But what makes me angry was Kerry and his gang's inability to take advantage of the situation. I may regret saying this later, but fuck it -- they should be lined up and shot. There's no reason they should've lost to this joker.

UPDATE: Dean Esmay unloads in a similar vein.

UPDATE: I guess I should also note that my erstwhile Correspondent, dialogue with whom I've chronicled here from time to time (the "massacring people" link above), mentioned as proof of the Hitlerian evil of the Bush administration that at one time he and his friends were questioned by the Secret Service after a Web forum discussion in which they voiced their hope that Bush should get a fatal disease and die. (He was sketchy on details; the fact that he's alternately described them as the "Secret Service" and the "CIA" at different times makes me wonder exactly what happend and how much he's simply hoping to make hay from a relatively painless ordeal.)

I had to point out to him that the Secret Service doesn't have a sense of humor about things like that and never has. Back when I was working at my local ISP in 1996, stories circulated about (for example) a 12-year-old kid who sent a prank e-mail to president@whitehouse.gov, only to end up with the Secret Service shadowing his family's house for the next two weeks. As I said to him, You made threats against the President in a public forum, and you're surprised that the Secret Service got on your case?

Some people just don't think twice about whether their actions might have consequences... and when given a reminder that they live in the real world, where there are rules about civil discourse, suddenly it's a Gestapo sighting.

That's why I have a hard time getting into these discussions anymore unless I've established to my satisfaction that the person is willing to be mature and thoughtful about expressing their side, not merely bleating about Halliburton and Karl Rove, or reciting Michael Moore factoids and mangled Ann Coulter quotes and then standing their smirking with their arms folded, firm in their conviction of rightness.

UPDATE: The Armchair Philosopher wrote along these lines a couple of weeks ago:

The idea that I’ve been playing with is that many of my Left-leaning/pacifist/social-justice friends see most social interactions primarily in terms of power, coercion, and exploitation. The basis for this idea is that these folks often use coercion metaphors to describe individual and collective social situations that many other perspectives regard as quite benign. What got me thinking was a friend’s comment that this blog’s lack of a comment feature “forced” her to do something she didn’t really want to do: respond to one of my posts on her blog (which is not argument-oriented) rather than in a comment. Now, I’m sure that my friend was joking — but even so, the metaphor stood out to me. It would never occur to me to even joke about my comments policy “forcing” anyone to do anything — I think about my feedback policy primarily in economic metaphors, not power metaphors.

Excellent observations here, including illustrations of the labor-theory versus the free-market philosophies, in terms that are hard to argue. (Mountain Dew should figure in all theorems.)

Undiscussed is the side of the coin that describes actual violent events—the two sides in the illustration continue to use different vocabularies to describe war. We talk about Iraq as being about "liberation", the "removal" of Saddam, the march of "freedom" and "democracy"—idealistic and sanitized words that can obscure the very real horrors of the battlefield. But the Left, in protesting it, goes beyond the obvious war vocabulary into metaphors such as "rape" and "stealing [oil]" and "Crusades"—religious, criminological, and sexual metaphors intended to make war out even worse than it is, by ascribing it the same kinds of anthromorphized malevolence as Steinbeck did in describing the overcultivation of the parched land in The Grapes of Wrath.

If there's a unifying theme here, it might be that whereas the one side sees the world as a collection of systems—self-sustaining, self-healing, occasionally klunky or kludgey but usually elegant systems—the other side thrives on personifying all acts as macrocosms of human behavior, with all the faults of the individual human projected onto our institutions and humanity as a whole.

I guess both views are necessary. Otherwise we might, I don't know, kick over our country's pillars and rape the foundations on our way to the troughs of the corporate luncheon where we feast upon the carcasses of the workers of the world and plot the kidnapping of innocent youths to send as fresh blood to lubricate our war machine.

UPDATE: Hmm. Do you suppose there's something to this idea, that conservatives see the world as being comprised of "systems" that are beyond human construction—either by divine design, or by natural law—and that liberals, i.e. "humanists", see the world as being comprised of human constructs, and thus is subject at a macroscopic level to all the weaknesses of the human mind?

Twalk amongst yourselves!

This thin-skinned grievance-collecting gives birth to all sorts of urban legends and rumors about big institutions being hostile to Christ's birthday, such as the one that swirled on WOR radio last week about how Macy's employees had been instructed not to say "Merry Christmas!" to shoppers. A fiction that was put to rest when the host hit Macy's website and saw its "Merry Christmas" greeting, and Macy's employees chimed in over the phones to say there was no such policy.

UPDATE: Lileks says this:

In a sense, blogging is so 2004. The next big thing will be videoblogs. You can fit a rudimentary TV studio in a suitcase -- a laptop, a camcorder, a few cables, and a nearby Starbucks with Wi-Fi you can leech onto to upload your reports. This too will be good. One hundred thousand pairs of eyes looking high and low, versus CBS' staring monocular orb. We'll all turn to the nets to see what they think we should think. And then we'll hit the blogs for the rest of the story.

Hmm. I keep hearing the big guys confidently predicting the rise of the videoblog; but I'm not so sure, frankly. Looking at it from a user-interface standpoint, what's the benefit of video over text? You get pictures and sound and a much richer view of what you're looking at. But what are the intractable downsides? You have to direct and edit video, for one—a badly edited video is way harder to watch than a clunky, confused essay like mine above. Text is just naturally much easier to digest, too, than even the best-edited video. If your mind wanders and you miss a sentence of what someone says in video, it's a pain to go grab the scroll knob and roll it back an indeterminate few seconds to listen to it again, and that's not counting rebuffering and video codecs and all that rot. In text, all you have to do is flick your eye back to the previous line.

And more importantly, when it's text, you can visit a blog and within two seconds know whether there are new posts or not, and within five seconds know whether the new posts are worth reading. You can skim a headline instantly. What's the equivalent ease you get with video? Um, none. You have to watch the thing in order to see what it's about, how long it will take to see it, whether it contains any information you'll find useful, and so on. How many TV news reports have you watched where you got to the end and the reporter said, "Back to you, Diane," without covering anything you were actually hoping to see? You've wasted five minutes. If it were a text blog, it would have taken you a sip and a half of Diet Coke and a stroke of the scrollwheel to process the same information. Not to mention that it probably took the author 1/1000th of the time and effort to produce it. Whence the vaunted immediacy of blog debate once it's all video? How long would it have taken a bunch of videobloggers to break the Rathergate story? A long bloody time, and much fewer people would have had the patience to pay attention to it, let alone do the actual work. Video can't achieve critical mass the way text can and has, in everything from the explosion of e-mail and the Web on forward. Text is the low-tech, low-barrier-to-entry equivalent of papyrus in the CD-ROM age: unsexy, but it'll always work, even after the power grid fails and we're all eating each other in the desert.

Besides, how are you supposed to quote a videoblog? Let's see anyone deny that quoting and cross-linking and fisking is the very heart and soul of blogging. How is that even possible with video? Think how many fiskings there would be of Fahrenheit 9/11 if it'd been text; the only big one we have is the result of one man's obsessive job at deconstructing and transcribing the points of the video into a much more malleable medium, text. Maybe I'm stubbornly refusing to be visionary enough to imagine the stream-of-consciousness, effortlessly editable VR World of Tomorrow, but video and text haven't materially changed in decades, as far as their consumption goes; I can't see that changing anytime soon. Meanwhile, text remains far more flexible and can be molded to the whims of anyone, reader or writer, hence the equalizing nature of the blog where there's essentially no disconnect between the blogger and the discourse in his comments. Once the blogger becomes a director, his readers and fellow bloggers can't respond in kind anymore. And the whole essence of blogging's collaborative nature is lost.

And let's not even get into trying to do a Google search on something someone said in a videoblog. I'll leave that as an exercise for the, um, reader.

I'm skeptical, in short, of the claims so commonly issued by Glenn and the like that videoblogging will inevitably take the place of text blogging, that it will open up huge new realms of discourse and so on. I'm sorry, but looking at it from the standpoint of an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the medium itself, I just don't see it. It's like how I can't quite see an iTunes for movies; the medium isn't as much of a slam-dunk. It takes a lot more shoehorning to make it fit. The discrete pieces of media aren't in such perfect, bite-sized chunks, and lack the natural, built-in organizing criteria we've come to know and love. There are benefits, but they only qualify it as an adjunct to the real steamroller of a medium that we already have, not as a new medium in itself.

We'll undoubtedly see more people posting videos, often very good ones, to support their existing text columns and blogs. But can you seriously, honestly, picture going to a blog on a daily basis whose only content was a QuickTime/WMV window that you had to click Play on to see what it had to show you today?

UPDATE: But then, "A Very Venture Christmas" seems to have been inspired by the same muse—and yet it's funny...

Marxism foresees that era coming as a natural consequence of capital accumulation and the fore-ordained group behavior of mass classes. Classical libertarians -- harking to the resentful Look-Back view -- prescribe removing government shackles that currently prevent the natural flowering of markets. Simply toppling the sin of government excess will begin the era of explicit contracts and true individual liberty.
 
Ah, but then there's Cheerful Libertarianism. (Or perhaps it should be called Maturationalism. Under this Look-Forward zeitgeist, the future era of freedom will come about for one simple reason.
 
Because if we make a future world in which all children grow up healthy and well educated and free-minded, they will naturally, and of their own free will, choose a society free of coercion. Because that is what any person in his or her own right mind would want!
 
Mature, knowledgeable and satiable people will tend to approach the near-ideal society of our fairy tale from nearly any starting point, since almost any unafraid adult will deem it the only decent way to live. Absence of fear is key, persuading individuals to forsake ruthless predation in favor of fair competition.

UPDATE: Um, well, and there's also the business about propaganda in the form of popular movies that extol conformity and destiny and fitting in, and how few of them there are. Brin explicitly points out one counterexample, and uses it as a major part of his thesis: The Lord of the Rings. But I got The Best anonymous e-mail:

I suppose if there was such a movie, and it turned out to be one we all
really liked but which had never really considered in this context, it would
be a little embarassing.

And if the counterexample was the single most important movie in someone's
life, like "The Lion King," that would be really bad.

Okay, yeah, wise guy. Come over here and say that...

The sudden appearance of Zakaria Zubeidi, the 29-year-old militant leader, and at least 20 of his armed men embarrassed the head of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, the body that administers Palestinian refugee camps.

Weapons are banned in the camps, but during four years of violence, armed gangs have taken control, building their reputations through deadly attacks on Israelis. The unarmed Palestinian police have been shunted aside.

