For those who may not know the dates of the Seven Years War — Americans know it as the French and Indian War — it ended in 1763.

For nearly two centuries since that time, the Royal Navy dominated the seas. Lone among major powers, it figured out how to beat scurvy so that its sailors could stay at sea for months at a time. As a result, it spent the period from the French Revolution to the First World War defeating Napoleon, exploring the globe, stamping out the slave trade, and keeping the seas safe for international commerce.

Indeed, the Royal Navy had more to do with creating the climate for the industrial revolution than any other entity. It also changed the cultural face of England by providing a climate where men could distinguish themselves and advance, without regard to birth, blood or title.

After World War II, the Royal Navy shrank, and shrank, and shrank, as the U.S. Navy asserted its global dominance, and the United Kingdom grew gradually less able to field a massive fleet. By the Falklands War, the Royal Navy was a shell of its former self, but its men and ships were, as ever, up to the task of protecting British interests to the four corners of the globe.

No more.

According to the Times of London, the Labour Government in Great Britain has finally succeeded in doing what Napoleon never could — reducing the Royal Navy to a mere handful of ships and effectively neutering it as a meaningful fighting force.

There is much to lament about the Royal Navy’s demise, but the worst bit of all is the government’s proposal to close the royal dockyard at Portsmouth.

The Portsmouth dockyard has been producing ships for Her Majesty’s navy since Henry VIII. The HMS Victory — Nelson’s flagship at the Battle of Trafalgar — is still moored there, the oldest ship in commission anywhere in the world. (Built, incidentally, to help fight the Seven Years War.)

No dockyard has been more important to Great Britain than Portsmouth; none more wrapped up in the fabric of a nation that grew into an empire on the basis of its navy and merchant marine. And the government wants to simply cast it aside like a tabloid discarded in the tube.

I have no voice in British politics, and I have no misapprehensions that this decision will be somehow reversed. For the demise of the Royal Navy, I have only sadness.

Jim: Worst Idea of 2006: Oh, I don’t know, maybe writing a book about the influence of terrorism on the U.S. political system and releasing it a month before the political world goes insane over Mark Foley’s pants and the issue of corruption more or less single-handedly switches control of the Senate and House of Representatives?

Runner Up: Marshall mentioned this in his “worst political theater” category, but I would suggest the You-Tubeization of American politics and the fallout from “Macaca,” ensuring that every candidate for major office for the next ten years will be followed around by an opponent’s staffer with a video camera and will be continually harassed and heckled in an attempt to provoke an unflattering outburst. Because it is normal, human and fairly common to lose one’s temper and say something one later regrets, this 24-7 monitoring of candidates will ensure that no sane person will ever want to run for office.

Second Runner Up: Crunchy Cons.

Marshall: The Worst Idea of 2006 was, without a doubt, the boneheaded decision to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

What’s that you say? That was actually in 2005? It doesn’t matter. Nominating Miers was such an astonishly bad idea that it wins on the basis of carryover.

Seriously, the Miers nomination permanently damaged the President’s standing with his most important supporters — conservatives who vote in damn near every election and conservative activists who give the money and do the work that make conservative causes a success. The impact of the Miers nomination clearly carried over into the 2006, making it harder for the President to hold his coalition together in the face of bad news from Iraq, irresponsible spending by Republican Congressional leaders, and mushrooming scandal. Would these issues have been non-factors in the absence of the Miers nomination? Of course not. But it would have been easier for the President to mitigate their impact and recover from the damage they did.

Runner-up Yeesh. It was the year of the bad idea. So, here are a few possible nominees for runner-up:

• Basic Instict 2
• Going hunting with Vice President Cheney
• Naming an impeached (and convicted) federal judge to be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
• Installing Katie Couric as anchor of the CBS Evening News.
• Hewlitt-Packard Chairman Patricia Dunn ordering surveillance on her own Board of Directors
• Demoting Pluto from planet to “dwarf planet”

Cam: Hey, I’d rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than be a passenger while Patrick Kennedy’s driving.

Okay… more bad ideas. I can’t pick just one, so I’m going to divide these up between Pop Culture and Politics.

Pop Culture

- The Beatles “Love” album. Seriously. What a waste of money this was. Oooh, they added the opening guitar chord from “A Hard Day’s Night” to “Get Back”. That does not make this some new and unique Beatles song.

