This is about as heartening an environmental success story as I’ve ever seen.

The federal government today removed the bald eagle from its list of threatened and endangered species, capping a 40-year comeback for the national icon that showed that disappearing creatures are not always lost.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne made the announcement this morning before the dramatic backdrop of the Jefferson Memorial. Along with a crowd of dark-suited officials, those gathered to bear witness included boy scouts in uniform and a stately looking eagle with a snowy white crown. The decision offers a legal postscript to a rebound that has been obvious to bird-watchers across the country, especially along the eagle-rich Potomac River. There were 417 breeding pairs of bald eagles in the continental United States in 1967, after a decline blamed partly on the eggshell-thinning pesticide DDT. Forty years later, officials say, that number has grown to about 10,000 pairs.

“It’s really one of the greatest conservation success stories in U.S. history,” said Tony Iallonardo, a spokesman for the National Audubon Society.

Here’s to bald eagles. And here’s to having the gumption to take a stand and do what was necessary to stop driving our national symbol toward extinction.

More here.

And the official site here.

It is indeed a wonderful day when our national symbol is not only safe from extinction, but flourishing. It also amuses me when some environmentalists protest removing species from the endangered list. I thought that was the point… to get the species back up to the levels that means it’s no longer endangered. I didn’t find any links to people protesting the bald eagle being removed, but if you poke around you can find lots of stories like this one.

Jim: Yup - sometimes it seems like the environmental movement is stuck on gloom, as if acknowledging successes will somehow demotivate their entire movement. Much better to force-feed kids doomsday scenarios that give them nightmares.

I don’t have anything like the sources for political insight that Jim has. Just a few friends scattered around the country. One, a seasoned political observer and active caucus-goer from Iowa, wrote to me this morning after I asked him how I thought the caucuses will go:

The caucuses? My take, Romney is going to win it, hands down. He’s been here in the state a lot, and he practically owns it. Fred Thompson will probably do well, but I don’t know that he’ll win it…Romney’s too invested to let him just come in and win, so I think it will be a hard-fought campaign between the two, and it could be close. McCain and Rudy basically told Iowa to go take a flying leap when they said they weren’t getting in the straw poll (they said it was about “resources”, but I think it’s because they knew they would lose it and didn’t want to give Romney that kind of PR), and they’re tanking fast here.

No question that it’s pretty early to be drawing such conclusions, but the caucuses are unlike any other form of election. Organization matters. Intensity of support matters. Knowing the rules and how to make the most of them matters a lot. And it’s clear that Romney has committed to Iowa in a way that few — if any — of the Republican candidates have.

Of course, George H.W. Bush won Iowa in 1980, too. And we know where that got him…

I’ve been enjoying a few days off, visiting family in San Antonio, Texas. Yesterday, I had the chance to visit Sea World San Antonio and, thanks to the hard work of one relative (she knows who she is) to take advantage of a special Sea World offering.

I’d been to Sea World before. A few years ago, my wife and I visited Sea World San Diego. We did the usual things — checked out the penguins, laughed at the walruses, and saw the dolphin, killer whale and sea lion shows. I remember leaving a little underwhelmed, but at the time, I couldn’t really put my finger on the reason.

Nevertheless, I was looking forward to yesterday’s Sea World visit, because I was going to experience something very cool — I was going to don a wet suit and get into a pool with several Beluga whales.

Beluga whales are native to the arctic, which explains their white coloring. According to the folks at Sea World, they cruise around widely, but have never been sited south of the South Lawrence River. Interestingly, Belugas are one of the few whales species that are essentially non-migratory. They like the cold water of the arctic, and so there they stay. Your basic Beluga is a little larger than a dolphin. At Sea World, the Belugas perform in a thrice daily show called Viva, which also incorporates acrobatic platform divers and some excitable dolphins.

So, after watching an educational video in air conditioned comfort, we were fitted with wet suits and aqua socks and made our way out to the pool. Why the wet suit? Well, as I mentioned, Belugas like their water cold — about 58 degrees Fahrenheit as it turns out — so we needed the wet suits to prevent hypothermia.

Once at the pool, we split up into small groups, a couple of us joining a a friendly “trainer” named Michelle.

Michelle instructed us on how to enter the pool and warned us that the first couple of minutes would be exceedingly cold while the wet suit warmed up. Nevertheless, she said, it’s important to keep still and not hop around lest the whales decide that they aren’t interested in meeting you after all. Sure enough, when we slid into the pool, it was cold. But in seconds one the four whales in the pool with us swam over and said hello, and the chilly water was quickly forgotten.

