Oscar Jr. Was Here

Demographics and Same-Sex Marriage

I've seen much discussion of late in the context of proposed Federal Marriage Amendments (FMA) positing that a generational shift in attitudes among the young implies greater future acceptance of the notion of same-sex marriage. Examples:

MercuryNews.com:

And as if that weren't enough work ahead, we could well see a campaign in all 50 states to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Why the big rush? Because a huge generational shift will soon be here, arriving with such irreversible force that the foes of equality can only try to delay the day when gay and straight Americans are treated alike.

According to a Gallup poll conducted on Oct. 24-27, of adults ages 30 and older, 32 percent favor gay marriage. But of those 18 to 29 years old, 53 percent support it.

Matthew Yglesias:

The FMA, under any construal, does neither of these things. Rather, it is an effort to freeze contemporary public opinion into place forever and insulate the status quo from the looming generational shift in attitudes toward sexual orientation.

Glenn Reynolds:

My students, not especially left-leaning as law students go, are largely untroubled by the idea of gay marriage. I think that's a generational shift, and I think it's what the FMA advocates are really worried about.

Tom Maguire:

As to outcome, however, there is a huge generational divide, public opinion is evolving, and time is against the opponents of gay marriage. In such an environment, a constitutional amendment looks like an attempt to draw a line now that gay marriage opponents will not be able to hold in ten or twenty years.

The evidence of this generational shift that I've seen cited generally consists of polling data (or anecdotes) indicating that a higher percentage of young people support same sex marriage than older people. While I'm confident that these data and observations are true, I think those I've cited are misinterpreting these data. More specifically, I find it intuitively unlikely that such beliefs remain sufficiently constant over time to be seen as a demographic shift in favor of same-sex marriage.

Justin Katz has a very interesting post on the same topic citing a New York Times editorial making the same point as those cited above. Katz points us to this useful graph, goes on to discuss the various age groups within the study, and makes two important points along the way:

Either a view of increasing conservatism with age or a gradual change in acceptance of homosexuality would seem to merit a smoother line. To make some sense out of these slopes, we have to consider that there are two ways to consider age-based data: as indicative of historical cultural trends, or as indicative of a single-person's lifeline. Although both are important in all cross-sections, I'd suggest that the significance of the lifeline view fades with age, while the significance of the historical view increases. For one thing, older people have been "formed" and "settled" for longer. For another, younger people are more in the midst, so to speak, of the cultural change, so they'll track more closely to the cultural elite's position on the issue itself.

and

We can't put too much weight on this single poll — or on any polls for that matter. Society is in constant flux. But it seems to me at least plausible that, as this group enters into full adulthood — with all of the experiences and responsibilities that it entails — it will rebound to at least the median line. My own opinion, as a conservative Catholic convert who is still a few years away from the age at which the opposition to gay marriage currently takes off, is that mine will prove to be the most socially conservative generation that the country has seen in many decades.

(Emphasis added.)

My take on the idea of a "generational shift" is somewhat more specific than Katz's: those that view marriage in the abstract, rather than from direct experience, will tend to support policies affecting the institution that others with direct experience oppose. In other words, contra Yglesias, Reynolds, Maguire et. al., I think that, to the extent that the youth of today marry, this "generational shift" will dissipate. Time will tell.

Is there any evidence that the young (or the unmarried, for that matter) were less supportive of same-sex marriage in the past?

To test whether marriage rates are correlated with approval of same-sex marriage, I sought data. I found some polling data here (pdf format) and demographic data here (specifically, Table 4). I've summarized the data in this table:

		Never-	% Never-	% Opposing
Age Group	Total	Married	Married	Amendment
15 to 29	56,811	42,223	74%	58%
30 to 44	64,323	12,003	19%	49%
45 to 64	60,021	4,521	8%	45%
65 & older	32,620	1,270	4%	40%
All	213,773	60,016	28%	48%

(Note: the youngest group considered in the polling data ranges from 18 to 29.)

The data demonstrate a significant correlation between marriage rates and approval of a hypothetical FMA. (New Poll Shows Correlation Is Causation.)

This, of course, may be irrelevant, or it may be a part of the expected change under Katz's lifeline view. (Here's some self-selected anecdotal evidence that people tend to become generally more conservative over the years.)

