Written by: Beck

From Kerry's speech Thursday before the DNC:

I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush. In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity. Let's respect one another.

From Kerry on the campaign trail two days later:

Democratic White House challenger John Kerry mocked President Bush's new "turning the corner" campaign slogan on Saturday and said he offered voters more than "little itsy bitsy" sound bites.

[...] "I think the American people are a heck of a lot smarter than some of these politicians and political consultants think they are," Kerry told more than 8,000 people gathered in a light drizzle outside a railway station in Greensburg, a Republican stronghold in western Pennsylvania.

"They keep telling them, 'Just talk in this tiny, little, itsy bitsy sound bite. Be negative, go out there and attack.'"

So much for respect. Of course, much of the Democrats' tactics have revolved around accusing the Bush campaign of going negative, playing the roll of wounded martyrs, and then going negative themselves. But wait, there's more.

Kerry said Americans wanted real leadership and vowed -- if he defeated Bush in the Nov. 2 election -- to be a president in the mold of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower.

Either Kerry & his speech writers don't know their presidential history too well, or they're hoping most Americans don't. The Dwight Eisenhower bit's my favorite. Apart from the fact that he was a Republican, Eisenhower set the record for most hours spent playing golf by a US president. Eisenhower never wanted to be the president, and only accepted the nomination because the entire country wanted him--his sense of duty and obligation wouldn't let him turn them down.

Of course, you can't have an article from Reuters without a hefty share of liberal bias, now can you? Of course not.

Despite slower-than-expected economic growth and a record budget deficit, Bush insisted that the nation's economic prospects were improving as he campaigned in neighboring Ohio, another battleground state hit hard by job losses.

Pardon? Slower-than-expected by who? We've had 11 straight quarters of growth, and are averaging a pace faster than Clinton enjoyed when running for reelection in 1996. 1st quarter GDP growth was just revised up to 5.1% from 4.8%. And that record budget deficit? It was just recently revised down by $100 billion.

Finally, this article has the first numbers I've seen on Kerry's convention bounce. To give you an idea of how important these are, in 1984, going into the Democratic National Convention, Mondale trailed Reagan by over 15 points. After the convention, he had pulled 4 points ahead. Each new election cycle sees less impact from the conventions as they grow increasingly trivial and draw ever fewer viewers. Nonetheless, the conventions, and the candidates' speeches at them, are the single most important moment in a campaign. So now, the numbers:

A Newsweek poll released on Saturday showed Kerry gained a four-point bounce from last week's Boston convention where he was formally nominated.

In the survey conducted on Thursday and Friday, Kerry received 49 percent to Bush's 42 percent and 3 percent for independent candidate Ralph Nader. In early July, Kerry led Bush 47 percent to 44 percent, with Nader at 3 percent.

Without Nader in the race, Kerry led Bush by 51 percent to 45 percent. The poll of about 1,000 registered voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.

Four points folks. That's it. Unless Bush screws something up big time during one of the three debates, Kerry is in serious trouble.

Update: OTB links to an MSNBC article on the Newsweek poll which confirms something I'd already suspected: Kerry's bounce wasn't just small, it was record breakingly small.

Kerry’s four-point "bounce" is the smallest in the history of the NEWSWEEK poll. There are several factors that may have contributed to the limited surge, including the timing of the poll. On Thursday, Kerry had just a two-point lead over Bush (47 percent to 45 percent), suggesting that his Friday[sic] night speech had a significant impact. Additionally, Kerry's decision to announce his vice-presidential choice of John Edwards three weeks before the convention may have blunted the gathering’s impact. And limited coverage by the three major networks also may have hurt Kerry.

Written by: Beck

This is just too good.

We were standing on a dock waiting for a boat to take us on a summer trip. Vanessa, the scientist, had packed all her animals including her favorite hamster. Our over-zealous golden retriever got tangled in his leash and knocked the hamster cage off the dock. We watched as Licorice, the unlucky hamster bubbled down to a watery doom. That might have been the end of the story. But my dad jumped in, grabbed an oar, fished the cage from the water, hunched over the soggy hamster and began to administer CPR. There were some reports of mouth-to-mouth, but, I admit that's probably a trick of memory. He was never quite right after that [ed: You mean Kerry or the Hamster?], but Licorice lived.

My own simul-reaction to this line was easily the best few lines from my live blogging efforts:

She's telling a story about a hamster. Something about, "bubbling down to a watery doom." Dad jumped in and rescued said hamster.

Oh. My. God. John Kerry has, according to his daughter, administered CPR to a hamster.

Update: CPR. To a hamster. Did you catch that?

That should just about lock up the PETA endorsement.

Written by: Beck

From the Senate's Joint Economic Committee:

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported today that real gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an estimated 3.0% annual rate in the 2nd quarter of 2004, the 11th straight quarter of economic growth. The moderation of growth from an upwardly revised 4.5% growth in the 1st quarter was due largely to a pause in consumer spending. The BEA also released annual revisions to past data to incorporate more complete data than previously available. Average quarterly growth between the 2nd quarter of 2003 and the 1st quarter of 2004 was revised up to 5.1% from 4.8%. After adjusting for inflation, GDP has increased at a robust 4.8% pace over the past year. The annual revisions suggest that growth over the past year has been steadier than initially estimated.

Question: has any incumbent president ever lost an election with an economy this strong?

Written by: Beck

Two full moons in one month? You know, I've read plenty of advice against going blue when blogging, but I've never taken it.

Puns, on the other hand...

Yeah, I don't have anything better to write about. But that's Fridays for you.

Written by: Goemagog

The Bush administration stands by it's appeasement policy.

China ups it's timetable for war against Taiwan from 2020 to 2008.

The UN offers a resolution condemning absolutely nothing about the ongoing genocide in Sudan. "There are too many blacks in Africa. They all need to die." said Mr. Annan, endorsing the statement of non-opposition.

The Europeans have announced that if Iran continues it's nuclear weapons program despite ongoing european appeasement and support, they will be left with no choice but to request further appeasement and support of Iranian hostility from the United Nations.

Panda sculpture stolen. Has anyone checked Berger's pants?

Goe, wishes he were a politician so he could steal stuff with impunity.

Written by: Beck

David Brooks: It was almost a Republican speech. One of the best I've seen him give.

Mark Shields: He had to give the best speech of his life. He did. The crowd stayed with him the entire way. He got a bigger applause on the way out than on the way in. You couldn't tell if it had been read by a Republican or by a Democrat.

John Edwards just joined him on stage, and I'm pretty sure, I just saw the two of them smooch.

Update: Brooks has a great point: not too long ago, we were thinking that Deaniacs were going to take over this party, and now we're talking about a speech which could have been given equally well by a Democrat or a Republican.

You know what? I think you've all had enough now. The commentary is all over the blogosphere, the internet, and the televised news media. I am done for the night.

Thank you all for sticking with INCITE through the DNC. It has been a challenge to live-blog this whole thing--to be frank, it's my first stab at live blogging anything--but it has also been entertaining and rewarding. Please keep coming around for our regular daily commentary and posting, and definitely swing by during the Republican National Convention. GOOD NIGHT!

Written by: Beck

Kerry's moved onto the obligatory, "Naming poor people I've met and detailing their stories of misery," section of the speech. Time to give my fingers a rest.

Update: More "help is on the way" chanting. And evidently 15% of children in Harlem have asthma because of air pollution. What percentage of children normally have asthma might I ask? Oh, sorry, I forgot, you're never allowed to say anything disparaging about something for the children.

Update: More firm policy recommendations: 1st, new incentives to improve manufacturing, 2nd incentives for technology, 3rd, close tax loopholes. That's all their is to it. Incentives and further complicating the tax code. Oh, and that loop hole for corporations? They're talking about not taxing income made overseas by companies until they repatriate those profits. You know how many countries in the world tax foreign made profits? Didn't think you did.

More Kerry: "What we won't do: raise taxes on the middle class... I will cut middle class taxes, I will reduce the tax burden on small businesses, and I will roll-back the tax cuts on the wealthiest individuals." Time for some economists to begin crunching some numbers.

Update: Kerry will save $1000/year on waste and abuse with his health care plan. "Medicare will negotiate lower drug prices for seniors." What are they doing now precisely? Begging for higher prices?

Update: "We will stop being the only advanced nation in the world which thinks that health care is a privileges of the wealthy... it is the right of all Americans." Yeah, I definitely feel an anti-socialized health care rant coming on.

I just missed a dig regarding "The Saudi Royal Family." Ugh.

Update: "I want to address these next words to George W. Bush." First mention of Bush's name in prime time. Kerry wants to be friendly and respectful. "Let's never misuse for political purposes... the Constitution of the United States." Them's fightin' words Clem. The gauntlet is tossed, and the crowd goes wild.

"The high road may be harder... this is our time to reject the kind of politics calculated to divide race from race, region from region, group from group... People may see things as red states and blue states, but I see us as one America, red, white and blue." Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. What happened to John Edwards' "Two Americas." I'm so confused now.

Update: Kerry just pissed away the religious vote. He was trying to include them, but I'm fairly certain he alienated them. "I don't wear my faith on my sleeve..." and so on. It was definitely an attempt to reach out to the 40% of Americans who go to church every week, but I'm pretty positive he just floated a raft of offensive nonsense.

Update: He's speaking, as many have, about how we shouldn't let bigotry and hatred divide us. I'm curious what exactly he's speaking to. Is he suggesting that his opponents have been using hate and bigotry to divide us? Last I checked, the Republicans would love to have every racial group on their side. Where is this hate and bigotry? They keep using these phrases to tug at the emotions of minorities, but they're grasping at straws that just aren't there.

Update: He's done. Thank god. I say that because I'm exhausted, not because the speech was dragging. For such a long acceptance speech (46 minutes), it passed remarkably quickly. Commentary to follow, but don't expect too much, my fingers are about to fall off.

Written by: Beck

That was getting a bit long. Considering how long this speech is anticipated to be, I hope I won't have to break things up into too many more pieces.

Talking about Edwards, Kerry just said he'd be good to replace Dick Cheney as the new VP of the United States. Funny how they're not afraid to use Cheney's name (I've heard it perhaps 3 times during the convention), but they never use the word Bush.

Now he's praising Teresa, but briefly. He loves her. How sweet.

Update: I'll need to go over a transcript afterwards, but in thanking his children, I'm pretty positive I didn't hear the name "Alexandra." Oops.

He's thanking everyone now, including every single person who ran against him for the Dem nomination. "Thank you for teaching me and for testing me, but mostly, we thank you for standing up for our country and for giving us the unity to move America forward."

Update: He's moved on to Sept. 11. "It was the worst day we have ever seen." "There were no Democrats, there were no Republicans, there were only Americans, and how we wish it had stayed that way."

Now he's getting defensive over use of "nuanced," only now he's using the term "complexities." "Proclaiming, 'Mission accomplished,' doesn't make it so."

"I will immediately reform the intelligence community." "I will bring back this nation's time honored tradition--the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, The United States of America goes to war because we have to."

