In this country, we sing protest songs about politicians, not love songs to them. Unless you’re Marilyn Monroe wishing Jack Kennedy a happy birthday, let’s quit with the freaky folk songs.

This morning, the Times ran a lengthy story about McCain’s dubious ties to the gambling industry that illustrates both points.

As factions of the ferociously competitive gambling industry have vied for an edge, they have found it advantageous to cultivate a relationship with Mr. McCain or hire someone who has one, according to an examination based on more than 70 interviews and thousands of pages of documents.

I’ve read the story twice. It’s clear that this reporting is thorough and comprehensive. To my mind, it relies too much on anonymous sources, but the documentation certainly seems to support the story’s conclusions. Certainly, given McCain’s holier-than-thou attitude about, well, everything, it’s fair to hold him to a higher standard when it comes to issues like this one. Meanwhile, my preexisting views — some would says bias — about Senator McCain, certainly make me more likely to accept the story at face value.

Except that it comes from the Times.

Because while I have strong feelings about Senator McCain and his ethics, I have even stronger feelings about the Times‘ investigative coverage of the presidential campaign. In a word, it stinks. Each Sunday edition seems to bring a new front page screamer, attacking Senator McCain enough column feet of copy to paper Times Square. Meanwhile, each new story on Senator Obama is full of praise and adulation, while very real questions about his record and past associations are simply ignored.

The Times is supposed to be America’s top newspaper. When it comes to political coverage, it’s not even close. Heck, some of the foreign papers I read do a better job of covering the U.S political scene than the Times. And on the objectivity test, any fair observer would have to position the Times in the same ideological and unbalanced category as left-wing advocacy sites like the Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo.

Both the Times and Senator McCain have lessons to learn from today’s story. Sadly, I don’t think there’s much chance that either will do so.

These days, I find that I am having a great deal of fun with another medium — Flickr. Rather than composing a post and illustrating with photos here at On Tap, I seem to be writing brief thoughts in photo captions instead.

So, if you’re interested in what I’ve been doing in London lately, check out my Flickr feed. There’s a brand new set from our visit inside Buckingham Palace (which includes some shots of the Queen’s amazing collection of coaches) and a similarly fresh set from our visit yesterday to Henry VIII’s Hampton Court Palace.

There are also images like this one of a shuttered butcher shop, taken during my wanderings about town.

I was taken with this old, ramshackle butchery sitting across from the historic Smithfield meat market. The sign boasts offal, tripe and other delicacies.

No, no change here. The woman seeking to be to a heartbeat away from the presidency without ever holding a press conference remains on the same relatively unaccountable path.

I can’t be the only one wondering what one has to do with the other. Last time I checked, politicians are accountable to We the People, not You the Media.

My point is that strong leadership is bad, even though it is popular. I recently reminded readers of the bad consequences of the strong leadership of President Nixon’s Treasury Secretary John Connally. I think that the current strong leadership coming from Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson will prove similarly unfortunate.

I couldn’t disagree more. Strong leadership isn’t necessarily bad, it’s just that Kling has pointed to examples of strong leaders who were bad. The bigger (and better) question isn’t “Is strong leadership good or bad” but “Can we, in this day and age and given our deep divisions politically, culturally, socially, elect strong leaders who would be good?”

This year, they gave it to us. Kenny Perry played like Jack Nicklaus, holing every pressure putt he looked at. Boo Weekly looked like the second coming of Byron Nelson, if only for a few holes at a time. Only Phil Mickelson caved under pressure as usual. The rest of the team performed superbly.

Two thumbs up to Captain Paul Azinger who motivated, coached, cajoled and kidded his way to a win. As importantly, he had a plan for the course set-up, executed to perfection, that played to his team’s strengths: Fairways that even J.B. Holmes couldn’t miss. Pin placements that were birdie friendly. And fans that were primed for the home side.

One final question must be asked: Was the U.S. team better without Tiger? It seemed so. They played as a group. In the usually-fatal foursomes, they dusted the Euros. And in fourball, the U.S. team members looked as though they actually got along.

All in all, an amazing performance, and one I hope we see repeated on European soil in two years.

(He quotes specifically enough to identify two particular conservatives he objects to – Richard Brookheiser of NR, Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal.)

I didn’t agree with either Brookheiser or Noonan’s skeptical responses to the Palin pick. But that doesn’t mean I think it warrants reading them the riot act or declaring them “alienated from the people as a whole, to such an extent that it no longer clearly represents their interests.”