If my theory is correct, then the increased support for same-sex marriage that actually has occurred (as opposed to that expected to occur due to a hypothesized "generational shift" in the future) may be due to the fact that fewer people are getting married these days:

If any reader knows of a source of historical polls like the one linked above over the last decade or three, I would appreciate a link, comment or an email. Thanks.

Update: On Zonitics, "Edward Boyd" comments, and restates my hypothesis much more clearly than I did:

In other words, it isn't young versus old, it's married versus unmarried -- not quite the sea change people are talking about.

Update: I'm late posting this, but Justin Katz responds here. I am interested in investigating this further, so if anyone knows of sources for the data he mentions, I would appreciate hearing from you.

Odorama Online

Coming soon: scented e-mail.

I foresee the day when e-mail spam actually smells like Spam®. Think of the possiblities: romantic emails that smell like perfume, bile-scented hatemail, URGENT BUSINESS PROPOSALS redolent of money, Discount Viagra solicitations that smell like, er, something...

(via The Presurfer).

Steyn on AWOL

In case anyone missed it, Mark Steyn has a scorching column in yesterday's Chicago Sun-Times, "Bush is winning war that matters now." Excerpt:

In other words, the ''coalition of the willing'' has effected more positive change in the last 10 months than the multilateral establishment has in the last 10 years. If Bush loses in November because he can't provide sufficient witnesses to prove where he was on certain weekends in 1972, he'll still have an impressive legacy: He's toppled two dictatorships, neutered a third, and put the squeeze on several more. Yes, Americans are still being killed by Islamists in Iraq. But they're not being killed by Islamists in New York offices, or Washington government buildings, or U.S. embassies and ships.

Assume for the purposes of argument that the media are right: that John Kerry's four months in Vietnam are so impressive they outweigh two decades of zero accomplishment in Washington, save for a series of votes remarkable for being wrong on every major issue, from Reagan's raid on Libya to the Gulf War to every new weapons systems for the U.S. military. What will President Kerry do?

This is how he characterized the war on terror to Tom Brokaw: ''I think there has been an exaggeration,'' he said. ''They are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. It's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation.''

That's all I need to know.

Bush wants to take the war to the enemies, fight it on their turf. Kerry wants to do it through ''law enforcement'': If the Empire State Building gets blown up, he'll launch an investigation immediately. It's not enough.

Even if Bush was AWOL 30 years ago, on everything that matters John Kerry is AWOL now.

It's recommended reading.

Fun with Google™

Thanks to Maureen, this site now ranks 6th (for me, at least) of about 9,470 on the ever-important search for 'pants vs. trousers.'

I hope the person who visited based on that search found what he or she sought.

The Human Cost of Terrorism

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has posted a photo essay on Terror in Israel.

934 people have been killed in Israel by Palestinian violence and terrorism since September 2000.

Solely for the purpose of perspective, were the United States to face the same level of stateside terrorism, the number of dead would exceed 44,300.

Notes:
(1) Some of the images in the photo essay are somewhat graphic and unsuitable for young children.
(2) I will not, at least at present, argue about the politics of Israel here. If anyone wants to do so, test your contentions at LGF. But please look at the photo essay first.

"First Things First."

In response to this excellent (Hansonesque, actually) column by Daniel Henninger, a reader from Riverside, Illinois, writes:

I don't "minimize the importance of other real threats" around the world. We do have enemies abroad. But I also consider Mr. Bush the enemy. He was never my president, and he never will be. We must deal with the enemy here at home, one that has real power here, then we can focus more on threats around the world. First things first.

(Emphasis added.)

Ah, yes, priorities!

Friday VDH

On NRO today, Victor Davis Hanson discusses the folly of the Democrats' focus on spurious AWOL charges, WMD and "unilaterialism" with regard to the Iraq battle. Excerpt:

Since the Democrats viciously and clumsily have attacked one of the most courageous (and humane) policies of any administration in the last 30 years, the American people will soon come to ask what they in fact will propose instead ("put up or shut up"). Most of us are cognizant that bombing from 40,000 feet gives an "exit strategy," but, without soldiers on the ground, postpones the problem of tyrannical resurgence — and thus will inevitably leave either another war for another generation or something far worse still on the horizon like September 11.