Zubeidi, West Bank head of the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, a violent group linked to the ruling Fatah party, strode to the gate of the compound housing U.N. agency offices, passing signs on a fence showing the silhouette of a gun with a red line through it.

After a brief argument with a guard, he checked in his M-16 assault rifle with telescopic sight and walked in — a pistol clearly visible on his hip.

“Of course I don’t condone it, but it’s a fact of life,” UNRWA head Peter Hansen told The Associated Press, referring to the violation of the no-arms rule. “Look around the camp. We can’t stop it — we don’t have guns.”

What american beauty illustrates, with extraordinary clarity, is that rebelling against mass society is not the same thing as rebelling against consumer society. Through his rebellion, Lester goes from being right-angle square to dead cool. This is reflected in his consumption choices. Apart from the new car, he develops a taste for very expensive marijuana—$2,000 an ounce, we are told, and very good. “This is all I ever smoke,” his teenaged dealer assures him. Welcome to the club, where admission is restricted to clients with the most discriminating taste. How is this any different from Frasier and Niles at their wine club?

What we need to see is that consumption is not about conformity, it’s about distinction. People consume in order to set themselves apart from others. To show that they are cooler (Nike shoes), better connected (the latest nightclub), better informed (single-malt Scotch), morally superior (Guatemalan handcrafts), or just plain richer (bmws).

The problem is that all of these comparative preferences generate competitive consumption. “Keeping up with the Joneses,” in today’s world, does not always mean buying a tract home in the suburbs. It means buying a loft downtown, eating at the right restaurants, listening to obscure bands, having a pile of Mountain Equipment Co-op gear and vacationing in Thailand. It doesn’t matter how much people spend on these things, what matters is the competitive structure of the consumption. Once too many people get on the bandwagon, it forces the early adopters to get off, in order to preserve their distinction. This is what generates the cycles of obsolescence and waste that we condemn as “consumerism.”

UPDATE: CapLion takes firm exception to the article's attitude toward SUVs and other luxury items. It's clear that the author is no great fan of conspicuous consumption, but I'm not convinced he's agitating for an end to bourgeois commercial culture. His explanation of the capitalist model is without antagonism. It's more a sort of weary indulgence, coupled with an energetic defense against a common misunderstanding of what capitalism requires. True, I'm not sure what to make of that business at the end about legislating away advertising-spawned brand fetishes. But I still think the article fires home some fine points about those who think themselves superior to the "masses" for having bought into the prepackaged and branded rejection of branding.

Just because you're an academic without a consistent point doesn't make you a commie; neither does being a ne'er-do-well intoxicated world-traveling artiste mean you're incapable of gleaning a culture for yourself from the branded mainstream. See this awesome interview with Tony Millionaire of Maakies fame for an illustration of what I mean: a hippie who doesn't get why his interviewer thinks he should be contrite for weeping over Family Circus or having had a hand in Reagan bombing Libya.

(Seriously. Go read it. And read the strip, too, if you like crude scatological comic strips straight out of the 30s featuring absolutely exquisite pen-and-ink background art of pirate ships and flower gardens. I don't understand it at all, but I know what I hate... and I don't hate this.)

Escaping the stress of clogged roads, street violence and loss of faith in Holland's once celebrated way of life, the Dutch middle classes are leaving the country in droves for the first time in living memory.

The new wave of educated migrants are quietly voting with their feet against a multicultural experiment long touted as a model for the world, but increasingly a warning of how good intentions can go wrong.

Australia, Canada and New Zealand are the pin-up countries for those craving the great outdoors and old-fashioned civility.

. . .

More people left the Netherlands in 2003 than arrived, ending a half-century cycle of surging immigration that has turned a tight-knit Nordic tribe into a multi-ethnic mosaic with three million people of foreign roots out of 16 million. Almost one million are Muslims, mostly Turks and Moroccan-Berbers. In Rotterdam, 47 per cent of the city's population is of foreign origin. While asylum claims have plunged, the exodus is accelerating, reaching 13,313 net outflow in the first half of 2004. Many retiring workers are moving to the south of France, but a growing bloc leaving the country appears to be educated, working families.

. . .

Ellen, 43, a lawyer and banker who votes for the free-market Liberals, said the code of behaviour regulating daily life in the Netherlands was breaking down.

"People no longer know what to expect from each other. There are so many rules, but nobody sticks to them. They just do as they want. They just execute people on the streets, it's shocking when you see this for the first time," she said. "We've become so tolerant that everybody thinks they can fight their own wars here. Van Gogh is killed, and then people throw bombs at mosques and churches. It's escalating because the police and the state aren't doing anything about it.

"There's a feeling of injustice that if you do things right, if you work hard and pay your taxes, you're punished, and those who don't are rewarded. People can come and live here illegally and get payments. How is that possible?

"We didn't think about how we should integrate people, to make sure that we actually talk to each other and know each other, instead of living in ghettoes with different rules.

"It's not why we are leaving: the reason is that Australia feels different, it feels like a place where we would like to grow old," she said.

As I write, I am looking at a Christmas brochure for Channel 4. It contains an interview with Paul Abbott, author of the "current hit show, Shameless". Clever Paul swears a lot, and proudly tells a story about how, when his brothers held him upside down to help him steal a Christmas tree from his Yugoslav next door neighbour, he was so frightened that he started urinating. Ha ha.

There follows a two-page pictorial spread of Paul's characters, the Gallaghers, having their Christmas lunch. The tableau is presented (sub-Buñuel) as a parody of the Last Supper. (Do Paul Abbott and Channel 4 believe, perhaps, that this took place at Christmas?) The first page shows a line of yobs - mimicking the Apostles - beginning their meal in reasonably good order. The second depicts them towards its end, violent and drunk. The "Jesus" figure is lurching forward, halo awry, beer can in one hand and cigarette in the other.

The natural inclination of Christians in the face of such affronts is anger. But would it really be a better society in which silly, urinating Mr Abbott could go to prison for such a thing, and perhaps the bosses of Channel 4 with him? Before lots of respectable readers shriek "Yes!", think what it means.

Why is it that so many people resent religion and turn against it? Surely it is because of its coercive force, its tendency to mistake the worldly power of its priests and mullahs for justified zeal for the truth. It is not God who turns people away, but what people do in the name of God. If a law against religious hatred is passed, even when blessed by St David Blunkett, the natural consequence will be a rise in the hatred of religion.

Particularly hatred of Islam. The BNP website describes Islam in the hands of some of its adherents as "less a religion and more a magnet for psychopaths and a machine for conquest". If a law says they can't say that, the BNP will, in the minds of many, be proved right. On Tuesday, Mr Blunkett said that it would be illegal to claim that "Muslims are a threat to Britain". People already censor themselves through fear of Muslim reaction to mockery - I don't suppose even brave, incontinent, foul-mouthed Paul Abbott would write a comedy for the start of Ramadan showing Mohammed downloading dubious images from the internet. If the law criminalises such activity, the scope for resentment is huge.

UPDATE: I suppose it should go without saying that I'm getting mighty sick of that "Christmahanukwanzakah" ad by Virgin Mobilantic Wirelessgalactic or whatever. It's trying to be funny, I know, but it just ends up being just as patronizing as the stuff it's trying to parody.

UPDATE: Don't miss this article on Chanukah and why it's obtuse and a little bit demeaning to defer to it in the way we do with our All Cultures Have Their Own Christmas season.

UPDATE: Heh. Now this is more like it. (Thanks to Keith H.)

“But aren't the Marines terribly Southern?” asked one perplexed mother while standing next to me at the brunch following graduation. “What a waste, he was such a good student,” said another parent. One parent (a professor at a nearby and rather famous university) spoke up at a school meeting and suggested that the school should “carefully evaluate what went wrong.”

UPDATE: Naturally, Tim Blair's commenters have gone to town on the subject of precious childhood memories...

Unfortunately, as the Chicago Sun-Times reports, Gardner seems to have paid a heavy price for contradicting the official line on Kerry's Vietnam service. According to Gardner, shortly after he told his story to local radio stations and a local paper, he received a call from John Hurley, the veterans organizer for Kerry's campaign (and probably the least effective person ever to advocate a position on cable news). Gardner says that Hurley threatened him, stating "you better watch your step; we can look into your finances." Next Gardner heard from Douglas Brinkley author of Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War (arguably the most counter-productive campaign biography ever published). According to Gardner, Brinkley claimed he was "fact-checking" his book, which already was in print. In fact, Brinkley used the call to create an article critical of Gardner. Gardner says that Brinkley called him again, warning him to expect some calls.

Twenty-four hours later, Gardner's employer, Millennium Information Services, informed him via email that his posiiton with the company was being eliminated and that his services were no longer required. Gardner says that he has since seen the company advertising for his old position.

Gardner, the father of three, now is broke and unemployed. Nonetheless, he says he'd speak against Kerry all over again because "I couldn't ever see [Kerry] as commander in chief -- not after what I saw in Vietnam, not after the lies I heard him tell about what he says he did and what he says others did."

"When was the last time I have seen a president on a billboard? What is going on? Didn't Saddam Hussein have his picture up everywhere? What next, a statue?"

UPDATE: My friend Gerrit writes:

As a German, this produces associations I don't quite like
as 'Our Leader' translates to 'Unser Führer' in German.
Now, I know that those associations are not justified,
but a lot of people around the world who had a certain
kind of 'leader' in their past (or still have one) will
look at this and start to wonder what's going on.

The fact that this billboard was not put up by the
Government but by private citizens or corporations
(The one in Orlando seems to have been done by
'Clear Channel Outdoor') will not really change the
impression they are getting. Even if they are told
this is not Government sponsored.

While the intentions behind this might have been
good, I think the people who paid for this didn't
quite think it through.

Well, granted. I'm sure they realized they were just asking for whatever willful misinterpretations people would have; I don't doubt that the whole purpose of putting that message on a billboard over a freeway where all kinds of people have to look at it is intended primarily as a way to rub salt in the wounds of the ones who lost. Certainly I can understand their reactions; I think the thing's rather unseemly, myself.

But I also suspect that the asymmetrical warfare of propaganda goes both ways; all the letter-writer and Michael Moore have to do is tell people that what they saw on the freeway is no different from what was common in Saddam's Baghdad, and the gullible or thoughtless ones will believe it. An ingenious counterstroke? An unfair cheap-shot? Depends on how you look at it, I guess.