Update: "You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace." Kerry's message to our armed forces. "I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side... That's the way to get the job done and bring our troops home." I must say, Kerry's rhetoric, while reminiscent of much of what has come before him in the past 4 days, is better worded and better delivered than that of any of his colleagues.

Update: Kerry first firm policy recommendation: to add 40,000 active duty troops. Again, this is the first Democrat--nominee or president--that I can recall calling for an expansion of the military. Followed again by that rapidly-becoming-trite line "Help is on the way."

Update: "Strength is more than tough words." I wonder if Kerry fully realizes the implications of that statement.

Update: Second firm policy recommendation: to fully implement all recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Update: "When Americans stand up and speak their minds... that is not a challenge to patriotism, that is the heart and soul of patriotism." These people have it all wrong. When the patriotism of the likes of Michael Moore is attacked, it's not because he calls into questions the policies of the nations' leaders, it's because he directly attacks American beliefs and values. Patriotism and nationalism go hand in hand, and people who like to call themselves internationalists, so long as they are ever willing to make domestic sacrifices to the benefit of the rest of the world, are not acting patriotically. Nonetheless, this campaign has tried to insulate itself against any such accusations by trying to take a holier-than-though, or rather, more patriotic-than-thou approach to pandering to the opinions of foreign states and leaders who ultimately do not have America's best interests at heart.

Update: He's moved onto family values. "I will not privitize social security." Do you have any idea what a damning thing you're saying Kerry? Do you have any idea what a boon it would be to the welfare of the nations' middle-aged citizens the privitization of social security would be?

Written by: Beck

I've been waiting to say this for a while now.

Heeeeeeeeeere's JOHNNY!!!

Update: Teresa looks like she's laughing. I guess she too appreciates a good round of raw absurdity. She knows her husband. And she thinks this whole deal is funny.

"I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty."

There's your theme.

Update: "We are united here tonight in one purpose, to make America stronger and to make it more respected in the world." That's it?

Update: First stumble: trying to say "open minds, open eyes, and an open heart." Bit of a tongue twister.

"I am not one to read into things... but I was born in the West Wing [of this hospital]."

Now more about his parents. This is necessary, if uninteresting to me. We've been so inundated with the--

Wait, he just said, "Trees are the cathedral of nature." Beg pardon?

As I was saying, we've been so inundated with the Commander in Chief stuff that we haven't seen anything but 4 months of his life.

Update: Anecdote: young Kerry rode a bike into East Berlin and was promptly grounded by his father. I can't believe he actually got in. I mean, East Berlin was one of the most heavily guarded borders in the history of the world. Still, interesting if true. Frankly, it sounds like the kind of dumbass thing I would have tried to pull off as a kid.

Update: "My parents inspired me to serve." Kerry's delivery has thus far been excellent. "Tonight we're setting out again and together we're going to write the next great chapter of America's story." "...but only if we're true to our ideals, and that starts by telling the truth to the American people." I agree, but as for being true to your ideals, there's a lot more about your liberal and anti-war credentials that you need to either "be true to" or repudiate.

Update: He just mentioned things he did as a DA in Mass. and things he voted for as a senator. Finally. Now he's mentioned trying to bring peace to Vietnam. "I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war." "I will have a VP who will not have secret meetings with polluters." "I will appoint an attorney general who will uphold the Constitution of the United States." The crowd goes wild. This is what they've been waiting 4 days to hear.

I'm beginning to see the strategy now. Leave it to everyone else to establish his tough-as-nails credentials and leave it to him to make the core happy.

He just quoted the "New jobs making $9,000 less" line. I fucking hate that line. As I pointed out yesterday and before, it's complete and absolute bullshit.

Now he's working to associate himself with the Clinton legacy--something which Gore did not do (he worked to distance himself with Clinton's problems) and which Gore paid for.

Update: He just accepted the nomination. That was still, to a tiny extent, hanging in the balance (because of campaign finance rules).

Written by: Beck

This is the war veteran that we're supposed to take seriously because he was accidentally wounded when a grenade went off. I don't know much about the guy, but I know there's been a lot of controversy about him--primarily about Republican treatment of his "heroics." Updates to follow if worth printing.

Update: Patriotism, patriotism, patriotism, patriotism, patriotism, patriotism, patriotism, patriotism, patriotism. Don't alienate allies, don't lose jobs, don't limit educational opportunity, health care, environment.

Update: When Kerry announced he was running for president, Cleland pressed a bible into his hands that he used to read as a child. You're going to need it, he told Kerry. At first Kerry didn't want to accept it(!). But finally he did. I won't let you down, said Kerry.

Well, I guess a few Democrats aren't afraid to acknowledge their faith every now and then. And by "few" I don't mean to include Kerry.

Written by: Beck

Up now are various people who served with Kerry in Vietnam, including people whose lives Kerry saved in combat. Swiftboat PCF 44. I don't think there can be any doubt that Kerry served bravely, regardless of the questionable nature of the injuries which lead to his purple hearts.

Update: Now they're introducing the skippers of various other swiftboats. I'm not sure what the point of that is. Now comes the green beret who Kerry's boat rescued. He'll be addressing the convention.

"There was a time when I thought I'd never see these friends again. A lot of our friends never made it home." "Nobody asked me to join this campaign. I volunteered." Oddly defensive note.

Update: Blah, blah, blah, I know John Kerry will make a great commander in chief. That about wraps it up. There has been essentially no other major issue or point to be made in this entire convention other than that Kerry can be commander in chief. While that's nice, that's only one small part of the responsibilities of a president of the USA. And I don't think they've convinced any of the unconverted of his abilities in those other responsibilities. Either they're saving it for Kerry's speech, or they're saving it for the debates. Or they're planning on completely pissing away the election. We shall see.

Written by: Beck

First up, the film montage. It's narrated by Morgan Freeman. I doubt I'll have much to say on the topic.

Update: Re: Kerry's rock band The Electras, in Kerry's words, "Well, it was a way to meet girls." Now that's what I call honesty. Because why else does anyone else ever form a high school garage band?

Update: We're up to the Vietnam war in the film montage. What I'm curious to see is how much time is spent on his 4 months in Vietnam relative to his 30 years as an anti-war agitator and a liberal senator.

Update: "I had come back after that against the war. I thought the US government had not been truthful to its people." I'm glad that Kerry has finally acknowledged this. Now they're discussing his testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Now he's in law school. Roughly 3 minutes on the war, just under one minute on the anti-war. Fair enough I suppose.

Update: He's in the Senate now. They're discussing his family life while in the Senate. Now we're in 1995 marrying Teresa Heinz. Not one word on his senate career. Nothing on what he supported. Nothing on what he opposed. Nothing on what he voted for. Nothing on his committees. Nothing.

Update: Now he's running for president. Because he wants to make the world a safer place. Not one mention of his senate tenure beyond the fact that he was, in fact, in the senate. That's it. Incidentally, good call on having Morgan Freeman narrate. That guy's got a perfect voice for it.

Written by: Beck

Andre Heinz is stepping up to the podium, and Outkast's "Hey Ya" was playing. I find that amusing. I wonder if the Dems have ever listened to the lyrics of that. "Don't wanna meet your daddy. Just want you in my caddy."

Update: Chris Heinz is up there now too. And they're introducing the Kerry daughters. Anyone else remember the picture of her see-through dress from Cannes? I'd post a picture, but it's not exactly family friendly.

Update: "As someone who knows all 6' 4" of my daddy best, or, as the family jokes, 6' 6" if you count the hair." She's working to humanize Kerry, something Teresa Heinz failed at. Followed by dad showing up at sporting events in a bright orange hunting hat. Anyone else remember Kerry's line about hunting deer with a shotgun?

Update: For those who don't know guns: you don't hunt deer with a shotgun.

I didn't catch this particular Kerry daughter's name, but they're fairly interchangeable. They're both tall, skinny, and horse faced. Yeah, so that's not very nice to say, but then, I don't find the Bush daughters attractive either.

Update: "At my father's core is integrity," which is why he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Cheap shot? Sure, but it's not like anything is being said which merits serious analysis. I mean, she's talking about weaving foliage now.

Update: The overriding message is "integrity." Funny that they feel the need to drive that point home so hard. People actually possessed of integrity don't typically find themselves in such need of asserting and defending it.

Alexandra Kerry is up now (the former one was Vanessa it turns out). She's even more horse faced than her sister. I must say: this is the first presidential candidate daughter whose rack I've seen. Way to go.

She's telling a story about a hamster. Something about, "bubbling down to a watery doom." Dad jumped in and rescued said hamster.

Oh. My. God. John Kerry has, according to his daughter, administered CPR to a hamster.

Update: CPR. To a hamster. Did you catch that?

Now daddy is opining about young men who died in combat on a drive to Alexandra's college when she was 19. I always assume that these remembered "conversations" in speeches like this are entirely fabricated. I assume that because I'm trying to give these people the benefit of the doubt. Does anyone actually have conversations like that? Yes, honey, remember as you head off into college that young men your age died, there are families that were never born that... and on and on and on.

Update: She just mentioned daddy's life's work. I wonder if that's the closest we'll come to hearing what happened during daddy's career between the Vietnam War and September 11.

And now...

Written by: Beck

Walter Mondale is now being interviewed by Jim Lehrer. Perhaps this will be interesting.

They're calling him out on his crappy 1984 acceptance speech.

Mondale: "I went through a process... you start getting advice... you take polls... you start writing drafts... you have a conversation with yourself... it sort of liberated me... that's when I said, 'Well, we're going to have to raise taxes.'" It's not easy to shoot yourself in the foot with a torpedo of that size. But Mondale pulled it off.

Lehrer: "Do you regret [saying you would raise taxes]?" Mondale: "I'm really glad I did it."

Mondale: "This is the most important night for Kerry, the first debate possibly being of equal importance."

Mondale: "He has connected [with voters] but not enough. It's a gap that Bush is somewhat forfeiting, but Kerry has not yet filled it." I agree. Bush has abandoned much of the middle to secure his base--take the effort behind the FMA. Frankly, the moderate and undecided vote is Kerry's to lose. And he's doing a damn good job of losing it.

Brooks: "All the attention on one person... what's that pressure like?"

Mondale: "This is it. You can't hide it if you fail, and you love it if you succeed." And that about sums it up. This is Kerry's to win or lose, the ball is most certainly in his court.

Money quote from Mondale, "Well, recall, I was running against Ronald Reagain in 1984, which was a very foolish thing to do in the first place."

Written by: Beck

This woman used to be a professor at my alma-mater. As neat as that is in terms of bragging rights, it's not something I'm entirely proud of. Updates to follow.

Update: More about Kerry's war record and how he's "Not afraid to put his life on the line." After four days, this message is getting really really tired.

"As president, John Kerry will lead America and our allies to defeat and destroy terrorist groups around the world." I wish I could believe that Madeleine. I really do. But I don't.

Update: On the war on terror: "Wanting something is not the same as doing something." Ummm... are you suggesting that Bush hasn't done anything? How many terrorist leaders have we put in irons or in the ground? Afghanistan? Iraq? Cut off funding? No terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 despite repeated efforts from terrorists? Despite massive attempts on their part to get back into the States and cause death?