There were a number of legitimate areas of debate for the fall campaign — deficits, unfunded security measures at home, moral scrutiny over postwar contracts, more help for Afghanistan, greater control of domestic entitlements, unworkable immigration proposals, and the like. But instead of statesmanship from the opposition, we got slander about Mr. Bush's National Guard service, misrepresentations about intelligence failures that had hampered both previous administrations and the present congress, preference for an unsupportable European position over our own, and stupidity about what to do in Iraq.

The Democrats may have seen some short-term gains from all the attention given to their bluster, but theirs still remain untenable issues. And so nemesis will bite them like they will not believe in the autumn — and, of course, just when it matters most.

I think this is correct.

Easterbrook, Alarmist Again

Gregg Easterbrook posts about the recent release of the federal government's newest poverty guidelines, POVERTY: BLAME THE MIDDLE. Excerpts and comments follow:

Below are the new Department of Health and Human Services poverty lines for the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia, Alaska and Hawaii lines being slightly higher:

One person, $9,310 annual income.
Two people, $12,490.
Three in household, $15,670
Four in household, $18,850.
Five in household, $22,030.
Six in household, $25,210.
Seven in household, $28,390.
Eight in household, $31,570.
Each additional person in household, add $3,180.

I hope you are thinking what I thought when I saw these numbers: they are shockingly low as the definition of poverty. Consider a family of four with a $18,850 annual income. Such a family would pay no federal income taxes and not pay income taxes in most states, but would pay Social Security taxes, sales taxes, fuel taxes, and other taxes. Let's say for the sake of a simple analysis that such taxes wipe out the food stamps and housing assistance for which the family might be eligible, leaving it with $18,850 for the year.

Stated another way, $18,850 per year for four people is $1,571 per month. Suppose the apartment costs $500, probably typical for a small housing-project-class place. Perhaps $500 per month would go to food, even if the family subsists on macaroni and peanut butter. Already you're down to $571 per month for everything else--getting back and forth to work, clothes for four people, health care expenses, any life or car insurance, school books, day care so the parents can work, a telephone, heat, power, you get the picture. Throw in a hefty car-repair bill and the family breaks financially.

Now consider that in this family, both parents would have to work 40 hours per week at the federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour just to clear slightly more than $18,850. If one parent worked 40 hours at the minimum wage and the other worked 20 hours at the minimum wage while caring for the children the rest of the time, the household would earn less than the poverty line.

It is a scandal that in the affluent United States, one person in eight continues to live in poverty--and it is a second scandal that the one-in-eight figure is based on the definitions above.

Isn't this tautological? Change the definitions above, and one-in-eight figure will, by definition, change. How is this scandalous?

I won't note that taxes on the top brackets have been cut substantially twice in the last three years, while the Earned Income Tax Credit, which aids the working poor, has become only slightly more generous and the minimum wage has not increased since 1996.

He won't?

I won't note that Christian theology teaches that the first concern of society should be the least well off. And yet, though the president and many prominent Republicans and Democrats miss no chance to boast about their Christianity, poverty has become a non-issue in American politics.

He won't?

No, I won't blame the greedy rich and the hypocritical politicians for the continuation of poverty amidst plenty, because this shifts attention away from the group that is most to blame: typical Americans. It is the country's middle-class, middle-income majority that endlessly demands new government benefits for itself, locking up public funds that could otherwise help the impoverished.

Hey, I might be in the middle-class majority, but I don't demand any new (and few, if any, old) government benefits. That's an awful broad brush that Easterbrook wields.

In any event, having spent a good part of my adult life living below the then-current poverty lines (living quite comfortably, I should add), I wondered how alarmed I should be for Easterbrook's hypothetical family of four. Being a big fan of data, I obtained Census Bureau data for 2002 here and here.

What do the data show about Easterbrook's hypothetical two-worker family?

If I'm interpreting them correctly:

Data in the first table show that only 17 percent of all families living below the poverty line have two or more working family members, and only 2 percent of all families in total are those below the poverty line with two or more working family members.

Data in the second table show that 61 percent of households with income below $9,999 are single-person households with a weighted-average income (using the midpoint of the income range) of about $6,500; 55 percent of households with income below $19,999 are single-person households with a weighted-average income of about $10,800. 81 percent of households with income below $12,499 are one- or two-person households with a weighted-average income of about $7,700. Only 11 percent of all households with income below $19,999 contain four or more people, and only 3 percent of all households consist of of four or more people with an income below that amount.