Assalamu Alaikaum

The video footage of US Marines killing unarmed civilian in a mosque in Falluja.

http://www.ogrish.com/attachments/2004/11/16/ogrish-dot-com-marine_shoots_wounded_pow_video.wmv

Wasalam
Your brother
Haffeez

This effort wasn't visible to Democrats because it was taking place on an entirely new terrain, in counties that Democrats had some vague notion of, but which they never expected could generate so many votes. The 10 Ohio counties with the highest turnout percentages, many of them small and growing, all went for Bush, and none of them had a turnout rate of less than 75 percent.

For Democrats, this new phenomenon on Election Day felt like some kind of horror movie, with conservative voters rising up out of the hills and condo communities in numbers the Kerry forces never knew existed. ''They just came in droves,'' Jennifer Palmieri told me two days after the election. ''We didn't know they had that room to grow. It's like, 'Crunch all you want -- we'll make more.' They just make more Republicans.''

Amid hundreds of new cars, prototypes and sparkling antiques, the Hummer SUV was the center of attention Sunday for a group of zero-emission supporters at the 47th Annual San Francisco International Auto Show.

Carrying signs that read "Dumm and Hummer" and singing songs like "Drive a Hummer, What a Bummer," about 60 demonstrators gathered outside of show at Moscone Center to demonstrate against American dependency on oil.

"I'm doing this because I have a 15-year-old son who I don't want to send off to war just so that someone can drive a Hummer," said Kirsten Moller of San Francisco.

Called the Fish Empathy Project, the campaign reflects a strategy shift by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals as it challenges a diet component widely viewed as nutritious and uncontroversial.

"No one would ever put a hook through a dog's or cat's mouth," said Bruce Friedrich, PETA's director of vegan outreach. "Once people start to understand that fish, although they come in different packaging, are just as intelligent, they'll stop eating them."

So. The Washington Post finally dropped Ted Rall. This time for a cartoon displaying America as a profoundly retarded, drooling freak.

To which I can only say: so repeatedly drawing cartoons comparing America to Nazi Germany, accusing the late Pat Tillman of being a bloodthirsty racist, 9/11 widows as being money-grubbing opportunists--this was not enough?

Why do I suspect that the only reason the Washington Post really acted finally was not because Rall is vile and hateful, but because he made fun of the mentally handicapped?

Q. In your Ebert & Roeper review of Michael Wilson's "Michael Moore Hates America," you [Ebert] blurted out an erroneous opinion, expressing your doubts about the film's claim that the Canadian crime rate is double the U.S. rate.

I checked with www.statcan.ca, listed as "the official source for Canadian social and economic statistics and products," and with the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics. The bottom line: These sites agree with Wilson's assertion that crime in Canada is much worse than in the USA.

James Elias, Highland Ranch, Colo.

A. Astonishing. For the year 2003, per 100,000 population, Canada had 8,530 crimes, and the U.S. 4,267. For crimes of violence, 958 vs. 523. For property crimes, 4,275 vs. 3,744. Michael Wilson, director of the film, tells me: "There was originally a comedic segment in the film that attributed this to the proliferation of Tim Horton's doughnut franchises, but I could not make it work."

Tears of laughter rolled down audience members’ cheeks as National Public Radio (NPR) superstar Garrison Keillor related humorous stories of childhood and provided insights on the election results at Rockefeller Memorial Chapel Wednesday at 8 p.m...

“I am a Democrat—it’s no secret. I am a museum-quality Democrat,” Keillor said. “Last night I spent my time crouched in a fetal position, rolling around and moaning in the dark.”

Not one to shy away from speaking his mind, Keillor proposed a solution to what he deemed a fundamental problem with U.S. elections. “I’m trying to organize support for a constitutional amendment to deny voting rights to born-again Christians,” Keillor smirked. “I feel if your citizenship is in Heaven—like a born again Christian’s is—you should give up your citizenship. Sorry, but this is my new cause. If born again Christians are allowed to vote in this country, then why not Canadians?”

Yep, it’s all true, every bit of it; the New Gulags, which we Nazified Tolkien geeks like to refer to as Barad Ashcroft, or just Shrubthanc, have been under construction since early 2001 and are almost ready to open for business. The ultra-right-wing corporate media establishment has known all along, and have been helping us cover it all up, and now it’s too late; there’s nothing you can do to stop us. You all are going to be fed into the ovens by the millions, and we’re going to destroy the environment and nuke the Third World, and it’s all going to be done because Jesus told us to, and that’s the only reason we’re ever going to need. Because hey, we’re stupid.

From: suhafat@netscape.net
Subject: URGENT! SUHA ARAFAT PROPOSAL
Date: November 12, 2004 4:22:44 AM PST
Reply-To: suhafat@netscape.net

Dear Friend,

This mail may not be surprising to you if you have been following current events in the international media with reference to the Middle East and Palestine in particular.

I am Mrs. SUHA ARAFAT, the wife of YASSER ARAFAT, the Palestinian leader who died recently in Paris. Since his death and even prior to the announcement, I have been thrown into a state of antagonism, confusion, humiliation, frustration and hopelessness by the present leadership of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the new Prime Minister. I have even been subjected to physical and psychological torture. As a widow that is so traumatized, I have lost confidence with everybody in the country at the moment.

You must have heard over the media reports and the Internet on the discovery of some fund in my husband secret bank account and companies and the allegations of some huge sums of money deposited by my husband in my name of which I have refuses to disclose or give up to the corrupt Palestine Government. In fact the total sum allegedly discovered by the Government so far is in the tune of about $6.5 Billion Dollars. And they are not relenting on their effort to make me poor for life. As you know, the Moslem community has no regards for woman, hence my desire for a foreign assistance.

I have deposited the sum of 20 million dollars with a security firm abroad whose name is withheld for now until we open communication. I shall be grateful if you could receive this fund into your bank account for safe keeping and any Investment opportunity. This arrangement is known to you and my personal Attorney. He might be dealing with you directly for security reasons as the case may be.

In view of the above, if you are willing to assist for our mutual benefits, we will have to negotiate on your Percentage share of the $20,000,000 that will be kept in your position for a while and invested in your name for my trust pending when my Daughter, Zahwa, will come off age and take full responsibility of her Family Estate/inheritance.

Please note that this is a golden opportunity that comes once in life time and more so, if you are hornet, I am going to entrust more funds in your care as this is one of the legacy we keep for our children.

In case you don't accept please do not let me out to the security and international media as I am giving you this information in total trust and confidence I will greatly appreciate if you accept my proposal in good faith. Please expedite action.

Yours sincerely,

Suha Arafat

News Update from Citizens for Legitimate Government
November 10, 2004
http://www.legitgov.org/

http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

Diebold Source Code!!! --by ouranos (dailykos.com) "Dr. Avi Rubin is
currently Professor of Computer Science at John Hopkins University. He
'accidentally' got his hands on a copy of the Diebold software
program--Diebold's source code--which runs their e-voting machines.
Dr. Rubin's students pored over 48,609 lines of code that make up this
software. One line in particular stood out over all the rest:
#defineDESKEY((des_KEY8F2654hd4" All commercial programs have
provisions to be encrypted so as to protect them from having their
contents read or changed by anyone not having the key... The line that
staggered the Hopkins team was that the method used to encrypt the
Diebold machines was a method called Digital Encryption Standard
(DES), a code that was broken in 1997 and is NO LONGER USED by anyone
to secure programs. F2654hd4 was the key to the encryption. Moreover,
because the KEY was IN the source code, all Diebold machines would
respond to the same key. Unlock one, you have them ALL unlocked. I
can't believe there is a person alive who wouldn't understand the
reason this was allowed to happen. This wasn't a mistake by any
stretch of the imagination."

Apparently the "F2654hd4" thing is legit. There has been commentary on this for a while now, dating back to at least February of this year.

One has to look, though, at what exactly the risks are that are involved with this code. What we're talking about is, essentially, broken encryption. A malicious outsider, in order to change voting results, would have to simultaneously gain control of all the voting machines in the country-- note, by the way, that these are not networked or available via the Internet or anything-- and install some kind of output-modifying Trojan.

I appeal once more to Occam's Razor: if someone were so nefarious as to hijack all these voting machines (which are hardly used in a large portion of the US-- their deployment is still quite limited, and mostly in urban areas that turned out blue anyway), why would they allow voting to be so close? What good is an evil genius plan to subvert technology if it's no more effective than a lurid headline on Election Eve?

The main reason I have a hard time taking any of this stuff seriously is that the final popular vote turned out to pretty closely reflect the pre-election polls, or actually to be rather closer than most (which showed a pretty consistent Bush lead by 4-5%). If there were a huge discrepancy, or a reversal in outcome from the polls to the election, then it would be suspicious. But if the election is one data point, the polls are a whole bunch more, and they all would seem to agree. To suggest that the election results were wrong is to suggest that the polls were also similarly wrong, and necessarily for quite different reasons. To suggest that the tampering occurred in Ohio suggests that whoever did the tampering knew beforehand that Ohio would be the deciding state, just as with Florida in 2000. Too much implausibility.

Now, you'll get no argument from me that voting machines are a big risk to the very core of our democracy. Any security expert would be horrified at the very *concept* of voting machines, simply because they have no paper trail, no way for the voter to audit them. At my polling place, they activated a card with my voter ID on it, which I stuck into the machine to start the process; when it was done, it told me it had written out the data to the machine's internal hard drive and to internal paper tape. But how do I know what it's written? It's not like I have a punch-card in my hand where I can line up the holes and tell what number I punched out, or a box with a #2 pencil X in it next to the name of my guy. It's all faith with these machines: faith that the names I voted for are the ones that are eventually, after many transformations of physical media and data transmission and encoding, reported to the registrar. There is no assurance of this. None.

However, suppose you're in the shoes of a voter action group after 2000, incensed over hanging chads and the impression that human interaction-- biased or incompetent election officials-- presented an unfair risk to your PAPER ballots, by inadvertently "losing" them, leaving boxes of them in trunks of cars, outright making up numbers for the final tally, et cetera. What kind of voting-machine reform are you going to push for? A return to *more* dependence on paper and human interaction, like in the good old days? Or would you want to latest and greatest cutting-edge technology, one that's seen as a closed black box that humans can't tamper with?

It's that latter impulse that has ended up rushing machines like the Sequoia/Diebold ones onto the market before they'd been properly subjected to auditing. It's possible that the DES flaw shown in the code is the result of just some sloppy programmer's coding, putting in a hard-wired key so that early development testing would work, and then later forgetting to take it out. I know I've done stuff like that in my own code, especially when I'm on a deadline.