- Studio 60 On the Sunset Strip. The biggest problem with this show is that Aaron Sorkin can’t write a comedy sketch to save his life. I tried with this show, I really did. But between the liberal clap-trap and the unfunny comedy, I had to bail.

- The Armed Forces Bowl. Not that I have a problem with the concept, I just have a problem with Tulsa, Oklahoma hosting a bowl.

Politics

- You know, I’m actually so sick of talking politics right now that I’m just going to say there really were no good ideas in 2006.

Shempu: Wheeee!!! Cam’s calling it in, not giving his all, going through the motions, running at 50%, doing the

Cam: Just thought of another “Best Idea for 2006″: Whale Stew.

Marshall: Dude, don’t be hatin’ on Studio 60. The politics aren’t personal. Sit back and enjoy. It’s the best written show on television, because Sorkin is the best dialogue writer, maybe ever.

Oh, and another thing — Save the Whales!

Cam: Best thing on television?? Dude, I could drop trou and take a poo on my tv and that would be something better on television than “Studio 60″. House and The Office are much better shows than “Studio 60″.

And Sorkin the best dialogue writer ever???? Sorkin, like Kevin Smith, writes dialogue that reads like a play. And I don’t mean that as a compliment. If you’re in the mood for it, it’s great, but his dialogue has the tendency to draw me out, not draw me in to the story.

Marshall: Dude — you’re threatening to poo on your television and Shempu is the one living in the tub? I think you might have that backwards. Bring back the whale. At least he understands fine culture when he finds it.

Shempu: Right! I love Studio 60.

Cam: That’s it Shempu. You get your cetacean self over to Marshall’s. Go live in his bathtub for awhile. You can watch your Studio 60 together and eat popcorn and plankton. You two can be the pretentious version of “Beavis and Butthead”, chuckling at the oh-so-witty dialogue written by America’s Shakespeare, Aaron Effing Sorkin.

Me, I’ll be watching Season 6 of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”. Joss Whedon is my master now.

Marshall:Come on over Shempu. We’ve got fresh fish and nice, big tank for you. We know how to treat our guests — especially our cultured guests. By the way, would you care for the Bordeaux or the Burgundy?

Jim: Best idea of 2006: Worldwide Corporate Recognition of Talent Shortages.

Corporate America – well, the world, really – is starting to recognize that talent is finite, that there really isn’t enough to go around, and that it is worth investing in (i.e., paying more to attract and retain it). Years after smashing the social contract with mass layoffs, employers are now finding that it’s not as easy to find and keep workers who do their jobs well.

There will always be “Chainsaw Al” style CEOs who think they can save a company by cutting costs, screwing over employees, and focusing on the stock dividend in the short term; but in today’s increasingly complicated and globalized world, that just isn’t enough to sustain a company over the long haul. A better strategy is to attract as many creative and motivated problem solvers as possible and let them do what they do best.

And this at least partially mitigates the sense of gloom that we’re all replaceable, that some cheap foreign laborer is going to be doing our job tomorrow. (“Coming in 2007, In The Kettle, a new blog featuring three New-Dehli based tea-swilling wiseasses, Chahel, Manit, and Jignesh, with twice the updates at half the costs of Cam, Marshall and Jim.”) According to the Economist’s “The World in 2007” special issue, China and India are running out of high-end skilled workers; “wages in India’s IT sector are up 20 percent and turnover is double that.” After years of strong corporate profits, businesses are finding they have to offer workers the fruits of their talents to stay competitive. It’s a good thing.

Runner Up: Director Paul Greengrass’ no-stars, no-glitz, from-the-heart effort to tell one of the important stories of 9/11 in his film, United 93.

Over on TKS I posted a bit about reasons for optimism for 2007, with all of the gloom in the news. In addition to the world events and trends listed there, I would note other reasons for good cheer about the world in the coming year: Thanks to dishes and satellite radio, one can now hear and watch any sports event anywhere in the world live. Harry Potter’s story comes to its final chapter in 2007, and children of the 80s will see a live-action Transformers movie on the big screen. Coming back this summer, the Pirates of the Caribbean, The Fantastic Four, Ocean’s 13, Jason Bourne, and Bruce Willis in another Die Hard movie. National Treasure gets a sequel.

Oh yeah. And in January, Jack Bauer’s back.

And in March, so am I.

