Is Tom Cox Really the Worst Person in the World, Keith?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

You know if a Republican screws the pooch and Max Brantley doesn't verbally skewer him, he's probably okay. Olbermann probably should have consulted with him, Max that is, first.

Caption Contest! Vic Snyder's Animal Planet

This week's caption contest comes with a little bit of a news-ish angle. The uber-incumbent, Vic Snyder, of Arkansas' 2nd district (Little Rock and surrounding, for you outtatowners) is coming under fire from the National Republican Congressional Committee with about 16 of his fellow Congressional Democrats for being too close and too involved with the GOPublic Enemy No. 1, Nancy Pelosi.

Brummett rightly assess that Pelosi is the primary target for Republicans by default since all the usual suspects (i.e. Clintons, Kennedys) are either retired, ill, or out of Congress. That doesn't mean she isn't a big — and perhaps vulnerable — target.

And it's clear that the GOP sees the 2nd district as perhaps the state's only swing district, solely by its diversity in the capitol city. The 1st and 4th are deeply ensconced in good ole boy blue, while the 3rd is just as militantly devoted, but to the Republican cause. The 2nd would be up for grabs to either a Republican or a Democrat if...

Vic Snyder weren't running, which he is. I did a thesis paper a couple of years ago about Arkansas' 2nd, and subsequently Vic Snyder, as the district's congressman. It could have very well been titled "Why Vic Snyder Is The Most Perfect Political Candidate Ever For Arkansas' 2nd District and Why No One Should Ever Think About Running Against Him."

The 2nd district is circular, with liberal Pulaski County at its core and conservative counties, like Saline, White, Faulkner, etc., on its perimeter. The constituency is split very well down the middle, as Little Rock (more liberal) is the biggest city in the state, countering the outnumbering of counties.

Snyder, too, is liberal at his core, but has a nice shell of Arkansas conservatism. Looking at the guy and his flannel shirt on the House floor, his mustache, his war record, his degrees in medicine AND law, why, he's the spittin' image of a baby made by Andy Griffith and Uncle Sam. Then you look at his voting record and see that why, he's no conservative at all, being pro-choice to name one issue, but among other stances that are often distanced by many Arkansas Democrats.

Oh and he's been in office for about 950 years, with only one (1) election being within double digits of victory. The incumbent's advantage is spoiled on Vic Snyder.

So if the state GOP is planning a coup, by all means go ahead. I don't know who your candidate would be, he'd have to have the money of French Hill coupled with the name recognition of Jesus of Nazareth, but crazier things have happened (like, every ballot initiative passing in 2008? Wacky stuff). Two words: Good. Luck. You are certainly going to need that and more.

Oh, but remember this is a caption contest. Lattimer won again last week, since he was the only one not cool enough to have plans for Memorial Day. Have at it, I think this could be a good one.

Guns In Church? Again? Nope.

I've spoken on the matter of Guns in Church before. You can drum it up on these archives, and see what I thought about it then. It's pretty much what I think about it now.

But I have had some good conversations in the meantime. One of which, was very helpful.

I spoke with an officer who was hired by a church to stand guard. The appearance of an officer may be unsettling, he said, but to many, it may be comforting. This officer has guarded numerous churches in Little Rock, and even began attending one on his off Sundays.

Probably needless to say, he had had many a conversation with pastors and other law enforcement officials on the subject.

"The pastors know their flock," said the officer. "They know that there are some people out there who can carry a gun, policemen, maybe."

"I've known of pastors to ask those officers to bring their guns to church," said the officer, with over 20 years of experience. "It's legal. It protects them. And nobody's the wiser. And, the best part, the church can look like a church, without all of those big signs."

A novel idea, I think, from someone in the know. Of course, not every pastor will know his or her flock well enough to tell a guest from an intruder — those people who one really has to worry about. But these things aren't new.

The officer said that on the very Sunday I was questioning him, a man had left a threatening message on the church's answering machine, apparently vexed that one of the pastors didn't want to collaborate with him on some project for television. They had his picture, and if he showed up, he would have been escorted. The officer recognized the member.

We obviously don't want what happened in Illinois to happen here. But I'm not sure allowing registered gun owners to pack heat in church is going to be much of a deterrent. But maybe the pastors can take charge of the situation as well.

It sounded like a pretty good idea to me at the time, anyway.

Taxable Deterrent? Alcopops? Fruit?...I Need a Drink

A bill to impose a higher tax "alcopops," or in other words those sweet and alcoholic beverages you used to sneak when you were in high school because you knew your dad wouldn't miss them, failed in the House Rules Committee today.

The bill would not only tax these unmanliest of nectars, but also keep them out of grocery and convenience stores.

The role call speaking for the bill apparently included a senior at the U of A, who among others, testified that the largest groups of people to purchase such beverages includes women between sixth and twelfth grade. For shame!

A panel endorsed the tax in October, probably miffed due to a lack of invitations to the Stovall Halloween Party 2k8.

The argument seemed to be that these poor youngsters are just having too much free-swingin', free-swigin' access to these fruity spirits, so we ought to tax the crap out of them and their allowance money. Because we all know teenagers, when faced with the choice of a new video game or hooch, will always choose video games.

(Slaps forehead.)

Luckily, this laughable bit o' legislatin' got turned down by Robbie's Rough Rule Riders in the House. But the bill itself brings up an interesting notion that I recall having when this whole cigarette tax was being brought up and ultimately run through the legislation: Taxing to save lives.

Are taxes intended to be deterrents? I sure hope not. It's a dutch door. From a defensive stand point, yes, because these things that are getting taxed are bad and no good, like cigarettes and...Mike's Hard Lemonade (slapping my forehead again). So in order to keep people from doing them, the bad things, the state ought to tax it, making them unaffordable to those who don't garner paychecks, but allowances.

My gut reaction to the cigarette and tobacco tax was that the government might be making investments in the self-harm of Arkansas youths, but upon calling the governor and the Tobacco Control Board for another story, a reasonable answer sufficed.

The costs incurred by these vices is directly proportional to the tax. So by raising the cigarette tax, for instance, the state might be reaping the benefits of a bad habit, but figures the deterrent will lower the cost of the health issues that the tax is for, eventually leveling out.

I'm not sure sure what a tax is on sweet hooch is supposed to raise money for. Awareness about the dangers of underage drinking? Awareness of the dangers inherent in drinking and driving? Those can't be taught without raising a tax?

Kids don't understand taxes. They might understand raised prices, but they don't get that whole notion of a tax as a deterrent. They're going to do what they want to do, often regardless of the prices.

Maybe that's why it got killed in the House Rules gauntlet. I don't know. But this whole bit about taxation as a deterrent is still mighty peculiar. If a vice is bad enough, it ought to be illegal in the first place. If it's not that bad, then why ought the taxes be raised to curb its use?