54 percent of all households with income below $19,999 have no earners, while 34 percent have one earner. Only 6 percent have two or more earners.

Only 24 percent of all households with income below $19,999 had members that worked at full-time jobs; 64 percent had no members that worked at all.

I don't feel so guilty now.

Delivery pizzas should cost a couple dollars more, groceries and paper towels and Old Navy pants and practically everything should cost slightly more so that the minimum wage could rise (there would be a ripple effect raising near-minimum wages as well) and poverty decline.

Raise the price on such staples as food and clothing in order to benefit the poor? Huh? I suppose it could help the 36 percent who work (if it didn't cost them their jobs), but what about the other 64 percent?

Bleaterrific

In case anyone missed it today (well, last night), James Lileks discusses Gnat's first written word, some PC laptop problems, and the content of his newspaper back in 1992. Excerpt:

You want to know why we invaded Iraq in 2003? Go back and read the papers in 1992. And you’ll find this quote:

“’If they’re such whizzes at foreign policy, why is Saddam Hussein thumbing his nose at the rest of the world?’”

Albert. Gore. Junior.

In the same paper: “Fundamentalist rebels attacked Kabul with rockets in an assault that killed at least 100 people and wounded hundreds more. As the shelling intensified, a United Nations agency said it was removing its staff from Kabul.”

Nice to know some things never change.

So true.

Happy Valentine's Day, Folks!

Gore as Gollum

In the February 9, 2004, NRODT, Rob Long has a really amusing The Long View, "The Candidates' Diaries, Special Iowa Madness Edition™." Excerpt:

And Edwardses says to Al thankses but no thankses and then he hangses up on poor Al and then AL KNOWSES YES HE KNOWSES THAT HE HAS TO ENDORSE THEM ALL! ENDORSE THEM ALLS! MAKE THEM ALLS HIS BIG FRIENDSES! No, no, no, Al, don't do that! Don't endorse another candidate. They'll just drop in the polls and it will ruin them! No one wants to see you again, Al. Your endorsement means that you'll appear with the candidate and that will kill his chances. They're good people, good men, they need support, not your endorsement. NO! NO! I HATE CANDIDATESES AND I WILL GIVE THEM ALL MY ENDORSEMENTSES!

Your mileage may vary, of course.

What "the Devil" Has Gotten into Me?

I am a registered Democrat, and I can no longer hold my tongue regarding the following phrase:

"Anybody but Bush."

Are you kidding me? For instance, I would not make a better president than Bush.

However--

· I have a little more conviction than Wesley Clark:

In general, I'm pro-life -- excuse me, I'm pro-abortion rights.

· Unlike Howard Dean, you can count on me when I give you my word:

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean changed his story again, saying Wisconsin is no longer the end of the road for his campaign.

(Although I may have been quoted screaming "Yaarrrr!" on "International Talk Like a Pirate Day.")

· I’m not as hypocritical as John Edwards:

Throughout his campaign, Mr Edwards has resisted challenges to criticise his opponents, stressing the "positive" message he is trying to spread. But, trying to look ahead, he has sharpened his attack on Mr Bush in recent days.

During a brief stop on Saturday in Wisconsin he said: "This president is at war with working people."

· I have much better etiquette than John Kerry:

There, the Massachusetts Democrat went to Pat's Steaks and ordered a cheesesteak — with Swiss cheese. If that weren't bad enough, the candidate asked photographers not to take his picture while he ate; shutters clicked anyway, and Kerry was caught nibbling daintily at his sandwich — another serious faux pas.

"It will doom his candidacy in Philadelphia," predicted Craig LaBan, food critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer. After all, Philly cheesesteaks come with Cheez Whiz, or occasionally American or provolone. But Swiss cheese? "In Philadelphia, that's an alternative lifestyle," LaBan said.

And don't even mention Kerry's dainty bites. "Obviously, Kerry's a high-class candidate, and he misread the etiquette," LaBan said. "Throwing fistfuls of steak into the gaping maw, fingers dripping — that's the proper way."

I may be a small town girl from Wisconsin, but at least I know how to eat a cheesesteak.

Regardless, I am certain that, should I be elected president of the United States of America, I would have absolutely no clue as to how to keep the people of this nation safe from terrorists, nor do I think the candidates above do. Personally, I think GW has some good ideas (Acrobat Reader required).