But let's be clear about this: the risk of voting machines is in their insidiously reassuring black-box nature. They *seem* like they're immune to human interaction, when in fact they could be little more than interactive Flash games that report nothing at all to anybody, while assuring voters that they voted. It's a far more complex charge to level, and far, far less likely, that there was any kind of malicious tampering that leveraged a flaw in the encryption algorithm to oh-so-subtly tweak the numbers in certain districts so that the results, uh, turned out all over the map, resulting in a very nearly half-and-half split outcome. Again: if you have to assume that the perpetrator is both an evil genius and an incompetent fool, it's not a plausible theory, especially if the results can be explained equally well by NO malfeasance on anybody's part.

I don't like the idea of electronic voting machines becoming the norm in our elections. It reduces accountability and verifiability to an unacceptable degree, for a much less (I think) important increase in convenience for the vote-counters assuming all works correctly. But if they're going to be adopted whether we like it or not, then they MUST be subject to source auditing at the public level. I think that's probably coming in the next few years; certainly the outcries I'm seeing seem to demand it. In the meantime, we have to remember that the results, to be frank, seem to reflect everybody's expected outcome more than any evidence of tampering.

Let's focus on getting these things right so we don't have to go through this again the next time around.

UPDATE: Here's the original analysis of the code, from last June, by Avi Rubin et al. Whatever the implications, it seems this has been under discussion for some time. As this guy says, "One thing I’m still not clear about: Are these polling machines actually getting used yet?" If it's the one I voted on, I guess; but I know that those machines were connected to each other only by a daisy-chained power cord. No UTP cable. These things weren't on the Internet, that much is for damn sure.

UPDATE: Frank J's all over this, of course.

Gonzales opponents say there are two strikes against him. The first is that he weakened the administration's brief to the Supreme Court in the University of Michigan racial-preference cases. Solicitor General Ted Olson wanted the administration to say that the use of racial preferences to achieve diversity is constitutionally impermissible. Gonzales overruled him.

The second strike is Gonzales's record on abortion as a justice of the Texas supreme court. The state had passed a law requiring parents to be notified before a minor could get an abortion. That law, like most parental-notification laws, allowed judges to waive the requirement if observing it could be expected to lead to the abuse of the girl in question. In its first cases dealing with the law, the court read this judicial-bypass provision broadly — so broadly that one dissenter furiously charged that the law had been gutted.

. . .

So far, the White House campaign for Gonzales has found few takers among social conservatives or legal conservatives generally. Some of the former are regularly discussing what to do if Bush nominates Gonzales.

UPDATE: Of course, this is likely to come up in the confirmation hearings, ya think?

The White House was undeterred. By Jan. 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by NEWSWEEK, it was clear that Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. In the memo, which was written to Bush by Gonzales, the White House legal counsel told the president that Powell had "requested that you reconsider that decision." Gonzales then laid out startlingly broad arguments that anticipated any objections to the conduct of U.S. soldiers or CIA interrogators in the future. "As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales wrote to Bush. "The nature of the new war places a —high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians." Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

Other places where I've found this memo quoted seem to leave out the preamble explaining how the nature of war has changed, and paint Gonzales as a federal-law-circumventing schemer of Ashcroft's projected mold. A case could be made defending what he said in these memos, and I'm sure he'll defend them quite eloquently himself when the time comes. But I guess this won't be such a "peace offering" to the Left as I'd hoped.

From: GWB@whitehouse.gov
Subject: How I stole your election (ha ha ha ha!!!)
Date: November 9, 2004 10:50:25 AM PST
Reply-To: GWB@whitehouse.gov

How I Stole Your Election
by George W. Bush

The first thing I did to steal your election was to make friends with ALL the manufacturers and code-verifyers of the Electronic Voting Machines. They were really nice, especially Diebold who gave me $600,000 for my campaign. Wow, thanks dude!

http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/stealing.htm

Next, I had my attack dog, Karl Rove, convince these companies to either alter the vote totals on the central tabulator machines (simple PCs running windows using Remote Access Server -- RAS), or reprogram (via a downloadable software patch) the voting machines themselves so that they would give the advantage to ME! Isn't America great?!? A little money and some religious zealotry goes a looooong, loooong way. Oh, the religious zealotry thing? That's just a cover. I'm not really a Christian -- or at least I don't act like one. Anyway, I digress.

Finally, post-election thoughts. On and on, no resolution. This graphic has been floating around here and there. (Doesn’t come from the German paper in the link.) If the Democrats ever wish to become the majority party again, they should run this graphic past their strategists, ask them what they think, and fire anyone who says “well, we need to learn how to reconnect with Jesusland, obviously.” I’ll give you one boring example: additional federal funding of stem-cell research. I don’t support it. But I do not favor a ban on private funding. I think it’s one of those morally gray areas, and perhaps we had best not force people to pay money for this sort of thing. Ah, but I’m opposed to defense spending, can I withhold my taxes? No, you can’t. Defense is one of the obligations of the government. You could argue that the government is obligated to fund any sort of medical research because it provides for the general welfare, but you could say the same thing about subsidized cable TV rates. You could say that about anything. Hence it’s one of those things I prefer to leave to the private sector.

So I’m not particularly impressed when someone concludes that this stance, as well as a few other “moral issues,” results from my habit of handling snakes on Sunday morning. Nuance, people. Nuance. Let’s look at another example: let us postulate that objection to the gay marriage isn’t based in “homophobia,” but an unwillingness to redefine a long-standing institution. At least without a vote. There are two possible responses:

1. Gay-basher! Bigot!

2. Hmm. Really? Interesting; can't quite agree, but go on.

If the Democrats want to get back in power, they’ll be wise to choose option two. I’m a live & let-live sort of guy when it comes to this; I’m in favor of civil partnerships, legal protection in the workplace, hospital visitation rights, societal-wide acceptance of the utterly NO DUH notion that gay relationships have the same essential emotional qualities of straight relationships. I support gay adoption - unless there’s a M/F couple in line, in which they should get preference. That has nothing to do with sexual identity or heterosexual chauvinism. I think a kid does best growing up exposed on an elemental level to both male and female characteristics; does that make me a raging bigot? Can we not even talk about that?

Amusing. His premises and conclusions regarding the stem-cell stuff, gay
marriage, and so forth are utterly absurd, but they are amusing. I *did*
rather like the "God-fearing freedom eggs."

Short form: Straight marriage is the only kind because "we've always done it
this way." Stem-cell research "shouldn't be paid for by the government
because some people think it's wrong." Orphaned children should go to
heterosexual parents first, regardless of other factors (apparently),
because "it's the right thing to expose them to."

Common sense, or In the name of God, Montressor, don't make me have a new
thought in my head or make progress in the evolution of humankind!

I'm still seeing similarities between Bush's win and Howard's win a month
before. Howard's win was put down to his promise/scare campaign to keep
interest rates lower than they would be under Labor, which won him the
outer-suburban new homeowner vote, while Labor campaigned on a bunch of
"values" issues, including betraying the timber workers union in Tasmania
(Labor being the traditional party of the workers and unions) which lost
the party two seats in that state alone, but did cement its hold of the
inner-cities. However, the "middle australia is stupid" meme didn't get
much play here, unlike in the US, which implies the US Dems are not going
to be electorally competetive for some time.

------------------------------------------------------------
DOWNLOAD NOW: <http://www.delicious-monster.com/download>
------------------------------------------------------------

Delicious Library 1.0 is now available for download from the URL above. (Once you've download the application you can buy it via its built-in store, assuming you're so inclined.)

Thank you for your interest! We hope you love our software.

Thanks,
The Delicious Monster
Lead Monster, Delicious Monster Software

The morning after the Feb. 3 primaries, which vaulted Kerry into a virtually insurmountable lead, the candidate was fuming over his missing hairbrush. He and his aides were riding in a van on the way to a Time magazine cover-photo shoot. Nicholson had left the hairbrush behind. “Sir, I don’t have it,” he said, after rummaging in the bags. “Marvin, f—-!” Kerry said. The press secretary, David Wade, offered his brush. “I’m not using Wade’s brush,” the long-faced senator pouted. “Marvin, f—-, it’s my Time photo shoot.”

Nicholson was having a bad day. Breakfast had been late and rushed and not quite right for the senator. In the van, Kerry was working his cell phone and heard the beep signaling that the phone was running out of juice. “Marvin, charger,” he said without turning around. “Sorry, I don’t have it,” said Nicholson, who was sitting in the rear of the van. Now Kerry turned around. “I’m running this campaign myself,” he said, looking at Nicholson and the other aides. “I get myself breakfast. I get myself hairbrushes. I get myself my cell-phone charger. It’s pretty amazing.” In silent frustration, Nicholson helplessly punched the car seat.

A DEMOCRATIC FRIEND OF MINE JUST GOT A PHONE CALL from a Republican she doesn't speak to that often, allegedly to "say hi" but transparently to gloat. This is my plea to Bush voters to give peace a chance. If we have any chance of ending the sniping and bitterness that characterise the current political scene, it's going to start with Republicans being gracious winners. If you have to indulge your schadenfreude, do it silently by lurking on Democratic websites and reading hair-tearing left-wing editorials, not by alienating people with whom we'd like to eventually build a better America.

What does the (presumed) election of George Bush mean to you, as a member of the left? It means you and your party have four years to get yourselves together and figure out exactly what you stand for. It means you have a couple of years, max, to come up with a viable candidate who represents the majority of you and doesn't pander to every knock off group of your party. It means you have time to get your act together and decide once and for all what you stand for and produce a leader who will stand up for your ideals. It means you better find a candidate who is someone you can vote for with conscience, and not just vote for out of hatred for his opponent.

What did you all believe in this year? Hate? Anger? You ran your own campaign, one filled to the brim with bile and acidic spittle and you wonder why you feel so black today? You were pinning your hopes on the the wish that the rest of America harbored the same intense hatred as you and would vote with their clenched fists. Now that you are left without the hoped for victory party as an outlet for your rage, you have to direct it somewhere else. If not at the candidate, then at his voters, right? What I am seeing today makes me pity you, and it's a pity tinged with disgust and should not be mistaken for empathy.

It means the same things for us moderate Republicans. Maybe in this time we can produce a candidate who doesn't alienate the social liberal in us, yet speaks to our concerns about defense, security and the war on terror. I am not completely enamored with the Republican Party. There's a lot of work to be done within the ranks. I'd like to see a full stop of the move towards the religious right.

Perhaps there is the perfect candidate out there for both of us, someone just making his or her way up the political chain right now. With any luck, there will be a day when a president is elected who is liked by both sides of the fence, who is respected by everyone.

