Despite several obvious overtures towards the military, it seems President-elect Barack Obama is not gaining much ground. According to a Military Times survey, 6 out of 10 active duty service members are uncertain or pessimistic about their incoming commander. Perhaps this number is unsurprising as only 1 in 4 service members supported him during the election. He obviously lacks military experience, yet enters office with the burden of several election cycle promises to the American public that could have serious consequences for the military. Such a combination is sure to put some service members on guard. For those who have forgotten, Obama has promised a 16 month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, in addition to calling for the end of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gay and lesbian members of the military. Controversial promises that may please his democrat base, but alienate the more conservative soldiers putting their lives in harm’s way for all of us everyday.

As our country is built upon civilian control of the military, the animosity of service members does not present a significant challenge to his authority. It does, however, show one of the major hurdles that Obama must face in his first years in office. Not even the numerous peace offerings from the Obama camp have changed the pessimism and uncertainty towards his leadership. Choosing to retain well respected Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, currently serving under President George W. Bush, and to bring in a former general as his National Security Advisor are just two of these overtures. He also chose to continue the recent use of the Virginia Military Institute corps of cadets in the inaugural parade. Certainly these gestures of good will towards a sector of our population that one might expect a Democrat president to marginalize are promising. If he continues to demonstrate a respect and desire to understand the military when making foreign policy choices, his popularity, or at least acceptability, amongst members of the military will grow. Any signs of hostility or high handedness towards the military, however, could prove to be a significant handicap in the pursuit of his international goals.

Greetings, dear ones, from Ocean City, New Jersey. O.C., as the parvenus swapping the engorged palaces along its shores must call it, is a wondrous place. It is also a dry place, which hindrance heightens the worked for wonder. The tradition is for my oldest friends and me is to come here at least once each year. Here we are. Ocean City has a place in American letters, you know, as the home Nabokov prescribed for Clare Quilty in Lolita; that distinction notwithstanding we have no reason to suspect that assault and aberrant romances are common here. And while the beaches are bare, the wind makes for nice kite-flying. Cheers to you, and bon santé, and happy Champagne Day tomorrow. (If the vintners were smart they’d push to call 12/31 that.)

Very much more in 2009. Ta ta!

Daniel Pipes offers some characteristically penetrating thoughts. His first: “Arab-Israeli warfare is not the conventional battle to control territory of old. Since 1982, the primary goal in this theater is to persuade the world of the righteousness of one’s cause. (I.e., who has the more affecting casualties?”

This morning on a drive to Dunkin’ Donuts—the local pâtisserie, an Ocean City staple called Dot’s, is closed for the season—National Public Radio interrupted Maurice Ravel to announce that “Israel’s air strikes continue in Gaza.”

People who volunteer themselves to comment upon the holy land question to the newsmedia are, generally speaking, professional partisans. (The Muslims, who appear to have a far more successful P.R. operation in place, even have professional radio call-in show callers-in. You can discern them from ordinary radio louts easily.) For the analysis provided, the reading public enjoys no practical improvement in a university professor as compared with a military captain of one side or another. What this situation wants is a semiotician, because the whole thing is a symbolic ballet. The polities that control the policies and the militaries of the world’s most significant nations are manipulable. The more the aggressor appears to be Israel, the more phone calls will be placed from dusty corners of State to sandy corners of Knesset. So announcements like “Israel continues attacks” help, even though in this instance it was Hamas whose rocket-fired plie touched off the latest.

“Who has the more affecting casualties?” is a fine way to put it, but not very practically useful. It is about the cadence and the tone of the reporting. In the Western World a convincing balance is struck, and then nudged to favor the Muslim position, frequently for no other reason than the old underdog bias. Of course, some agencies are a little more animated about their preferred party. And others display such a low estimation of their readers that they are completely amusing, such as Reuters’s report of today titled: “Israel rejects truce, presses on with Gaza strikes,” written by some eager one called Nidal al-Mughrabi. Mr. al-Mughrabi never went to kindergarten, by the evidence. If an extant truce is expiring, and one party decides that at the stroke of midnight a ruthless volley aimed at the second party seems to be called for, and the second party takes this as a suggestion that its neighbor has elected not to extend the truce, and so after being hit begins defending himself vigorously, and if the party of the first part, realizing the superior accuracy of his former trucemate’s returns, then holds his hands up to say, “O, ho, ho, no, my friend. Let’s have that truce again,” then it would not be an accurate representation of the positions of the parties to say that that of the second part had “reject[ed a] truce.”