The whales were great fun, and interacting with them was an incredible experience. Their skin is very much like our own, and the melon at the front of their head — which acts as the transmission point for their sonar — was unique in my experience. Imagine the feeling if you didn’t have a skull and could move your brain around with your hands.

Most interesting was the fact that Belugas, unlike dolphins or orcas, have diffused vertebrae. That means they can turn and swivel their heads like we can. They diverged from other whales in another key respect as well: Belugas don’t have a dorsal fine. Instead, they have a bony ridge at the top of their back which they use for breaking breathing holes in arctic ice.

We spent the first few minutes taking pictures. The whales were trained to kiss us on the cheek, give us a hug, and lay next to us at the edge of the pool.

Over the next thirty minutes or so, we got to visit with each of the four whales, and Michelle demonstrated the various behaviors that each had been trained to perform on cue.

Michelle had mentioned earlier that she was not a marine biologist, general biologist, or chemist. In fact, her degree was in psychology, a background that she found to be perfect for working with the Belugas because, she explained, she was an expert in understanding and shaping behavior. Marine biologists, she said, focus on a large ecosystem. Biologists are more interested in physiology. No, she said, psychology was perfect for her job at Sea World as an “animal trainer.”

It was during this conversation that I realized what had been bugging me about Sea World.

At other zoos and aquariums that I have visited, there has always been a commitment to science. Often, this commitment is only the flimsiest pretense, but it is ever-present. Naturally, some zoos and aquariums do better than others in justifying their claims with action. But even the pretense is important. If the animals are there for study, then they are NOT solely there for our entertainment. Instead, we are holding them in captivity, at least in part, for our enlightenment or in an attempt to save their species from extinction. Ultimately, it is, at least in part, about them.

Thanks to its proximity and the fact that I am member, the bulk of my experience in such matters is with the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. There, biologists, veterinarians and zoologists participate in dozens of programs to help salvage species that are on the brink. A few that leap to mind include the Cheetah, Golden Lion Tamarin, Asian Elephant, and, of course, the famous Giant Panda. At their research facility near Winchester, Virginia, National Zoo scientists are also working to save a number of species of African grazing animals. The National Zoo also concerns itself with conservation. Conservation messages dot its campus, as the Zoo captures the opportunity to deliver those messages to zoo visitors at at the very time they might do the most good — when they are staring face to face with the kind of animal that they might help save.

At America’s foremost aquarium, the Monterey Bay Aquarium in California, scientists are making huge progress in understanding and saving species like the California Sea Otter. Indeed, their efforts to rescue orphaned pups and return them to the wild have set the standard for such programs all over the world. To the extent that facilities like Monterey Bay or the National Aquarium in Baltimore, Maryland, train animals like pacific bottlenose dolphins, they do so within the framework of having the animals exhibit behaviors that they would display in the wild — all the better for the guests to fall in love and help take action to keep wild dolphins from getting caught up in massive tuna nets.

Not so at Sea World.

Simply put, Sea World fails to put on even the barest pretense regarding conservation, as Michelle’s explanation of her educational background illustrates. If Sea World were interested in understanding Beluga whales, the person assigned to spend hour upon hour each day would have the background to understand and glean insights from their behavior. Instead, Sea World has assigned someone trained to understand and manipulate their behavior. Indeed, the person assigned to interact with guests in the presence of these great whales might spend a few minutes educating folks about what the whales’ life in the wild. (We wouldn’t have learned anything beyond what was in the video if we hadn’t asked.)

In short, it’s not about the animals. It’s about entertaining us.

This was brought home yet again later in the day when we attended the afternoon killer whale show. Instead of a simple show with the majestic whales exhibiting their behavior for all to see, we encountered a multi-media extravaganza, complete with jumbo-tron and contrived plot. And it was that plot that was so revealing. The story wasn’t about a whale. It wasn’t about marine life at all. And it certainly wasn’t about conservation. It was about a kid who wanted to be an animal trainer. Called “Believe,” the show was a shockingly self-indulgent — even for SeaWorld — masterpiece of self-congratulation. The whales, with all of their wondrous natural talent were relegated to props for the heroic trainers to ride to and fro. (Incidentally, as I scanned the audience during the show, I was struck by the fact that no one was watching the video. Everyone was looking for the whales. Note to Sea World: Your guests are there to sea the animals. Not the trainers.) The irony came together at the culmination of the show, which involved four trainers swimming a pattern across the pool and then perching on the pool edge to wave to the crowd. There were no whales in site.

