 28, 2005: "Our strategy can be summed up this way," President Bush said in a speech. "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
Aug. 11, 2005: "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," the president told reporters.

And just last week, the president said once again, "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

Though the White House spin does fudge (are you shocked?) at what "standing up" really means.

According to the White House, "more than 160,000 Iraqi security forces are now trained and equipped." Some, President Bush has said, are capable of operating independently and others need our support.
So how many of those 160,000 Iraqi troops are ready to stand up without our propping them up?

Some 750 soldiers. More than two and a half years after beginning this war, we have managed to train only a tiny number of Iraqis to fight on their own.

Which is why more than 150,000 Americans are in Iraq fighting for them.

It is easy to blame the Iraqis for not standing up and fighting for their own country and I admit I have been guilty of this in the past.
But there was a story that caught my attention the other day. It was on the front page of the New York Times, but even so it did not make a big splash.

It was headlined, "Lack of Armor Proves Deadly For Iraqi Army," and it said: "Even as American forces are relying more on Iraqis to fight the insurgency, the Iraqi Army is facing some of the same procurement problems that American troops have experienced in getting adequate armor and other equipment, according to interviews in Iraq with American and Iraqi military officials. But if the Americans have faced an uphill battle in getting vital gear -- their shortfalls continue to this day -- then their Iraqi counterparts are confronting a herculean task."

We all know that American forces were rushed into this war without adequate equipment for the occupation of Iraq and many have died or have been horribly wounded because of inadequate body armor and inadequate vehicle armor.

But while the situation is not good for American troops, the situation for Iraqi troops is horrendous.

"Unlike the Americans, the vast majority of Iraqis have neither armored nor unarmored Humvees, and are still having to navigate the booby-trapped roads of Iraq in pickup and flatbed trucks," the story said. "The makeshift armoring operation started in the spring has managed to reinforce only about three dozen vehicles…."

Three dozen vehicles! To fight a war in which there are approximately 700 insurgent attacks each week.

Yes, we are training the Iraqis to fight. But as Kalev Sepp, a retired Army Special Forces colonel and a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, who has worked on counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, said: "Even the best training won't stop an AK-47 bullet or deflect a blast from a grenade or mine."

Even though we are spending billions and billions on this war, we are still trying to fight it on the cheap and we are still not getting the troops the equipment they need to survive.

President Bush says we will stand down when the Iraqis stand up.

But if, when the Iraqis stand up, they get blown up, what good does that do?

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 21, 2005

WASHINGTON - - Watching the White House try to deal with criticism of the Iraq war is like watching a punch-drunk fighter careening from one side of the ring to the other.

You watch the current White House communications effort and you say to yourself, "What has happened? These guys used to be champions! These guys used to be somebodies!"

The Iraq war has happened. It has dragged down President Bush's approval ratings to record blows and it has made him look weak and a prisoner of events taking place in a far-away land. (Sound familiar?)

This has made the Republican Party restive and nervous and has emboldened some Democrats.

You watch the Democrats and say, "Gee, if the Democratic leadership could come up with a coherent alternative message, they might actually do something."

Witness the power of just one Democrat who has come up with a coherent alternative to the Iraq war.

U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Penn., a Marine veteran and usually hawkish on matters military, has long been critical of the war in Iraq. But last week he called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of this year.

His reasoning was simple: We are not winning the war, he says. Our presence in Iraq is making the situation worse. And the war is straining and harming the U.S. military.

"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won 'militarily,' " Murtha said. "I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress….Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency."

The first thing the White House did, of course, was to smear Murtha. This has become standard practice no matter whether it is a Republican White House or a Democratic White House. (Bill Clinton was not exactly gentle on his enemies.)

And so Bush spokesman Scott McClellan sent out an e-mail saying: "Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists."

Surrender to the terrorists! That ought to smear him good! (Remember how easy it was to smear John Kerry with the Swift Boat veterans' attacks?)