BY THE BYE: It strikes me that, since all of this is going on during Christmas, we might read, in the reporting on the scrap, that it has its tragic and callous transpiration during “the holy octave of Christmas, the second-most sacred period in the Christian calendar” or something like that. But the AP Styleguide does not, as I recall, make mention of holy days appertaining to Christianity, relevant though they are to the events along the Jordan River. Those days are but holidays. How fleeting is success!

It’s winter vacation so lots of folks, myself included, go off to the movie theatre to see all the holiday blockbusters. Depending on the theatre there are public service announcements before the film in the form of dancing lions, written messages, or booming narration. For a few golden years at the Crown theatre chains about 5 years ago there were the trash cans who would sing, in very low bass voice, “Please throw your trash away.” Incidentally if any employee of Crown, now Bowtie I believe, is reading this, please do consider bringing the anthropomorphic garbage recepticals back.

In any event, apparently one father and son did not heed these directions, prompting another moviegoer to throw popcorn at the son and shoot the father in the arm. The movie was ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.’ I suppose it would have been more prudent to simply get a theatre official to quiet the family down, but then the shooter would have missed part of the movie. Alternatively he might have considered simply brandishing the handgun rather than deploying it, or at the very least pistol whipping the jabbering man rather than shooting him. Shooting someone for talking in a movie seems a little disproportionate a response and the sound of the shot, after all, no doubt disturbed other viewers, exacerbating the problem of disruption that so infuriated the shooter to begin with. Still, at least some sympathies to the shooter, nobody likes people talking during the movie.

Ilya Somin, Eric Posner, and Eugene Volokh exchanging thoughts and commentary about what seems like the perennial conflict over wishing people a ‘Merry Christmas’ versus a ‘Happy Holidays.’

When Dartblog posted a ‘Merry Christmas to All’ on the 25th I briefly considered (more jokingly than not) appending a ‘Happy Holidays’ addition. But I considered that such an addition would put me at great personal peril or at least provoked intense displeasure from another of Dartblog’s contributors. I do not think I can go wrong, however, posting a ‘Happy Hanukkah’ message on this eighth night of the holiday and wishing celebrators of any and all other holidays, or none at all, good wishes for the season.

Flipping through the television channels the other afternoon, I came across a very interesting program on MSNBC called ‘Crime & Punishment.’ The premise of the show is following around a D.A. with a camera as they prosecute real trials, planning case strategy, prepping witnesses, directing and cross examining witnesses in court, and making opening and closing statements. The novelty of this program, in contrast to a show like Law & Order, is that these cases are real. When a defendant is sentenced to terms in prison (when there are convictions the show also shows sentencing hearings), for example, they actually go to prison.

Of the few episodes or trials that I watched there was a first-degree murder trial, an involuntary manslaughter case, and I think an aggravated assault trial. Members of the jury were (appropriately—and I would imagine as rightly prohibited by the law) never shown and I also never recall seeing presiding judges. The focus was on the D.A. and the victim or family, with attention also given to the defendant and his or her attorney. A trial from discovery and research to trial and sentencing is condensed in to an hour time slot.

I had never seen a television program with this level of reality. A while back I remember MSNBC coming up with a program to confront and arrest pedophiles on the pretense of setting them up for illegal activities with children. Then I recall the same network featuring documentaries about high-security correctional facilities and death-row and other prisoners. This program, I think, goes a little farther still towards some sort of reality. Eventually, I suppose, they will find a way to get even closer. Perhaps the networks will get one of their reporters incarcerated in one of these prisons to report from first-hand experience or perhaps even on trial for some crime or another.

More anon from us, but you will perhaps excuse my absence: our readers’ eager eyes are no match for those of this new member of the Malchow family.

As was perhaps destined to happen, my fantasies of a relaxing winter break voraciously consuming the fantastically interesting slate of books I so carefully selected in anticipation of rare free, holiday moments, has already been scuttled. With well more than half of vacation past I have only managed to finish one book. I am in the middle of six others, almost completely devoid of time or willpower to finish any of them, and the break is rapidly coming to a close. Classes at Dartmouth will begin on the fifth of January.