It was after the show that I encountered the first and only conservation message that I witnessed during the entire day. It was a simple color flyer, promoting the Sea World / Busch Gardens conservation fund. I encountered it on the wall above a urinal.

I know that Sea World claims to be committed to conservation. I recall seeing coverage, from time to time, of Sea World Florida’s on-going effort to save injured Manatees. I vaguely hearing of grants and the like to scientists.

But in San Diego and San Antonio — the Sea World parks that I have visited — Sea World is evidently making a conscious decision to pass on a golden opportunity. Instead of embracing the opportunity for a day-long teachable moment, Sea World has rejected it in favor of employing their animals as nothing more than props.

Now, someone is going to argue that Sea World is in business to make money, and that they make money by entertaining their visitors. Well, duh. But Sea World can successfully conduct its business, entertain its guests, and demonstrate a commitment to a greater responsibility. That seems like a no brainer to me. And it should to them, too.

Sea World has the power to reach a lot of people, to teach them about our oceans and the life within — much of which is threatened by overfishing, pollution and countless other perils. But they choose not to.

Certainly, that’s their choice. Just as it’s my choice to spend my money elsewhere. And that’s just what I’ll be doing from now on. Even though I really enjoyed my morning with the Beluga whales.

UPDATE: Another person in my party reports seeing a good deal more information than I did about the conservation fund. There was also a quiz before the killer whale show that purported to be about conservation, but all of the questions were about the size and lifestyle of the whales at Sea World. Nothing about conditions in the wild or how to preserve them.

This person also suggests that the clearest message from Sea World or its parent, Anheuser-Busch, throughout the day were the repeated messages, signs and information celebrating visiting veterans. While I strongly support this effort, and was glad to join an ovation for the vets in attendance at the killer whale show, it underscores the utter failing when it comes to conservation. If Sea World could deliver a compelling (and well deserved) thank you for the troops, they could certainly do the same with a conservation message for their guests.

UPDATE II: It just hit that during my search to round up all of the links for this post, I had an incredibly hard time even finding anything about conservation on Sea World’s various websites. Just another proof point…

Cam: Full disclosure requires that I state I have family members that work for Sea World’s parent company… so make what you will of my comments.

I have never been to Sea World, so I cannot speak with any first-hand knowledge of their conservation efforts. I will only say that it took me literally seconds to find information about conservation on Sea World’s website. I see that Sea World has given more than $2.2 million dollars in grants for conservation efforts since 2004. The fund has helped detain more than 250 poachers. And the fund has helped engineer a design change for fishhooks that reduce the number of sea turtles caught by 90%. So there.

I realize this might put me on Al Gore’s shit list, but I don’t constantly need to be reminded of the urgent need to SAVE THE PLANET! Sometimes it’s cool to go and see some neat creatures without it being drummed into my head that if only I wasn’t so greedy and consumerific that there’d be more of these majestic sea slugs for the world to enjoy. Sometimes I just want to see a dancing whale. Though I have to say, the whole “Trainer” thing does sound kinda lame.

Shempu: Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! You want to see a dancing whale, huh? You weren’t saying that the other day when I was doing the Lambada in the living room.

Cam: That’s because A) Thongs on whales aren’t appealing, and B) I was trying to eat at the time.

Jim: Fascinating stuff, Marshall. I’ve never been to Sea World, and so I can’t evaluate whether the criticism is fair. I do know the Baltimore Aquarium, a pretty darn good one, does a good show with quite a bit of education of species, etc.

I have been to the National Zoo quite a bit, and the last time I was there (summer 2004, I think? Hey, I’ve been out of the country for two years) it looked more than a little run down. I’ll have to check it out to see if the facilities have improved.

Jim drew my attention to a facinating exchange between Republican strategist Patrick Ruffini and leftroots leader Jerome Armstrong. Their dialogue, as it relates to the online aspect of the Presidential campaign, is thoughtful and interesting, but in Patrick’s post, I saw a larger point that I think gets at the heart of the Democratic nomination contest.

Patrick points out, “Barack Obama has mobilized people, even if he hasn’t mobilized the netroots. He’s brought in students, African Americans, and apparently, young females. These are groups that are relatively apolitical. That’s why when you loosen the likely voter screen just a little, Obama does a lot better.”

