"Twenty Iconic Male Movie Roles In Which Helen Mirren Would Have Ruled."

Adam points to that list, and that causes Isaac Spaceman to list "five iconic male roles in which Helen Mirren would have been terrible."

Heh. Love that, Isaac. Can I call you Isaac Personal Space Bubbleman?

"If Mitt Romney doesn't 'know' global warming is mostly caused by humans, is he 'against science'?"

John Althouse Cohen challenges Krugman... and quotes Richard Feynman, who wrote:

It is necessary and true that all of the things we say in science, all of the conclusions, are uncertain, because they are only conclusions. They are guesses as to what is going to happen, and you cannot know what will happen, because you have not made the most complete experiments....

Scientists, therefore, are used to dealing with doubt and uncertainty. All scientific knowledge is uncertain....

So what we call scientific knowledge today is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty....

John says:

If Krugman is terrified at the idea of not 'knowing,' maybe he's the one who's against science.

I was going to challenge that "maybe," but that would be unscientific.

There are way too many political speakers embarrassing themselves these days by preening about how scientific they are, when all they mean is that they defer to authority. And there are way too many scientists who step up and pose as authorities to be deferred to (and given grants to).

"If this was an attempt to make Republicans look unreasonable, then, in almost every conceivable way, it failed spectacularly."

"And scheduling the speech during the GOP debate, even if Boehner had immediately acceded, is the one way the White House could guarantee a) that fewer voters would be watching and that b) viewers and pundits would pay less attention to the speech’s content and more to the theatrics around it. In other words, it’s the easiest way to lessen the speech’s chances at success. If this is a preview of Obama’s re-election campaign, Democrats should be very worried."

WaPo's James Downie.

But wait. It occurs to me that Obama may want to divert attention from the speech's content. What do you think the content is? For a month, he's been saying the big speech is coming — he's got a plan to restore jobs. If he really had an answer to the chronic problem, why didn't he reveal it right away? He's been working on something that would sound like he's got an answer, and, in all likelihood, he knew it wouldn't go through Congress, so the point was simply to be able to say: It's Congress's fault. I had a plan, but they wouldn't pass it. But he couldn't say that unless he really had a plan that would impress people. My guess is: He didn't even have that. That's why he reverted to the theatrics, lame as they were.

We'll see. It's my hypothesis. He went for theatrics because the actual content of the speech will be an embarrassing fizzle after the big build-up. His bluff was called, so the theatrics look particularly lame, but he may even prefer our gabbing about the lameness of the failed theatrics to our scrutiny of the actual substance of the plan.

"Obama Rolls Out a Jobs Plan That Doesn't Need Congress."

According to The Atlantic:

[Yesterday], Obama took a now-familiar path in adopting a program — this time a jobs and infrastructure effort--that can happen entirely within his domain. Obama directed several federal agencies to identify "high-impact, job-creating infrastructure projects" that can be expedited now, without congressional approval.

One week before he will make a major address to Congress on jobs, Obama is making sure they know he plans to move forward without them. The president has also directed the Education Department to come up with a "Plan B" updating the 2001 No Child Left Behind law in the absence of congressional action. The message to Congress is clear: Do your work or we'll do it for you....

Do your work or we'll do it for you....  Is that the tone Obama actually wants to take?

If there's a conflict between Obama's speech and the Packer game, WTMJ wants to show the football game.

"Steve Wexler, vice president of radio and TV operations for Journal Broadcast Group, said Thursday that WTMJ-TV (Channel 4) had asked that both Obama's speech and the football game be made available to NBC affiliates across the country. That way, each station can make a decision on which event to broadcast. In the case of the Milwaukee market, Wexler said WTMJ would show the game. The president's speech would be carried on a secondary digital channel, he said."

It's an NBC game, and NBC is interacting with the White House, but here in Wisconsin, we want to watch the game.

I don't know about New Orleans, but Packer fans want the game. At least give us the choice! Does the leader have to take over all the channels? What kind of message is that, in America? Give us choice. And give us football.

You know, a football game merits watching, play by play, in real time. A speech... we can read it quickly later. Like during half time.

From a blogger's perspective, I prefer the text because I can cut and paste and do commentary. Now, that's a reason why Obama should prefer to impose the real-time experience on us. We have to wait to pull it apart. Except we don't really. We live-blog. We tweet. This urge to control, by claiming all the channels, making us sit through the whole thing... it doesn't really work anymore. It doesn't work for the people who want to jump all over the President's words and critique them, and it doesn't work for people who would prefer different entertainments. There are always other channels on cable. There's the internet. Video games. Video on Demand. You can't really commandeer our attention.

But you can mess with a football game we're excited about seeing at a particular time.

IN THE COMMENTS: Meade said:

Obama is a Bears fan (purportedly).

Hey! And remember when he had the Packers to the White House — because they won the Super Bowl — and he kind of snubbed them?

More Meade:

If Obama succeeds in his Packers/Saints blackout, I propose we take direct action.

TO THE ROTUNDA!

UPDATE: "White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told The Associated Press the speech would be completed in time. Kickoff is scheduled for 7:30 p.m." New controversy: What about the "pregame festivities"? "The NFL and NBC are planning a kickoff concert and other pregame activities to mark the opening of the NFL season."

Obama "will still be able to cut off some of the free media oxygen of whatever narrative emerges from the debate..."

"... by speaking to the nation the next day, which was almost certainly the goal of choosing the night of the face-off in the first place."

Cut off some of the free media oxygen? Ack! Chokehold!!

"'I cannot imagine [Justice Bradley] hitting [Justice Gableman] in anger because he called Justice Abrahamson 'Shirley' — because everybody calls her Shirley'... even the custodial staff."

So said former Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske, quoted in a Capital Times article called "Justices dispute Gableman account of second altercation involving Bradley."

Is that so? Everyone calls her "Shirley" — not "Chief"? Even the custodians?

ADDED: But I do not want to impugn Geske's credibility. She said it. I presume it's true. Court personnel of all kinds: Have no qualms about calling the Chief Justice "Shirley." Like you always do.

 UPDATE: Justice Michael Gableman issues a statement relating to the date of the alleged hitting:

During my interview with the officers, I was uncertain as to whether Justice Bradley struck me on September 18, 2008, or September 18, 2009. I knew it was September 18 because that happens to be my birthday. Court records indicate that the seven Justices did, in fact, meet in closed conference on September 18, 2009. In any event, the incident happened exactly as I related it to the officers and as it was set forth in the report. While Justice Bradley might not be able to recall it, I certainly do. 

Does anyone else who was there remember it?