Update: Her hawkish message continues to get a luke-warm response. The mainstream of the Democratic party might agree with the message, but these delegates most certainly do not. I guess it's fortunate for Kerry, now, that the roll of convention delegate in this day and age is a purely ceremonial one.

Update: I've not heard a single new thought--or even catch phrase--from Albright. I don't expect to hear anything new tonight, at least not until Kerry speaks. That could make this commentary rather challenging, as I myself have gotten to the point where I'm saying things twice. But don't worry, I'm into glass of wine number three, so at least I can compensate via sheer randomness.

Update: "Uniter not a divider." "Beacon of truth and hope." Blah blah blah she's done. Finally.

Written by: Beck

Talking head: Not one word about Kerry's service in the Senate, where he has spent the bulk of his political life.

She makes an excellent point which I hadn't thought of. There has been hardly any mention of Kerry's service in the Senate these past 4 days. There's clearly something they're trying to avoid discussing here, and I think it's obvious what it is: John Kerry's voting record.

Richard Smith: "We are hearing an extraordinary amount of attention about several months that Kerry spent in Vietnam. We've heard virtually nothing about the 20 plus years that Kerry has spent in the Senate."

The only senators to go from the Senate to the white house in this century: JFK and Warren Harding. Evidently, talking about Senate stuff causes voters' eyes to glaze over. The talking heads have a point there, but there's more to the story. Kerry's voting record makes him out as one of the most liberal senators currently serving, and it also serves to highlight many of his flip flops and his policy contradictions.

There's also been no mention of his anti-war activities after the Vietnam war--evidently another thing Kerry is ashamed of. Yet far more than the 4 months in Nam, the years of anti-war activism do much more to define Kerry the man. But we haven't had a chance to see that (nor will we). The Republican convention, as a consequence, will have to be much more confrontational, as it falls now to the Republicans to highlight Kerry's anti-war record

David Brooks: "Kerry's senate record stands in contradiction to the message of this convention."

I'm glad someone finally said it.

Written by: Beck

"I am honored to stand before you as the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives." Pelosi has a reputation as being very critical of Bush's policy on the war. It'll be interesting to see how closely she sticks to that message.

Update: She seems inexperienced at visually tracking across the teleprompters. Her delivery is quite staccato and unpolished.

"House Democrats are fighting to bring prosperity, opportunity, and security to every corner of America." She's now going back and forth between what Republicans have done and what Democrats stand for. She's being more confrontational than previous speakers. Her catch phrase is, "Democrats have it right." It'd be nice if afterwards Milton Friedman got a chance to stand up and explain why Democratic policies lead to neither prosperity, opportunity, nor security.

"Health care is a right." So is not being robbed at the point of a gun, but that doesn't stop Democrats from happily raising taxes.

Update: "Republicans have broken their promises on education." What promises would those be? Bush has increased spending on education by record levels. What is this woman talking about?

Update: "Republicans have continued their assault on bi-partisan environmental protection." Um, if Republicans are assaulting it, it's not bi-partisan is it? No matter, there's no point in arguing with the rhetoric of a disingenuous partisan like Nancy Pelosi.

Update: "Democrats are leading the way in turning red states into blue." Precisely who else would be leading those efforts Nancy?

"Democrats do not exploit fear to divide and distract the nation." No, you use other methods to divide and distract the nation, primarily race baiting, class baiting, and deceptive pseudo-nomics.

Update: "The story of John Edwards is the story of the American dream... Hope really is on the way." Followed by chanting, "We can do it!" It would be nice if she wouldn't act like she was addressing a kindergarten class.

She plans to take the Senate, the House, and the White House. Ambitious, ain't she? And now, she's done. Thank god.

Written by: Beck

Lieberman was my favorite from among the crowd running for the Dem nomination this year. I'm kind of disappointed to see him here tonight.

Lieberman opens by thanking the party for nominating him as VP in 2000, "The first Jewish-American to receive that honor." We're using the phrase "Jewish American" now? Ugh.

Update: "America's future will be a lot brighter with Kerry & Edwards in the white house." Followed by a joke about winning the popular vote and losing the election. Get. Over. It. Also, you have to offer more than promises of a brighter future. No one took Bush's Thousand Points of Light seriously either, and that at least had a tangible meaning behind it.

Update: "...when we were attacked by Islamist terrorists..." I'm glad someone pointed a finger at Islamism (not Islam, mind you, Islamism). The fight is with Islamofascism generally, not just Al Qaeda, just as WWII was a fight against Fascism, not just Hitler.

He's getting a weak reception at best. This is not the message the Dems like to hear. Which I guess has a lot to do with why Lieberman was my favorite out of the field.

"It was Democrats who lead the way in creating the Department of Homeland Security." Huh? Next he's going to be proudly laying claim to the Patriot Act.

Update: "...Americans yearning to cast a vote, not a protest." I guess the focus groups have decided that the Anyone But Bush line isn't playing too well in the mainstream. They recognize that it's a vapid, hollow motto, and likely only to get you a candidate who's mediocre and unprincipled.

Update: Very weak ending with a "Hope is on the way" parroting of Edwards' speech. He said it slowly, hoping the audience would catch on and chant along. But they didn't.

Michael Beschloss: The Dems are looking to inoculate themselves against accusations that they are weak on war.

Written by: Beck

"Thank you my fellow Democrats." How long ago was it that you were a Republican Wesley? Updates to follow.

Update: Clark opens with a thank you to the troops, past and present. Shouldn't this have been done on Day 1? Actually, one of the speakers yesterday did the same, but still.

Wesley's son's name is Wesley. I've never been a fan of people giving their children the same name. How's that for incisive political criticism?

Update: Clark, having finished reciting his resume, "Anyone who tells you that one political party has a monopoly on the best defense of this nation is committing a fraud on the American people."

Update: He's delivering an ode to the American flag. I gotta say I'm enjoying it. The American flag is one hell of a symbol. One of the more distressing things during the initial Iraq war was when troops were encouraged not to make overt displays of the flag for fear of offending the locals.

Update: "Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars." Clark is by far the best of the military types so far at evoking the power of combat experience. To be honest, Clark was one of my least favorite of the original Democratic field for president. He seems unprincipled, his change in stance from support of the war when he was serving to opposing the war once it was politically fashionable is offensive. Still, he's making a good opening speech for today.

"John Kerry will join the pantheon of great war time Democrats." Does that mean the Democratic party is finally acknowledging that the War on Terror constitutes a real war and not simply a police action?

Among the pantheon of "great wartime Democrats" is Bill Clinton for "ending the genocide in Yugoslavia." Sorry, but Clinton showed up late, and when he got there, we were ineffective. Furthermore, there's no mention of the Somalian debacle.

Update: Other heros Clark lists: "Firemen, policemen, teachers..." Well, two out of three ain't bad. Assuming you're discussing batting averages.

I wish I had the full quote he just rattled off. Basically it was an adoption of the end of the Boy Scout Oath, "I will keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." He even used the word "physically."

David Brooks: I thought this was a great speech. Weak start, but he ended really strong.

Dave Shields: ...Really a great exhortation...

Written by: Goemagog

This will make someone's day worth living through.

Goe, turning on the AC before he starts melting... too late.

Written by: Beck

Random convention entertainment link: Go read Fafblog's interview with Wolf Blitzer.

David Brooks: "This is the most military convention I have ever seen... I expect to see John Kerry come out in full body armor and deliver the Braveheart battle speech."

HA!

Wesley Clark stepping up to the plate now.

Written by: Beck

Mark Shields: "This is the last chance [Kerry]... has to speak to the American people... He's already passed the threshold test to whether he's intelligent enough and experienced enough to hold the office... What remains is to convince people he can serve as commander in chief."

Personally, I'm getting sick of all the speeches directed towards convincing us of Kerry's ability to lead the military. Also, I remain completely unconvinced that being a good soldier is somehow synonymous with being a good leader.

Shields: "He's not going to out-charm George Bush."

David Brooks: "This is the only time he can talk about himself. He still has the debates to discuss the issues... I think he has to show that he's comfortable with himself... He needs to show some self-knowledge." "This is going to be a campaign about the future, but he hasn't said what the product is... People want to know what they're going to get out of their next president."

Brooks believes Kerry needs to find four things that he stands for and that he's going to do and deliver on that. Something tangible.

Shields, paraphrased: Kerry trails by 15 points among the 40 percent of Americans who go to church every week. Gore lost that vote by 20 percent. Kerry needs to convince those people that he shares values in common with those people.

Yep.

Brooks: "Democrat foreign policy seminars use the word "alliance" like it's some sort of pixie dust, like it's going to solve everything. While alliances would be nice, I'd like to hear what exactly he's going to do with them. Some specifics would be nice."

Written by: Beck

Talking head prognostication: Kerry needs to show his human side and let people know what he stands for. Evidently, polls indicate that a strikingly small number of people know what Kerry actually stands for (relative to normal levels for a challenger at this point in an election campaign). Furthermore, the adjective most commonly associated with Kerry is "rich" followed closely by his reputation as a flip flopper.

Some other talking head (wish I knew these people's names... but PBS is bad about captioning): Someone giving rousing rhetoric, turning red in the face, can be great motivating a crowd, but that doesn't necessarily play well on TV. Kerry is best in interviews where he can directly relate. In large public speeches, his oratory is lacking.

Amy Walter: People are saying that this is the most important election in our lifetimes, yet people are no longer able to sit through a 15 minute speech anymore. So the speeches don't matter as much.

The unstated implication, of course, is that media coverage becomes that much more important as the conventions & speeches lose their relevance. Inasmuch as the media leans heavily to the left, that makes such alternate sources of information, such as talk radio & online sources, that much more important.

Some other guy: This is important, but this is really only going to impact a very small number of undecided voters who haven't made up their minds. In other words, we shouldn't expect to see a big bump coming out of the convention.

While I grant that these conventions grow steadily less relevant each year, I wouldn't say that it's significantly less relevant than any convention since, say, 1992. And all of those have consistently yielded a tangible post-convention poll boost. If Kerry can't deliver, he's hosed.

Written by: Beck

According to one source, Kerry is planning to speak for a whopping 55 minutes. I'm not sure I can handle that. Regardless, live blogging will begin as soon as I have something worth saying. In the mean time, thanks to everyone who has linked my live blogging efforts, including people from the other side.

In other news, I've restocked my cheap wine supply, so I should be able to keep my sanity intact. Here goes nothing...

Written by: Beck

Erich Mattei, writing today's daily article for the Mises Institute, takes on the issue of Michael Moore's film. On the surface, one might fear that the Mises folks would fall in line with Moore. After all, the Austrian school of economics founded by von Mises holds as one of its central conclusions that offensive war is never justifiable. Moore, as a vicious opponent of the war, would seem on the surface to support that cause. Indeed, Mattei opens his article as follows:

When has there been a single piece of art, theater, or literature that has had such a profound impact on politics as Michael Moore's latest film, "Fahrenheit 9/11"? Released at a pivotal time in both international affairs, in the wake of a much-debated military action in the ever-uneasy Middle East, and domestic politics, on the eve of the United States presidential election for the most powerful office in the world, the film has caused an unprecedented raucous. Moore is a teacher to millions.

