Seeing the best in their respective games is always a moving moment. I was blown away when I saw Tiger Woods chip on in person and in absolute awe when I was not more than a stone’s throw from the basket and witnessed LeBron James dunk over two players. Watching televised games or concerts on video may be pleasurable but until you see the events unfold in person you really can’t appreciate the awesomeness of the players involved in the moment. That’s why people still attend performances.

A few weeks ago Altoids held an event for the launch of their Dark Chocolate Dipped Mints that featured a performance by the premier burlesque dancer in the world Dita Von Teese. Not being a prude I didn’t expect much going into the party and then the porcelain-skinned beauty strutted on stage and I was paralyzed. Her grace and sexual power emanated through the room, both guys and gals were transfixed. I have watched burlesque before but now I understand the art. She wasn’t a hard-luck girl in plastic stilettos flopping around the stage, Von Teese’s sultry dance embodied the perfect mix of flirtation and class. Was I turned on? Yeah, a little. And neither Woods nor James could ever do that. If you ever get a chance to see Von Teese perform, you must. In burlesque, it doesn’t get better than her.  

Also not because I feel obligated, but rather because I like them, I must say that the dipped Altoids are pretty good. I don’t normally like sweets but the thin coating of chocolate around the mint is just enough to help when your blood sugar gets low in the late afternoon. Unfortunately I was not able to sample any mints that shared a bath with Dita as seen here in the photo taken by David Prutting for Patrick McMullan.

Good, an admirable young magazine from the west coast, has just published its first media issue, the highlight of which is its list of the 51 Best Magazines of All Time. ("Best," in their eyes, meaning "Smartest, Prettiest, Coolest, Funniest, Most Influential, Most Necessary, Most Important, Most Essential, etc.")

Well guess what? They have put Playboy in fourth place, in a natty neighborhood preceded by Esquire during the years it was edited by Harold T.P. Hayes (1961–1973), The New Yorker, and Life and followed, no doubt at a respectful distance, by The New York Times Magazine, Mad, Spy, Wired, Andy Warhol’s Interview (between 1969 and the year Warhol died, 1988), and Colors. In their citation of Playboy, Good’s editors wrote "It would be tough to overstate the greatness of a magazine that had Marilyn Monroe as its first centerfold, and Kerouac, Steinbeck, and Wodehouse on call by its fifth anniversary. Launched in 1953 by the grotto-dwelling, robe-wearing Playboy himself, by the 1960s its table of contents was a veritable who’s-who of the best writers of the day and their most compelling subjects. While the magazine has lost its footing as the culturally relevant read for men, its signature "Playboy Interviews" still deliver the kind of no-holds-barred ranting and raving that made it famous. All that, and we haven’t even mentioned the naked girls."

Well said, Good people! For the complete article, go here.

Our colleague Jennifer Thiele, the New York half of the two-headed custodial corps that oversees Playboy’s cartoons, went to the New York Comic Con this past weekend, and filed this report:
 
Is it possible to find comics, cartoons, toys, games, anime, actors, actresses, writers, artists and lots of beautiful girls under one roof? If you were in New York City this past weekend you certainly could find all of this and more at the second annual New York Comic Con, held at the Jacob Javits Convention Center. There were over 250 exhibitors, 140 artists and a bevy of special guests in attendance, including legendary comic book writer Stan Lee, author Stephen King, and our February cover girl, Tricia Helfer, just to name a few. It’s a place where you could buy discounted graphic novels, books, comics, and toys directly from publishers and manufacturers, play the latest video games, participate in gaming tournaments, see screenings of upcoming movies and TV shows, attend lectures and panels and get up close and personal with artists and actors.

Some of the most creative forces in the comic book industry were located in a section of the convention called Artist’s Alley. Popular artists such as Neal Adams of Batman and X-Men fame sit selling their art, creating sketches and telling stories next to emerging, self-publishing artists looking for exposure and new fans. I was particularly interested in meeting the femme fatales of the industry. Here are just a few of the beautiful and talented female artists in attendance:

In November Josh Robertson wrote about Molly Crabapple’s first book Dr. Sketchy's Official Rainy Day Colouring Book. At the Comic-Con, not only could you buy a copy directly from Molly and have it signed, she had t-shirts, cards and artwork for sale. There was something magical about watching Molly smile and thank her fans as she personally handed them their merchandise… It sure beats buying it from a store or website, but don’t let that stop you.