Marshall: This one is easy — the idea to transport Kentucky Derby Winner Barbaro to an equine hospital rather than euthanizing him at the track — the fate that would have befallen most thoroughbreds after suffering the kind of devestating injury that felled the champion at the Preakness. A close second: all of the ideas, many of them risky and revolutionary, behind the horse’s miraculous recovery. And here’s to jockey Edgar Prado, whose quick reaction in the dirt of Pimlico race track saved Barbaro’s life.

Runner-Up Britney finally getting the idea of dumping idiot K.Fed.

Cam: WTF? Who replaced Marshall with Billy Bush? K-Fed? And what does this say about 2006 when the best ideas were saving a horse from the glue factory and a panty-less skank dumping her no-talent rapper boyfriend?

Best idea of 2006? It was going to be the video iPod, until I learned that came out in 2005. I think the best idea of 2006 has to be me deciding to watch “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Angel” on DVD. I’ve been able to amuse myself for the past several months, and now I finally get the hotness of Sarah Michelle Gellar.

Jim: Wow. I’m pretty sure that not long ago, I would have bet that Marshall not only wouldn’t have known who Kevin Federline is, but that he was kinda iffy on picking out Britney Spears out of a police lineup of a half dozen slutty blonde starlets.

I caught some VH1-style celebrity show not long ago, and learned that Feder- aw, hell, “K-Fed” - dates one actress, knocks her up twice; hooks up with Britney and somehow convinces him to marry her. Has two kids with Britney. God knows what he’s up to next. What on God’s green earth do these women see in him? “That mold-like facial hair really does it for me, and I’m sure he’ll be a good provider with his twin careers as a rapper and as a paid party guest; I want him to father my children”?

And having just gotten a video I-Pod, uh… yes, Cam, this little toy is going to destroy my attempts at productivity in the New Year.

Marshall: Especially in light of the post above, I have a new nominee for best idea of 2006 — inviting Shempu to blog. (HT: Steph)

Jim: Boldest political tactic: I had long believed James Carville’s mantra that “you can’t beat somethin’ with nothin’.” And yet the Democrats did not have much of a unified agenda in 2006 beyond raising the minimum wage, instituting all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and ‘we’re not Republicans.’ And it worked. Bob Casey practically hid from the press during most of his run. Didn’t hurt him at all; the state of Pennsylvania was ready to replace Rick Santorum with a ham sandwich. It turned out that in 2006, having a vague agenda was the most popular agenda of all; having no political tactic was the boldest tactic of all.

Runner Up: Michael Steele’s commercial in which he explained what he didn’t like about both parties. It didn’t work, but a Republican candidate saying “We’ve got problems in both parties. Education – Republicans built a system that teaches to a test.  Ben Cardin and Democrats put bureaucracy ahead of our kids. Some Republicans forget folks still climbing that ladder.  Cardin and Democrats – just raise their taxes.” in an ad is nothing if not bold.

Cam: I think Mark Foley reaching out to the fringe “sex with boys young enough to be your son” crowd was a pretty bold move. That and Cynthia McKinney courting the “I’d secretly like to punch a cop” crowd.

But no, the boldest political move had to be Ned Lamont featuring Markos Moulitas Zuniga in a campaign commercial. I know it’s hard to believe, but most people watching that commercial either thought Jon Cryer or Jarod from Subway had endorsed Lamont. They have no idea who Kos is. It was the culmination of pandering to the Netroots, and boy howdy did it ever pay off.

Marshall: Still a day behind…

I thought about this one a lot through the day yesterday. And in the end, I think the answer is: nothing.

2006 will be remembered as the year of “Whatever you do, don’t screw this up,” for Democrats and the year of “How many different ways can we find to screw up?” for Republicans. Neither of those lends itself very well to risk taking, and, indeed, we saw little. There wasn’t much in the way of groundbreaking tactics from either side. Just an effort — mostly by Democrats — to sit on the ball, run out the clock, and, “whatever you do, don’t fumble.”

You know, part of me wants to say “Amen” to Joseph Rago’s tirade. The other part of me wants to Rochambeau him.

Let’s face it, there’s a lot of awful blogs out there. He’s right. But awful is in the eye of the beholder, and there’s some great work being done in the blogosphere as well. I might not like the pomposity and egos of some bloggers, but that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the information they’re imparting.