The reason for this response is simple, for Moore's film strikes a universal chord within the consciousness of people from all cultures, classes, and ideologies: the fear of power and the love of freedom. The single greatest asset, and indeed only legitimate premise, of Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is that it publicizes the coercive, grim face of the inevitable impoverishment that is the result of warfare. It investigates the rapid growth of the United States government and its trend of trampling the rights of individuals, and the corporatism that is spawned out of the close ties between big government and big business, especially in wartime.

There remains one overwhelming problem, however: Moore is most certainly not a supporter of the Libertarian state which the Mises folks would like to see come about. While Moore might join them in opposition to the military-industrial complex, he most certainly is not a brother-in-arms as it were.

Some people in this world are happy to make alliances of convenience, and they're happy to embrace the maxim, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The alliance between Stalin and Hitler at the beginning of World War II is a classic example. The only thing Hitler hated more than communism was Jews, after all. Nonetheless, Hitler was never one to back down from opportunism or to shy away from making compromises in the name of military expediency. The question, then, is where does the Mises Institute fall? While I am no fan of many of the Mises school's conclusions, I can happily report that they stand on pure principle. They conclude that while the message is important, the messenger is equally so.

The "freedom" favored by Moore and those of his ideological orientation is the "freedom" of government to tax, regulate, and grow so long as it is managing economic, social, and cultural life. Free market capitalism is positively the only manifestation of the natural right that each individual has to the ownership of oneself. It is also the system that Moore, a self-proclaimed civil rights activist, undeniably rejects with much conviction. For capitalism is the only system wherein consensual acts between consenting individuals are permitted, be they civil or economic.

[...] Therefore, one must ask: is any credit due to Moore, and if so, how much? Consider this historical analogy: a German Neo-Marxist in the 1930s-40s making a film on the terrors of the Nazi rise to power. The film would speak of the obvious, and even do great good, but the motives and ends are almost just as bad or worse.

Until Moore and his like reconsider their stance on the many forms of welfare statism they support, they will continue to be everything but the advocates of freedom they would like the public to think they are, and the philosophical framework of their bantering will yield not freedom from power but merely a shift in the ideological justification for power itself.

For further discussion, you can always check out the Mises Institute's blog.

Written by: Beck

If you've enjoyed the live blogging thus far, and if you run a blog of your own, please, let your readers know! I'm wearing my fingers to a stub, to say nothing of the damage to my mental health from watching three hours of convention coverage per night, so it's nice to have people actually read it. The reward for all this frenetic blogging is knowing that others are reading it, so do your part to help!

And to all those who've already helped, thank you!

Written by: Goemagog

The Arabians want to send soldiers to Iraq. They've already got people fighting in Iraq. They say that any new troops will pretend to be on our side.


Iran has the EU groveling. "Please don't nuke us after you build nuclear bombs with the technology we sold you." Samizdata has more information on how German policy towards Iran is helping to free political prisoners. And by "free", I mean "kill". I mean, if you want to kill all the jews, set up puppet governments in your neighbors, and kill anyone who stands against you, who better to get advice from than the Germans? It's not like they'll tell you it's wrong to kill a few million people.

France is also trying to emulate the german example.

South Korean has become a "terrorist" state, after it accepted refugee's from North Korea. Everybody's calling everybody else terrorists, except Reuters, which uses "freedom fighters" for anyone participating in anti-american violence.

Canada asks to borrow a herd of Magic Flying Ponies from Iran. Who do the Canadians think are actually going to fall for that?

Edwards says "hope is on the way". No, despair is. Barring aliens or divine intervention, freedom will be dead within our lifetimes.

On a more positive note, an american mountain is going to blow up.

And somebody figured out when they stepped on their dick that it was a bad thing. But why is a call center for a state program in Missouri being run from Wisconsin now? Why was it ever out of Missouri anyways? Answer: The politicians who sent it out-of-state are keeping Missouri economically and technologically crippled to the extent that nobody would have a call center there.

Zero empathy.

Goe, is liked by his cat regardless of what happens in the world.

Written by: Beck

Well, that about wraps it up. From here there's just commentary from the talking heads, plus the roll call to officially nominate John Kerry. I don't expect any surprises from here, if the commentators (the ones I'm listening to anyway) have anything especially interesting to say, you'll hear it here first.

Update: Mark Shields first impression: "This was not his 'A' game... He rushed his speech... I thought he was especially good when he talked about the people who work hard and cannot get ahead... I think that's the core of Edwards' message."

David Brooks: "It had a few very good moments... He's the only one who can really speak credibly about the middle class... I think it was the arena... Here you're talking to a mass, and you can't really find that one person to relate to."

I don't have the luxury of having heard Kerry speak on numerous occasions, so I don't know how it compared to his 'A' game, but the pundits are likening him to the "fast talking lawyer."

Update: Shields: Part of the message here was that it won't simply be a Kerry presidency, that the two of them will be partners going forward, and that he's not just the young guy who can speak well.

Update: Kerry advisor Ted Devine, "Bush has run the most negative campaign in the history of politics." Speaking on behalf of someone who saw Anne Richards run for Texas Governor, these people haven't got a clue what a really negative campaign sounds like. Sure these people have taken pot shots at each other, and if you'll recall the Democratic primary, the negativity hasn't been exclusively on the Republican side--not even close. But this is tame compared to some local races I've seen. Furthermore, I don't even think this qualifies as the most negative campaign in American presidential history.

Update: That's it! Go to bed! Enough already! Haven't you people got anything better to do?!

Anyway, I'll be doing this again tomorrow night. And then I think I'll take a month off to recuperate.

Written by: Beck

There are 40 minutes left in the evening. Presumably Edwards is planning on speaking for all of them. Wish me luck.

Update: According to Lehrer, Edwards wrote the speech himself. This is being treated as somehow mind blowing. It's also evidently significant that he's staying behind the podium to speak, something he normally never does.

Update: His opening is all about his family. Plus, he threw a line to Teresa Heinz. Now on to the parents. Definitely the softer side of this campaign.

You know, I'd never heard Edwards speak more than a line or two before. I never before realized just how annoying his accent is. His accent, and this is no small thing, trumps both Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy for most annoying accent thus far.

The crowd has begun chanting. He can't even get into his speech, the crowd is so unruly.

Update: First substantive portion of his speech--John Kerry's war record. I hadn't expected that. He's also using the annoying index-finger-knuckle-thrusting-fist gesture. I think Bush Sr. pioneered that one, though Clinton was a huge fan as well.

Update: Edwards now is calling out the Bush campaign (without actually using the word "Bush") for running a negative campaign. His entire delivery is reminiscent of an attorney standing before 12 gullible people. Even the way it's written, a sort of question-and-answer call out to the audience, reminds me of a trial lawyer.

Update: Blogger seems to be slowly dying. That last update took two minutes to get out. If you don't hear from me after this, well, you know why.

Edwards is now harping heavily upon the only other substantive message from this convention: that everyone in America needs to have the same level of opportunity to succeed in life. The fact that all these self-made success stories, from Al Sharpton to Barack Obama to John Edwards, succeeded because that equal opportunity is already there doesn't enter into it. Creating opportunity would seem to involve hand outs to people who have never tried to take advantage of the already extraordinary levels of opportunity which exist in the United States.

No, these people have nothing new to offer. All they hope to offer is more handouts. The fact that you can get 16 years of education from the government (a free college education is just a Pell grant away) is insufficient it would seem.

Edwards on how we're going to pay for this: "We're going to keep the tax cuts for 98% of Americans. We're going to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, and we're going to close corporate loop holes." At least someone has finally said how they're going to pay for all this. It would seem that now 2% of Americans are going to pay for universal health care for the rest. Let's hope that 2% doesn't decide to take their wealth to Bermuda. Furthermore, I'd like someone to explain to me how the Kerrys, who are quite clearly in that top 2%, manage to pay so little in taxes. That's to say nothing of the issue that I'm fairly certain that "rolling back tax cuts" on 2% of Americans can pay for universal health care for 300 million people.

Update: Edwards seems to think we live in a nation divided by race. I'd be curious to hear from some minorities to see if they agree with that.

He's moved onto the War on Terror section of his speech. "We will safeguard and secure our weapons of mass destruction." HUH? "We will always use our military might to keep America safe." Kerry & Edwards message to terrorists: "You cannot run, you cannot hide, we will destroy you."

Update: The longer Edwards goes on, the less strong his accent grows. This is a good thing.

"We will double our special forces." First firm policy statement on strengthening the military from these guys. Special forces are what percentage of the military? Maybe 1%? This is strengthening the military?

Update: "Hope is on the way." Being repeated. The audience caught on quickly. It would seem that if Kerry wins in November, the world's problems--or at least the nation's--will be solved before the end of the year. Because hope is on the way.

Update: Captain Ed is unimpressed by Edwards' speech.

Update: Wizbang wonders what has become of Edwards' misplaced America.

Written by: Beck

Kate Edwards - She has clearly been spending time, quite recently, in a tanning bed. She has the inverted-raccoon eyes of someone who was wearing opaque goggles while lying under a UV bed. Apart from that, however, she's quite attractive. I think the DNC is finally going to get the "personal touch" that Teresa Heinz eminently failed to deliver, but which they so desperately need to convince voters that these candidates actually have a heart. She's quoting poetry now. Yep, count on enough sap to resuscitate petrified wood.

Update: Cate Edwards is speaking now. Second paragraph in, the "two Americas" line has been trotted out. Silly as I think the whole "two Americas" theme is, it's just about the only original thing I've heard from this campaign so far.

Update: "My father, like John Kerry, was in the navy." Nice way to dance around the fact that her husband has not served in the military (not that he's the right age (42) to have served during any major wars).

Update: Would it be inappropriate to make a joke about Cate Edwards's double chin? I suppose it would. But as I have already observed, I am officially out of booze, so I'm afraid I can't restrain myself.

Apparently the Edwardses always celebrate their anniversary at Wendy's. How touching.

Update: She's rushing her delivery. I think she's getting nervous. Nevermind, her speech is at an end.

Written by: Beck

I hope I'm spelling the guy's name right. He seems to also be one of the newly minted Democrats who are being paraded in front of us tonight.

Update: I can't quite make out this guy's accent. It sounds like a cross between a mild Bostonian and a mild German accent. Presumably if I knew the origin of the name "Shalikashvili" I'd know what his accent was.

"These deployments are dangerously over straining our army... Unless we appreciably increase the size of our army... We are in real danger of returning to the days of the hollow army." Once again, a Democrat is calling for a larger army. I can't imagine this is exactly energizing the Democratic base. These people could just save themselves some time and vote Republican.

Ah, he's Polish. He lived through the Warsaw uprising it would seem. Ironic that Poland is one of the strongest backers of the United States action in Iraq and is a staunch member of the Coalition of the Willing.

