Christopher Hitchens, (as always) a good read, has some thoughts about the past year from the left. Or perhaps no longer from the left–many of them now disown him. Whatever his other beliefs, he’s clearly not an idiotarian.

I disagree with him on Iran–he seems to confuse support for the government there with support for the aspirations of its people, but he’s definitely a Brit who understands America, and that it is not just a country, but an idea.

Tony Woodlief has some great ones. I particularly like numero dos–it’s my top peeve.

When I’m made Lord Emperor of the Universe, one of my first acts will be to remove all signs that say “Slower Traffic Keep Right,” and replace them with the more accurate “Left Lane For Passing Only.”

No one thinks that they’re slower traffic, so the first version isn’t effective. The second should be the rule, and it should be a hefty fine, perhaps even prison time, if you’re passed on the right by three consecutive cars. I kvetch about the Europeans a lot, but there are a few things they get right, and lane discipline (particularly in Germany) is one of them.

Of course, if you’re poking along down the autobahn at a mere 130 kph or so, you’re likely to get a Lamborghini or M3 rammed up your tailpipe…

I know, you expect this to some kind of profound query, and perhaps even a disquisition, into some cosmological conundrum.

No, I just want to know when and where the term “middle school” came into vogue. When I was a young lad, we went to elementary school through grade six, then we went to junior high from seven through nine, and then high school was grades ten, eleven and twelve. I never heard of “middle school” (which apparently encompasses six through eight) until I came to California.

I will confess that there was always something a little weird about the setup where I went, because in high school, we had sophomores, juniors and seniors, but no freshmen. The freshmen were the seniors at the junior high, though they didn’t call them that.

But still, it worked, and we all knew what it meant.

So is it a regional thing, or has the terminology changed over the past three decades? If I went back to Flint, MI today, would they be calling it middle school there as well?

If it’s a new thing, what was wrong with “junior high”? Too rough on the young adolescents’ self esteem?

Frankly, “junior high” sounds more high-falutin’ to me than the bland “middle school.” With junior high, it gives you something to aspire to, to practice for. Once we make it through “Junior” high, will be ready for the real thing–senior high school.

But “middle school” sounds like a Goldilocks kind of deal. That one was too young, and the next one is too old, but the middle one is juuussst right. Booooring.

Anyway, just curious. Inquiring minds, and all that.

John Ellis says:

Mr. Clinton, whose opinion on this matter may be the least sought-after piece of intellectual property on the planet, said that the Bush Administration should find and kill bin Laden first, then deal with Saddam Hussein later. As Paul Wolfowitz might say: “thanks for sharing.”

I’m not sure that it’s the least–Jimmy Carter’s advice will at least place, and might nose it out. And Tom Daschle’s will show.

Which brings us to the real link in this post–Mark Levin’s meticulous dissection of all three of these men’s past behavior and comments, and why we shouldn’t take any of them seriously now.

Amidst Jane Galt’s current flirtation with the life of the carnivore, Discover says that ancient Brits literally ate like wolves.

Andrew Myers, an archaeologist with the Derbyshire County Council who has recently undertaken a review of the Mesolithic in England’s east Midlands, was not entirely surprised “that terrestrial animals provided the main source of dietary protein.”

But he was astonished by the extent to which land meats dominated over other potential sources, like vegetable and nut proteins.

And of course, this being pre-agricultural, no grains at all. This isn’t that many generations removed from us, and it’s unlikely that Jane (who judging by her real name is almost certainly of Celtic descent), has evolved that much from her ancestors (I suspect that the Lady of Trent described in the article was a Celt, since this was long before the Angles and the Saxons…). She’s probably a carnivore by nature, as is much of humanity.

To me, this backs up Sears’ proposition that a modern (post-agricultural) diet is not one that our bodies are designed for, and is the cause of much of our ailments. Agriculture gave us civilization, and allows us a much greater population, but we may be paying a high price in our health for it.

This has interesting implications for plans to feed the third world. It would certainly indicate that researchers should be working on more higher-protein-content crops, and perhaps more attention to aquaculture and small-animal ranching (i.e., rabbits) to improve production efficiency of protein sources.

This is a company to watch.

They’re building low-cost small passenger jets. This could be the death knell for the airline industry as currently constituted. It won’t be good for Boeing and Airbus, either.

More thoughts later.

Now Micah Morrison is connecting the dots.

Matthew Yglesias thinks that the Administration’s goal should be to get Saddam to submit to a rigorous and humilating weapons inspection, by using the threat of war, rather than actually going to war. Matt Welch agrees.

I disagree.

To my way of thinking the obvious answer is that there’s every reason to believe Saddam will agree to a vigorous, intrusive inspections regime if that’s the only way to save his own sorry ass. I also think that would be a terrific outcome ? a rogue state humiliated, the threat of WMD proliferation countered, all at minimal cost in blood and treasure. I’m of the school of thought that you prepare for war in order to be able to prevent it ? a credible military threat by the United States ought to be able to get Saddam to back down on his weapons programs (who’s expansion, I believe, would lead inevitably to a big war down the road if he ever got nukes) without us needing to actually fight him.

OK, so we get inspectors in. We find some of his weapons labs, and hope that we’ve found them all. We leave him in power.

Now what? Do the inspectors stay in indefinitely? That’s what we tried in the nineties. The rest of the scenario will repeat as well. Tariq Aziz will start whining about “spies” and “deprivation of the Iraqi people of their sacred sovereignty,” and the French will sympathize, because they want to sell stuff. The west will get tired, he’ll continue to play the games with the inspectors, and terrorize his own people, and we still won’t be sure whether or not he’s still working on WMD.

No, Matt and Matt, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al are not rushing toward a war–they’re rushing toward a regime change, just as they say. If it turns out that a war is necessary to achieve that, then war it must be, because we will never be safe for the long term as long as Saddam controls Iraq. I think, in fact, that the Administration is indeed looking at options short of war, at least in the sense of an actual invasion with US ground troops, but the goal remains, as it should, (and as it should have been a dozen years ago) to get rid of Saddam.

[Update at 11:05 PM PDT]

Steven Den Beste has a response to this as well, which echoes mine, but in more detail, though there’s no indication that he read either Mr. Yglesias’ post or this one.

The new grand plan goes like this: No invasion, no war, no attack. Instead, a force of 50,000 “coercive force” inspectors go into Iraq. They work under American command, but they will be drawn from many nations, and they will use deadly force if necessary to inspect wherever they want. And in order to get Iraq to agree to this, the US would have to “forswear any unilateral military action against Iraq for as long as the inspections are working.”

…

Simply unbelievable. There are so many fantasies involved in this plan as to suggest the use of illicit chemical substances by those who drafted it. Let’s see:

Other nations would actually offer such forces.

They’d be willing to let Americans command them rather than have a Yugoslavia-style coalition command.

They’d be willing to let Americans order them into combat without the home government’s approval.

They’d be willing to do this soon.

Iraq would be willing to let such a force in, soon.

The forces themselves would actually be trustworthy, and not tip off the Iraqis or accept bribes, and actually willing to fight if ordered to by Americans.
A force of 50,000 troops like this, split into brigades, wouldn’t ever be subject to ambush.

The first time parts of it actually took substantial losses, everyone would stay the course.

And there’s this one: America would be willing to accept any such lunacy.

The biggest problem of all with it, however, is that it assumes that such a force, which would take months to organize (during which time Iraq would be frantically hiding everything they could) would actually be able to find and destroy enough stuff soon enough to actually prevent Iraq from making a bomb.

There’s more. Read the whole thing.

The Federal Observer has a new top-ten list of reasons to ban guns.