Jim: Hmm. I’m reminded of Sturgeon’s Revelation, which Instapundit mentions now and then. Asked about low-quality science fiction writing, the author said, “Yes, 90 percent of sci-fi is crap. But 90 percent of anything is crap.” Rago writes:

Journalism requires journalists, who are at least fitfully confronting the digital age. The bloggers, for their part, produce minimal reportage.

Accurate. However, a lot of bloggers don’t really want to replace the reporters of the world. They want to replace the opiners of the world, who have, sad to say, the real fame. (Quick quiz to illustrate: How many New York Times reporters can you name? Now how many of their regular columnists? How about with the Post, or any other paper?)

Every conceivable belief is on the scene, but the collective prose, by and large, is homogeneous: A tone of careless informality prevails; posts oscillate between the uselessly brief and the uselessly logorrheic; complexity and complication are eschewed; the humor is cringe-making, with irony present only in its conspicuous absence; arguments are solipsistic; writers traffic more in pronouncement than persuasion . . .

Largely accurate. But it’s worth noting that A) the readers of those blogs don’t mind B) and if you don’t like the tone or style of a blog, then don’t read it. A blog reader always has the option of reading another blog; in many towns, there’s only one major newspaper. Skipping down a bit…

Instant response, with not even a day of delay, impairs rigor. It is also a coagulant for orthodoxies. We rarely encounter sustained or systematic blog thought–instead, panics and manias; endless rehearsings of arguments put forward elsewhere; and a tendency to substitute ideology for cognition.

He’s right. You don’t see that kind of behavior in the print media, or TV, or… MACACA! MARK FOLEY! WE FOUND THE KILLER OF JONBENET RAMSEY! NO, WAIT, WE DIDN’T! DUKE STUDENTS RAPED A STRIPPER! NO, WAIT, NEVERMIND! BEWARE OF E. COLI! HERE’S AN UPDATE ON THE MISSING BLONDE IN ARUBA! Er, sorry, that just slipped out. Where was I?

The participatory Internet, in combination with the hyperlink, which allows sites to interrelate, appears to encourage mobs and mob behavior.

Eh… One man’s mob is the other man’s party. And note we’re talking about virtual mobs; nobody, as far as I know, has actually gotten offline and collected pitchforks and torches and stormed a castle.

This cross-referential and interactive arrangement, in theory, should allow for some resolution to divisive issues, with the market sorting out the vagaries of individual analysis. Not in practice. The Internet is very good at connecting and isolating people who are in agreement, not so good at engaging those who aren’t. The petty interpolitical feuding mainly points out that someone is a liar or an idiot or both.

This is perhaps the most intriguing, and accurate assessment in the column. But I don’t think it’s the fault of the medium of blogging. I think it’s the fault of… well, us. Most of us like reading people we agree with. Most of us don’t like reading people we disagree with. I try to read a lot of different views, but I grind my teeth the moment I get the feeling that somebody I’m reading looks down on me, or thinks that I could only hold my views as a result of ignorance or moral deviancy.

It’s not just on the blog world. Take a look at the political section of your local bookstore these days. Take a listen to a great deal of talk radio. Heck, even when a newspaper runs Maureen Dowd and David Brooks on the same page, it’s not like Brooks and Dowd are interacting with each other.

Thus the right-leaning blogs exhaustively pursue second-order distractions–John Kerry always providing useful material–while leaving underexamined more fundamental issues, say, Iraq.

Okay, let’s see some evidence, Mr. Rago. I’d like to see what blogs you read that informed your opinion. Do we sometimes enjoy poking fun at John Kerry too often? Maybe. But I don’t think Iraq has been underexamined. But maybe I’m reading different right leaning blogs.

This is one of the problems of pieces that praise or denounce “blogs” in their entirety, as the variety of blogs is about as diverse as people themselves.

Certainly the MSM, such as it is, collapsed itself. It was once utterly dominant yet made itself vulnerable by playing on its reputed accuracy and disinterest to pursue adversarial agendas. Still, as far from perfect as that system was, it was and is not wholly imperfect. The technology of ink on paper is highly advanced, and has over centuries accumulated a major institutional culture that screens editorially for originality, expertise and seriousness.