Patrick gets at the question central to the Obama candidacy. It’s the same question that’s dogged every candidate for all time. Who is going to vote?

There’s this simplistic notion, perpetuated by the media, that the electorate is a massive monolith. Through polls, the media’s pundits describe how the views of that monolith evolve over time. You can hear Bill Schneider now… “In this election, 42% of voters described themselves as conservatives. That’s up four points from 2004, Bob. And it just shows how the country has grown more conservative over the last few years.”

Horse hockey.

The monolith hasn’t mystically altered itself. It’s very composition has changed. Consider the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio. A reliable exit poll — a dubious assumption to be sure — would have shown that the Ohio electorate was more conservative than it was in 2000. Why? It’s not because the state grew more conservative in the preceding four years. It’s because the Bush campaign did an anstonishly good job of getting conservatives to go to the polls, so the percentage of the electorate comprised by conservatives increased.

In American politics today, there are, broadly speaking, three kinds of voters:

• Habitual voters — They turn up to vote in every election and most primaries. Period. Candidates don’t have to do a lot to get them to turn out. They tend to be the most partisan or ideological. These are the people who are electing the town council, planning commission and dogcatcher. Habitual voters comprise around a quarter to a third of all voters.
• Occasional voters — They turn up to vote when they feel like or think it’s important. They vote in most Presidential elections and will show up for other significant elections in off years if they are engaged. They might vote in a party primary if they feel a strong pull to a particular candidate. Sometimes, they get engaged because of the news. Sometimes, because a campaign engaged them. Occasional voters make up an additional third or so of the total.
• Never voters — They registered when the renewed their drivers’ license because they were extra diligent about filling out all of the forms before they went to the window AGAIN. Or maybe when someone knocked on their door and handed them a clipboard. They don’t vote. Period. Nothing will get them to vote except Ross Perot or Jesse Ventura. They make up the final third or so of the total.

Senator Obama’s presidential campaign is based on his personality. It’s based on the idea that he will be a different kind of President; that he has a vision; that he will make a difference; that he’s not a cynic; and that he’s not all wrapped up in Washington politics.

Which is all well and good for the media and his campaign message team. If they let him be who he is, he should have significant appeal. (Note: this does not include clumsily circulating oppo memos to reporters.)

But for the folks working on the ground — the folks who will ultimately win or lose the campaign — the question is much more challenging. Does the Senator has enough appeal to attract those Occasional voters to the polls? Could he even get a few Nevers?

In the history of American politics, the list of candidates who really accomplished this feat is fairly short. Robert F. Kennedy would certainly qualify. (His brother, on the other hand, does not.) Andrew Jackson certainly does, as well. FDR, in his 1932 campaign, might. Jesse Ventura, in his campaign for Minnesota Governor, definitely makes the list. So does Huey Long in his first campaign for U.S. Senate. And we shouldn’t forget California Governor Arnold Schwarznegger.

On the other hand, the list of candidates who tried and failed is long. Indeed, there have been so many who tried and lost, that a comprehensive list is impossible. Some highlights: Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose campaign for the Presidency. Ross Perot, who succeeded in expanding the electorate, but not enough to win. And Jesse Jackson whose ability to bring black voters out to the polls in 1984 made him a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.

So, can Obama do it? I think he can.

Cam: I confess, I must have some sort of blinders on because I can’t see what it is that makes Obama an attractive candidate, much less someone that can draw historical comparisons to candidates like FDR and RFK (and when Marshall’s the one making those comparisons, it’s not the typical hype and bluster you’d find from many pundits).

So in your opinion Marshall, what’s the one characteristic that Obama has or at least is demonstrating that is selling himself to those “now and then voters”? Is it his “outsider” mentality? Is it his optimism? Is it his audacity of hope?

So, reading the latest issue of NRODT, I came across two comments in two articles that I’d file away in my mental back pocket as we discuss what could unify conservatives the way the Contract With America unified the right back in 1994…

(By the way… let me point out that IF the Republicans lose the White House in 2008, and fail to win back either house of Congress, the bad news politically could be good news for some very motivated, energetic, skilled movement of conservatives eager to set the agenda. As much as we mock the netroots, they moved astoundingly fast after the 2004 mess to get control of the Democratic party. They figured out what it would take to get their hero, Howard Dean, as chair of the DNC and did it. Two years later, not only did they get to take partial credit for the gains in Congress, but look at the other signs of their political influence: There are no more pro-Iraq-war Democrats left besides Lieberman, no Democratic presidential candidate wants them as an enemy (even Hillary), and no Democrat will appear on Fox News. We can argue whether these are worthwhile uses of newfound political power and influence, but the netroots figured out how to go from an easily-dismissed fringe often compared to the bar scene in Star Wars to a force that commands respect, even deference, in Democratic party circles.

