Played some good chess against my nephew T.J. this evening. His game is improving, but I still beat him. Also, I cooked linguine. Just thought y’all should know what I did instead of blogging.

In unrelated news, guess who’s the number one Google result for The Truth About Hillary? No, it’s not Drudge.

One day in 1948, Gladys Vandenberg heard a disturbing story from her husband. General Hoyt Vandenberg told his wife how he happened to see an unattended funeral being conducted at Arlington National Cemetery. A fallen American airman was commended to eternity with only the chaplain and the honor guard to bear him; no family or friends had come to attend the ritual.

After hearing of this, Mrs. Vandenburg founded a committee of volunteers to attend burials at Arlington. Today, the “Arlington Ladies” attend every service, ensuring that that melancholy scene from 1948 will never be repeated.

Shawn Macomber wrote a profile of the Arlington Ladies for The American Spectator, and it was not an easy assignment. These selfless women volunteered to honor our country’s dead servicemen, not to be honored themselves, and they were not willing to brag to the reporter. There are over 160 active Arlington Ladies, and he had trouble getting any of them to talk to him. But Macomber persisted, and got some of them to describe the volunteer work they do. The resulting article is inspiring, and it’s online. (But don’t let that deter you from buying a copy of TAS or better yet, subscribing.)

Next month, the Oklahoma State Fair monorail is being dismantled. Charles calls this news ‘depressing,’ but he doesn’t say why. I reckon it must be nostalgia, because I can’t imagine he finds the monorail, you know, useful.

State Fair Park general manager Tim O’Toole says “usage has decreased,” which isn’t surprising, since the thing doesn’t go anywhere. I rode it once. It lumbers along on its track encircling the fairgrounds, and drops you off right where you boarded. I remember wondering why they didn’t build another station or two at other points along the track, so fairgoers could at least use the train to navigate the park. As this big map shows, the fair has engaged “trams” which more or less follow the monorail’s track, only on the ground, with actual stops along the route, where they can actually do the job which the monorail should have been doing all along.

So the ride is not thrilling, or useful. It is perhaps somewhat scenic, the track being 10 yards or so high, but not as scenic as the much taller Space Tower on the same fairgrounds.

I don’t mean to go for cheap irony here, but who would have thought in 1964 when the thing was built, looking for all the world like a high-tech glimpse into the future, that 40 years on we would regard the monorail as a quaint curio of the past?

According to the USA Today headline: “Poll majority say they’d be likely to vote for Clinton.”

Fifty-three percent of poll respondents say they’d probably support [Hillary Rodham] Clinton in a run for president.
…
In the new survey, more than seven in 10 Americans said they would be likely to vote for an unspecified woman for president in 2008 if she were running. One in five said they wouldn’t be likely to vote for her.

The article doesn’t provide the actual questionnaire, but it can be extrapolated from the summarized results.

Pollster: Hello, American voter. Would you be likely to vote for an unspecified woman for president in 2008, if she were running?

Voter: Would I vote for a what?

Pollster: An unspecified woman.

Voter: What do you mean, “an unspecified woman”?

Pollster: A woman whose identity is not known.

Voter: No. How in blue blazes could I vote for someone whose identity is not known?

Pollster: Well, you would know her identity before voting for her, I think. Her name would be on the ballot. And she would be a woman.

Voter: But not an unspecified woman?

Pollster: No, I guess not. So you could only vote for her if she were specified?

Voter: Vote for who?

Pollster: The woman.

Voter: Yes…

Pollster: Thank you. Just one follow-up question. Will you probably vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008?

Voter: No.

Pollster: But you just said you would!

Voter: When?

Pollster: When you said you would vote for the unspecified woman if she were specified!

Voter: I did?

Pollster: Yes! Thank you, goodbye.

Way, way back on Nov. 6, when I analyzed the 2008 front-runners, I put senators McCain and Rodham at the heads of their respective parties’ queues. As you no doubt recall, my sentiment at the time was, “It’s theirs to lose. Here’s hoping they do it!” Rodham is still there on top, but McCain (I am pleased to report) has been ejected from the game.

As Mr. Hugh Hewitt notes, John McCain’s treacherous sellout on judicial confirmations has had one serendipitous effect: it has dashed any hopes he may once have had to become president of the United States.

So who is now the Republican front-runner? There isn’t one, yet. But your go-to guy for 2008 blogging (that’s me) stands by [withdraws] his early endorsement of Mel Gibson, who would be an instant front-runner if only he would deign to announce his candidacy.

And whither Rodham? Will she still look like such a hot property after September, when everyone learns what The Truth About Hillary is? I am eager to find out.