Update: He's speaking now on the good he did defending the Kurds against the "extreme brutality of Saddam Hussein." Um... are we sure this isn't a Karl Rove plant?

Update: "Never should we go to war without a comprehensive plan to secure the peace once the war has been won." He's getting very luke warm response at best from the audience. I think the constant war mongering message of the past three days is really starting to wear on the convention delegates, many of whom advocate a complete pull out from Iraq, no matter the cost.

Update: PBS was showing a man in the audience who was clearly a retired soldier. They had to cut away suddenly when he spontaneously began picking his nose. You can't make this stuff up.

Update: I guess McAuliffe and company sat down and decided that the key to winning this election was to convince the nation that the Democrats could fight the War on Terror better than Bush. They've focused entirely on Iraq, however, and have said nothing about the future of the WOT. There have been a few noises about jobs and health care, but I think they recognize that frankly, Bush has got them pretty well snookered in that department as well. If this is the best they can muster, they really will lose. The only chance the DNC has to convince America's voters that the Dems offer something more than Bush-lite comes with Edwards speech tonight and Kerry's speech tomorrow.

"You have to give them your support and pledge it here tonight to make sure that the armed forces remain the best trained, the best equipped, and the best lead in the world." I'm sorry, say it as many times as you like, but I don't think anyone honestly believes that a Democratic president would do more to support our nation's military than Bush. The Dems convention came first, they had the opportunity to out maneuver Bush these four days, and so far, all they've managed to do is checkmate themselves.

Written by: Beck

Talking Head on Edwards' age: "When you're someone as little known as John Edwards it helps to fill in by showing that this is a wonderful thing... that he's pulled himself up... it's the American dream." Well, I have to say I'd like it too were I a multi-millionaire retired trial lawyer.

Bad news: I've run out of booze. That could be bad for the even-tempered delivery you have all come to know and love. I'd hate for things to turn vicious.

Another talking head: "We've heard a lot of touchy-feely atmospherics so far." That's a nice way of saying that there has been a whole lot of noise and not a whole lot of substance.

And now, the first female three star general (who, it would seem, made her bones via a sexual discrimination suit) is about to introduce general Shalikashvili

Written by: Beck

They've actually dug up George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis.

(Sidenote: Jim Lehrer just observed that during Gov. Granholm's speech, people on the floor were milling around, completely ignoring her. There's a reason why, and it doesn't have to do with her relative status as an unknown outside of Michigan. It has to do with a terrible speech.)

Mark Shields: "All three of them had successful marriages to rather remarkable women." Response when asked what those three men had in common other than being failed Democratic presidential nominees. The other thing they had in common? They all lost in landslides. Mondale and McGovern both won only 1 state a piece. Dukakis won only 10 states, despite an overwhelming lead after his convention.

Brooks: "Sharpton's speech has still been the most remarkable speech so far." Think about the implications of that statement. Sharpton is a better reflection of the true heart of the Democratic party than this pro-war charade we've watched parade along thus far. People need to know and learn that.

Written by: Beck

People are waving foam hands in the shape of Michigan. Both Parts. It looks like a bunch of deformed hands with a Fox Foto logo grafted on. Updates coming.

Update: She has a Shakespearean dramatic delivery. It's really silly sounding. She started very naturally and personably in reaction to her reception. Now she's lost that momentum.

Update: I'm getting to the point where I'm typing the word "Update" in my sleep. A long winding analogy about the Boston tea party and the Freedom Trail leads up to something or other about why people should vote. I think. I understand that she's a very popular governor, but right now it sounds like she's addressing a 1st grade class, reading them from her favorite Dr. Seuss.

Now evidently Bush is like a driver who refuses to stop to ask for directions. So we need a new driver. Or something.

Update: She just made the argument that new jobs earn $9,000 less than the jobs we're losing, along with the 2.7 million manufacturing jobs lost point. As I have posted about earlier, these facts are patently wrong. The Senate's own economic advisory panel has shown that that $9,000 number is a fabrication derived by some highly unorthodox statistical economic analysis. I have no respect for people who use such charged, loaded, and most of all, false rhetoric.

Further, she's making the argument about jobs going overseas. Only 2.5% of jobs lost have been to overseas outsourcing. Would this be a good time to point out that Granholm was born a Canadian?

Update: Affordable health care is evidently an important part of curing what ails our economy. No, sorry, affordable health care is a chimera which would create enormous new government expenses and horrible inefficiencies in health care delivery were it to be legislated into existence. More spending on welfare is never a key to economic growth.

Update: Another Paul Revere reference. These are getting really old. Yes, we understand. Massachusetts was involved in the revolutionary war. Never mind that the first shots were fired in Virginia, but by god, Paul Revere... sorry, my mind wandered off.

Written by: Beck

Michelle Malkin just wrote to say she's linked me. It's four or five posts down the page, but I'm still enormously flattered. Welcome to Malkin's regular readers!

Back to the coverage...

(Ret.) General Merril McPeak, paraphrased: "Kerry's involvement in Vietnam is a huge thing for me." I wonder how true that is for most vets.

Hey, he was just asked that very question. Answer: "Yes, it's a historic groundswell in terms of... I speak for an awful lot of professional military people." Of course, the same was probably true of Bush Sr. when he ran against Clinton. Funny how that shoe is on a new foot.

Update: Gen. McPeak, when asked what makes a great commander in chief, "You have to have both the courage and confidence... and the conviction." My response: by that logic, pretty much every member of the US Marine Corp would make a great commander in chief.

Mark Shield: McPeak endorsed Bush in 2000. Shield makes a good point about the strength of that particular credential.

Jim Lehrer: McPeak was a supporter of Howard Dean before he supported Kerry. Well, so much for the value of those credentials.

Al Sharpton, interviewed from the floor: When asked about his speech's length, "I told them I wanted to expand the speech. They knew I was going to do that." When asked about not mentioning Bush by name, "Yes, that was deliberate."

Update: Howard Dean being interviewed now, asked why he thinks Kerry is going to be right on the war when he himself opposed it, "My campaign was about balancing the budget...whatever differences I had with the Kerry were very small relative to the differences between us and Bush." So right, though not necessarily for the reasons Dean's thinking.

More Dean: Asked about our commitment to Iraq, "Kerry's position and my position are not that different. Not that differently, neither is George Bush's. Bush adopted our strategy after Kerry won the nomination." Yep, my head just spun around. Fortunately, I brace for that any time I hear Dean speak.

"I think everybody understands that you can't [pull out of Iraq]. What I advocate is pull out the reserves." Sure, all hell wouldn't break lose if we pulled out 40% of our forces right now.

Update: Dean, asked how to handle the insurgency, "These are mostly foreign fighters who were not in Iraq prior to the invasion, despite what Bush has said."

Asked what he meant by saying Democrats shouldn't be ashamed of being Democrats, Dean: "People think Clinton won because he moved to the center... Democrats sprang up who thought that winning required acting like Republicans... The way to win elections is to energize the hell out of your base."

Asked if the Democratic party is a party of liberals, "My goal is to restore the word 'liberal...' If it takes a liberal to balance the budget... Some people have called me a liberal... Some people have turned the word liberal into a dirty word..." This kind of baffles me too. Why are liberals so afraid of being called liberals? "What I am is fiscally conservative and socially progressive, and if that makes me a liberal than so be it, but I'm running--uh, and I'm running for John Kerry." Slip up there. He started to lapse back into standard campaign rhetoric as though he were still going for office himself.

To be honest, I get more of a feeling of sincerity and integrity from Dean than from just about anyone else showing at this circus. Though I disagree with a whole heck of a lot of what he has to say, at least he seems to believe it unlike, for instance, John Kerry.

Update: After speaking on "internationalism," when asked what to do in situations where a situation arises when Americans must act alone, "It is not bad to act unilaterally, but it is much better to act as Clinton did to begin a dialogue, as in the case of Kosovo, than to act unilaterally." This after using Kosovo as an example of when acting unilaterally is necessary.

Written by: Beck

I wonder if Graham's going to have to rush now. I wonder if he'll call for reparations too? Updates a comin'.

Update: Moreover, I wonder how much he's going to pound on the need for Floridians to get out and vote.

Well that didn't take long: "Florida has made a difference to me. I know that we are going to make a difference for [Kerry & Edwards]." "And friends, this time, when the votes are counted, we are going to make a huge difference in Florida for America." Weak stuff buddy. Surely you can do better than that--if nothing else, politicians are supposed to be good at rhetoric, right?

Update: Now the swine is likening the time table since September 11 to the timetable after Pearl Harbor. This stuff should offend any WWII vets listening to it today. "1000 days after the attacks, we still haven't even secured the beaches." No thanks to you, Bob.

Update: "As governor of Florida, I learned that the FBI and CIA failed to communicate..." "As Florida's senator I saw seaports where our greatest security was often a chain link fence."

I think he just suggested that as a member of the Senate Intelligence committee that he saw that there were WMD and that 9/11 could have been prevented. I'm going to have to parse the speech afterwards, but that's really what it sounded like. He got zero applause. You can hear confused muttering in the audience.

Update: This guy can't say nuclear. Funny how Bush gets made fun of for that very short coming. He's rambling. Something about John Kerry, pre 9/11, had a plan to cut off funding to terrorists. How come we haven't heard about that sooner? Wouldn't this be something Kerry would want to shout from the roof tops?

Update: "It wasn't Iraq that attacked the United States on September the 11th. It was Osama Been Forgotten [really, he said that]." Once again, Kerry is shouting to an advisor, "Send the secret service down there. Just take this guy out before he says anything worse!"

Graham just floated his suggestion for fighting terrorism: work with our allies to tear down Al Qaeda recruiting billboards. More bad lines. Not one catchy phrase or crowd capturing hook. This dude should never be allowed in front of a TV camera again. He ended on a dud note. He might as well have just walked up there and read a few pages at random out of an encyclopedia.

Update: Captain's Quarters remarks that Graham killed all the momentum which Sharpton's speech created.

Written by: Beck

If any speaker is going to do Kerry damage tonight, it'll be Sharpton. My fingers are crossed. Updates to come.

Update: Sharpton just dropped an "aksed" bomb. Those always amuse me. The first part of his speech seems to be devoted to thanking people for being here. "The first person to die in the Revolutionary War..." was evidently a black man from Barbados named Christmas. I did not know that.

Sharpton just invoked Martin Luther King and the Voting Rights Act of 1965... which the Republicans supported much more strongly than the Democrats.

"I have come here tonight to say that the only choice we have to preserve our freedom at this point in history is to elect John Kerry as President." There you have it folks. You can all go home now, you have no other choice or else we're all going to be thrown in jail. I guess.

Update: "I am convinced that [the two Johns] are men who say what they mean, and mean what they say." Even when they contradict themselves I suppose.

"We can't survive in the world by ourselves." Do you really believe that Al? "We were told we were going to Iraq because there were WMD." Well... no. "...they changed the premise of the war and said we went for other reasons..."