It’s easy to see why Andrea Grant is known as “The Pinup Poet.” She’s a writer, model, photographer, and CEO of Copious Amounts Press. She was on hand to promote the comic book she wrote called Minx a story of a girl that becomes half wolf and her journey between the dreaming world and the real world.

Andrea, who has a deep interest in mythology, was every bit a goddess when I visited her table as she was surrounded by a large group of adoring fans:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As many will admit, one of the biggest attractions at the Comic Con is the omnipresence of models and female fans that come dressed as their favorite characters:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And one of our favorite attractions:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you missed all of this, you’ll have to wait. The next convention is scheduled for April 18-20, 2008 at the same location.

It's not just Hollywood showering Barack Obama with cash. There’s also a move afoot in Kenya, a country poor enough that David Geffen could probably buy it, to raise money for the candidate many Kenyans call their “son.” Shashank Bengali, who covers Africa for the McClatchy Newspapers, writes in his blog that what makes this unusual is that Obama is pro-gay rights and pro-abortion, two issues most Kenyans squarely oppose. There’s other great stuff in Shashank in Africa, by the way, which chronicles the correspondent’s daily life and social interactions, the type of information that rarely makes the newspapers.

 

The feature-length independent film Darkon follows the lives of a group of live action role players who gather in their best medievally inspired foam rubber gear to beat the spit out of each other on weekends. If the trailer is any indication, the fight scenes are as gripping as Braveheart and the confessionals as disarming as American Movie. It’s playing at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago from February 23 through March 1.

 

As you may have heard, the NPR radio program This American Life is being turned into a TV show for Showtime, beginning its life on the tube on March 22. One of the most distinctive elements of the radio broadcasts are the quirky bits of music running behind much of the commentary. On air, this tends to be the sort of thing you picture being made by mad Moog geniuses in about 1966, along the lines of Jean-Jacques Perry, for instance. Groovy, man, with nice session drumming in the style of the pop orchestras of the 1960s, as well. But This American Life also tours a stage show—and for that they bring in current indie talent. Beginning next week, This American Life will be on tour with Mates of State (pictured), a brilliant indie-pop duo capable of reaching Brian Wilson-like transcendence with its Farfisa organ tones and vocal harmonies. The combo’s "Fraud in the 80s" was one of the very best tracks of 2006, in fact.

Here are the dates:

2/26/2007 8:00 PM: Avery Fisher Hall, Lincoln Center, New York, New York  -  w/ Ira Glass, Sarah Vowell, Dan Savage, Jonathan Goldstein, Chris Wilcha and Mates of State

2/27/2007 8:00 PM: Boston Opera House, Boston, Massachusetts  -  w/ Ira Glass, Sarah Vowell, Dan Savage, Jonathan Goldstein, Chris Wilcha and Mates of State

2/28/2007 8:00 PM: Orpheum Theatre, Minneapolis, Minnesota  -  w/ Ira Glass, Sarah Vowell, Dan Savage, David Rackoff, Chris Wilcha and Mates of State

3/1/2007 8:00 PM: Chicago Theatre, Chicago, Illinois  -  w/ Ira Glass, Sarah Vowell, Dan Savage, David Rackoff, Chris Wilcha and Mates of State

3/7/2007 8:00 PM: Paramount Theatre, Seattle, Washington  -  w/ Ira Glass, Sarah Vowell, Dan Savage, David Rackoff, Chris Wilcha and Mates of State

3/12/2007 8:00 PM: Royce Hall, Los Angeles, California  -  w/ Ira Glass, Sarah Vowell, Dan Savage, John Hodgman, Chris Wilcha and OK Go

With the 79th annual Academy Awards show approaching on February 25, we debate which supporting actor and actress will win a little gold man.