And that's the great thing about waking up today. See, the world is still here. The sun has risen, there were no great floods or earthquakes or visits from Lucifer during the night. We have the future. We can all - Republicans, Democrats and everyone else - learn a lot from this election and use those lessons to move this country forward.

It is 9:35 local time here in Houston, Texas. The early results show a terrifying leaning toward placing George Bush back into the White House. I state, unequivocally and for the record -- and yes, you Secret Service twits, this means you too -- that, should I awaken tomorrow morning and discover that Bush has usurped this throne for a second time, there will be a truly fascinating LiveJournal entry appearing later on Wednesday afternoon.

Be careful -- I may take you up on that. "America" no longer exists, and the dream of what America was supposed to be is dying a horrible death. I'm already working on my French, as well as saying, "eh?"

It's a beautiful day ... It's hard to believe it's the first day of Armageddon.

Well, here's to praying that this election is actually ran totally legit... albeit we all know Shrub is going to cheese-dick it and steal the election anyway... the bastard.

Whatever happens--and I have high hopes--I feel like a foot soldier in a historic battle. Over the top, I know, but that's how it feels. Never felt this way about any election before.

We hope you exercised your right to vote.
Or didn't.
See, that's the genius thing about democracy:
Choice.
For instance, we've chosen to show a new episode of Harvey Birdman twenty-four times.

Enjoy.

Of all the things I hear going up to today's election, the one that annoys me the most are people mentioning "voter intimidation." Monitors are placed to make sure made up people like Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy, and Eminem don't vote, and somehow that's "intimidating."

(Say this in whiniest voice possible) "Oh! Someone looked at me funny! I can't vote now!"

People died so you can vote, dingus! If you can be intimidated from the vote, then you don't deserve it!

And I keep hearing how it's worst against minorities. So let me get this straight: the Republicans are sending some white guy in a suit into a minority district to intimidate all the black people.

Either I'm missing some major mechanics here or people are just being whiny little bitches. I know what answer I'm leaning for.

After the penultimate events depicted in "Trial of the Monarch" left the titular supervillain with a one way ticket to the hoosegow and the relationship with his beloved Dr. Girlfriend in shambles, the season finale finds Team Venture on a course destined to bring only death, destruction, and questions aplenty.

Before you head into the final stretch, we've got an exclusive for you, direct from our shadowy, barely legal network of sources and informants – the actual recording of the Monarch's prison phone calls to Dr. Girlfriend and his henchmen.

Kerry wound up his two-year quest for the presidency with an 18-hour marathon that took him from Florida in the south to Wisconsin in the upper Midwest. “This is you chance to hold George Bush accountable,” he told supporters as he crisscrossed the battleground states. “The hopes of our country are on the line ... and the world is watching.”

I will be able to live with a Kerry Presidency. But what tortures me is the thought that this country is no longer capable of doing hard, dirty work -- that we have reached the point where nothing difficult is attainable because the cost is something less than free.

But terrorist attacks don't worry me all that much, really. What worries me is what we show of our character in response to such an attack. Any country can be happy in time of peace, after all—it's only in those periods of trial, like World War II, or Vietnam, that we really see what each country is made of. Now that Jimmy Carter has repudiated the Revolutionary War, blithely throwing away the two-hundred-year legacy of this country's fighting spirit that would never have existed if America had somehow gained its independence peacefully (which would not have happened, Jimmy), we see that shamefacedness over what this country has come to stand for has reached even into the uppermost echelons of our leadership, into the mind of someone who was once our President, and someone who now shares a box seat at the Democratic National Convention with Michael Moore, endorsing a philosophy that says the world would be better off without an America gumming up the works. If a sizable proportion of the populace comes to agree with Carter, or with the people who think like him, then we truly have left behind any traces of the generation that hurled itself into the forests of Belgium or the jungles of the South Pacific, let alone the one that tore itself to pieces on Little Round Top, each man believing deep in his heart that the cause for which he was taking a bayonet in the gut was right, right, right, and to hell with anyone who would tell him otherwise.

A little story: Some time ago, England had what was called "the Metric Martyr." This was a fellow — a grocer or a butcher, I forget which — who sold his goods in imperial measures: pounds, ounces, etc. But because England is now beholden to Brussels, he was prosecuted for not using the metric system (hence, Metric Martyr).

I asked our senior editor David Pryce-Jones (a Brit), "How could the British people permit this? I mean, it's their system — the imperial system, or the English system — to begin with." David answered, "The British people wouldn't permit it. The question is whether they remain the British people."

I have thought about that story in the last few weeks.

UPDATE: Reader Thom T. expands on this thought:

You stated that, even more important than confronting the terrorists, the worst thing that could happen is that this nation finds itself incapable of making a decision in times of turmoil, and displays itself as such to the world. You are absolutely right. I would put it a different way, though: the worst thing that could happen tomorrow, for the long-term health of the republic, is a repeat of 2000.

I have several friends who are fellow Republicans/conservative/people of the Right who still do not understand that we are in a tripartite war, and that the Islamist are the latest entrant, not the second. These people also still trust the Big Media model for their news, disparrage blogs, and at least one or two of them will be voting for Kerry. The first battle in this war was the one between Alger Hiss and Whitaker Chambers; all HUAC activity before that case was a series of skirmishes. Chambers framed it perfectly in "Witness", his autobiography: communism succeeded to the extent that it did for one very basic, primal reason. It inspired people to DO SOMETHING. What was being done was incidental, until the other side responded. Thus, freedom, and free people, could only win to the extent that freedom was able to awaken its supporters to do something in response, with at least the same degree of passion that communism had roused its supporters.

And it was only at that point that the precise temporal ideological battle would matter, because in essence, communism was nothing new, not even when Marx and Engels published "Das Kapital". Freedom and Communism were only the two terms currently being applied to a battle that went back to the beginning of humankind: the battle of Man vs. God (or, as Thomas Sowell put it, in a way which I prefer, the constrained vision vs. the unconstrained vision). And that, to me, is what this election is about. It is the latest battle between those who think they know best, and will stop at nothing to depose one who disagrees with them, and those who have no such delusions of their own infallibility, and who will do what IS in their power to do to secure our safety, and will thus take the most direct route possible toward that goal, even if that route is a horrible one, because it is also the route that is the best of a bad lot.

Chambers believed that the reason that liberals of the time could never bring themselves to condemn the likes of Hiss is because in their minds, Hiss was only half-wrong. I believe that we are now seeing the seeds that were planted then come to full bloom, and that we have, since that time, been in a war against the type of people who would support Hiss, and now support Kerry, and, more importantly, themselves, because they believe they are so wise and infallible that they can solve the terrorism problem if THEY could just sit down with all the relevant parties and talk it all out.

And it is their intransigence regarding the reality of the situation that has created the current deadlock, America's inablility to either fuck or die, if you will. This war, since the late '40s, has been more truly between those in the West who would rise to their own defense, and those in the West who would remain asleep, than between all of us and any third party, such as the Soviet Union or al Queda.

And that is why you are absolutely correct: the worst aspect of this election is the deadlock between the "Men of the West", if I may borrow from Tolkein. :) And that is why the best outcome of this election is a decisive victory, NO MATTER WHO WINS. You're absolutely right: we can survive a Kerry presidency, although the cost in blood and treasure will be higher than if Bush wins. What we can't survive is another 2000, Bush-Gore type result, something that will tear both the U.S. and the West apart. Even if Kerry wins, the sleepers can still be roused to rise and fight. If we tear ourselves apart, however, we do al Queda's job for them.

Central to this argument is the question of whether the fundamental struggle between the abovementioned opposed forces that have manifested themselves differently over the centuries is a pendulum-like affair, or a one-way deal. In our current terms, once a society is committed to the gray senescence of socialism and the bartering of freedom for safety and security, can it ever be turned around and rolled back through formal means, without bloody revolution?

I really don't know, but from my perspective it sure doesn't look like it. That's why I'm so dead-set against giving up any ground now, irrational though it might appear to friends and acquaintances who wonder just what could have driven me so far off the deep end.

And Christopher M. mails:

FWIW: I think President Bush will win, by a comfortable margin in the popular vote and a wide margin in the Electoral College. Just my "gut feeling," plus a suspicion that many will choose him in the privacy of the polling booth, no matter what they've told friends, pollsters....

In the long term however, I have the sinking feeling that we may be losing. That is to say: unashamed love of country, service to the nation, valor, steadfast devotion to the cause of freedom--all these seem to be slowly dying. In Britain we see the near future--a land that fought the Nazis alone in 1940 under Churchill is now a place where Tony Blair is reviled for the crime of standing up to Islamic terrorism. We are only millimeters behind them.

(Actually the rot was already there when Churchill took power--read the biography by William Manchester. Lord Halifax was just the most prominent of the urbane voices sneering at Churchill's lack of sophistication, urging the Government to sue for peace with Hitler. Heck, read Orwell's commentary on the times.)

What to do? In the short term: fight at the ballot box. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Long term? Better minds than mine are needed....

Exactly. Even if we "win", what will we have won?

Just so everyone knows, I'm not predictin' jack. Sorry if that disappoints anyone.

WASHINGTON—The Arab television station Al-Jazeera is broadcasting a new tape from Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden.

Multiple sources told FOX News that the 18-minute videotape is authentic and said its release was timed to coincide with Tuesday’s presidential elections. Bin Laden makes reference to recent conflicts in Iraq and addresses the American people directly, sources said.

U.S. officials saidthe tapeappears to have been made recently. Bin Laden is speaking from a lectern and he talks about threats to the United States and he says that President Bush will not protect the American people.

UPDATE: Is it just me, or has the atmosphere suddenly been kicked back to the "supervillain holding the world hostage" theme of the post-9/11 days? Here we have bin Laden (for all we know until we have an impartial translator analyze his actual words—it's entirely possible that this is a hoax using an old tape and a new "translation") speaking directly to America, proudly claiming responsibility for 9/11 and yet telling us that Bush "deceived America" and that "If he'd been more clever, he could have stopped me... mwa ha ha haaah!" —or words to that effect. It's almost like he's honestly trying to give us helpful advice on fighting terrorism, while at the same time taking credit for being exactly what we're fighting. This is just way too surreal.

A case can be made for this being a hoax perpetrated by Kerry supporters or by Bush supporters. I know I don't know who ends up looking better for it.

UPDATE: Wretchard's analysis is that Osama's video is a plea for surrender.

If so, then our answer is, "What? Did someone say something?"

Major Pearson says that his team removed around 250 tons of munitions and other materials from Al Qaqaa. He doesn't recall any "sealed" areas and can't say exactly what the munitions were, but the Pentagon says they believe some of the destroyed material was RDX.