"We are faced that 2 or more Supreme Court justice's seats may come available... This court has voted 5 to 4 on critical issues of women's rights and civil rights." Yes, like upholding racial preferences in college admissions. "If George Bush had selected the justices in 1954, Clarence Thomas would have never got [sic] to law school."

Update: Sharpton just suggested that we spend more money on metal detectors in schools than on the schools themselves. WOW. Now he's likening "regulating behavior in the bedroom" to "providing food in the kitchen." This guy's off the deep end. OH GOD. He just repeated the whole damn line. It came across as though he lost his place on the teleprompter. He's terrible. Perhaps someone should point out that the Supreme Court Al is so opposed to struck down Sodomy laws in Texas, and that the FMA has nothing to do with what goes on "in the bedroom."

Update: His sentences are sorta crumbling. I can figure out his intent easily enough, but I'm fairly certain that a straight up grammatical deconstruction would cause the entire mess to fall apart.

Now he's arguing in favor of bilingual education. And NOW he's arguing that illegals should have the right to vote for president. Kerry's probably shouting from some listening room, "Would someone please send a flying tackle into him?" "And you aksed the question, 'Does the Democratic party take us for granted?'" (Speaking of Bush's questions earlier in the week). "It is true that Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation... we were promised 40 acres and a mule." He's now arguing for reparations. "We didn't get the 40 acres. We didn't get the mule. So we decided we would ride the donkey as far as it would take us." You hear that sound? That's the sound of several million independent and undecided voters making sure the chads don't dangle underneath their votes for George W. Bush.

And the crowd goes wild.

And now Sharpton lays claim on behalf of the Democratic party to every good thing that has ever happened in the civil rights movement. So much for historical accuracy.

Update: It's pretty much just a frothing shouting rage now. This is great stuff. Thank you Al. Thank you so much for coming through.

"Mr. President, read my lips, our vote is not for sale." Nice how he manages to still avoid using the word "Bush." I haven't heard it once.

"Family values is not just those with two car garages and a retirement plan... I was raised by a single mother who made a way for me... she taught me that life is not about where you start but about where you're going." Well, yes, good point. I liked it better the first time around when it was Dan Qayle saying it, but still.

Update: Jim Lehrer: according to the script, he was supposed to speak for 6 minutes, but he went off for 20 minutes.

Update: The indispensable Michael King of Rambling's Journal has more thoughts on Al Sharpton & his Green Acres dreams.

Written by: Beck

Steve Brozak is up now. It would seem he's a retired USMC Lt. Col. running for a House seat from New Jersey. He's part of tonight's strategy of parading lots of military people past the podium to speak to how John Kerry's experience as a navy Lt. somehow qualifies him to be the Commander in Chief. Updates to follow, assuming he has anything worth saying.

Update: This guy is a shouter. His style alternates between speaking-to-school-children and addressing-the-troops. He's also big on the Clinton patented gesturing-with-your-fist. Clearly studied Public Speaking for Dummies. His message: it's hard to win a fight without our allies. He switched parties from Republican to Democrat when he discovered this. Evidently the ability to win over the French is important enough to completely swap your political stripes (he just repeated that he switched parties to become a Democrat for the third time).

Update: Make that the fourth time. Now he's moved on to the experience-as-a-luitenant as qualification for Commander in Chief theme. "John Kerry has a plan to win the war on terror." I sure wish someone would explain what that plan is. "John Kerry will give our men and women in uniform solid support instead of hollow rhetoric." That'd certainly be more than anyone else at the DNC has given them so far. Time for someone to trot out some voting records re: "supporting" the troops. After all, what better way can elected civilian officials support troops than by voting to, you know, fund them, pay for bullets, that sort of stuff. Also, would someone please buy this guy a new hand gesture? What exactly is waving around your index finger knuckle supposed to signify anyway?

Written by: Beck

David Brooks: "Barack Obama's was the only speech with enough substance that you could have a conversation about it." Nice thing to say about Obama, but not too complimentary of everything to come before or since.

Me: What's up with these new Louisiana Purchase nickels? I mean, I assume working at the US Mint isn't an especially exciting job, but when did currency become a place to showcase mediocre art?

UP next: Steve Brozak, Al Sharpton (turns out he is a prime time speaker. Oh goodie!), and Bob Graham.

Written by: Beck

From the convention floor: "I think Kerry sees things in a much more nuanced way. Bush sees everything in black and white and I think Kerry sees things from all sides of the issue." That's a pretty good breakdown of the way Democrats' & Republicans' brains work if you think about it. Fortunately, there's a Republican in power, as I fail to see more than two sides to an issue which involves civilians being killed by terrorists.

From a retired soldier on the convention floor: "40% of the soldiers in Iraq right now are reservists... and that's not fair." Fair? I'm sorry, but when you enter the military, you know what your obligations are going to be in terms of active duty, active reserve, and inactive reserve obligations. Plus, you get paid by the government during that whole period. What's fair is that you step up to the plate when your nation's taxpayers need you to.

There is a lot of noise being made by various people about how you don't have to be a Republican to be pro-war. This seems to be the biggest single message to the undecided voter crowd. That this flies in the face of the reality of Kerry's anti-war statements evidently never enters the minds of these people as relevant. Of course, the more pro-war Kerry gets, the more votes he pisses away to Ralph Nader and, to a lesser extent, the Libertarians, so I guess I shouldn't complain.

Written by: Beck

Tonight should be rather less interesting than either of the previous two nights. Pretty much all of the Democratic big guns are out of the way, and the B team will be carrying things until the last hour of the evening. You know your convention has run out of steam when the biggest speaker for the first two prime time hours is Dennis Kucinich.

After that, John Edwards, introduced by his wife, will speak, followed by the official process to nominate John Kerry.

Update: INDC is keen on entering a contest going on in the WaPo, and I'm happy to throw support behind him. Go have a look.

Update: Added to Beltway Traffic Jam.

Update: Blogs 4 Bush has a good roundup of what people are saying about the first two days' events, in case you haven't had enough already.

Written by: Goemagog

The Army plans on having more soldiers on post, by restructuring. Not actually getting more soldiers, just moving them around is going to increase the number. That's the Army plan.

We used to have divisions, made up of brigades, made up of regiments or battalions, made up of companies, made up of platoons, made up of squads, made up of teams, made up of soldiers. This led to what was known as the chain-of-command.

If troops were needed for a task, they were sent in an appopriate sized unit. The plan now is to send a brigade sized unit, and never anything bigger (we won't have command or logistical structures capable of running anything bigger). Sending troops in smaller units would defeat the purpose of downsizing the big units, so we'll probably throw a brigade sized team at everything.

These brigade sized teams will be similar to a brigade-sized task force, known as a brigade combat team. Only they won't be known as brigade combat teams. They're now "units of action", like the army's many divisions sat on their asses since lexington.

The army will keep reorganizing the force in this manner, until they're achieved the "army of one" goal of an infinite number of soldiers (there will be only two, but they'll each have an infinite number of designations). These soldiers will be networked by cellphone, so they can ask each other for reinforcement when the Chinese attack. They'll be deployable in theory, but their other duties will require that the fifty remaining national guardsmen be sent in their stead.

In other news, I can't figure out how to link to it, but there's a report that the army is buying small arms ammunition from europe because they didn't plan for ammunition to be expended in combat anytime in the forseeable future.

Goe, thinks rumsfeld should resign already.

Written by: Goemagog

This thing looks like a cross between a horse, a dog, a pig, and maybe a touch of anteater.

And it doesn't matter what they did or didn't do to the cop, these people deserved to be maced, and maybe beaten a bit.

And apparently the british are having trouble keeping it in their pants. Maybe there's a new british pick-up line, "Have a sexual disease? Want to share?"

Goe, cause summer is here and the heat is going to his head.

Written by: Beck

I'm not too hopeful for real entertainment from this, but I wish Heinz had a chance to write & deliver a speech without any vetting from the Kerry campaign. Updates to follow once the speech begins.

Update: Heinz's son introducing her, "When I first met John, I said to myself, 'Self, the only person good enough for mom is the president of the United States.'" I guess that means he was hoping she'd get married to Bush.

Update: Intro music: "Simply the best." Tina Turner: "Better than all the rest." Me: "So much for not appearing elitist."

She looks nervous. Opening sentence, "Thank you Christopher, your father would be very proud of you and your brothers." I wonder if it's in the backs of everyone's mind that their father was a Republican congressman.

Update: She's lapsed into Spanish. Time to show off that she speaks five languages. Her South African accent is weirding me out enough already, this is just really kind of creepy. Too bad it's not French, that'd be more appropriate.

"A free, good, and democratic society," is the noblest purpose of all, in her message to all "Continental Africans living in America." I guess that doesn't apply to, for instance, Iraqis, Iranians, North Koreans, Syrians... well, you get the point.

Update: Her speaking style is very slow and deliberate. And very annoying. The crux of her speech so far has been that apartheid was bad. Freedom is good. "My only hope is that one day soon women who have all earned their right to their opinion instead of being called, 'Opinionated,' will be called, 'Smart and well informed,' just like men." This is the stuff presidential campaigns are made of? My great great grandmother was a suffragette. Women can vote now, ya know? Apartheid ended over a decade ago. This is thin stuff.

Update: Her nice, warm, fuzzy message is that America is great, anything is possible, and freedom is nice. I guess that's about what you'd expect from a wife-of-the-nominee speech, but still, it's so unbelievably non-confrontational that I'm completely disappointed. At least she made a few opening references to her dead Republican former husband.

Good grief, now she's going on about alternative fuel. Would someone please clue these people in that you can't wish an alternate reality into being? "Good environmental policy is good economics." Sure, but good environmental policy is not Democratic environmental policy.

Update: "[John Kerry] will always, always be first in the line of fire." Well, no objections here. "...The awful toil exacted by leaders who mistake stubbornness for strength." OK, so we shouldn't mistake Iraqi insurgents activities as a sign of strength. Gotcha.

Hell, there's that "Speak truth to power," phrase again. That phrase has always bugged me, not because I have a huge problem with the principle involved, but because the phrase has never sounded quite grammatically correct to me.

Update: Teresa wants to draw the mystic chords of your memory. Look out.

Heinz was a net negative. Her accent was disconcerting, her message was rambling and inconsistent, and she's kinda scary looking. I'm exhausted. Goodnight.

Update: Everyone at The Corner thinks Heinz really sucked eggs. So to speak. I'm inclined to agree.

From Tim Graham:

Brooks and Shields on PBS agreed with Frum after Teresa was done: where was the warm personal anecdotes? Must we have a show of linguistic versatility, but no fuzzy-wuzzy stories about the hubby?

From Jonah Goldberg:

I've thought Teresa is horrible for a very, very long time. I think she's smug, unfunny, unsexy, unclever -- but not uninteresting. She is a fascinating specimen, but one I find entirely unappealing. I waited until now to commit to that position. But now there's no denying it. That was without a doubt the most self-indulgent, unnecessary convention speech in modern memory. To the extent anyone is paying attention, I think she damaged herself and her husband's ticket.