Jamie Malanowski, managing editor: I suppose Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson will win for Dreamgirls. I wish Maggie Gyllenhaal had been nominated for World Trade Center. Her performance as a very ordinary person caught in this great cataclysm was real, unforced and surprising. And as for Best Supporting Actor, put me down for any of the Mayan guys in Apocalypto.

Greg Fagan, contributing writer: Eddie Murphy seems the consensus pick here, and his Dreamgirls work certainly outclasses the field. You have to wonder how perennial Academy favorite Michael Caine didn't get a nod for Children of Men and, if you do, you realize that far too few people actually liked Children of Men, aside from those of us who like the occasional bleak, blood-spattered dystopian action thriller. (It's slim consolation will be to win for Best Cinematography.) Alan Arkin's a treasure—ee the original In-Laws at your earliest convenience—but his turn in Little Miss Sunshine is too short and underdeveloped (the movie is, too, but this isn't the time or space for that argument). Jackie Earl Haley deserves to be recognized for Little Children, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him win. It's a comeback story, and his put-upon sex offender is more sympathetic than say, Hannibal Lecter, which won for Anthony Hopkins. Djimon Hounsou, again, is fine in Blood Diamond; but he was better in In America, which was also a better movie than Blood Diamond. He'll be back again and again. Finally, Mark Wahlberg really is the most compelling screen presence in The Departed, so his inclusion here is no fluke. Just a hunch, but you know people in Hollywood are trying to figure out a way to build a TV series around Wahlberg's Sgt. Dignam. And unless those people are David Chase or Martin Scorsese, he should ignore them.

The smart and most likely safe poll pick for Best Supporting Actress is Jennifer Hudson for Dreamgirls. It's a classic storyline: You're-going-out-there-American-Idol-reject-and-coming-back-a-star! Or at least the next Marisa Tomei. And that might be generous. It's definitely not the best acting performance here. The two foreign actresses nominated for Babel—Adriana Barraza and Rinko Kikuchi—delivered by far the most demanding supporting turns in cinema this year. Really haunting work, on both their parts, with Kikuchi's being the more amazing of the two. With a win in this category for The Aviator, Cate Blanchett's sort of the heavyweight here. But Notes on a Scandal didn't afford her enough of a platform to truly stretch people's impressions of her abilities, which is among the costs of greatness. Abagail Breslin for Little Miss Sunshine? Lovely. I'm sure she's a nice kid. But what is this performance doing here? Why not: Shareeka Epps for Half Nelson? Annette Bening for Running With Scissors? Charlotte Gainsbourg for The Science of Sleep? Hell, Mother Nature for An Inconvenient Truth?

Stephen Rebello, contributing writer: In the supporting performances categories, the Cinderella story of Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls—let alone her singing and her instant likeability factor—suggest that she’s a lock for Best Supporting Actress. For that matter, every woman in this category deserves to be there but, still, I could have done with a Best Supporting Actress nomination for Emily Blunt, who flat-out stole every one of her moments in The Devil Wears Prada. Ms. Blunt can probably console herself with the fact that being relatively new and so good, she should get plenty more chances to shine in the future.

In Supporting Actor, the always-original Alan Arkin had a field day with Little Miss Sunshine and it was thrilling seeing the resurgence of Jackie Earl Haley in Little Children. I’d love to see the poetic justice of either of them trouncing Eddie Murphy in Dreamgirls. Despite Murphy’s prickly reputation and despite the backsliding that is Norbit, he’ll probably go home weighted down with an Oscar.

Robert DeSalvo, associate editor: I avoid musicals like I try to avoid catching the flu or a Renee Zellweger flick, so I’m not sure what all the fuss is about regarding Dreamgirls. Jennifer Hudson is an American Idol castoff, correct? Now she’s nominated in the same category with one of the finest actresses of our time, Cate Blanchett. Wow. Simon, Paula and Randy should be careful who they kick to the curb … it could be the next Dame Judi Dench or Katharine Hepburn at this rate.