Is this enough, from President Bush's standpoint? It certainly should be. The obvious conclusion is that the New York Times and John Kerry shot from the hip, accusing the Army of incompetence when they didn't know the facts. They relied on a patently self-serving and anti-Bush letter from Mohammed El Baradei, a less-than-honest U.N. bureaucrat. It is quite likely that the allegedly missing explosives have been accounted for; around half disappeared before January 2003, according to the IAEA's own records, and the remainder was most likely destroyed by American troops. (The total amount at issue, 377 tons, represents less than one-tenth of one percent of the munitions the U.S. Army has destroyed in Iraq.)

. . .

HINDROCKET adds: This could be the death knell for the Kerry campaign. He has staked a lot on this story without having any idea whether it was true or not. If the evidence is that 200+ tons were destroyed by our forces, then, along with the 100+ tons that disappeared while they were being "guarded" by the U.N., the 370 tons are accounted for, and Kerry has falsely accused our Army of incompetence.

The Littlest Prisoner at Abu Ghraib

Your child will be the hit of the neighborhood costume parade in this recreation of the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal's most indelible image. As an added bonus this easy-to-make costume will remind everyone on your child's trick-or-treat route of our national shame! Simply roll a cone from a sheet of 24"x38" black cardstock, making sure to cut out a hole for the face. Drape with two yards of black felt, and add leftover wires from your last lamp-rewiring project. VoilÀ! So easy, so quick, and so terrifying!

Total cost: Under $20.
Total time: Under two hours.

Also, what worth is the Security Council when at least two of the 5 permanent members were doing business with Iraq while Iraq was supposed to be under sactions? Are Democrats still willing to argue that sanctions were working? This story involves not only business deals, but actual military coordination to defy the UN's own resolutions, resolutions that Russia and France both approved.

Kerry is in an awkward spot. He has cited the story as a great miscalculation and error by the administration, but in actuality this story shows that we waited too long before attacking Iraq. We waited because liberals wanted one more UN resolution, in effect a permission slip from countries that were actively working to undermine US and UN objectives. The missing explosives and weapons are thus more the fault of the delayers than the administration. Shame on them. How many more Iraqis died because of their delaying tactics? How many more American and allied forces? And how many more will die because the weapons were distributed in exactly the way the anti-war crowd said they never would?

The most critical truth is that the four primary candidates for the highest offices in our land, Mr. George W. Bush, Mr. Dick Cheney, Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards all voted for the war in Iraq. Period. Each man had an opportunity for greatness and they failed.

John Kerry and John Edwards are followers. They are not leaders! They failed the American people and the world. Their names are forever etched in history along with Ms. Hillary Clinton and all the so-called leaders who voted for the war in Irag and for the Patriot Act, thus raping the American people of our Constitutional Rights, especially our rights to personal privacy.

I am just one man; one proud American citizen with a political legacy that began 125 years ago. Although many American's were afraid to speak out, or were crucified for standing up against this war, I strongly spoke out against it as loud as I could. I warned of the perils it would bring to all of us. I sent letters to the Oval Office, Mr. and Mrs. Cheney, Senators and members of Congress. I had it circulated to more than 10,000 people around the world and to the media. I appeared on television, “Voices Over Violence” and warned of the danger to America if Mr. Bush proceeded with this evil war.

UPDATE: Sweet! You can by the kit for the thing here. (Thanks to James S.!)

UPDATE: Oh no! I've been Lileksed. Okay, in the interest of hammering a wedge into the Slashdot effect and sending WaPo-originating cascade link-through-ers to multiple places instead of just pounding one flat, here's the Flash version, which reveals the name of the gifted animator/director (Bernard Derriman), and is much more satisfyingly detailed if you've got a machine that likes exercise and a nice big monitor.

Oh, and regarding James' comments about the song's content:

I just want this song to mean nothing to her when she's 14, you know? NOTHING. I want it to make as much sense as someone singing the periodic table in Esperanto, backwards.

You know, that may be a moot point: the lyrics pretty much mean nothing to me. But that's just because (aside from the main chorus and title lines) it's kinda hard to make them out through the Compressed Pub Strine algorithm...

Must be new, too—the lyrics aren't here, or anywhere, yet.

Sent to me by a source in the government: “The Iraqi explosives story is a fraud. These weapons were not there when US troops went to this site in 2003. The IAEA and its head, the anti-American Mohammed El Baradei, leaked a false letter on this issue to the media to embarrass the Bush administration. The US is trying to deny El Baradei a second term and we have been on his case for missing the Libyan nuclear weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear weapons program.”

News of missing explosives in Iraq — first reported in April 2003 — was being resurrected for a 60 MINUTES election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crisis mode.

Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES, said in a statement that “our plan was to run the story on October 31.”

. . .

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq. According to NBCNEWS, the explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.

. . .

CBSNEWS’ plan to unleash the story just 24 hours before election day had one senior Bush official outraged.

“Darn, I wanted to see the forged documents to show how this was somehow covered up,” the Bush source, who asked not to be named, mocked, recalling last months CBS airing of fraudulent Bush national guard letters.

UPDATE: Oh, and note that in that first article, John Kerry couldn't wait to use the original leak of the story to grab a microphone and blame Bush for somehow being responsible for letting these 380 tons of explosives go missing.

Kerry said terrorists could use the material “to kill our troops, our people, blow up airplanes and level buildings.”

“This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the greatest blunders of this administration and the incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk and this country at greater risk.”

Couldn't even wait for your own fact-checkers to give you the green-light, could you, John? Care to issue an apology?

Maybe admit your collusion with CBS, or something?

UPDATE: Someone should get MoveOn.org in on this whole Internet thing:

Every day, the tragedy in Iraq deepens. On Sunday, newspapers reported the execution of 49 members of the Iraqi National Guard, who were lined up and executed at the hands of insurgents. And yesterday, the New York Times reported that hundreds of thousands of pounds of deadly explosives in Iraq have gone missing, looted from a facility that was left unprotected by the U.S. Army. Yet George Bush says everything's going fine.

Maybe it's the Times that's lying, you freaks, not Bush.

UPDATE: And now Kerry is running an ad centered on this "story".

Geez louise. Are we in a race condition here? Is the Kerry campaign specifically, cynically trying to get as many bogus memes into the water as possible in this last week before the election, just to be as loud and chaotic as possible so there won't be any chance for the administration to post a defense in time, or for the public to absorb it if they do?

If they win, how will they live with themselves once everything calms down and they start to reflect on what precedent they've set this year?

Do they even care?

UPDATE: Bob P. e-mails:

How news travels....on the main 6o'clock news yesterday the missing 380 tons of explosives was the lead story on New Zealand's channel one, and they even claimed that the explosives "could be used to trigger a nuclear device"

And the dems say that it's *Bush* trading in fear....

I seriously don't know if I can take another week of this...

Back then Kerry was near the bottom of a pretty thick pile, two days ago when I met him for the second time he was fighting desperately to stay on top of a much smaller heap. I wasn't looking to meet John Kerry, I was working on a story about his operatives. Most strikingly, when I shook hands with him again he looked like a faded piece of cloth. The pace of non-stop This is the Fucking End campaigning had taken its toll on him. His grip was firm, but he barely even glanced at me. I and the rest of the crowd were just meaty appendages on a good will conveyor for him. If it had been possible I think he would have continued talking to one of his aides while kissing the baby being extended to him.

- How can Lurch go around shooting defenseless geese and the PETA folks not get mad? Imagine if Bush had gone hunting and bagged a goose. He’d be about as popular as Daniel LaRusso when he first moved to LA. My other favorite part of this story was that even the AP, a truly liberal news organization, called it a pure photo-op. They didn’t even try to disguise this as something Kerry loves to do. It’s so obvious now that he is out of touch with the rest of the common men and women of the United States that even his own supporters can’t bring themselves to lie anymore. Oh, and just so you liberals don’t have too much of a moral debate about your candidate shooting animals with guns, no one in the media actually saw Kerry shoot the 12-gauge shotgun he was carrying. And judging by his 40% hit rate at a skeet range several months ago, it’s doubtful he actually hit anything if he did shoot the thing.

UPDATE: You know, it occurs to me that if Kerry loses, given all the bizarre gaffes and foul-ups and transparently obvious incidents where his campaign has tried so bumblingly to manufacture some kind of even marginally plausible opportunity for him to scrape up a few more votes from this group or that demographic or the other bunch of sports fans, the story of his campaign from behind the scenes is going to make one hell of a book.

Hell, I'd buy it. It'd probably be side-splitting. Especially if Kerry grows a sense of humor, somehow, after the election's over. It worked for Bob Dole...

I think there's one point that's being forgotten.

That point is, as far as the press is concerned, Democrats can do no wrong.

If you look back, you see:

1. "Clinton was a draft dodger." MSM: Cut the man some slack! No one wanted to go to Vietnam! Let's focus on today, instead!
"Bush was a draft dodger' [which I don't believe]. MSM: He's unfit to lead!

2. "Bush was kind of wild in his college days." MSM: He should be thrown out!
"Clinton was kind of wild in his presidency." MSM: That's not important, that's a distraction. Partisan attack!

And so on. Granted, Clinton was granted an astonishing love by the press that I have never seen before or since. He could simply do no wrong, so he may be a bad example.

But my larger point is that, should Kerry win, and he decides that we need to stay the course in Irag, and move on to Iran and Syria, the press will shower these actions with accolades and talk about how he has "the courage to face the tough challenges," "he's not afraid of the hard road," "he's leading this nation so we can bring peace and democracy to the world," etc.

2004 has had the lowest ozone smog levels since states began measuring the stuff back in the 1970s. Based on preliminary data from around the country, days exceeding EPA's tough new 8-hour ozone standard declined an average of about 50 percent below 2003, which was itself a record year.[1]

A combination of continuing emission reductions and favorable weather explains the improvements. Weather is the single largest factor affecting year-to-year variations in smog levels. All else equal, cool, wet, and windy years will have less ozone than warm, dry, and calm ones. But weather is only part of the story. During the last 30 years most of the country has had several years that were cooler and/or wetter than 2004, but never have smog levels been anywhere near this low.

. . .

Overall, 8-hour ozone exceedance days declined an average of about 50 percent between 2003 and 2004, meaning that 2004 is not only the best year on record, but the best by a large margin.

I should’ve written about this some days ago but I had to spend a week in Basra...Anyway, I feel it’s still worth writing about (at least from my point of view):
last week, I crossed the borders for the first time in my life; something may sound less than regular for most of you but for an Iraqi dentist or doctor it was a beautiful dream becoming a reality.
Countless numbers of Iraqi doctors, dentists, officers and professionals carrying Msc or Phd ended up in prison or even lost their lives for trying to get passports (faked ones of course and at a very high cost) to get out of Saddam’s hell.