Of course, once a technosocial force like the blog is loosed on the world, it does not go away because some find it undesirable. So grieving over the lost establishment is pointless, and kind of sad. But democracy does not work well, so to speak, without checks and balances. And in acceding so easily to the imperatives of the Internet, we’ve allowed decay to pass for progress.

I grok your lingo, kemo sabe. I went into journalism because I wanted it to be better – that it didn’t have to be just the salaciousness of the old-school Geraldo Rivera and the O.J. Simpson Trial. Compare a Time magazine from a couple decades back to a Time magazine from today – it’s like comparing… well, the Wall Street Journal to USA Today. Lighter, fluffier, less hard news and less detail. There was a time when large chunks of society picked up newspapers and magazines, and/or watched Tom, Dan, and Peter, because the news said “THIS IS IMPORTANT. And you can trust us.” And when we look back on the journalism of not so long ago – the Iranian hostage crisis (that launched Nightline), the assassination attempt on President Reagan, the Challenger disaster, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Persian Gulf War – we don’t remember “fake but accurate.” We don’t remember ridiculous spin, or sneering, or sources that couldn’t be found. (When it did happen, like with Janet Cooke, it was a big deal, and those involved fell on their swords – they didn’t blame conspiracies and political enemies.)

But I think we’ll get closer to that informative, fair, straightforward news environment we want to see by just keeping our heads down and doing our jobs, not with MSM op-ed pieces pointing out blogs’ flaws, and bloggers reacting by pointing out MSM flaws. This argument has been pretty well hashed-out since 2004.

Jim: Best Government Dollar Spent: My funny answer would be, “Jack Bauer’s salary,” and I could say some nice things about my friends who work for the U.S. State Department, but I will say, every penny that goes into the take-home pay of the men and women of our Armed Forces.

Variation/Runner-Up: The $36 million or so spent on two United States Air Force F-16C jets; the unknown amount spent on training the two pilots; the salaries and expenses of a joint task force in Iraq assigned with hunting al-Qaeda leaders; any financial aid or assistance that we give to Jordanian intelligence, $21,896 spent on a laser-guided GBU-12 and the roughly $21,000 spent on GPS-guided GBU-38, because they all added up to the violent death of a very evil man, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on June 7 of this year. (I know my views will disappoint “YOU”, but I would nominate the pilot for Time’s “Man of the Year.”)

If there was a way to guarantee that my tax dollars would be spent on this, I’d voluntarily pay higher taxes.

Marshall: Yep. It’s every dollar that goes to pay the salaries of the men and women fighting to protect freedom in inhospitable climes far from home.

Runner-up: The dollars that go to fund cancer research at NIH. I know an NIH researcher, and he has told me a few stories. These guys are doing amazing work. Let’s send a few more million their way and a million or two less to Robert Maplethorpe. They might just cure cancer with it.

Cam: Well I’m not going to be unpatriotic bastard who says the best government dollar spent is on something other than our troops. I’ll leave that to Shempu.

Shempu: Screw them. Wheeee! See, I can be a lefty blogger! Love me, Markos! Love me and my pretty white tail!

Cam: Thanks for making my point, Shempu. Extra plankton in your dinner pail tonight. Runner up for best Government Dollar spent… the money we’re spending on keeping the Hubble Space Telescope up and running. Cutting edge technology and fresh wallpaper for my desktop on a regular basis. Doesn’t get much better than that.

Marshall: Ooooh! Love the Hubble answer. You’re absolutely right. Money well spent. Just goes to prove what most of Americans believe — there are thins government can do well — just not that many.

Jim: Biggest Government Waste: I’ll let the other guys talk about pork or the Bridge to Nowhere. I’m actually going to name something I was going to consider for a later category, best idea of the year. In the December 4 National Review, John O’Sullivan revealed that in the aftermath of 9/11, a Washington think tank urged the White House that at that unique moment of national unity, “it should be possible to mount an initiative that changes the debate on such issues as multiculturalism, the teaching of American history and civics, and the general question of American exceptionalism. Animated by generosity of spirit and without a trace of racism or xenophobia, such an initiative would have broad bi-partisan appeal and could lead to permanent cultural/political realignments.” Among their ideas:

Veterans Day should be transformed into a celebration of the “greatest generation,” who fought and won World War II — and that the Washington celebration could then be used as a teaching device in America’s schools. They proposed a presidential commission, perhaps headed by Rudy Giuliani, to develop ideas for implementing “assimilative patriotism” (an idea championed by such figures as Teddy Roosevelt) throughout American life. They advocated a “Citizenship Agency” that would teach the obligations of citizens (rather than simply dispense “services” to immigrants) as part of a wider program of celebrating citizenship. And they urged that the president regularly preside over the swearing-in of new citizens in public ceremonies “that should be dignified, inspiring, and foster patriotism.”