On paper, if the GOP is in the same sad shape in 2008 that the Democrats were in 2004, a right-root movement could jump in and start steering the party in its preferred direction…)

First, in Jim Manzi’s cover story, “Game Plan: What Conservatives Should Do About Global Warming”:

The British entrepreneur Richard Branson has offered a $25 million prize to anyone who demonstrates a device that removes carbon from the atmosphere; what if the U.S. government upped the ante to $1 billion and pledged to make any resulting technology freely available to the world? That would hold the potential for solving any global warming problem that might develop, for a one time cost of less than 0.01 percent of U.S. GDP.

By the way, science may not be that far away, if this article in the Economist is correct:

That does not mean that lateral thinking about the problem has no place. And the idea proposed by Alfred Wong of the University of California, Los Angeles, at last week’s meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in Acapulco, is about as lateral as they come. Dr Wong reckons the problem is not so much that CO₂ is being thrown away, but that it is not being thrown far enough. According to his calculations, a little helping hand would turn the Earth’s magnetic field into a conveyor belt that would vent the gas into outer space, whence it would never return.

Could you imagine that? Our friends on the left, hip-deep in planning carbon taxes, SUV bans, light bulb police, licensed and regulated carbon offset dealers… and we come along and say, “never mind! We just figured out how to flush our excess CO₂ out beyond the atmosphere!”

Second line, a comment from Brink Lindsey, quoting David Frum: “And just as the Grand Old Party of Lincoln and Grant eventually ran out of Civil War Generals to nominate to the presidency, so perhaps time has run out for the old Nixon-Reagan Coalition that came together to vote against the social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s. The 1960s and 1970s were, after all, a very long time ago.”

Yup. I’d rather see conservative leaders coming out with some off-the-wall ideas that I’m not sure I agree with, instead of offering up the same agenda that was hot stuff back in 1982…

So last night Marshall and I met with what can probably be described as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Tech and Blog Division, Washington Chapter. The topic, very generally, was how lefties and righties use technology to further their goals.

One of the points that was made late in the evening, shortly before everybody headed home, was noting that before a political movement - any movement, not just conservatives - can use technology to promote its message, it needs to agree on what that message is. If one had to propose a new Contract With America, could conservatives formulate a list of ten legislative proposals that would get 90 for 9? (Meaning, 90 percent of conservatives agreed with 9 of them?)

A thriving political coalition makes sure that the most of its time deals with issues that unify its factions and divide the opponents. Republicans used to be good at this; sometime in the past few years, they completely forgot it and now the left is fairly unified on some big, and dominant issues: Pull out of Iraq, repeal Bush’s tax cut for those making more than $200k, create “universal health care”, sacrifice virgins to Gaia to mitigate global warming, energy independence, investigate oil companies for price gouging and flay the skin off their executives in public floggings, etc.

My favorite example of a unifying issue on the right, the one I used last night, was condoms in schools. Social conservatives oppose it because they feel it encourages sex among teenagers and undermines/contradicts parents. Fiscal conservatives/libertarians oppose it because they ask, “why the hell am I underwriting the operating costs of some horny teen’s sex life? Let the kid buy his own damn birth control!” Through different worldviews and justifications, the two mindsets come to a common policy goal.

Instead, Bush’s second term has been one meat grinder of an issue after another that splits the conservative coalition: Terry Schiavo, Dubai Ports World, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzales and the U.S. Attorneys mess, and now, the biggest and baddest of ‘em all, illegal immigration. And now Bush wants a second crack at it. This is like hitting 22 in Blackjack and THEN doubling your bet.

Iraq might be turning into one of those issues. Conservatives support a strong defense posture, but there’s strong disagreement over nation-building, and just what the U.S. can do in Iraq now. Heck, I go back and forth on how much nation-building the U.S. should do.

At last night’s meeting, there was a lot of brainpower, creativity, and talent, eager to make the case for conservatism. The problem is, it’s hard to gain traction when the party of the right is still figuring out what it stands for.