I thought, therefore, that I would devote a little space to some of the movies I have had the opportunity (or misfortune) to see over the past few days.

Quantum of Solace, the new James Bond movie was more than a little disappointing. I was skeptical of Daniel Craig as Bond before Casino Royale but I thought that the movie was quite good and I was ready for a strong, repeat performance. But Craig was, as the movie as a whole, quite dull. The plot of foiling an criminal posing as an environmentalist was forced with a subplot of Bond seeking revenge for the death of his lady friend in the previous movie was equally weak. Even the action/ chase scenes were a little flat and more predictable than usual, the boat chase particularly cliche.

Because Valkeyrie was sold out when I went to the theater I was forced to see Slumdog Millionaire. The gist was an Indian teen’s success on the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? which focuses in on the life experiences growing up as an orphan in the slums of Mumbai that taught him the answers to the various questions. The movie was not bad but it seemed self-consciously crafted to appeal to pseudo-intellectuals, the kind of people who would refer to the movie as a ‘film,’ and talk about putting down their $8.50 for 90 minutes as constituting a personal cultural renaissance. Still a fine ‘film’ overall and one I would enthusiastically endorse as a second-resort if all of your first choice movies are sold out.

Dartblog shall return. Enjoy the day.

A recent article in the New York Times lays out new regulations to combat what may become the newest modern-day deadly sin (following smoking, eating transfats, etc): eating meat. None of the “solutions” (I put it in quotes because it is not clear to me that there is even a problem to address) sound good.

High-tech fixes include those like the project here, called “methane capture,” as well as inventing feed that will make cows belch less methane, which traps heat with 25 times the efficiency of carbon dioxide. California is already working on a program to encourage systems in pig and dairy farms like the one in Sterksel.

Other proposals include everything from persuading consumers to eat less meat to slapping a “sin tax” on pork and beef. Next year, Sweden will start labeling food products so that shoppers can look at how much emission can be attributed to serving steak compared with, say, chicken or turkey.

The very last thing manufacturers and businesses need (not to mention consumers who are always forced to bear the high costs of government mandates and ‘solutions’), in an economic downturn or otherwise, is poorly considered regulation. More disturbing than the solutions themselves is the notion that we should treat and stigmatize meat, and by extension meat-eaters, with labels like “sin.” If it is the case that growing chickpeas produces more emissions than soybeans, it doesn’t make it a ‘sin’ to eat the former or some sort of saint to eat the latter. Ditto for meat.

There is surely more to say on the subject but my hamburger has finished cooking. My palate is salivating and I am going to chow down. I am quite sure that upon finishing I will have both a sated stomach and a clear conscience.

An interesting article about what to expect from GOP-backers on the radio waves over the coming few years. Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, et al.

Harvard is revamping its undergraduate English curriculum as reported by the Harvard Crimson. It doesn’t look good.

On the matter, Inside Higher Ed quotes one skeptical student:

“the fact that Harvard doesn’t feel like it has any responsibility to say what ought to be learned.” The New Yorker recently quoted Lacaria’s Crimson op-ed on the subject in a short, tongue-in-cheek piece, “Decline of Civilization Dept.: Harvard ‘Eviscerates Liberal Education.’ “

“I’m sort of concerned that the [new] categories are somewhat amorphous,” Lacaria said in an interview. Speaking of the proposed “Shakespeares” course as one example, “A course in Hamlet,” he said, “would fill the same basic requirement for an English major as a course on sex in Shakespeare or something else trendy that they like to study in literature these days.”

Part of the proposal moves to replace large lecture courses with smaller, seminar-style courses—there is little controversy here, smaller courses can hardly hurt. The crux of the debate seems to be whether students should be required to read and learn great writers like Homer, Virgil, Milton, Shakespeare, Swift, Chaucer, etc. Perhaps these writers are not ‘trendy,’ but they do seem pretty important to a good education in writing or literature (or just about anything else).

…despite all the beautiful photographs that Joe has recently been posting, at least not for primary and secondary school students.

State nutrition laws have made it impossible for team, charities, churches, et al to organize (rational) bake sales at schools. The New York Times writes of one high school team’s efforts:

The Piedmont High water polo team falls woefully short of these standards, selling cupcakes, caramel apples and lemon bars off campus in a flagrant act of nutritional disobedience.