But the mood is different now. The war is far more unpopular than the White House recognizes. And Murtha does not strike anybody as a coward or friend of terrorism.

The smear not only failed, but it made the White House look bad, so three days later, President Bush took the high road and called Murtha a "fine man and a good man."

"I know the decision to call for the immediate withdrawal of our troops by Congressman Murtha was done in a careful and thoughtful way," the president said. "I disagree with his position."

But wait. On the same day, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was unleashed to say Murtha was aiding and abetting the terrorists. Rumsfeld dusted off the tired argument that any criticism of the government in time of war helps the enemy.

"The enemy hears a big debate in the United States, and they have to wonder maybe all we have to do is wait and we'll win," Rumsfeld said on "Fox News Sunday."

"We have to all have the willingness to have a free debate, but we also all have to have the willingness to understand what the effects of our words are," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week."

Got that? Free speech is just fine as long as you don't exercise it.

Murtha is such a powerful critic because he knows where he stands and what he wants for this nation and he is willing to pursue it whether it is popular or not.

What kind of Democrat does that make him? A rare one.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 16, 2005

WASHINGTON - - While in 2004, America did not have a single mainstream peace party, by 2008 we could have two.

That is how unpopular the war in Iraq now is and how isolated President Bush is becoming even from his own party.

The reason for the isolation is simple: Bush does not have to face re-election and congressional Republicans do.

Which is why the Republican-dominated Senate delivered a clear rebuke to Bush's Iraq policy on Tuesday by approving a measure that calls for the Bush administration to "explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq."

In other words, the Senate is saying to Bush that his "stay-the-course" policy on Iraq is not enough.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada called the Senate's action a "vote of no confidence" in the administration not just by Democrats but by Republicans.

And while this is an exaggeration, any warning bells that have not been clanging in the White House already, should be clanging now.

While a series of U.S. presidents have snatched away Congress's ability to declare war, it should be remembered that U.S. involvement in Vietnam came to an end only when Congress refused to vote any further funds for it.

In 2004, there was no major candidate running for president who advocated withdrawal from Iraq. I doubt this will be true in 2008.

Some of those Democrats who voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq in the first place were simply afraid they would look weak and unpatriotic if they did not.

And while Howard Dean vocally denounced the war, in the end all the leading Democratic contenders for president - - Dean, John Kerry and John Edwards - - supported staying the course in Iraq.

But that was then. Now, there is something of a scramble within the Democratic party to bring the boys and girls home.

Senators Edward Kennedy, Russ Feingold, and Kerry all support withdrawing troops from Iraq, and Edwards says flatly that he was wrong in supporting the war in the first place.

As Ron Brownstein points out in the National Journal this week, a number of 2006 Senate Democratic primaries - - in Ohio, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Maryland - - may feature the withdrawal of troops as a major issue and are tugging the candidates toward "more-confrontational positions than most sitting Democratic senators have embraced" regarding Iraq.

Republicans, too, are growing disenchanted with what could become a war without end. As Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, put it this week, the Senate "needs to send the strongest possible message to the Iraqi people and the government formed there" that "we mean business, we have done our share, now the challenge is up to you."

The reason for setting some kind of timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq is that an open-ended, never-ending U.S. commitment gives Iraqi citizens little reason to fight for their own country.

Why should they fight and die for Iraq, they wonder, when Americans are willing to fight and die for them?

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 14, 2005

WASHINGTON - - "I have always been underestimated," George W. Bush was telling me. "You can understand why. People say, well, he's Daddy's boy and has never done anything of accomplishment. But that's good. I'd rather be underestimated than overestimated."

It was February, 2000, and as he spoke, Bush lounged on a long couch in the front of his campaign bus as it traveled through a piney swamp in the South Carolina Low Country.

Bush's feet were propped across the aisle, he held a can of Diet Coke in his right hand, and when I came into his cabin to interview him, he languidly extended a left hand to me as he stayed slumped to one side.

