I didn’t think I agreed on much with our former mayor and current Ward 8 councilman Marion Barry. But in today’s Washington Post letters section, he just so happens to share my sentiments about Peter Angelos’s continuing chokehold on the Washington Nationals. Specifically, Barry expresses surprise and disapproval over current Mayor Anthony Williams’s endorsement of a plan to give Nats television broadcast rights to the Orioles.

In part, Barry writes:

The Nationals’ broadcast rights were sold for $21 million a year, but the team could have gotten more. That kind of forced subsidy of the Orioles will hurt the new team.

Moreover, Orioles owner Peter G. Angelos intends to air only 79 Nationals games on broadcast TV this year, and 30 games next year, to a limited geographic audience. Yet Orioles games are on broadcast television in Washington.

It may be the only thing Barry has said that I wholeheartedly agreed with. That and “Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.”

Speaking of grousing, one Galley reader raises the good point about the ridiculous hubbub over a joke told by Laura Bush at the Correspondents Dinner. The joke involved the president at Crawford, mistakenly trying to milk a horse–a male horse no less. At dinner with Hollywood types and sloshed journalists in attendance, the line was a hit. But now it seems some conservatives (supposedly including William Bennett) have expressed their disapproval of the first lady’s “blue” material.

Doesn’t this just play up to the stereotype of the uptight conservative? There is, in fact, nothing new to this: Singer Kid Rock was slated to perform during inaugural festivities before nervous Republicans gave him the axe. Actor Dennis Hopper, a fan of the president, was also snubbed from an official gala event, and even expressed “deep regret” about getting disinvited. (Perhaps they thought he was going to bring a tank of nitrous oxide?)

The Easy Rider nevertheless told the Washington Post that “I would still like to express my support for President George Bush and our next four years.”

Last night at Shelly’s, a cigar bar in downtown DC, Galley friend Mike Woody and I stumbled upon a Scotch taste test, laid out in similar fashion to a Pepsi Challenge. The test was sponsored by the Famous Grouse, “Scotland’s #1 Scotch.” The other two unlabeled scotches were Dewar’s and J&B. Our task was to simply rate them from top to bottom. “There is no wrong answer,” the Grouse girl reassured us. Mr. Woody and I both agreed on a rating, which pitted the Famous Grouse in the middle of the pack (with J&B in first place and Dewar’s last). Of course this was not a competition between the Laphraoig 14, a Macallan 20, and an Oban. But as far as blended Scotches go, the Famous Grouse did just fine.

Owned by Remy (which also owns Macallan), the Famous Grouse was much smoother and sweeter than its rivals–you could easily have more than your share before knowing what hit you. This did pose a few other concerns, as Mr. Woody noted: “Some people drink Scotch because they like a more aggressive old wood and charcoal flavor–that isn’t what this is at all. The sweet taste is what draws you, but then why drink scotch?” Still, he admits, “it did taste pretty good.” (The Famous Grouse does include single malts like Macallan and can run upwards of $40, depending on the age.)

In addition to a complimentary Famous Grouse drink, we also received free T-shirts with the Grouse prominently displayed on the back. This reminded us of the opening credits of the Partridge Family.

Much praise has been heaped upon First Lady Laura Bush for her stand-up routine at the annual White House Correspondents Association Dinner last Saturday. And rightfully so–her constantly pleasant demeanor made her zingers especially effective. Quipped Mrs. Bush: “Here’s our typical evening: 9:00, Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep. And I’m watching Desperate Housewives with Lynne Cheney. Ladies and gentlemen, I am a desperate housewife.”

But props should still go out to Cedric the Entertainer, who no doubt had to follow a tough act. He appeared a bit nervous but still managed to get the laughs. One memorable joke involved Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

Cedric: There’s two people, though. You know, the name is broken down. There’s the Condi, who’s–that’s the person you see on television with the nice hair and very professional. Then there’s the Leezza… She’s the one with her hair wrapped up, on the phone with her girlfriend watching BET…

Cedric said what he wanted to know most from the president was not about taxes or foreign policy, but rather, why that woman from Georgia kidnapped herself. He was also respectful and called the president “cool” and that by meeting Cedric, it gave Bush “street credibility.”

In all, a very funny–and fairly brief–performance, though quite mild for the man who starred in Barbershop. (Remember his line about giving a shave that would leave you “as smooth as Gary Coleman”?)