Ah yes, those delinquent students that bring contraband in to classrooms: guns, drugs, cupcakes, and the like. I imagine a kid in a trench coat peering around surreptitiously and then opening it up to reveal a fully stocked, pocket display of cookie, cupcakes, pie, cake, candy and all sorts of goodies. Car washes are fine if a little more difficult (although I would think a little inappropriate for, say, a Hanover winter). Health food bake sales featuring tofu cookies and soybean cakes (are carrot cakes banned too?) may fail to attract the same number of consumers.

It is one thing to make school lunches healthier, remembering back to my public school days I daresay they could not get any less tasty. But to turn confectionery consumers and providers in to the bad guys, especially when their efforts go towards good causes, seems more than a little misguided. And let me say this, if I see a picture of a California state legislator who votes for bills like this eating any kind of confectionery whatsoever, it will be going straight to the top of Dartblog. They better not be chowing down on sweets while they strip California children of their childhoods. And, as far as I know, state legislators don’t even have mandatory gym.

So far as I know, these (idiotic) bans are limited only to selling and serving, rather than actually bringing or eating, but it is surely only a matter of time. I have always found that a cookie or pastry of some kind is an integral part of a balanced meal, e.g. turkey sandwich, bag of chips, apple, and cookie. So if and when the bans spread you will find me outside. I’ll be the one by the dumpster, eating a cookie.

I was struck by a journal lede this morning:

Warner Music Group Corp.’s videos and songs began disappearing from the YouTube videosharing Web site early Saturday after talks to renegotiate a licensing deal stalled.

It isn’t clear whether the decision to remove the content was made by Warner Music or YouTube.

You could read the entire story, but those two sentences tell you everything you need to know about the shift in the media industry. Warner’s content disappears from YouTube, and the reporter simply cannot discern cui bono. Amazing.

1. People walking around with black and white checked scarves indistinguishable from Palestinian keffiyeh. This scarf was iconically donned by Yasser Arafat, fashioned in the shape of a Palestinian country that included all of Israel. Especially since the ‘Intifada’ terrorism revival that began in 2000, it has been a symbol of solidarity with Palestinian nationalism and also complicity in the acts of Palestinian terrorists. It is fine if people want to support these causes symbolically (though if they tried to do so materially the US government might see them about aid to terrorist organization), much as it is fine for people to walk around with logos of Che Guevara or any other communist, Nazi, etc to whom they are partial. The bother is that people—many on the Dartmouth campus in particular—so not seem to give any thought to the symbolism.

2. Statements like: “that Bio exam raped me” or “I got raped by my Gov’t paper.” To readers outside the Dartmouth campus it may certainly be shocking and unbelievable that students would say something like this. While I have only ever heard girls use this language, I would not be surprised if guys also, equally inappropriately, used the phrase. Especially over the past few terms I have been at school such casual use of ‘rape’ has become much more common. I certainly don’t think it does justice to the gravity of this terrible crime to toss the term about so glibly, comparing it to school a school paper or test, however difficult.

Still decompressing from fall term at Dartmouth, pardon the rant.

Professor Andrew Samwick and a number of other economists on the ‘Ideal Stimulus Package.’ The premise of the exercise for the various economist was what they would do to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars ($500 billion?) that Congress is proposing to pass in spending by way of a “stimulus” package.

For some of the more sensible solutions see Andrew Samwick, Tyler Cowen, Casey Mulligan, Len Burman (and some reader comments, as well).

Toward a comprehensive list.

1. Light rain

Todd Zywicki, who among his many other talents is also a bankruptcy law expert, has a column in the Journal today that makes a point he and I have discussed together, and which I have made repeatedly, though with less authority, here: bankruptcy is exactly the right thing if what you want is the survival of the American auto industry.

One is bound to appreciate the Senate GOP’s leadership in blocking the bailout, but why they do not respond full-throatedly, with this proposition, I do not know.