Cam: And thanks so much to the organizers for scheduling this two hours before I go on the air. Would have loved to have joined y’all. Perhaps next time it could be a little earlier, or on the weekend? I’ll even volunteer the use of my deck and will buy the burgers and brats (because every meeting of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy should involve grilling stuff).

Okay, now that my snippiness is out of the way, on to the meat of your post. Here’s a fun mental exercise… can you come up with 9 BIG ISSUES that 90 percent of conservatives would agree on?

Here’s my dark horse pick: reducing our funding to the United Nations with the demand that certain reforms be met, and if those goals are not achieved within a certain period of time… we pull out of the UN. I have YET to meet a conservative who thinks the UN is a wonderful thing, and taking a firm stand on the corruption and bureaucratic bullshit that comes out of the building on the East River would be a bold statement.

Over the weekend, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier extended overtime for D.C. officers and brought out more patrols as part of her “All Hands on Deck” crime fighting strategy. The results? About twice as many arrests as usual, and a 10% drop in crime compared to the average of the previous five weekends.

I think I speak for all of us when I say “whoop-de-damn-do.”

There’s something fishy when this is reported as “the number of crimes was 10 percent below the average number reported the previous five weekends.” I’ve tried to look up the crime statistics for those weekends on the MPD website, but haven’t had any luck. I’m guessing that there was at least one weekend where the crime rate was even lower than the “All Hands on Deck” weekend, but you don’t really want to point that out when you’re trying to engage in a public relations campaign fight crime.

Some officers aren’t too happy about the stunt strategy. From the WaPo:

“Officers know a P.R. stunt when they see it,” said Kristopher Baumann, chairman of the Fraternal Order of Police Labor Committee, adding that it was a drain on resources to have officers work a pair of 12-hour shifts. “They are saying, ‘Here we go again.’ ”

The department’s own research shows that the weekends aren’t even the busiest time in some high-crime areas, Baumann said. For example, in the 7th District, the southernmost area east of the Anacostia River, crime is highest on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

And most of the arrests were for prostitution, followed by reckless driving. Not that these aren’t crimes, but I’m guessing that these really aren’t the crimes that people are complaining about in Southeast.

And the event will not be repeated again this year, according to the chief. So the $1.3 million dollars that was spent has a one time impact. I don’t know the average salary plus benefits for a rookie D.C. cop, but I’m thinking that money could have paid for at least ten more officers on the street 40 hours a week, rather than a lot of officers on the street for 48 hours once a year.

One final post about my trip to Los Angeles for Windpower 2007.

On Tuesday night, a couple of colleagues and I slipped off to dinner at Spago, Wolfgang Puck’s famous eatery in Beverly Hills. (Note to co-workers who might be reading: I won’t be submitting this tab on my next expense report.)

Notorious foodie, food writer and restaurant blogger Kate was able to secure a prime reservation only three days before we planned to dine. She claimed she got the reservation through Open Table, but I can only assume she bribed the maitre’d.

In any case, even before we were guided to our table, the star spotting had already begun. Through a miscommunication with my companions, I wound up cooling my heels in the bar for a few minutes. And as I waited, I spotted former Masters champion Raymond Floyd as he strolled past. Moments later, a leathery George Hamilton glided by as well. And once I found my way to our table, I noticed former Secretary of State Warren Christopher dining nearby.

At that point, the kitchen could have sent out grilled cheese and potato chips and it wouldn’t have spoiled the evening. And frankly, when I heard we were going to Spago, I wasn’t expecting much better. I surmised that Spago was a little past its prime and would probably attract more tourists than fine diners. I suspected that given Chef Puck’s expansive empire, his flagship restaurant might have suffered without his hand firmly at the tiller.

Boy was I wrong.

The food was impeccable.

I started with ricotta gnocchi with morel mushrooms and braised duck ragout in a delicious sauce built on a wonderful veal stock. For my main course, I had liberty duck breast, which was impeccably grilled. Along the way, I enjoyed a delightful Cabernet Sauvignon.

As Kate relates in her own, much better review, she began with sashimi, which brought the only slight miss of the evening. Tantalizingly fresh toro and hamachi was oversauced and overwhelmed. But the recovery was as quick as it was decisive. For her main, Kate selected the Peking Duck served with house made lo mein. Everything on the table was stellar, but I have to say that the lo mein was the best. Simply made with great ingredients, it was noodle perfection.