This was Bush body language at its worst. This was the man the Manchester Union-Leader had dubbed "Governor Smirk," the man who sometimes gave the impression that he was running for president largely as a fraternity initiation stunt.

But when I asked Bush if he really wanted to be president badly enough, he straightened up, drained the Coke and began crumpling the can in one hand.

"That's ridiculous," he said. "What do you think I'm doing? I'm up at 6:30 every morning, and go to bed at 10:30 at night, and I'm shaking thousands of hands, and I'm speaking from my heart, and I'm putting out policy initiatives that are on the (cutting) edge of reform. I haven't seen any policy initiatives from my opponent! It's an absurd statement."

He stopped for a moment. "But I understand how it works," he said glumly. "They have to say something after I got whipped."

Bush had just been whipped by John McCain by an incredible 18 points in the New Hampshire primary and if Bush didn't stop McCain here, in South Carolina, it would probably be all over.

Losing by that margin - - Karl Rove, in his pre-genius days, had actually told Bush he was going to win New Hampshire - - was not the worst thing that had ever happened to Bush, however.

The worst thing was calling his parents and telling him.

"I actually thought I was going to win (New Hampshire)," Bush told me. "I did. I didn't know I was going to lose until the exit polls came in. Then it was pretty clear."

He laughed a hard, short laugh and recalled the moment when he had to pick up the phone and make the call. "We're going to get whipped," the younger Bush told the elder.

Thinking back on it now, George W. said: "I had to assure them I was going to be fine. And I was fine. I didn't like losing, but I knew it was time to regroup and there would be another day."

There was. After one of the dirtiest campaigns in modern presidential history, Bush beat McCain in South Carolina. But McCain came back to beat Bush in Michigan, and the final outcome was still in doubt.

"It's important to me to show you I can not only take a punch but win," Bush was now telling the crowds.

It was so different a Bush than the Bush we see today. He was less molded, less prepped, less programmed, more willing to admit to human failings. Which is why I have been going back and looking up what he was like in those darker days of his soul.

The day after his loss in Michigan, I caught up with Bush in Los Angeles, as he walked heavily up the steps of an ancient second floor gymnasium in a community outreach center. His mouth was a solemn slash and his eyes were puffy and tired.

His staff kept searching for new messages - - after his loss in New Hampshire they had actually changed the name of his campaign plane from Great Expectations to Retool One - - but now Bush was grim and angry and refusing to change any more.

"You're stuck with me the way it is," Bush said.

In the gymnasium, he visited with a group of grade-school kids.

"My dream was to play baseball," he told them. "But you know what happened? I realized I couldn't hit the ball that moves sideways. So I had to adjust my dreams. I never really grew up wanting to be president, I'll tell you that. I guess the point is you've got to set realistic goals."

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 9, 2005

WASHINGTON - - The Democratic leadership of the U. S. Senate is very, very worried that President Bush is going to pardon Scooter Libby.

Libby, former chief of staff for Vice President Cheney, is currently charged with five felonies relating to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. It will be months and months before Libby goes to trial, but the Democrats are taking no chances.

"Although it is too early to judge Mr. Libby guilty or innocent of these particular charges, it is not too early for you to reassure the American people that you understand the enormous gravity of the allegations," the Democratic leadership said in a letter to President Bush Tuesday. "To this end, we urge you to pledge that if Mr. Libby or anyone else is found guilty of a crime in connection with Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation, you will not exercise your authority to issue a Presidential pardon."

Actually, the letter could have gone further. It could have asked Bush not to pardon Libby even before a guilty verdict. A president does not have to wait for a verdict, or even an indictment, before issuing a pardon.

President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in 1974, even though Nixon had not been indicted for any crimes. Although hugely controversial - - it certainly contributed to Ford's loss to Jimmy Carter in 1976 - - the pardon was perfectly legal.

According to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the president "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." And presidents exercise that power all the time. (It is an open question whether a president can pardon himself.)