Dartmouth College’s infamous “D plan” has been the subject of an interesting exchange in the Boston Globe this month. George Washington University professor Charles Karelis and former GWU President Stephen Trachtenberg discussed the wastefulness of the normal university schedule in light of the economic crisis. Rather than limiting the number of students matriculating each year as the California State University system has proposed, Karelis and Trachtenberg argue for the wider adoption of the Dartmouth system. This system requires students to stay on campus for classes the summer after their sophomore year and then take another normal term “off”, usually to pursue an internship or job opportunity away from campus. While the D plan has many drawbacks with regards to relationships, most Dartmouth students come to embrace it. Spending a summer on campus with only one’s class provides a bonding experience unique among universities. It also gives students generally overworked by their college activities the opportunity to focus on academics, friendships, and the special nature of the Dartmouth experience. From a practical standpoint, Karelis and Trachtenberg write that it makes good economic sense for colleges and students alike:

“…an unused campus isn’t free. While college facilities sit idle, they continue to generate maintenance, energy, and debt-service expenses that contribute to the high cost of running a college. Those costs are borne by students, taxpayers, and donors. Such inefficiency is not affordable today.

What should happen instead? A national task force should work out the specifics, finding ways that modern colleges can use their campuses more fully. One relatively easy step that colleges could take is to adopt a plan like Dartmouth’s - requiring undergraduates to take a full course load during one summer, and skip a subsequent term or semester. Even without changing anything else about its academic calendar, most institutions could thus grow their undergraduate enrollment by 14 percent with little additional cost for bricks and mortar.

Our research suggested that a version of the Dartmouth plan could increase net revenue at medium-sized private universities like George Washington by more than $10 million a year, after figuring in the cost of additional faculty to teach the additional students. Other institutions might net more or less. Such funds could be put toward financial aid at private schools; public systems could accommodate new students at reduced per-student costs. Schools adopting this plan that didn’t want to enroll more students would find themselves with extra space during the term, which they could provide at low cost to neighboring institutions that needed to grow quickly. More radical cost savings per degree might be achieved through true campus sharing by distinct institutions - having two colleges adjust their schedules so they could double up in a single campus. That would spread the cost of running a campus across two entire student bodies, significantly lowering the cost per student.”

Stephen Nelson, a professor at Bridgewater State College countered that “Although studied by many colleges and universities, Dartmouth College’s year-round calendar has yet to be imitated. The reasons are numerous: wear and tear on the physical plant and administrative staff, a revolving-door inconsistency in campus life and leadership for students as the on-campus population incessantly changes, and the equally relentless, highly compressed, and intense pace of 10-week academic terms.”

For my part, the D plan has been a blessing. Though the 10 week terms are as relentless as Nelson suggests, they provide a welcome challenge for the intellectually curious student body. It may disrupt relationships during sophomore and junior year, but it also leads to closer connections among one’s class during that special 10 week summer term. Everyone returns at once after many departures to study abroad and take off terms to revel in the Dartmouth experience. I would not change my sophomore summer for the world, and I know that many of my Dartmouth peers feel the same. Throw in the economic advantage of using school buildings year round, and I would say we have a winner.

The Fairfield Sentry prospectus, November 2008:

I do not fancy myself a sophisticated investor. But this is obviously suspicious. Any 45 degree line is suspicious.

The future is now.

The Supreme Court laid an egg this morning on the subject of tobacco lawsuits. Tobacco makers, wrenched by do-good bureaucrats in Washington for decades, were long ago forced into standardized labeling and encouraged to market low-tar “lite” versions of their products. The government co-opted, in essence, part of the tobacco business as its own, putting de-fleshed skeletons on cigarette box covers and so forth, sparing cigars only because the Senate really likes cigars with its brandy after dinner and depictions of sallowed dying babies does not contribute to the spirit of post-congress conviviality.

This, the government take-over of cigarette marketing, was itself an affront to decency and the general spirit of industrial progress. Now the Supreme Court, in the 5-4 split, has announced that lawsuits against Altra alleging deceit in the government-mandated packaging may go forward. Something like the Arabian girls stoned for the crime of having been forcibly romanced by Allah-fearing men, the tobacco companies will now be sued silly for hundreds of millions because they made the mistake of believing that once the government screwed them, the progenerated cigarette boxes would, at least, no longer be their responsibility.

What a long four years these will be, eh?

I posted a while back, in great excitement, after reading a book review in the NY Times of Christopher Buckley’s book Supreme Courtship. The book did not disappoint.