As for supporting actor, Eddie Murphy should be disqualified for Norbit alone. He’ll probably win anyway—the Academy has an inexplicable collective hard-on for singin’, dancin’ and some razzmatazz. I’d give it to Mark Wahlberg in The Departed. Here’s an actor who continues to surprise everyone, keeps getting better with each role, and has nearly erased any lingering memory of his Funky Bunch and Calvin Klein underwear ads. In fact, I think I’ll watch my DVD of The Departed again instead of suffering through hours of Ellen DeGeneres’s golly-shucks shtick this Sunday to see if it wins best picture and director. No matter what nominated film rocks your world, watching the DVD instead of watching it try to win a golden boy is probably a more productive use of your time.
   

With the 79th annual Academy Awards show approaching on February 25, we debate which actor and actress will win a little gold man.

Jamie Malanowski, managing editor: It does seem that Forest Whitaker has a lock on the award for his excellent performance in The Last King of Scotland, and I'd be happier about that if A) it didn't seem like he was running away with the award and B) I liked the movie more. Otherwise, it's a fine thing for a deserving actor to win for a deserving performance; much better than to give it to Peter O'Toole because we're sorry he didn't win for Lawrence of Arabia or Becket or The Ruling Class or any of the other films for which he was astonishing. The real winner this year will be Leonardo DiCaprio, who went from being A Really Good Actor to The King of Hollywood. Leonardo wants to play Millard Fillmore? Done! Leonardo wants to star in Flintstones VII? Done! He's the man.

In the same way, a fully deserving Helen Mirren will win for The Queen, topping my favorite performance of the year, Meryl Streep's in The Devil Wears Prada. It's hard to argue with those who say that it takes extra skill to bring out a dramatic part, but if it's so damn easy to play comedy, why aren't we laughing more?

Greg Fagan, contributing writer: With the possible exception of Daniel Craig's work redefining Bond this year—easily 2006's most significant performance, and arguably its best—the field reflects the fact that it was middling year for men in film. I was surprised to see Leonardo DiCaprio up for Blood Diamond, because I thought he was better in The Departed, his best acting since Gilbert Grape. He may benefit from voters moved by his body of work in the year, but that's a stretch. I loved Ryan Gosling in Half Nelson and Will Smith in The Pursuit of Happyness, but both movies trafficked to varying degrees in sentimental schmaltz.

And as good as the performances were, neither succeeds in elevating the material to excellence. Peter O'Toole for Venus? He was even better in My Favorite Year, and still lost—to Ben Kingsley's Gandhi. This time, it will be Forest Whitaker for The Last King of Scotland in a walk. It is truly an actor's showcase, unlike any of the competitor's films. Plus: real-life actors playing made-up actors can't beat actors playing saints or dictators.
We'll find out just how superb an actress Helen Mirren is on Sunday night if she gets up there and effectively feigns anything but humility when her Oscar for The Queen is announced. They might as well be announcing that Tuesday is the second day of the week. That said, Judi Dench's turn in Notes on a Scandal would have won in many previous fields, and Meryl Streep's fashion-mag doyenne in The Devil Wears Prada completely hijacked the movie. It should have been in the supporting category, where it would have won, perfectly manicured hands down. Penelope Cruz should be pleased to have her Volver turn noticed, and Little Children's Kate Winslet should find solace in the fact that—with her fifth nomination at the tender age of 31—she's now on track to beat Streep's record for acting nominations (Streep was 35 when she took the fifth, for Silkwood; although unlike Winslet she'd already won twice at that point).

Stephen Rebello, contributing writer: Somebody needs to step right up and say that Clive Owen gave one of the very best, yet most unsung performances in Children of Men, playing a formerly politically progressive guy in a dystopian, broken society who heroically redeems himself from having become a sell-out. Just great work. Sacha Baron Cohen is brilliantly, scathingly funny in Borat. Also great work. Owen and Cohen aren’t nominated for a Best Actor Oscar and, even if they were, the statue is Forest Whitaker’s to lose. That said, of the nominees, the performances both Peter O’Toole in Venus and Ryan Gosling in Half Nelson are insanely good and far less showy, but the Academy voters go for showy.

Helen Mirren is a virtuoso in The Queen; no other performance in the Best Actress category can touch it for power and subtlety. No complaints about this category at all. They got it right.