This time, it wasn’t hard for me at all to get my passport (a real one) and it cost me practically nothing; just two personal photographs and after five days I had my passport in my hand. No Mukhabarat asking why, where to and for how long, no 400 000 Dinars exit tax, no bribes to border guards...etc

. . .

This may sound silly but It’s really something nice to be able to move freely, leave your country whenever you want and come back whenever you like and I can’t describe to you what I felt when I saw the word “EXIT” printed on one of the passport’s pages; I was sad for what we missed and at the same time optimistic and happy for what’s waiting for us in the future. Life seemed normal for me for the 1st time in my life. Soon after the war we could sense freedom immediately but this time we experienced it in a way that we haven’t before. It was an amazing feeling!
Despite all what’s Baghdad is going through, nothing can match the peace I felt when I walked down from the airplane in Baghdad's airport.

WHAT I AM … is an American who understands the difference between “censorship” and “choice”. Evidently, these individuals do not, because when these same “celebrities” receive public ridicule for their offensive actions, the first thing they yell is “Censorship!”. What they seem incapable of understanding is… the right of free speech and dissent is shared equally by those offended… as well as those who offend. I support and will continue to support those films and performers whom I choose to … and refuse to support those I don’t. It is my right as an American … a right I will continue to enthusiastically exercise.

If Kerry wins, the American people will have spoken definitively, and for all time so far as I am concerned. They will have, in effect, said, "We will not support pre-emptive wars or large-scale efforts to democratize other nations any longer. We simply haven't got the stomach for what's required."

Because let's face it: by any rational measure, the Iraq war has gone better than any operation of its type and scale has ever gone in history. And yet the piddling cost and the incredible work of our people is now routinely viewed as a disaster. The press is content merely to report the negative, without any rational or historical context, and the American people are (apparently) content to let them get away with it.

And that's okay. If that's what the American people want, it's what they want. If anyone proposes such a task in the future, I'll simply say "Look to the Iraq war. It will end in disaster because the press will only report failure and death and excuse that with phony mealy-mouthed claims of "objectivity," and within a year or two the American people will go wobbly. It's just who we are as a people."

The most expensive TV ad buy of the presidential campaign shows President Bush (news - web sites) consoling a teenage girl whose mother died in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.

The ad, created by the conservative Progress for America Voter Fund, will run until the election on cable stations and in nine key states at a cost of $14.2 million, said the group's president, Brian McCabe. (Related link: Ad analysis)

The ad was inspired by a photo of Bush hugging Ashley Faulkner, who is now 16, while campaigning in Lebanon, Ohio, on May 4. The photo, taken by the girl's father, Lynn Faulkner, was widely circulated on the Internet. As Bush shook hands in the crowd, the Faulkners' neighbor told him that Ashley had lost her mom on 9/11. Bush enfolded Ashley in his arms and offered her comfort.

UPDATE: And when it comes to what this election means for America, don't miss this article by Mathew Manweller, republished by Matteo. Will we make our grandfathers proud... or would they even recognize us?

"Beyond this incident, though," Barnes commented, "I think Bush helped himself by showing a great command of the facts in the debate."

"I believe you are referring especially to this instance," Hume said, and a clip started playing.

"Now, I know how Edwards keeps talking about 'two Americas,'" Bush stated, "but I looked it up. On a world map, there are two Americas - North America and South America - but that's not my fault. According to scientists, it's the result of tectonic shifts breaking apart the Pangaea supercontinent... way before my administration. Kerry and Edwards need to stop lying about me!"

Sensors to detect deceleration on NASA's Genesis space capsule were installed correctly but had been designed upside down, resulting in the failure to deploy the capsule’s parachutes. The design flaw is the prime suspect for why the capsule, carrying precious solar wind ions, crashed in Utah on 8 September, according to a NASA investigation board.

The sensors were a key element in a domino-like series of events designed to release the parachutes. When the capsule - which blazed into the atmosphere at 11 kilometres per second - decelerated by three times the force of gravity (3 Gs), the sensors should have made contact with a spring.

"It's like smashing on the brakes in your car - you feel yourself being pushed forward," says NASA spokesperson Don Savage.

The contact should have continued as the capsule peaked at a deceleration of about 30 Gs. Then, when the capsule’s deceleration fell back through 3 Gs, the contact would have been broken, starting a timer that signalled the first parachute to release.

"But it never made the initial contact because it was backwards," Savage told New Scientist.

The sensors, which are estimated to be less than an inch (2.5 centimetres) wide, were apparently installed in a circuit board in the wrong orientation - rotated 180° from the correct direction. But the problem stemmed not from the installation but the design, by Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Maryland.

"They still have to find out why that design error was not caught," says Savage. The mission's Mishap Investigation Board will continue to investigate the problem.

UPDATE: Ow. My brain.

So that's where the animation style used in "This Land" and "DC" comes from?

Yeah. Even though it has chop jaws, I think it looks great.

(The puppetlike jaws are) also a part of the joke, and that's what Evan and the guys do. They understand the limits of the technology and make that part of the joke. It's crude, but the art looks great, and the crudeness is part of the joke.

We could use Flash to make perfectly fluid, Disney-quality animation, but it's just that bandwidth and processor constraints come into play. Even with "DC," we ran into a lot of constraints. It has a lot more animation than "This Land," in terms of movement. And processors can choke if you don't have a newer machine.

UPDATE: Kenny did:

I think it's quite telling how one of the DUs notes how they don't see discussion on conservative bboards of leaving if Kerry becomes president. That's because we think all other countries suck (apologies to foreign readers... and pity). Where would we flee to that has even a tenth of the grandeur of America? Even with Kerry as president and Democrats controlling both Houses of Congress, they couldn't ruin America if they tried. Americans kick ass, and they will for all my lifetime. If the fire that is the American spirit starts to fade, there is no retreat. This land is the battleground from freedom in the world, and, while there is a drop of the blood in my body, I will reside in the front lines of the fight for civilization as we know it.

Of course, the battle would be easier if we deported all the whiners.

Yeah, I shoulda known it was Frank J.

The point, though, stands: ought we to be deferring our opinion to those Americans who threaten to become huffy expatriates if the election doesn't go their way, or those who believe the Republic will survive even a President we don't agree with?

The former group is fond of becoming indignant over their patriotism being questioned, too. If you ask me, it's beyond question.

We have come up with a unique way for non-Americans to express your views on the policies and candidates in this election to some of the people best placed to decide its outcome. It's not quite a vote, but it's a chance to influence how a very important vote will be cast. Or, at the very least, make a new penpal.

It works like this. By typing your email address into the box on this page you will be sent a name and address of a voter in Clark County, Ohio from the most recent publicly available voters roll. You may not have heard of it, but it's one of the most marginal areas in one of the most marginal states: at the last election, just 167 votes separated Democrats from Republicans. It's a place where a change of mind among just a few voters could make a real difference.

Writing to a Clark County voter is a chance to explain how US policies effect you personally, and the rest of the world more generally, and who you hope they will send to the White House. It may even persuade someone to use their vote at all.

In 1994, during the Texas gubernatorial campaign, it is my understanding that Bush simply stuck to his guns, being his polite and friendly self, not responding to negative attacks from the incumbent, Ann Richards. Out of frustration that she wasn’t having an impact on Bush or his campaign, Richards finally made a public statement in some venue or other that “George Bush is an idiot!” This immediately swung the election in Bush’s favor and he never looked back. Ah, that was a kindler and gentler era!

. . .

There will be ironies if the Democratic Party and left manage to destroy themselves during this election. They could have looked at the overall strategic situation and said “You know, we lost the roll of the dice on this one. Bush was President during 9/11, we’re at war, and it is more important to support the President than to win an election. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. Americans get tired of having one party in the White House after awhile, and we’ll get back in there. For now, let’s run a decent campaign, like Dole did in 1996, and be as helpful as we can to assure victory in this war.” If they’d done this, they’d probably have a great shot in ’08. If there were agreement on the importance of victory, ’08 would come down to a choice of personality and domestic policies. But, alas, the Democrats prefer a failing (I hope!) kamikaze attack.

Quick summary: In Montreal, a used car salesman called a gay man "fifi", and the government fined him a thousand dollars for doing so. Disgusting.

Politkal Korrektness, comrade? What kind of limp-wrist pansy-boy goes crying to the government just because he's called "fifi"? Are Canadians that fucking weak? Or is it just Canadian gays? Wah, wah, wah, the bad man called me the name for a poodle, get him in front of judges! And what does the Canadian government think of its people, that they need to enact laws like that to begin with? They have a fucking tribunal to rule on name-calling?

At least he said it in French. I suppose that if the insult had been delivered in English, there would be an additional charge added.

UPDATE: Kenny e-mails:

The idiocy of it all, is that free speech for *everyone* makes it harder for biggoted groups to gain traction. Sure, they might be fashionable at times or may be able to hook a few single-issue people, but in the end their ability to spew their bile ends up turning ordinary people off and they end up marginalizing themselves. Where are the KKK, the Black Panthers, the Arayan Nation, the Communists, the Anarchists? They can't build any momentum because their hate and idiocy are open for all to see. In contrast, the neo-Nazis are still a force in Germany. Why? Because they are specifically outlawed. Their repulsive ideals are not on display for everyone to ridicule and it's tempting for young people to eat of the forbidden fruit. In the U.S. they get mocked in movies like The Blues Brothers and very few take them seriously.

Yeah. Though the same argument can be used to show that things like drinking and drugs aren't as big a problem in Europe as they are here, because they're demystified for kids at an early age, and kept from becoming "forbidden fruit" the way bigoted groups are here. Different peoples, different priorities; and the more things like this come to light, the more different I realize our various countries really are. And all this time I'd assumed everyone was growing more and more similar.

Also, Paul Denton has comments on a somewhat related case.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, owner of the largest chain of television stations in the nation, plans to air a documentary that accuses Sen. John Kerry of betraying American prisoners during the Vietnam War, a newspaper reported Monday.

The reported plan prompted the Democratic National Committee to file a complaint against Sinclair with the Federal Election Commission.

Sinclair has ordered all 62 of its stations to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" without commercials in prime-time next week, the Washington Post reported, just two weeks before the Nov. 2 election.

. . .

"We have received thousands of e-mails, people outraged by the very idea a company like Sinclair would direct stations to air a partisan film," said Wes Boyd, founder of political watchdog MoveOn.org.