Written by: Beck

I don't know that I'll have much to say. I'm not quite sure what to think about Reagan. He's here to advocate stem cell research, but I'm pretty confident that the issue of stem cell research isn't big enough to merit a prime-time speaker slot. The Democrats opened the slot because they wanted to suck the wind out of Republican Reagan worship.

His opening paragraph makes it abundantly clear that regardless of Democratic strategy, he is not there for partisan reasons. And that's about all I have to say on the topic, as I agree with him completely. I know some of my co-bloggers don't necessarily feel that way, for what that's worth.

Last thought: he's a natural speaker. He has the voice for it, and his delivery is smooth, the speech written quite well. I guess he learned at least one thing from his father.

Update: KJL at The Corner points out that Reagan ended his speech on a decidedly partisan note.

Update: Ramesh Ponnuru, NRO's most libertarian contributor, already has an article up on Reagan's pro-stem cell research speech.

Written by: Beck

Jim Lehrer and his talking heads, both of the left and the right, are gushing. David Brooks: "This is the reason why I love things like this... It's a shame that the networks aren't covering this tonight, because they just missed a bit of history."

More Brooks: "I thought John Edwards might overshadow John Kerry. I didn't think [Obama] would overshadow John Edwards."

Richard Smith: "This guy's going places."

More Smith: "People talk about him quite openly as the first black president of the United States." Hey, I had the idea first. Roughly three minutes ago. And I have the blog timestamp to prove it.

Brooks: "His style is different from Kerry. He had some social conservatism in there..." Yep.

Written by: Beck

Yeah, I hadn't heard of him before today either. Evidently he's running for senate in Illinois. Presumably, his chances are strong enough that the Dems are willing to throw the entire might of party support behind him. Here we go.

Update: From the introduction of Obama, it's safe to presume that the Democrats regard him as the key to retake the Senate.

Update: His father was a goatherd from Kenya. His mother is a Kansas native, and her father fought with Patton, while her mother worked in a bomb factory. This guy is the real deal. I'm already more impressed with him than with all other speakers tonight combined.

"I owe a debt to all the others who came before me, and on no other country on earth is my story even possible." Great line.

Update: He just quoted the opening to the Declaration of Independence, adding, "That is the secret to American greatness." Again, this guy is great. It sounds like he's delivering a Republican speech.

Bah, he just spoiled it all by making a joke about the Florida recount.

Update: Obama just used the word "forbearers" which Kennedy also used. I guess "forefathers" is no longer politically correct. Someone should have informed Lincoln.

Now he's talking about how people where he comes from don't expect government to solve all their problems. I hope he's right, but I don't believe it.

Update: "John Kerry believes in energy independence." Well then, he believes in an impossible myth. Sorry, but energy independence is not possible inside the next 50 years. Believe in it all you want.

Update: I wish I could type fast enough to give the full line he just delivered about our obligations to our troops. It was perfectly written. Learn this guy's face and remember his name, I assure you we'll all be hearing much more of him over the next thirty years.

Ramesh Ponnuru, over at the corner, wishes Ted Kennedy could speak every night. I'm just glad Barack Obama doesn't speak every night, because he's fantastic.

He's now going on about how you shouldn't divide the nation up according to blue state/red state as the pundits do. "We are one people...in the United States of America." The crowd is chanting his name now, and he just supplanted Clinton as most effective speaker of this year's DNC.

Update: First black president of the United States: Barack Obama in 24-32 years. You heard it here first.

Update: Wizbang posts a roundup of liberal reaction to Obama.

Written by: Beck

Governor Napolitano of Arizona has taken the stage. I can't say that I know very much about her. The heavy weights are out of the way, I think we're on cruise control now until Teresa's pending speech.

Update: "Hard work is no longer enough." That about sums up the beliefs of the Democratic party, minus the bit where it implies that they honestly believe that at some point in time hard work WAS enough. These people should have a chance at living in the 18th century for a while. Then they might learn that once upon a time, hard work might keep you alive, and anything less would most certainly doom you to misery and death.

"You know that something is wrong when Starbucks pays more for health care than for coffee beans and Ford pays more for health care than for steel." Something is wrong with that? Granted, it suggests something negative about rising health care costs, but the source of those costs can be found at the door of the current regulatory environment, not to mention the litigation environment created by people like John Edwards. Shouldn't we be GLAD that a fast-food style chain like Starbucks DOES spend more money on health care for employees? That's what you call admirable employee treatment. That's not a sign that something's wrong. That's a sign that something is very, very right.

Update: Now she's actually attacking the price of prescription drugs. Are they not aware of what party & what president foisted upon us the prescription drug benefit entitlement? You know, the biggest new entitlement in history?

Written by: Beck

Mark Shields: "You saw more home made signs for Howard Dean tonight than for anyone else." Howard Dean is still the heart of the Democratic party.

Brooks: But they didn't think he could win an election, so they went with Kerry.

Dean's message, to the extent that there was one, is that Democrats shouldn't be ashamed of being Democrats anymore. The funny thing is, I've heard some of the same from Republicans regarding themselves. Perhaps the real message to take away here is that politicians all around deserve to be ashamed of themselves. They know it, and they're projecting their sense of guilt onto their supporters who at some level, have to wonder how it is that they keep electing losers like Kennedy and Kerry.

Some random talking head: Howard Dean is to republicans as Barry Goldwater was to conservatives. His supporters wanted him to run even if they didn't think he could win.

I think the real issue here is the profound fear of Democrats of being labeled "Liberal." Perhaps that's because Americans have figured out that Liberal means roughly the same thing as Socialist. Oh, and remind me some day to elaborate on my opinions about the abuse of the perfectly good word "Progressive."

Written by: Beck

The crowd is going nuts. The message so far has been so surprisingly pro-war that I can't wait to see what sort of things he'll say. Updates to follow.

Update: "I may not be the nominee, but I can tell you this--" I am unbelievably bitter. Oh, wait, that's not what he said. But he was definitely thinking it. I used Edwards' skills at channeling the undead to figure that out.

"We represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party."

"The things Harry Truman promised us in 1948, health insurance for everyone... jobs creation... standing up for middle class and working Americans who got a tax increase [ed: HUH?]... and a foreign policy which blah blah blah telling the truth blah blah blah." Harry Truman must've been busy.

Update: "I'm Howard Dean and I'm voting for John Kerry." Why does that remind me so much of the AA litany, "My name is Bob, and I'm an alcoholic?"

Now he's stumping for campaign donations, talking about a woman who sold her bike "for Democracy," and so she could give $100 to Howard Dean. Then he goes on to mention the lady who handed him $50 in quarters. Isn't it a bit late for this sort of stuff? Not to mention that it's not exactly on-message.

Update: "You have the power," repeated 5 times. To take back America. That's it. A very disappointing speech. Relatively brief, uncontroversial, lacking in energy. I'd hoped for something more (but then, I'm just looking for amusement).

Written by: Beck

Jim Lehrer and his talking heads have completely ignored Daschle's speech to comment some more on Gephardt. There's a reason for that.

Congressman Rangel, asked if the economy is going to be a deciding issue, "Well, it's all about the war." Followed by linking unemployment to army recruitment efforts. Followed by floating out the "jobless recovery" line. A million new jobs in 6 months and you call this a jobless recovery?

John Lovitz impersonating Michael Dukakis in 1987, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy." The reverse is most certainly true today. I can't believe Kerry is neck-and-neck with Bush.

Written by: Beck

He's thanking the state of South Dakota in sentence one. This guy needs to lose his Senate seat, and he knows that he's at risk. The guy's talking about farmers now. This guy knows that he's going to lose, and he gives nary a shit about John Kerry or the Presidency. This is a man who's fighting for his life.

I can hear people in the audience speaking in disbelieving tones. People are laughing. This guy is done.

"South Dakotans reject the defeatist view... They wonder how we can build new schools in Iraq when so many schools in America are crumbling." They are? Nice tie-in to Iraq though. You finally managed to take your speech outside of a state with fewer than 1 million people inhabiting it.

This guy is a waste of space. I'm taking a break.

Update: "When American soldiers do right by America, Americans must do right by our soldiers." So why exactly did Kerry vote against funding for our soldiers in Iraq? Pipe down you blowhard.

Written by: Beck

He opens with the "Worse job creation record since Herbert Hoover," and moves right into shipping jobs over seas. Come on Dick, I know you're the "Labor Senator," but your facts are all backwards. They might have been right 8 months ago, but they ain't any more--because Bush's policies are working to create jobs at record breaking levels. Record. Breaking. Think about it.

I can already tell that this entire speech is going to be about labor. Should be pleasantly boring.

Also, for the first time, I just noticed that Gephardt's hair is grey now, no longer blonde. He's finally starting to show his age.

Update: Jobs, health care, rising college costs, jobs, health care, rising college costs, jobs, health care, jobs, jobs, American families, life is a never ending scramble of credit card debt, scramble, scramble, discipline, respect, jobs, someone pass me a tissue, there's blood coming out of my ear.

Update: "If a mother doesn't have medical insurance, we all pay the price when she shows up at the hospital." Well, OK, sure, but if she does have health insurance and it's government provided, we still all pay the price. So, uh, what exactly was your point again?

Update: Gephardt's talking about how he achieved so much from a background of so little (parents a teamster and a secretary) and at the exact same time says that the government needs to ensure that everyone has opportunity to excel... I mean, the government didn't help Dick climb his way to the top, he did it by merit of his own extremely hard work and dedication. How can someone who has worked so hard advocate government nanny-state social welfare at the same time? Literally, in one paragraph he suggests that opportunity doesn't exist in America unless the government provides it, and then in the very next paragraph explains that he himself worked hard to create his own opportunities.

Written by: Beck

Talking head: "Kennedy's message was that patriotism is not in conflict with revolution."

Another talking head: "This was classic Ted Kennedy... Ted Kennedy is the best stump speaker in the land..." Well, he got it half right.

"Ted Kennedy has given some of his best speeches in his moments of defeat." I can only hope.

David Brooks: "I thought it was a clever speech." You know, it amazes me how much these people are capable of reading into such speeches. Many of their points I can see--they make excellent textual analysis of the speeches, especially on such short notice. The thing is, does the average American watching things really make these sorts of connections? Does the average American think to himself, even if only subconsciously--

Interuption here--Dick Gephardt is about to speak.

Written by: Beck

Teddy's getting a warmer reception than Jimbo did last night.

Just made a joke at his own expense. Very lame. Left it behind. No follow through. "I plan to stay at this job 'til I get the hang of it." These people can't do comedy I tell you.

Updates to follow.

Update: I'd forgotten how much I can't stand the blue-blood variant of the Boston accent. He sounds just like... well, his dead brothers.

OK, big guy, time to stop yammering about how great Boston is. It sounds like he's running for a local election, not touting someone else for a national election.

Update: He's STILL talking about New England. It would seem that the theme of his speech is that we should learn from history. I recognize the expression on his face. I've seen it in plenty of different places before. I've even seen that expression on my own face in the mirror once or twice. It's a face which says, "I. Need. A. Drink."