Robert DeSalvo, associate editor: I can’t get too shaken or stirred by any of the movies represented in the Best Actor category. In fact, I’d probably rather drink bleach than sit down and watch these Oscar-begging flicks back to back. Where is Daniel Craig for Casino Royale? Why is Leonardo DiCaprio and that accent nominated for Blood Diamond instead of his much better performance in The Departed? Forest Whitaker will likely win but, a year from now, no one will be able to rattle off the names of the five films in this category without checking IMDB first.

As for Best Actress, would Meryl Streep get nominated for reciting a phone book? Just checking. Her one-noted, cartoonish bitch performance in The Devil Wears Prada might have garnered chuckles, but does it show range or depth? God save the Queen or, in this case, Helen Mirren will. If it weren’t for her expert portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II I’m pretty sure The Queen would have been nothing more than a Lifetime original feature.

 

With the 79th annual Academy Awards show approaching on February 25, we debate which movie will win a little gold man and if it matters.

Jamie Malanowski, managing editor: All I can say is that I hope Babel doesn’t win. Though superbly directed—the scenes in Tokyo were especially vivid—I thought the film pretentious and vapid. I’d also be disappointed if Little Miss Sunshine won. It’s a splendid little movie and a delight to watch, but jeez, if it were to win Best Picture, it would send a message in letters as big as the HOLLYWOOD sign that the studios were brain dead. Letters From Iwo Jima was a good movie, and heartfelt, and I enjoyed the performance of Ken Watanabe, who reminded me of Gregory Peck, but it wasn’t anything I hadn’t seen before. I liked The Departed quite a lot; I think people minimize it as minor Scorsese, but with the excellent writing and the wonderful performances that fill the film (Alec Baldwin! Ray Winstone!), the film will surely wear very well in the decades to come. (You can imagine Babel or Little Miss Sunshine winning, and people in 2027 saying "Imagine—they passed over The Departed for this trifle?") Oddly, I think I’d vote for The Queen. It takes a certain knack to dramatize real life. You have to have the right eye for leaving stuff out and presenting what’s left just right. The filmmakers did a great job is showing the monarchy as a silly institution, yet also one of great strength and dignity, and to see Queen Elizabeth coping with change made for a terrific drama.”

Greg Fagan, contributing writer: Best Picture is more of a toss-up this year than most, but I'm starting to see Letters From Iwo Jima emerging through the smoke, grizzled Hollywood veteran Clint Eastwood and his co-producer Steven Spielberg leading a small strike force in raising a great 60-foot Oscar statue on stage to close the show. But I'm getting ahead of myself. First, the two frontrunners: Babel, because of its interconnected storylines, will remind all of last year's Crash voters that Paul Haggis's storylines felt less organic and forced, while simultaneously reminding all of last year's Brokeback Mountain voters that they hate Crash—an insurmountable double whammy; The Departed will lose (unjustly), because Martin Scorsese will win for director (justly), maxing out his karmic credit card. Little Miss Sunshine? Lovely little film, but not a Best Picture. The Queen doesn't really seem to be in the running, either. As good as it is, I still foresee viewers thinking "Isn't it HBO?" and knocking it down a notch.

Stephen Rebello, contributing writer: Right from the jump, I have to confess that all the yearly frenzy about who and what will win the Oscar tends to make me cranky. OK, crankier. How can I get all worked up about which movie will take Best Picture this year when real classics like the original King Kong, His Girl Friday, Touch of Evil, Psycho, Mean Streets, The Searchers, Frankenstein, Repulsion or High Sierra weren’t even nominated back in the day? Little Miss Sunshine? I had a ball. Ditto The Departed. But neither holds a candle to the stunning, powerful, and brilliantly made Children of Men, which isn’t even nominated. If pressed, I’d say Babel will take the prize. If the voting turns out to be a dead heat between it and The Departed, Little Miss Sunshine will have its biggest triumph yet as the little movie that could. In my own personal awards ceremony, though, Children of Men and its masterful director Alfonso Cuaron take it all.