“We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans
and confront the worst threats before they emerge.
In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is
the path of action. And this nation will act.”
P R E S I D E N T GEORGE W. BUSH
JUNE 1 , 2 0 0 2

So, please resist the urge to write-in "Maureen" this election.

It's not that I have no concerns other than terrorism, but I do not want to spend my life in fear. Fear compromises our freedom. And it gives me nightmares.

Update: Bye bye, Wes.

Justice in Saddam's Iraq

On Iraq the Model, Mohammed has an astonishing post on justice in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Excerpt:

The man in question shook his head in conformation and said “yes, I’m the minister of defense who appeared accidentally in another man’s dream. So do you still think you are innocent? No, my friend, you are guilty as charged, on Saddam’s justice scale. So shut up and live with it”.

Imprisoned for appearing in another man's dream? Wow.

Jihadists per Capita

On Wednesday, UPI published an interesting article by John C. K. Daly which detailed the nationalities of the Guantanamo detainees. Many have focused on the relative magnitude of the numbers, with Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan leading the jihadi way (with 160, 85 and 82 detainees, respectively).

More interesting to me, though, is the relative number of detained terrorists after controlling for the population of the countries in question. This may serve as a rough proxy for each nation's relative propensity to generate future terrorists. To calculate this, I obtained from the C.I.A. World Factbook the estimate of the population of 15- to 64-year-old males. For countries with large populations of non-nationals, I adjusted the 15- to 64-year-old population by the percentage the countryies' nationals represented of its total population. Finally, I divided the number of detainees by the number of 15-to-64-year-old male nationals in millions. The results are:

		Adjusted # of
	Gitmo	15 to 64 Year	Jihadists
Country	Detainees	Old Males	per Million
Bahrain	7	172,500	40.6
Kuwait	12	396,354	30.3
Saudi Arabia	160	5,932,741	27.0
Yemen	85	4,972,946	17.1
Jordan	30	1,764,061	17.0
Afghanistan	80	8,240,743	9.7
Tajikistan	11	1,896,509	5.8
Tunisia	8	3,306,782	2.4
Qatar	1	415,302	2.4
Pakistan	82	43,571,093	1.9
Morocco	18	9,766,222	1.8
Algeria	19	10,460,475	1.8
Mauritania	1	743,573	1.3
Egypt	30	23,375,037	1.3
Georgia	2	1,628,757	1.2
Kazakhstan	5	5,425,545	0.9
Libya	1	1,692,154	0.6
Denmark	1	1,809,138	0.6
Turkey	11	22,978,251	0.5
Britain	9	20,067,529	0.4
Syria	2	5,238,026	0.4
France	7	19,619,994	0.4
Sweden	1	2,933,183	0.3
Australia	2	6,680,531	0.3
Belgium	1	3,400,419	0.3
Uzbekistan	2	7,781,739	0.3
Russia and Chechnya	10	49,399,322	0.2
Sudan	2	10,260,581	0.2
Canada	2	11,099,907	0.2
Iraq	1	7,033,268	0.1
Kenya	1	8,900,615	0.1
Spain	1	13,721,053	0.1
Germany	1	28,213,316	0.0
China	12	461,223,219	0.0
Bangladesh	1	44,261,739	0.0

Saudi Arabia and Yemen are still relatively large sources, but, adjusting for population, actually trail Bahrain (what's up with that?, Mahmood) and Kuwait in per million capita terms. Pakistan, while third in absolute number, falls to tenth after controlling for population. China, while tied for ninth in absolute number of detainees, perhaps unsurprisingly falls to second-to-last. Interesting, to me at least.

Update: Mahmood responds with a great post. Murdoc Online also comments.

Iraq Combat Postmortem

On NRO today, Victor Davis Hanson has another great essay in which he surveys the motivations for and controversies allegedly stemming from that action. Excerpt:

The United States has lost less than 350 American dead in actual combat in Iraq, deposed the worst tyrant on the planet, and offered the first real hope of a humane government in the recent history of the Middle East — and is being roundly condemned rather than praised for one of the most remarkable occurrences of our age. Yet a careful postbellum anatomy of the recent WMD controversy makes the original case for the war stronger rather weaker.

Recommended reading.

Anti-Choice

Tim Blair urges Wesley Clark to make a choice.

Perhaps Clark should abort his campaign?

An Interview with My Coblogger

O: How long have you been reading weblogs?

M: Maybe six weeks.