The whole idea amounts to taking a sledgehammer to the concept of “progressive transnationalism” that pervades America’s elites, the depressingly popular belief that a global government would be better than irredeemably flawed American leadership. Someday, someone is going to pick up this mantle, and the idea will inevitably be reconsidered, perhaps after (sigh) some future terrorist attack.

Anyway – the fact that this idea was never taken to fruition, and now would be pretty much impossible in today’s polarized, rabidly-furious American political environment, amounts to the biggest waste of the year, maybe the decade.

Runner Up: The discussion surrounding the often and loudly-threatened filibuster against Samuel Alito was a colossal waste of time, since the Democrats didn’t have the votes.

Cam: Can you imagine the outrage from the media had the government actually gone through with this idea? Keith Olbermann would have started flinging his feces at the camera like some deranged monkey. Rosie O’Donnell and Joy Behar would have led a march down 6th Avenue (to a Krispy Kreme, but still…).

You’re right… this is a waste. If I wanted to be picky I’d say your timing is off since this was reported this year, but evidently considered and rejected before 2006. In the spirit of Christmahannukwanzukah, I’ll let it slide.

Shempu: Wheee! I love slides!! They’re so slippery and fu

Cam: I’m really beginning to hate that %$*!ing whale. My pick for biggest government waste comes from the folks at Citizens Against Government Waste.

$13,500,000 added by the House for the International Fund for Ireland (IFI), which has released a five-year strategy focusing on grassroots reconciliation and cross-community projects such as: the construction of Creggan Community Café and Catering Ltd., the Newcastle YMCA, the Donegal Town Waterbus, the Leitrim Food Center of Excellence, the Chef Development Program, and funding toward the World Toilet Summit. Could there be a better example of the government flushing away your money? 

You got that? We’re subsidizing the YMCA in Newcastle, a catering service in Creggan, and the World bleeping Toilet Summit. This is the type of crap (no pun intended) that makes me want to march down to the treasury and ask for my money back.

Jim: Wow. Word for word, Cam, this might be the funniest post you’ve written on On Tap - even if it does refer to feces with an odd frequency. And while I usually think that foreign aid is a too-convenient scapegoat and undervalued, the list you point to is an utterly ridiculous waste of money; with the Celtic Tiger’s economy doing well, the Irish ought to pay for those projects themselves. Sorry, State Department, you’re on your own. I’m not defending that shi… stuff.

Marshall, a bit late: I was going to say that Jim’s post might be one of the most insightful we’ve seen here at On Tap. And then I spent half a day trying to come up with a clever way to say, “I agree!” Needless to say, I didn’t come up with anything. Nevertheless, I still agree. In some ways wasted opportunity is twice as tragic as wasted money, and in this case, doubly so even to that. There was an amazing opportunity lost after 9/11 — one that we can never regain.

Runner-up: The Coast Guard Deep Water project. Let me be clear — I support the concept of Deep Water. If the Coast Guard says it needs bigger boats, I say build them; give the coasties all of the big boats they want. But Deep Water has turned into another procurement boondoggle. Recently, I learned from a friend of friend just how bad it is. And, not surprisingly, it comes down to a couple of contractors bilking the Coast Guard for billions. Also, not surprsingly, the first ships dleivered under the program aren’t seaworthy.
 

Yeah. It actually is that cut and dry. Don’t miss the story from Wayne LaPierre’s sweet new blog which lives on the home page of nranews.com.

There’s someone out there telling folks to buy guns illegally, and I think it’s time we put a stop to it. He’s directing contract employees to walk into gun stores, lie on the paperwork about who’s buying the gun, and walk out after making a straw purchase.

Even worse, he’s bragging about what he’s doing. He’s holding press conferences to tell the world about what he’s done, but so far law enforcement doesn’t seem to be listening.