(Early in the comments in the response to the piece, there’s a declaration that “When and if McCain/Palin assume leadership of the government and the party it will be time to purge the movement of the elitists who hold the people in disdain. Their mundane intellectuality and sheltered lives of privileged entitlement should neither be followed nor tolerated.” Purge! Purge! Grab the pitchforks and torches! Let the movement be cleansed with purifying fire! Wait, weren’t we the side that wasn’t enamored with the French Revolution?)

Does being a conservative mean you have to like Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate? Keep in mind, I like her. In May I said she was one of my favorites. I was talking about her as McCain’s running mate/two-term successor back in June. My first reaction was to call it a “wow” pick (in the positive sense).

But I dare any conservative to take some sodium pentathol and then try to argue that we don’t wish she was a second-term governor. She’s had a great, but brief run managing her state. As my tougher teachers used to tell me when I did a particular assignment right, “Great job. Now do it the same way again and show me it wasn’t an accident.” For me, that’s not a deal-breaker, but I can’t take the rhetorical flamethrower to those who find it cause for significant concern. Dunn decries conservative “writers… shaking their heads over ‘lack of experience’ (this about a politician with more executive experience than the other three candidates combined).” Considering that the only executive experience in the bunch is McCain’s command of the Navy’s largest air squadron at Cecil Field in Jacksonville from 1975 to 1977, that’s not exactly the highest bar to clear, and the “more executive experience” line says more about the three other guys than her.

I guess I just miss the geographical boundaries of Northeast Corridor Conservatism, living in Alexandria, Va. But I worry when conservatism becomes synonymous with a region or a bunch of cultural indicators, revealed in Dunn’s dismissal of “living in a Northeast that is steadily combining aspects of a Third-World state and a suburban mall.” Just because many conservatives like watching NASCAR and wearing cowboy boots does not mean that conservatism is defined by appreciation of NASCAR and cowboy boots. Is it any better to write off New Jersey as a hopeless backwater than to do the same to Alaska? Is the movement to be defined as, “we want nothing to do with that wretched corner of the country”?

The simplest definition of conservatism – a belief in the free market and economic freedom; a healthy skepticism for the government’s capacity to solve problems without creating new ones; a strong military and unwavering stance against those who would harm us; a high priority on the rule of law, protecting individual rights and an enduring respect for the traditional values handed down to us by our forefathers – none of these should be unable to sell in New York State or California. Folks in the heartland can tell themselves that the above description encapsulates “heartland values”, but there’s really no reason that places outside the heartland can’t get in on that action, too.

The conversation in the comments gets worse: “Even more than elitism, a lack of experience in winning politics at the local and state level defines “Northeast Corridor Conservatives.” They may sniff at Sarah Palin’s supposed inexperience and populism, but they have long been in political decline on their native soil and have little or no experience themselves in producing successful state and local campaigns.” Noonan’s pedigree is speechwriting for Reagan, George H.W. Bush’s 1988 campaign, and working on George W. Bush’s reelection campaign in 2004. To the best of my knowledge, I don’t think she’s ever worked on a losing campaign. I don’t think Brookheiser, David Brooks, or any of the other suspects mentioned in the comments have ever been involved in managing or advising campaigns.

(As an aside – no offense to those who live in the reddest of red states, but how tough is it to an elect a Republican in Utah, or South Carolina, or Wyoming or Indiana? Think the “degree of difficulty” in the task is worth noting in the guy who got Chris Shays reelected in Connecticut or Tim Pawlenty reelected in Minnesota in 2006?)

Beyond that… is the biggest problem for conservatism that David Brooks didn’t defend Palin enough from his perch on the op-ed page of the New York Times? A post on the Corner that says “humbug” to Palin? Noonan’s off-mike comments on the set of MSNBC?

Really? Or is it just that a post like this gives people a chance to use their favorite “out-of-touch elitist” charges against some folks on the right instead of the left?

But sometimes, my work is a lot of fun, and I can’t really keep it to myself.

For example, over the last few months, I’ve been helping with a campaign for Wonderbra to unveil their new limited edition European collection, created for them by world-famous burlesque star Dita Von Teese.

The central element of the campaign is an amazing film starring Dita, which you can check out here:

And if you’re dying to learn more about the collection, you can check out the details here.

Yep. Sometimes my job is fun.