O: What's your favorite blog?

M: At this point I would have to say ResurrectionSong.

O: Okay, beside this one? Okay, favorite three?

M: [ignores question]

O: Have you ever read Instapundit? If so, what did you think of the site?

M: Yes, a little. I don't feel like I've read enough to have any real thoughts about it. It is, however, interesting why I first read it. I did a Google™ search for Glenn Reynolds after reading a post which mentioned that most people don't know who Reynolds is. I sure didn't.

O: Paper or plastic?

M: Paper? Wait. Plastic. I'm way too indecisive.

O: Any thoughts on the Super Bowl?

M: Who cares? The Packers weren’t playing, nor were the Eagles. If the game had been Packers v. Eagles and you somehow could have gotten the Bucs’ Pirate Ship in there, that would have been quite a spectacle.

O: How'd we miss the halftime, er, show?

M: Um, I think Mr. Beer had something to do with it. Or, perhaps I was too busy talking.

O: You approve of the halftime show as family "entertainment"?

M: No, I do not approve of it as "family" entertainment. I am only amused because it inspired my new Jackson family conspiracy theory. Hahahahaha!

O: You and your conspiracy theories... Seriously, now, how was the chili dog?

M: Fantastic, as always.

O: Why 'no cheese', cheesehead?

M: I'm on a strict diet! Okay, no, because the cheese here is overkill. Now if they had quality stuff like cheese whiz™....

O: How can we get into the habit of posting more often to the site? I mean, besides interviewing each other at your local 'watering hole?'

M: Quit tickling me!

O: Hey, you started it! So, who's going to win the presidential election?

M: Duh, Bush.

O: And you'll be okay with that?

M: Well, yes. Considering my recent uptick in nightmares involving the Democratic candidates, I don't think I will be able to sleep at night if it is any other way.

O: When are you going to let me set-up your blogroll? Stumpjumper now has one, so I'm feeling a little guilty about it.

M: When I have one.

O: You'll have one when you tell me you're ready, goofball. Want another chili dog?

M: Ok. No, thanks, I'm good.

O: Was the post that I sent you on Iraq the Model the best thing you read today? (For me, it was.)

M: Yes. Definitely.

O: Are you getting bored with this interview and typing on my PDA?

M: Nope. This thing is cool.

O: Not bored then? What's wrong with you?

M: I'm a dork.

O: Not so bad, I think. Will you vote for Wesley Clark given your shared taste in muppets, beer and peace on earth?

M: Yo, he's one tough hombre! That guy was drinking a Corona today. Go Wes! Get wasted and let Grover take over! Although Grover might not be much better since you introduced him to Budweiser. You are such a bad influence. Um, to answer your question, no.

O: Or was it purity of essence? -- I forget. Hey, you left one unanswered upstairs. Get on it!

M: Hmm. I really haven't read enough weblogs to choose my top three. I guess if I took a look at what all I've read I could answer that a little better. Or maybe it's because I spend too much time wondering if there's anything new at ResurrectionSong.

O: So, you're not going to recommend our site to any readers who might stop by? I don't either, but you're new at this.

M: Well, I would, except nobody ever posts anything.

O: But enough frivolity... You really like Seventh Heaven?

M: I told you that was a secret. Yes folks, I am a huge dork. Yes, I do really like Seventh Heaven. With all the trash on television today, it is refreshing to see "family" entertainment at its finest.

O: So, who's next: Iran, Syria, North Korea, the U.S.? What's your best guess?

M: Sheesh, wouldn't your readers care more about my opinions on pants vs. trousers? Ok, my best bet: GW will scare the trousers/pants off everybody and they will all become democracies. No, seriously, I am not educated enough on the subject to give a firm response.

O: W. Powell, C. Grant, J. Stewart or H. Bogart?

M: JIMMY STEWART!!!! Heck, how come he never ran for office? Didn't anybody see Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?

O: M. Loy, K. Hepburn or A. Hepburn?

M: Hmmm... tough. Katharine or Audrey. I can't choose.

O: Okay, I disagree with you on both choices. Let's try again: Dinosaur Jr. (J. Mascis) or Screaming Trees (Mark Lanegan)?

M: Dinosaur Jr.

O: Sorry, Zombyboy. She may like your site better, but she prefers my music. Maureen, are we done for now?

M: Done with what? I've still got some beer left.