Robert DeSalvo, associate editor: Do the Academy Awards ever reward the movies that you watch over and over again for years to come; the ones that really move you and stand the test of time? Rarely, so I find it hard to give a damn. Instead of praising films that succeed spectacularly in their respective genre (this year, think V for Vendetta or Thank You for Smoking), we are treated to the same parade of sepia-hued tragic dramas, historical re-enactments, and war flicks. Throw a gal in a corset and give her an accent or have an actor play ugly or handicapped and you’ll have to duck from all the Oscar statues being thrown your way. It’s all so predictable and boring, but one movie in this year’s crop is not: The Departed. It is Martin Scorsese at his finest with a killer cast and compelling story. It’s easily the best picture in the group, which, of course, means it won’t win.

With the 79th annual Academy Awards show approaching on February 25, we debate which director will win a little gold man.

Jamie Malanowski, managing editor: Because making a film about a real event is so difficult, I’d vote for Paul Greengrass as Best Director for United 93; it’s one of those rare, amazing films that enlarges our understanding of an event. I won’t complain if Scorsese wins; The Departed is better than The Gangs of New York and The Aviator, and I’m tired of hearing the touts every year wonder if this is finally the year when Scorsese wins his Oscar. Enough already. Let 2007 be the year when the Undeservingly Ignored get taken care of. So far this year we’ve managed to take care of Peyton Manning. If we can take care of Marty on Sunday, then we can focus our summer on helping A-Rod get his World Series ring.

Greg Fagan, contributing writer: I've been doing 250 sit-ups a day since 1980, when Martin Scorsese (Raging Bull) lost in this category to Robert Redford (Ordinary People). So when I say I can taste Scorsese's Oscar for The Departed in my gut, you know that I'm a man in desperate need of Tums, and a refresher course in metaphor. Seriously, though, he's a lock (he already won the Director's Guild Award—a key indicator). Unless voters award Eastwood bonus consideration for having directed two superb, Academy Award-nominated films in single year. And maybe they're just curious to see if his skin has been pulled any tighter. You never know what turns people on.

Stephen Rebello, contributing writer: Should I give a rip who wins Best Director when real-deal maestros like Robert Altman, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Federico Fellini, Orson Welles, Ingmar Bergman, and Akira Kurosawa never copped the prize? Like I said before, in my own personal awards ceremony, director Alfonso Cuaron would win for Children of Men.

Robert DeSalvo, associate editor: Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick never won Oscars? It figures. My jaw dropped when Ridley Scott didn’t win for Gladiator even though it won Best Picture. I guess it directed itself. This year, the Academy has a chance to right past injustices (like they did by showering Lord of the Rings: Return of the King with multiple statues) by giving Martin Scorsese his long-overdue, much-deserved Oscar. It’s time to show him some love.

Over the weekend, this odd nugget appeared in an article in The New York Times: a conservative journalist named Chris Ruddy said that he and his boss, the arch right-wing kazillionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, no longer have the same low opinion about Bill Clinton that they once did. "Clinton," said Ruddy, "wasn't such a bad president. In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick [Scaife] feels that way today."

In case these names mean little to you, these were the fellows who did more to smear Bill Clinton than Ken Starr, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, or any of the other zealots who couldn’t bring themselves to agree that voters had actually picked Bill Clinton to be president. Not content to merely question Clinton’s policies—or his business dealings—or sexual ethics—moneybags Scaife and his attack dog Ruddy accused Clinton of being complicit in "foul play" in the suicide of Vince Foster, and of having some role in the murder of two teenagers in Arkansas.

Now they think Clinton was a pretty good president. Well, here’s something else for them to think on: if Clinton wasn’t having to spend so much time, energy and political capital fending off Scaife and Ruddy’s attacks, would he have had more time, energy and political to devote to eliminating Osama bin Laden and Al-Queda back when they were only blowing up embassies in 1998?

According to the AP, "Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Monday the war in Iraq has been mismanaged for years and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will be remembered as one of the worst in history. `We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement—that's the kindest word I can give you—of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war,’ the Arizona senator told an overflow crowd of more than 800 at a retirement community near Hilton Head Island, S.C. `The price is very, very heavy and I regret it enormously. Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history.'"

Anybody remember the name of that fella Rumsfeld worked for?