Bush has pardoned 58 people since becoming president, which is actually a pretty low number. According to CBS News Correspondent Mark Knoller, who is the unofficial historian of the presidential press corps, Richard Nixon granted 863 pardons in six years, Jimmy Carter granted 534 in four, Bill Clinton granted 396 in eight years, Ronald Reagan granted 393 in eight years, Ford granted 382 in two years and George H.W. Bush granted 74 in four years, including pardons for former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and five others involved in the Iran-Contra affair.

So pardons happen all the time, but Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said of a possible pardon for Libby: "The bottom line is that working in the White House and being a trusted adviser to the President and the Vice President should not be a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card for anyone."

How likely is it that Bush would pardon Libby? I think it is highly unlikely.

It would be very unpopular. According to a poll released this week by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 79 percent of those polled said that Libby's indictment was important to the nation and 60 percent said the indictment has not gotten too much news coverage.

Further, Libby is being accused of lying about the outing of a CIA agent and, thereby, damaging national security. Even putting aside the fact that Bush's father was once the director of the CIA, does President Bush really want to pardon such an act?

I don't think so. George Bush wants to spend his last years in office shaping his legacy to the nation and history. Of all the things his presidency needs right now, more controversy is not among them.

On his last day in office, Bill Clinton created a huge controversy when he pardoned international tax-fraud fugitive Marc Rich, whose wife was a big Democratic contributor.

But then for many years Rich had a good lawyer. His name was Scooter Libby.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 7, 2005

SIMON SAYS:

Are neckties really getting skinny again? Can I get my old ones out of the basement?

If we can ban people from bringing nail clippers aboard airplanes, we can ban people from bringing cell phones into movie theaters.

When is the last time you had a really good cassoulet?

Paperback Pick of the Month: "The Battle of Salamis" by Barry Strauss. (It's about a sea battle between the Greeks and the Persians in 450 BC, not warring luncheon meats.)

Arnold Schwarzenegger's reversal of popularity is not so surprising. He got to the California governor's chair only via a screwball election in 2003 that pitted him against one of the most unpopular men in the state (Gray Davis) and one of its most inept campaigners (Cruz Bustamante.) Had Sen. Dianne Feinstein chosen to run for governor that year, not only would Schwarzenegger almost certainly have lost, but he probably would never have chosen to run.

Things I Never Knew (And Probably Could Have Done Without Learning): An acronym is an acronym only when you can pronounce it as a word: OPEC, scuba, NATO. If it doesn't form a word, and is read as letters, it is not an acronym but a pronounced abbreviation: YMCA, ABC, NFL.

Buying a new laptop makes buying a pig in a poke look easy.

Unhappy with the ruinous re-design of TV Guide? Then try Zap2It.com. You can configure it for just the channels you watch and print it out each day.

You think the Democrats are in confusion? Try to name the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. Go ahead and try.

On the other hand, there was this exchange between Chris Wallace and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on "Fox News Sunday" this week:
Wallace: "By the way, and we only have a couple of seconds left, do you like the ring of that, sir, President McCain?"
McCain: "Except for the fact that I make my kids hum 'Hail to the Chief' every morning, I don't think about it."

Which reminds us of the old joke Ted Kennedy likes to tell: "I don't think about the presidency any more. Of course, I don't think about it any less."

Ounce for ounce, gasoline is still cheaper than the soda you get from vending machines.

Just in case you were wondering: The lowest Gallup approval rating for a president was Harry Truman's 23 percent recorded in 1952 during the Korean war.

How come old Doonesbury cartoons are so much funnier than new Doonesbury cartoons?

Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, a pirate ship attacked the cruise liner Seabourne Spirit off the coast of Somalia on Saturday. No word yet as to whether the pirates had parrots on their shoulders and said, "Argghhh."

Is there anything as beautiful as a Japanese maple at this time of year?