Well, I think it’s time we help out the ATF agents that enforce our nation’s gun laws. We need to call their Illegal Gun Hotline at 1-800-ATF-GUNS (that’s 1-800-283-4867) and alert them to this illegal firearms activity. Tell them that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is hiring private investigators to initiate straw purchases in several states, and you want them to enforce the law.

Of course, Cam is all over it. So is Glenn.

Jim: Winner for Most Over-Reported Story: I should say Foley, but I was invited on CNN to discuss the scandal twice, so I’m actually not complaining about that. So I’ll talk about the topic I didn’t get a chance to appear for, the biennial complaint about “all these negative ads” – when year after year we see that negative ads actually persuade and motivate voters. The negative ads will stop when they stop working; voters have no one to blame but themselves.

Marshall: I don’t actually think the Foley story was overreported. It was significant, complex, with bunches of moving parts and impacted the highest levels of Congress.

It’s George Allen’s macaca moment that takes the prize. The ever resourceful Washington Post — at least when it comes to defeating Republicans in local races — hyped the story at least once a week between Labor Day and Election Day, offering front page coverage so often one wondered if there was anything else going on in the world. It’s columnists flogged the story so much that they had blisters on their typing fingers. It was shoddy, agenda journalism from a newspaper that I very much like and respect. And it was the most over-reported story of the year.

Cam: I know we’re not supposed to repeat, but I’m with Marshall on this one. The repetitive macaca story, even after the apology was issued, drove me nuts. My runner up over-reported story is anything involving Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, or any other celebrity. Who the hell is buying all of these celebrity-based magazines?  

Jim: Most Underreported Story: I periodically think that we will wake up one day and find that Tel Aviv has been nuked, and many people will ask, “How did this happen?” (If our social betters aren’t sneering, “well, the Israelis had it coming.”) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedineijad closed his comments to the U.N. this year with a prayer for the return of the 12th Imam and the trigger of the apocalypse, and no one blinked. (No pun intended, since he claimed that during his previous U.N. speech, no one in the audience blinked for half an hour, and that he was surrounded by some sort of divine green aura.) His closing:

“I emphatically declare that today’s world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.

O, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.”

Had Bush said the same remarks, we would be hearing endlessly about his “Christianist” agenda and his unification of church and state; Ahmadinijad openly prays for Judgment Day and the world just ignores it.

Runner Up: The stock market hitting an all-time high; reporting on the U.S. economy is so relentlessly gloomy that a significant number of Americans believe we are in a recession despite continual growth and low unemployment.

Cam says: This one’s easy for me. The most under-reported story of 2006 is the number of armed citizen stories that never get covered by the media. The Clinton-era Justice Department did a study back in the mid-90’s that found there are approximately 1.5-million defensive gun uses every year. I’m guessing that by now, with more states having instituted shall issue Right-to-Carry laws that number has grown, but you’d never know it by paying attention to what the media reports.

Marshall says Hmmmmm. This isn’t completely within the political realm, but I think for long term significance, it’s one of the biggest stories of the year: The weakening dollar is making investment in the U.S. both less expensive and less attractive. This means two things:

• Investors who don’t necessarily have the best interests of the U.S. at heart — or even like the U.S. very much — are increasingly gaining control of some of our most important assets.
• Economic growth as a result of that foreign investment is less pronounced and less significant.

Yes, I realize these two things are at least partially contradictory, but not entirely so. I also realize that the first sounds a little like Pat Buchanan paranoia. Don’t worry. I’m still committed to the global economy. No economic barriers at the border yet. But still, on some level, in this less certain era, the weakness of the dollar looks more like a security concern than it did six years ago. And I haven’t seen a front page story about it in months.

Jim: Marshall, that’s a good pick. Periodically I’ll read something about the economy and international finance that will sound really ominous, to the extent that my tiny mind can comprehend it — the trade deficit, a potential sudden revaluing of China’s currency, a crash in the U.S. housing market on par with the dot-coms, even New York City losing its status as the world’s leading financial capital, all of these factors coming together – and yet I don’t see many folks acting as if it’s ominous. Is this because they know more and they know it’s not something to worry about? Or are they in the dark as much as me?

Marshall: Heaven knows that no one should be turning to me for economic forecasting or analysis, but I’m like you: I see these little stories, nuggets mostly. And when you add them up, they paint a slightly scary picture. I don’t know if we’re missing the biggest economic story of our generation or not - maybe someone can enlighten me. But it sure makes me nervous.