I recommended the book to a friend before even having finished exclaiming something along the lines of, “It is the kind of book that just makes you so happy you can read!” I stand by my initial reaction. The particular genius and cause for such literary delight is the deadpan satire on contemporary politics offered through a range of lovably quirky characters. Buckley clearly draws on some notable personalities in law and politics—but leaves more than enough to the imagination so that readers can superimpose inspiration from politicians of their choice on characters in the novel.

The basic storyline is (without spoilers) a pragmatic but unpopular president’s effort to fill a vacant seat on the Supreme Court and subsequently to win (or endeavor lose, as the case may be) reelection. The justice he ultimately appoints is a personality cross between Judge Judy and Sarah Palin, who goes from daytime TV to the federal bench (as the president’s chief antagonist in the Senate resigns his seat to become president on a TV show—a launching pad for seeking the presidency, again).

A fantastic Christmastime read I have to say. Light enough that I was chuckling aloud, and not infrequently, but cutting enough a satirical critique of real-life politics, that there was significant cognitive redemption.

Lourdes Garcia-Navarro on NPR’s All Things Considered, just now, enlightening me to the ways of other cultures.

The Witherspoon Institute is a think tank in Princeton that focuses on the moral foundations of free societies. It is distinguished in its studies from the other academic outfits in Princeton, which wonder what “free” really means, anyway.

Anyway my friend Christian Sahner, Princeton ‘07 and Rhodes scholar, has lately been in Arabia in his effort to become totally expert on the history of Islam. (You would not slight him for taking on such meager quarry if you knew how completely he already knows the history of Christianity.) Christian takes “A Second Look at Syria” on the website of the Witherspoon Institute, in an article very much worth your time.

I offer you parfait gentil knights this: Knighthood, Chivalry & Tournament: A Glossary of Terms.

The latest news in global politics is that President Bush, on his final Baghdad press conference, was confronted with an airborne loafer tossed by an uppity journo whose cushy bureau job had obviously been cut as a result of The Bush Economy. “This is a farewell kiss, dog,” were the tosser’s parting words before he was escorted to the floor by Secret Service. The President may not have the grit of a Barack Obama, who grew up an Hawaiian street urchin hawking stolen bread-halves while saving for Harvard, but he gamefully retorted something like: “It’s a size ten, that’s all I can report.” Guffaws. Then the Iraqi reporters in the room, whose own inclinations may or may not run in favor of United States foreign policy over the last seven years, but who nevertheless seem to possess decorum exceeding the average, apologized on behalf of the sod who threw the shoe.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin’s church in Wasilla, Alaska was torched to nearly nothing by an arsonist who did not bother to check whether any innocent people were inside praying for goodwill, so keen was the preudomme to rid the world of the she who performed unsatisfactorily in the Katie Couric gauntlet. Uneven speakers create more terrorists than they kill, you know.

The reports say that no one was harmed, although the damages reach into seven figures.

The personal furies summoned against the governess over the last several months had clearly had their way with her, because after hearing of the arson she legged it to her church and, astoundingly, apologized just in case the incident was connected to “the negative attention” stemming from her vice presidential candidacy. Which, roughly, is how fifth-column (and fourth estate?) whackos would like it to run when Change arrives: conservatives apologize in advance, for everything, and are subsequently hit in the head with shoes, while their entire policy slates are quietly adopted by the Democrat President, with certain parts blown out and estuarial veins run to organized constituencies who will ensure a second term.

I suspect the whole game was nearly given up last week when ticking across our desks came headlines like: “Blagojevich and Union Have Longstanding Ties,” mentioning that Governor Rod Blagojevich and the Service Employees International Union were trying to see if they could make the dollar figures work, Senate-seat-wise. The corruption isn’t usually that tidy, of course; but the Blago business could have been the first spidering crack in the dam.

Probably it won’t be. The modern liberal uses conservative policy to avert disaster and kickbacks, cash or cultural, to keep his customers pleased.

On which score, I think you will enjoy hearing this 2002 Blagojevish commercial. Laughing at it last year would have been racially insensitive, but now you are free.

Movin’ Illinois forward/ Means so much to me/ I’m tired of those Republicans/ They really don’t care about me/ That’s why I’m gonna make that switch/ To Rod/ Blagojevich!