Our other companion started with a basic salad which looked astonishingly fresh and crisp. She then followed up with a the restaurant’s Salmon offering, which lived up to our waiter’s recommendation.

For dessert, Kate enjoyed strawberries and cream, and I had the peach cobbler. For me, it was these dishes that confirmed Spago’s greatness. The cream was a perfect consistency and sweetness. The strawberries were fresh and perfectly ripe. The simplicity spoke volumes, and the resulting flavors were delightful.

The cobbler yielded a similar experience. Now, I’ve had peach cobbler in the four corners of the United States and across the south. I’ve had it smothered in brown sugar and topped with homemade pound cake. I’ve had it with lard, butter, shorterning and every conceivable assortment of flavorants.

Nothing I’ve had compares to the oh-so-simple treatment at Spago. The peaches were fresh. They were cooked in a simple syrup and topped with sweet homemade biscuits the flavor of which would give even the most traditional southern grandmother a run for her money. Pastry Chef Sherry Yard more than measured up to her own stellar reputation.

All in all, it was a wonderful evening. Spago far exceeded my cynical expectations and confirmed its stature as one of the top restaurants in one of the world’s great restaurant cities.

Of course, there was one other celebrity siting during our meal at Spago that’s worth mentioning. Between appetizers and dessert, Wolfgang Puck himself popped by our table to say hello. Out of touch with Spago? Not a chance. And, as Kate reports, during our brief chat with him, Chef Puck revealed to us that Spago is coming to Washington, D.C. A variation of the Beverly Hills mainstay will be opening in the soon-to-be completed Newseum on Pennsylvania Ave. this fall.

Pretty cool, huh?

And, again, don’t miss Kate’s post. She captures the whole thing much better than I do.

Cam: Okay… how do I say this nicely? If Warren Christopher is a) easily identifiable for you and b) considered a “star”, you’ve spent waaaaaay too much time in D.C., Marshall.

Secondly, while the meal sounds fantastic, I’m boycotting Wolfgang Puck for his work with the Humane Society of the United States. I completely understand that Puck has the right to do what he wants in his restaurants… I just don’t have to eat it.

So upon moving back to the U.S., Mrs. Hillaryspot and I settled into a northern Virginia housing development, that for reasons of privacy, I’ll just call “Yuppie Acres.” The nearest metro station is Van Dorn Street, and not far from my home is a large industrial plant that makes asphalt. It’s not terribly attractive, with a lone smokestack.

This weekend was a local council nominating election, and a local candidate put flyers on the windshield of every car in Yuppie Acres, declaring that he was “the ONLY candidate committed to doing his best to force the Virginia Paving facility to move.” (Three guesses on the party affiliation of said candidate.) And no, I didn’t vote, as I’m not a member of the party you guessed.

Now, if I had a magic wand, and no other concerns than my own aesthetics, air quality, land value, etc., I’d like the paving company to go someplace else. I understand they pass all the EPA tests, although some residents have complained about dust or soot, and the neighborhood has a ton of small children, who may be a bit more sensitive to air quality. I also know they were here before Yuppie Acres was, but the company’s presence is an irritant to the Gentrification and Yuppification that I am part of.

So I’m caught between my pro-free-market principles (let the company be) and my instincts as a homeowner (make the surrounding area as pretty as possible! Take away those unsightly factories and anything more downscale than a Baby Gap!).

What I love is the Democratic candidate pledging to eliminate the jobs for the actual working-class people nearby, because it’s an eyesore to us Yuppies. At least I never pretend to be the guy standing up for working-class families.

I suspect this reveals that at the local level, party labels mean less than who your allies are.

Cam: Welcome to suburbia Jim. The NIMBY mentality comes out in full force the more local you get. In fact, I bet you’d have a damned difficult time finding anyone who would actually come out and support keeping that plant where it is, no matter the benefit it provides to people.

Being a barbecue snob is a little like being a wine snob. Either you get it or don’t. Either you feel passionately about such issues as beef versus pork and vinegar versus rub, or you think those who do are a little bit silly. (And if you think that you have a “barbecue” sitting in your backyard which you use for cooking burgers and steaks, you can stop reading this post right now.)

But no question about it: I’m a barbecue snob.