Jim: Marshall, if your job requires you to post videos of Dita Von Teese, we will just have to learn to live with it. And, uh, if they require photos or samples to be sent to a particular address in Northern Virginia, well, so be it. I’ll be e-mailing you Mrs. CampaignSpot’s measurements in a bit…

Yes, I’m sure for months, you’ve asked, “Jeez, what do I have to post to get Jim posting back here again? Videos of Dita Von Teese or something?”

if sponsors of H.R. 6691 have their way, the District would be barred from passing any law that would “prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly burden” gun ownership by anyone not barred by existing (and weak) federal gun laws. That would mean that the District couldn’t require a vision test or shooting proficiency or education about gun safety for children. Gun registration would be abolished, as would the ban on carrying weapons — even military-style rifles — in public. It’s a scary scenario in a city where political protests, presidential motorcades and visits by foreign dignitaries are routine.

The Brady Campaign has a similarly scary press release, stating in part:

The bill, H.R. 6691, would extinguish virtually all gun regulations in the nation’s Capital, allowing the open carrying of assault rifles and .50 caliber sniper rifles on the streets of Washington, and putting government officials, foreign dignitaries, and tourists at grave risk of harm.

The only thing is, it doesn’t appear to be true.

H.R. 6691, makes specific changes to the District’s Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975. The bill also states:

Section 4 of the Act entitled `An Act to prohibit the killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of Columbia’, approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 809; sec. 1-303.43, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following: `Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall authorize, or shall be construed to permit, the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of persons not prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor subject to the National Firearms Act. The District of Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.’.

Note that there’s nothing in that statement regarding the carrying of firearms (either concealed or openly) in public. Also, remember when I said HR 6691 changes specific sections of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975? Well, D.C. law regarding concealed and open carrying of firearms is not contained within that act (sec. 7-2501.01(10), D.C. Official Code). It’s contained in 22-4504, which deals with criminal law.*

If the Washington Post and the Brady Campaign are going to insist that HR6691 changes the open carrying law, they need to provide the evidence as well as the accusation.

*click here to take a look at D.C.’s Official Code online)

These are the thoughts that occurred to me when I first heard about the Barbican Estate.

When I learned that my trip to the Museum of London yesterday would bring me within the confines of the post-war social experiment, I wondered whether I would hate it in person as much as I hated the concept.

We walked from our house near Angel, down a long hill to the area just north of the old city wall where the Barbican was built atop the ruins of the ancient neighborhood of Cripplegate. We could see the Barbican’s massive concrete towers for the length of our journey. They dominate the skyline. And on a grey London afternoon, they are not appealing.

Upon arriving at London Wall, we went first to the museum (which was very interesting, engaging and enlightening), and after our visit, I suggested that we take a walk around the estate.

Up close, it started to look better.

The estate is essentially a large rectangle formed, perhaps not accidently, much in the configuration of a castle. There are long, short residential buildings of about ten stories each which form the exterior walls, and towers on each corner of 30 or so stories each, guarding each approach. In the center is a massive courtyard, home to St. Giles church, two large lakes, and a surprising amount of greenery. One lake is pierced by a lovely sunken garden. Ruins of the ancient wall bound another. And lilly pads grow incongruously in another.

Sunken gardens in the interior lake at the Barbican.

St. Giles without Cripplegate stands within the Barbican

But upon reflection, what most impressed me was the quiet. Sure, it was Sunday afternoon, but with the fountains and green space and homes on all sides, the interior of the Barbican was an oasis apart from the city nearby.

The Barbican center was something of a revelation as well. Yes it’s garish. To wit:

Interior of the Barbican Center.

But it’s also a superb cultural center with a full docket of entertainment.

What most struck me about the Barbican was its history. Consider:

In a single night of incendiary bombing on 29th December 1940, every street from Moorgate to Aldersgate Street, covering thirty five acres, was destroyed. St Giles Cripplegate was burnt out, only the walls and tower remaining standing. By the end of the war, the area of devastation in the City included a much wider area to the south and east of the Barbican itself.

And:

The Cripplegate area was virtually demolished and by 1951 the resident population of the City stood at 5,324 of whom 48 lived in Cripplegate.

It took twenty years to construct a community that would bring people back to the City of London, under the walls where they had lived for nearly two millennia. But it says a great deal about Londoners that they did return, using the best thinking of their time — though not without controversy — to restore their city.

All in all, I left the Barbican for our walk home still hating it. The concrete structures, the 60s sheik are just too much to overcome. Still, there was something interesting and appealing about the place that I couldn’t put my finger on. And the historical premise of the place was breathtaking. It may not be beautiful to look at it — though from the inside, it isn’t bad — but it’s now an indelible part of London that Londoners can be proud of.

More photos from the day here.