"If they do air a partisan film, we'll challenge the FCC and the licenses of the local stations that broadcast the film because local stations have a responsibility to the community to air real news, not partisan messages," said Boyd.

Did the Democrats complain about Farenheit 9/11? or about the timing of
its DVD release (and associated advertising)?
Did the Democrats complain about Dan Rather's use of "60 Minutes" to
spread forged propaganda?
Did the Democrats complain about widespread bias shown by tthe vast
majority of media outlets?

But now, when a single media chain announces plans to broadcast a movie
that questions them, they cry "foul".

The DNC lost its right to complain about media bias a long time ago. And
they certainly must have contempt for the average voter if they feel that
the audience makes up its mind based on movies... on the other hand, given
their behavior, I'd say that the DNC -does- have just such a contempt, and
-does- use movies and media manipulation to sway those stupid,
knuckle-dragging vote-puppets.

UPDATE: Then again, I often find that I have no idea what kinds of things are controversial in other countries. Sunday shopping? What century is this?

At some point in life, you will come to respect others' points of view. Perhaps you will be convinced through personal experience, or through argument, or through simply coming to love someone with different viewpoints, in whom you are interested enough to listen and understand.

You're not an idiot, and neither am I. Yet we disagree, and this fact alone should compel you to give a little more thought and respect to the "other side". You gain nothing as a person by cocooning yourself in comfortable and unchallenged views - it is through interaction, understanding, and substantive argument that one becomes more enlightened. And, of course, experience.

UPDATE: Somehow I doubt it would work on these people, though. They've grabbed up a degraded facsimile of the truth and run so far downfield that it's not worth even going after them.

WASHINGTON - Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry says he would not send U.S. forces to stop the genocide in Sudan if they continued to be needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I’d do everything possible,” he said in a taped interview broadcast Thursday night on Black Entertainment Television, citing logistical support and money to help the African Union intervene in the Sudanese crisis.

Asked whether he’d send troops, Kerry said the United States would “have to be in a position in Iraq and Afghanistan” to allow that to happen. He said his options as president would be limited because President Bush has overextended U.S. forces.

“Our flexibility is less than it was,” he said. “Our moral leadership is not what it ought to be.”

From: GEORGE W. BUSH <pndxqzfk@yz.com>
Subject: I approve this message
Date: October 8, 2004 6:29:05 AM PDT
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004


EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION

Law Enforcement:
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under
the influence of alcohol. I pleaded guilty, paid a fine, and had
my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving
record has been "lost" and is not available.

Military:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused
to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use.
By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid
combat duty in Vietnam.

College:
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was
a cheerleader.

. . .

It didn't take a nuclear physicist to realize changes were needed after a $40,000 ceramic mural was unveiled outside the city's new library and everyone could see the misspelled names of Einstein, Shakespeare, Vincent Van Gogh, Michelangelo and seven other historical figures.

"Our library director is very frustrated that she has this lovely new library and it has all these misspellings in front," said city councilwoman Lorraine Dietrich, one of three council members who voted Monday to authorize paying another $6,000, plus expenses, to fly the artist up from Miami to fix the errors.

Reached at her Miami studio Wednesday by The Associated Press, Maria Alquilar said she was willing to fix the brightly colored 16-foot-wide circular work, but offered no apologizes for the 11 misspellings among the 175 names.

"The importance of this work is that it is supposed to unite people," Alquilar said. "They are denigrating my work and the purpose of this work."

The mistakes wouldn't even register with a true artisan, Alquilar said.

"The people that are into humanities, and are into Blake's concept of enlightenment, they are not looking at the words," she said. "In their mind the words register correctly."

UPDATE: How did I know her "murals" would look like this? Sigh.

You've got to catch these people in the act or they'll never learn.

Thanks to Corsair, who has more on this moron.

UPDATE: Kimberly Swygert appears to have the definitive roundup of this matter, including the fact that this incoherent master of ugly art with an overinflated sense of ego is a former schoolteacher. I'm not sure which word surprises me less: schoolteacher, or former...

SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war. . . .

Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

Suppose we win, which is absolutely certain.

And suppose, once we've done so, and have occupied Iraq and have full (really full, not UN full) access to Iraq's records and can truly find what they have, that we find that everything we've been saying about their WMDs is really true; that they have chem and bio weapons and banned delivery systems, and are near to developing nukes, which I also think is extremely likely.

One more and the most important: suppose that the records also show that during the 1990's companies in France or Germany (or both) actively and deliberately broke the sanctions and sold equipment and supplies to Iraq which helped it to create these things, and that the governments of Germany and France knew and approved of this and actively helped. That's the biggest and most speculative suppose.

. . .

If they (Chirac and Schröder) know that they face the scenario I described above after we invade, that would definitely explain their behavior, because preventing Anglo-American occupation of Iraq is the only conceivable way they could prevent it. If this is the case, then since no other way exists to avoid this fate and since the consequences of it are dreadful, it would make sense to continue the lost cause of trying to prevent our attack.

So the more they persist even as it becomes ever more hopeless, the more I find myself worrying that they are trying to cover up something really, really big.

If Bush cannot make the point, then he deserves to lose.

We don’t want [9/11] to happen again.

We want to deter it from happening again.

And all of this rage and fury and spitting and tearing up of signs, all of these insults and spinmeisters and forgeries and all the rest, seem to come down to the fact that about half the country thinks you deter this sort of thing by being nice, while the other half thinks you deter this by being mean.

UPDATE: Oh, and he also covers what I and Matteo had been writing about: what is Bush's game plan? Why hasn't he told us about it? Why are we the ones tasked with keeping his September 20, 2001 speech's fire burning?

UPDATE: It's rather spooky how closely today's rather excellent Bush speech echoes Bill's essay in places.

If Americans can understand how the MAD doctrine kept the world from getting nuked, they can grasp how it's more important and effective to deter people who come from a completely different universe than to please people who are already from ours.

UPDATE: Bah! I knew I was putting my foot into it, there. It was George Mallory who said the bit about climbing a mountain because it was there. Thanks to Paul for setting me straight.

Dear MoveOn member,

We're on a roll. In last night's vice presidential debate, Dick Cheney was angry, misleading and petulant; Edwards took him on with warmth, clarity and the facts. CBS News reported this morning that Edwards "continued the Democratic ticket's winning streak," beating Cheney by 13 percentage points in a post-debate poll of uncommitted voters.[1]

Again and again, Cheney tried to mislead the public about the war in Iraq and our economic problems here at home. He even claimed that he’d never met Edwards before when he had, in public, twice. But John Edwards wouldn't let him get away with it: when Cheney tried once again to link al Qaeda and 9/11, Edwards said, "Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American people," and explained that there was absolutely no connection. We've compiled a bunch more of these misleads -- and the facts -- below. And we captured that strong rebuttal on tape: you can check it out at www.moveonpac.org.

The problem is that Cheney lies with utter conviction, so for some of the folks who are just tuning in to the presidential contest, it's difficult to tell who was fabricating and who was telling the truth. But if we all just take one of Cheney's false statements listed below and write to our local paper about it, we can debunk Cheney's distortions and demonstrate Edwards' commitment to the truth.

UPDATE: By the way, here's some more important information about Halliburton you should know.

UPDATE: See, because there's a word for people who do this sort of thing: terrorists.

Vote Bush, or the terrorists win.

Think about it. Bush does not run a 24/7 media war machine or “permanent campaign” like Clinton did (and the Dems and MSM still do). A victory for him via such methods is not a victory at all, for himself, or the country. During his presidency he has held back. The result? It’s staring us all in the face right now. Look at the Blogosphere. Look at the renaissance of discussion, analysis, and just plain thinking that is taking place. This is politics at the “grass roots”. This is engagement, this is involvement, this is a revolution!

Pillai-Diaz, 33, a volunteer with the Bush campaign and an English teacher, has had a publicity picture of the First Couple hanging in her classroom since the start of the school year, she said.

The photo became an issue last week.

Parents e-mailed an assistant principal accusing Pillai-Diaz of suppressing free speech because the teacher refused to talk to pupils about why the color photo hung in the room.

"Students said, 'You like George Bush? He's killed people,' " Pillai-Diaz said. "As a rule I don't talk about my politics in the classroom."

Pillai-Diaz told the assistant principal to take the picture down himself. Then she sought Principal Jim Warfel, who gave her an upbraiding.

"He said, 'You've caused more disruption, hatred and anger than anyone I've ever known,' " she said.

The teacher said the principal told her to "get out," so she left and headed to the South Brunswick Police Department.

UPDATE: God... this makes it even worse:

The White House-issued photo of the Bushes was pinned to a bulletin board that held portraits of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and a copy of the Constitution.

"I wouldn't touch politics in my classroom with a 10-foot pole, but [the principal] felt I was making a political statement," said Shiba Pillai-Diaz, 33, a seventh- and eighth-grade English teacher at Crossroads South Elementary School in Monmouth Junction.

"It was meant to be a picture of the current president, nothing partisan about it," said Pillai-Diaz, a Republican mother of one who volunteered at the party's convention in Madison Square Garden.

The principal et al. are trying to get her to either take down the photo, or add a photo of John Kerry. They want to shift the point of the photo from the fact that Bush is the sitting President, to the controversy of the coming election.

She's considering this President to be a part of U.S. history, just like every other President. The people asking her to take the photo down, however, seem to be trying to erase him from history. To turn his term into a memory, and to define him only in terms of being the guy running against Kerry. To transform him into something temporary and fleeting, like Prohibition.

To say nothing of that making it into a Bush/Kerry thing would force her to have the in-class debate, which she clearly doesn't want to do. I think she's simply shocked that putting up a picture of the President in a public school classroom these days is something you have to justify, or explain, or discuss... or defend.

Thanks to Kenny B. for the link.

DW: If President Bush were to publicly call for your group to pull its ads and to stop campaigning against Senator Kerry, would you stop?

VO: No. No. No. We're not part of the Republican party, we're not trying to elect Bush, we're Democrats and independents and Republicans across the board. The Navy didn't send Republicans to Vietnam, they sent men.

All 60 of our group who served with Kerry in Vietnam, and the others who served there and have joined us, we want the American people to hear our story. Personally, I also want this story to be known to historians....

We're not tied to any campaign. We're a group of private citizens who've formed a 527. We're going to tell our truth to the American people up until November 2nd. We don't want his lies recorded as truth in the history books.

UPDATE: View the source. Scroll to the bottom.

Thanks to Keith & Fred for catching that. I looked, but I neglected to scroll...