Barbecue is the ultimate regional American cuisine. I grew up in Virginia, and while there used to be a discernible Virginia style, it’s getting harder and harder to find, so on all of the great questions of barbecue, I find myself gravitating towards North Carolina style.

That means pork. Period. And, broadly speaking, it means a vinegar-based sauce.

It also means that I don’t understand people who like beef barbecue. I mean, I go to Texas, and I’ve had it, and if you had to, you could live on it. But given the choice between beef and pork, I just don’t understand how a person with taste buds could, you know, choose to eat beef barbecue.

Okay, I’m kidding.

Don’t tell anyone, but I actually really like Texas-style barbecue. And I’m especially into the delicious sausages that good barbecue joints in Texas make by hand. I also like Memphis-style, although I’ll never understand why folks in Memphis insist on slathering a perfectly wonderful pile of pulled pork with that thick tomato sauce. I can’t get into Kansas City style — which basically means beef ribs — because I just don’t like the mess. But that’s the point. There are about as many styles of great barbecue as there are little towns with smoky joints that have been there for decades.

Heck, even in North Carolina, there’s a schism between east and west. In the eastern part of the state, the sauce is pure vinegar with the chef’s inevitably secret mix of spices. In the western part of the state, they add a little tomato paste to the party and give the sauce a little thickness. Put me in the eastern camp, but as long as it’s vinegar, I can be happy with either.

Then there’s the cooking method. The best places smoke the whole hog over wood or charcoal. But many places — including my personal favorite joint, King’s barbecue in Petersburg, Virginia — just cook the shoulder or Boston butt.

Finally, there’s the presentation. Some people seem to like to eat their barbecue on a hamburger bun. I can’t abide this nonsense. Why would you want to fill yourself up on a nasty, tasteless, puffy bun when you could eat more barbecue? Then there are the folks who want their pork sliced. These people are usually from up north and just can’t be expected to know any better. But for the record, it’s the worst way to eat barbecue. There’s just no good way to slice pork. It ends up tough and dry, no matter how many hours the pit master has spent smoking it to tender, juicy perfection. Don’t go there. Instead, go with pulled or minced. Your barbecue will be moist and delicious. Trust me on this one.

Ready to eat? Ready to really eat?

Great. It’s time for a road trip. USA Today reports that the state of North Carolina has just launched its Historic Barbecue Trail. It’s “the brainchild of Jim Early, an attorney by profession and barbecue nut by avocation. The author of The Best Tar Heel Barbecue: Manteo to Murphy crisscrossed 22,000 miles of North Carolina blacktop researching his book. He at in 228 barbecue joints, 140 of which made it into print. But the trail pays homage to just 25 establishments that prepare ‘cue the old-fashioned way. They cook over open-pit fires, make their own sauce, offer sit-down dining, have been in business at least 15 years and, as Early puts it, ‘have the esteem of their community’.”

First of all, this Jim Early sounds like my kind of guy.

But kudos to North Carolina for pulling together this trail. It’ll be a great road map for people looking for the best. And it’s a great nod to the states culinary heritage.

As food becomes more and more homogeneous with the proliferation of chain dining, I hope more states and localities will follow the Tar Heel state’s lead, calling out and celebrating regional food traditions. In Virginia, that could mean everything from barbecue to ham to peanuts. Not to mention Brunswick stew. (Which originated in Brunswick County, Virginia — not the eponymous county in Georgia.) But there are similar local distinctions in every corner of the nation. Burgoo in Kentucky. Grits in the tidewater of South Carolina. Chili in west Texas. The list is as long as it is varied.

And then, the burden is on us. When we eat out, we ought to make an effort to eat in the local joints that are owned and operated by our neighbors, not some commercial conglomerate. And when we travel, seek out the local places and avoid the boring chains that you can visit in every city and town in America.

And if you’re in the south, and you look hard enough, there’s a great place to enjoy barbecue in almost every town.

Jim: I’m not quite the fanatic/pro that Marshall is, but I’ll just throw in that I’ve always liked Old Glory’s method of providing six variations of barbecue sauce at the table. Because once you’ve tried them all, you do begin to understand the variety and regional tastes…

Cam: I’m not a big fan of barbeque (I absolutely hate getting messy while I eat, unless my hands are getting covered with lobster juices), and North Carolina-style has been a hard sell for me. Growing up in Oklahoma City, you typically get either Kansas City or Memphis-style barbeque. The vinegar-based barbeque just takes some getting used to, and I haven’t eaten enough of it to aquire the taste.