Six months since Bush won reelection, I’ve been, in my superior way, taking note of all the Kerry supporters who have failed to remove campaign stickers from their bumpers. What else can I do while stitting in traffic? And on the way to work this morning, I caught a “W is for Winner” postelection campaign bumper sticker.

It could have been a preelection campaign sticker, maybe. In any case, it gave me the he-bees almost as bad as those other stickers in which women announce how proud they are to reserve the unlimited rigfht to kill fetuses. Okay, it was not really as bad as those, but, still, I drove the rest of way over the Momeorial Bridge with a grimace on my face.

It turns out the defendants we recently convicted for unlawful entry (see “I was Martin Balsam” below) will not be spending a night or more in the slammer. The Washington Post reports that the guilty parties were ordered to pay $100 fines and $50 to a victims fund.

Frankly I expected the penalties to be a bit heavier. And considering the time and energy (not to mention taxpayers’ dollars) put into this trial, it certainly feels a bit incongruous.

Also of interest are the ages of the defendants, ranging from 19 to 28 years of age, though the cofounder of the activist group is supposedly 20. I presume this is a typo since she struck me as closer to 40.

Continuing the Sullivan Magpie Watch, an astute commenter notes that Jonah Goldberg has observed another instance:

One non-trivial point that seems to have been left out of the commentary about Andrew’s argument–and not mentioned explicitly in the argument itself–is its debt to Michael Oakeshott. Sullivan is a disciple of Oakeshott and wrote his dissertation on him at Harvard. Hence it should come as no surprise that Sullivan’s division of conservatives into two camps–Conservatives of Faith and Conservatives of Doubt–tracks quite closely Oakeshott’s The Politics of Faith & the Politics of Skepticism. Why Andrew didn’t mention this explicitly I don’t know.

Thanks to all Galley Slaves readers who sent in their comments and emails about their own jury experiences as well as a few other thoughts. To answer one reader: The question of where I work never came up. There were questions during the voir dire about our experience, if any, with homelessness and even if we did have something to do with it, the question posed was “Would you find yourself unable to be fair?” One of my colleagues at TWS was almost selected for the Travelgate jury, despite his having worked at the American Spectator, which broke a number of stories on it. Again, in his situation, the question posed was, Could you still be fair? Few people under oath and in front of a judge can say “No, I will be unfair.” (A common exception is the victim of a violent crime unable to serve in a criminal case.)

With regard to my jury, I may very well have been the only conservative. During deliberations, several jurors brought up their own participation in protests, such as with the SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) in the 1960s. One congressional staffer called himself “a bleeding heart liberal.” And yet despite these leanings and despite a case involving activists trying to feed the homeless over Thanksgiving, these jurors put emotion aside and focused strictly on the law at hand. We had one holdout and it was unclear exactly what stopped him from deciding the defendants were guilty. After convincing him in one instance, he would find some other element that bothered him. And on it went for about two hours. One woman thought that adding pressure would help (it didn’t–she was clearly the Jack Ward of the group). In the end, the “bleeding heart liberal” and a professor from a local university (who was a SNCC member) approached the holdout directly, asking him, “What is it you are having a problem with?” and “Here is why I think they are guilty.” Carefully and conscientiously, both men, without seeming to add pressure, clarified their positions and after a few moments of silence, the holdout changed his mind. (We then asked him if he was sure he believed this and was not feeling any pressure. He said no.)

To the very end, Mr. Bleeding Heart Liberal felt terrible for voting guilty even though he knew it was the right thing to do. (“These kids just don’t seem to take the law seriously,” he added.) One of the elders in the group who protested in the 60s said, “They knew what they were getting into… There’s a right way and a wrong way to protest.” But perhaps the professor’s sentiments were best: “When we protested in the 60s, we knew we could get arrested. We knew we were going to break the law. These [defendants] knew what would happen and now they claim to be ignorant of the law? And now they want to represent themselves in court because they think they know the law?” They couldn’t have it both ways, he thought.

No word on the sentencing, though one lawyer tells me at a minimum, there will be a fine. At maximum, they could face jail time. (I invite any Galley Slaves readers with law degreees to share his or her thoughts on possible sentencing.) Ten days in the slammer might not sound like much, but ten days in the DC County Jail could feel like an eternity.

Incidentally, one of the alternates on my jury called to ask about the verdict. He too is a self-described liberal and a former lawyer in the Clinton Justice Department. When I told him about our deliberations, he replied, “I would have thought it would have taken you guys ten minutes to convict them. This was a clear-cut case!”