Which is the richest country in the world? Wrong, it's the British Virgin Islands, followed by Luxembourg, Norway, and the United States. How about the most taxed? Wrong, again. It's Belgium, Hungary, Germany, Sweden, and France. The United States comes in at No. 21. So quit yer gripin. (Info provided by the nifty website, nationmaster.com.)

Green tea, white tea, black tea, oolong, jasmine, pu-erh, yellow, organic…Just bring me Lipton.

There is more to big-store discount shopping than just price. At my local Costco, I once bought a fax machine and 5 pounds of veal. Talk about one-stop shopping. And they have terrific birthday cakes. (True the fax machine was made in Asia, but the veal and birthday cakes are all-American.)

Why can't anybody make a quiet vacuum cleaner?

I congratulate "The West Wing" on their live (though scripted) episode on Sunday. It was almost as dull as a real presidential debate.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 2, 2005

WASHINGTON - - It was one of those glossy advertisements that litter your mailbox and get thrown away almost immediately.

It came from a national chain of tire stores. I think maybe I got a new tire at one of their outlets once when I got a flat that was so bald it wasn't worth repairing.

The store was exactly what you would expect: Guys wrestling tires on and off cars, the staccato sound of air wrenches, the heavy smell of vulcanized rubber.

I can't remember if they gave me a free ice scraper when I bought the tire. Maybe.

Anyway, I now held their glossy ad in my hand and looked at their latest offer.

If I bought "ANY set of 4 tires," they would give me a free BlackBerry.

I have never associated heavy, automotive objects and high-tech communication devices, but this is a tire chain that clearly has done some market research.

And their research has apparently shown them that people will do pretty much anything - - including buying four tires that they may or may not need – in order to get a BlackBerry. (The flyer also offered a free Motorola RAZR instead of a BlackBerry, but who would take a cell phone over a BlackBerry?)

The BlackBerry - - often called a CrackBerry because of its addictive nature - - is an e-mail device. It does other stuff, including make cell phone calls, but people get hooked on the devices because they can easily read their e-mails all day long.

As I wrote some time ago, BlackBerries are labor-saving devices that increase your workday from 8 hours to 18.

Even though a major lawsuit is now raging that raises questions about the future of the BlackBerry in this country, the device has become so popular that dire stories have already appeared about the damage they can cause. (Whenever anything becomes really popular in this country, it always leads to a story that says it can't be good for you.)

The Associated Press ran a story on Oct. 20 about something called "BlackBerry Thumb."

"If you're trying to type 'War and Peace' with your thumbs, then you're going to have a problem," said Alan Hedge, director of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Laboratory at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.

(Personally, I would suggest not even trying to read "War and Peace" let alone type it.)

And when things become really, really popular in this country, it leads the media to commit sociology and examine how the new objects have (invariably for the worse) changed our lives.

At a website called pinstack.com, I found a posting on "Basic BlackBerry Etiquette" by Andreas Wiebe. It appears to be a guide to using your BlackBerry without having the people around you murder you:

Do:
1. Keep the ringer on vibrate as much as possible (always if possible)
2. Remove your earpiece when speaking to a person in front of you
3. Check with establishments regarding rules on cell phone use (some restaurants forbid them)
4. Pull off the road when you absolutely must answer a message or phone call
5. Keep phone conversations as short as possible, you'll save money in the long run

Don't:
1. Answer messages/phone at museums or churches
2. Answer messages/phone while driving
3. Walk and Type (you'll walk into somebody or something)
4. Leave the ringer on loud in a restaurant
5. Talk too loudly – Respect the people around you
6. Put your BlackBerry on the table at restaurants/bars/lounges (it's disrespectful to the people you are with, and you might forget it when you leave)
7. Answer unimportant calls/messages at the Gym

Those are actually a dozen good rules to live by, which is not to suggest that BlackBerry users live by them. They don't.

I said the main purpose of a BlackBerry is to get e-mails, but the secondary purpose is to make other people jealous that they don't have one.

If you are one of those people, you have but two choices: Either change your attitude or change your tires.