"The day our ancestors fired the shirt round the world." Yeah, he mangled the phrase, and pronounced "shot" so badly it sounded like a different word. Does this guy even know what he's talking about.

WHOA. His voice just cracked when saying the word "America." The guy looks like a break down waiting to happen. And now he claims that he bears no ill will towards his opponents. Followed by a tea-party joke. He felt the need to elaborate and add that they could do it right down the road in Boston Harbor. All I can think is "Chapaquidik."

Update: Kennedy compares Kerry to JFK and John Adams--someone did last night too. John Adams would be so profoundly disgusted by the entire lot of these people...

He keeps stumbling, stuttering, and his voice has cracked four times now.

Kennedy just used the name "Cheney." First time the President or Vice President has been named since the convention's start.

Update: Seriously. His voice is cracking an average of once per sentence now. And it's getting worse. Incidentally, he hasn't made a single policy point. Nothing but rhetoric so far. Worst speech of the convention so far, and I include the scary dwarf senator from Maryland (I forget her name) last night.

Update: "We should have honored the principle... that America must give a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." I'm sorry, buddy, but I have zero intention of giving decent respect to the opinions of Islamofascists OR the French, and I have no respect for anyone who does.

Update: Kennedy is laying claim, on behalf of the Democratic party, to spearheading the cause of freedom, equality, and voting rights for all. This is, of course, factually incorrect, but then, when have facts ever stood in the way of the likes of a blowhard like Kennedy?

First firm policy statement: "We pledge a fair minimum wage." There you have it.

Update: "The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush." FDR you are not big guy.

More reference now to the history of New England, invoking the memory of the patriots who fought in "The War of 1776." You know, Kennedy had a point when he harped earlier on the importance of learning from history. Regrettably, Kennedy himself seems to complete lack an understanding of the meaning of history--of the freedoms those patriots fought for over 225 years ago.

And now, of course, Kennedy is likening Bush to another George--King George III to be specific. At least he didn't feel the need to explain that one. I hate it when people explain their allusions.

Update: "...false patriots who bully dissenters into silence..." It's official, Kennedy is a Linda Ronstadt fan. In other news, Kennedy's voice stopped cracking about five minutes ago. I guess he finally hit his stride. Either that, or the double shot he tossed down before stepping up on stage has finally started to kick in. (Funny that I mentioned that. His voice cracked one last time on the very last word of his speech).

Written by: Beck

Mark Shields: "Ted Kennedy is a character witness for John Kerry." Yeah, I've taken that statement is out of context. I still think it's pretty funny.

You know, Al Gore and Bill Clinton both made jokes at their own expense, in essence taking the ammo out of conservatives' guns. I sure hope Kennedy follows suit. "I know John Kerry, and let me tell you, if he drove his car off a bridge, he'd rescue his drowning mistress and not leave her behind. That's because he's a hero who, in case you hadn't heard, served in Vietnam."

In other news, did you know that two thirds of Bangladesh is currently underwater? I'm reminded of Sam Kinneson's rant about starving people in Ethiopia. Just replace all instances of the word "desert" with "lake" and you've got it.

Written by: Beck

Interviews from the floor, on the BBC:

Jerry Springer: "We're not electing a game show host... You know, sometimes your dad is not the coolest guy, but you know you can trust him because you know he's going to make good decisions about you... He's not going to have a hot temper and fly off and get us into wars or something..."

Howard Dean: "Kerry needs to just be himself. If he campaigns as himself, then people will get to know him and will eventually grow to like him."

I'm sorry, but that's the kind of thing you say to your girl friend about your shitty room mate. The message is, Sure, this guy is an asshole. He's an acquired taste. But... just trust us OK. Anybody but Bush! Yeaarrrrghhh! Not what you should be saying about your party's nominee.

Written by: Beck

If nothing goes wrong tonight, I'm going to be very disappointed. Tonight's speakers include Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, and Teresa Heinz--the three people the Democratic party would often like to forget the existence of but can't ignore. Presuming that speeches are all pre-approved by the Powers That Be, I can't hope for a Pat Buchanan style pull-the-party-too-far-to-the-side delivery... but I can hope.

While waiting for the speeches to fire up, have a look at the recent polling data as reported by Ace-o-Spades. I don't imagine these numbers yet take in the impact of DNC day 1, but it's still some pretty surprising movement. Kerry's leaning heavily on the convention bounce to build an insurmountable margin over Bush. If that fails to materialize, Kerry is done.

Update: Added to the Beltway Traffic Jam.

Written by: Beck

First: I'll be live blogging the prime-time DNC speakers again tonight. Apologies in advance for typos, errors, etc, as I type updates on the fly mid-speech and don't devote a whole lot of time to proof reading.

Second: John Kerry or Oompa Loompa? You decide.

Update: More Willy Wonka from Hog on Ice.

Oompa, loompa, loompity doo...I've got another photo for you...
Oompa, loompa, loompi-da-dee...if you are wise, you'll listen to me.

What do you do when your wife has no class?
And she wears white which shows off her big ass?
Sniping and carping and being a witch...
And everyone says she's...a...BITCH?

Written by: Beck

July 27, in addition to being the day that the Korean War armistice was signed, the day that Robespierre was executed, and the day that a bomb went off at the Atlanta Olympics, was the day when Alexandre Dumas was born and Bob Hope died. Also, it's Revolution day in Cuba and Vietnam's Memorial Day.

Oh yeah, and I was born. In lieu of monetary contributions, you may feel free to simply send web traffic my way. I won't complain a bit.

Written by: Goemagog

EU officials tell Sudan to hurry up with it's ethnic cleansing program. The EU wants the blacks dead within months, or sanctions will be imposed until the job is finished. (Sanctions will be waived, of course, so that Sudan can keep buying supplies at the Paris Genocide'R'Us superstore.)

A lot has been made of technojackets, but this story uses the phrase "Fashion Alliance". That is so completely fucking wrong.

The president of the cowardly Phillipines has promised her people Magic flying ponies.

Spain is pissed that Australia called appeasement "appeasement". "We're not cowards," said the socialist Prime Minister of Spain, "We're just afraid!" Of pirates?

The woman who lied about being the victim of a hate crime in Paris was given a suspended sentence, i.e. no jail time. This is the same amount of jail time the record number of actual hate crimes in Paris has resulted in.

Pirates are killing more, but attacking less. Piracy is now limited to warm places, where timbers don't shiver and there's nothing special about having a parrot on your shoulder and/or missing limbs.

American soldiers are reduced to paying tribute to keep from getting attacked. Monty Python did a skit about this, with local mobsters threatening to damage tanks if they weren't paid protection money.

Shark attacks boy in Texas. No word on if the shark had a parrot.

The first Olsen twin rehab exit has taken place. I'm pretty sure that it won't be the last. And they're expected to make a billion dollars in sales this year? I'm depressed with jealousy.

They can't keep Love in jail, it would lead to far too many prison rape jokes. We can't have that, it might offend the rapists, murderers, thieves, and pirate sharks. Then we'd have to pay them to not damage our tanks.

The important thing isn't that we were attacked and a bunch of people died. The important thing is there may have been carcinogens in the air. We're wasting our time in Iraq, while cockroaches in New York City may be developing breathing disorders. They'll probably want Workbug's Compensation.

Coke rots your teeth. As it turns out, so does everything else.

Sorry that I don't have lots of pirate kitty links.

Goe, needs to write some fiction, cause reality keeps sucking more and more.

Written by: Beck

Clinton's intro music? "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow." What do you know, I still hate that song.

Bill's first point? Bringing up the 2000 recount. I hadn't anticipated that being such a major talking point. The "every point counts" theme cuts both ways folks.

OH GOD. HE JUST COMPARED JOHN KERRY TO JOHN ADAMS AND JOHN KENNEDY. Sorry, I just puked a little in my mouth. Gotta go get a drink.

Update: Billy wants to live in a world where we can, "Celebrate our religious, our ethnic, our racial, our tribal differences." It has something to do with "our humanity," but the logic fails me. Mostly I wanted to point out that Bill Clinton is talking about "tribal" differences. Does this guy even live on the same planet that I do, let alone in the same country?

Update: Evidently Republicans believe in concentrating wealth and power in the hands of... sorry, I lost track. Just fill in politically correct words at random.

Update: Clinton's making the most direct attacks on the Bush administration, though he's maintained the DNC embargo on actual use of the words "George" and "Bush." I guess since Clinton's currently the most popular Democrat alive, they want to use him as the attack dog, as he's the most able to get away with it.

"When I was in office, you might recall, occasionally, the Republicans were kind of mean to me."

Clinton as victim in chief apologizes for being rich & receiving a tax cut.

Update: It's official. Tax cuts are bad. One should be ashamed of being robbed less.

Clinton took a dig at the expiring assault weapon ban. "We're taking police officers off the street and putting assault rifles back on them." There's some brown stuff coming out of Clinton's ears, but I'm not quite sure what it is.

Update: I really want someone to fact check Clinton's ass on these deficit numbers he's tossing around now. $5 trillion projected deficit? I call bull shit. Those sound like numbers/estimates left over from the bottom of the post-9/11 bust.

Random thought: Both of the Clintons are doing a significantly good job that it somewhat puts the lie to the thought that they want to sink Kerry's campaign so that Hillary can run for president in 2008.

Update: Some advice: watch the coverage on PBS. There are fewer random annoying audience applause shots and the sound & image quality seems to be better. Plus, the between-speech commentary is much better.

Now Clinton has the crowd repeating his hook-lines along with him. Hell of a speech. Not that he's exactly facing a hostile crowd, but he does have them eating out of the palm of his hand. That, and he's been rambling about Vietnam for about five minutes. All of a sudden, it would seem the Dems are huge fans of the Vietnam war. I wish they could make up their minds. I don't guess they were ever too happy that a Democrat started the Vietnam war, another escalated it, but a Republican ended it.

OK, PBS's feed dropped in the middle of Clinton speaking. Maybe it's not quite the best channel to watch. That's publicly funded, well, anything, for you.

Update: Clinton's one hat tip to religion: "Remember what the scriptures say, 'Be not afraid.'" I mean, come on, if you're going to quote scripture, at least pick something more than a three word phrase which could be applied to virtually any situation.

Clinton's talking about the Civil War now and how Americans chose to fight to "form a more perfect union." He fails to mention that it was a Republican president who ended slavery.

The boat captain metaphors are getting old. And Clinton just saluted the crowd. I'm glad this thing is (presumably) almost over, as I'm not sure I have the intestinal fortitude to handle much more.

Update: David Brooks, the conservative commentator for PBS, has nothing substantively bad to say about Clinton's speech. The consensus: he looked younger and sharper than he has since 1992. Another good point: Clinton delivered the "prosecutorial" speech normally associated with the Vice President's speech. Edwards is such the nice-guy, however, that they've handed off the responsibility to Clinton.

Written by: Beck

It's Hillary time. Updates to flow.

Update: Commentator: "The most popular Democrat on the planet right now is Bill Clinton. Second is John Kerry, and third is Hillary."

Update: She's not just introducing Bill, as her speaking gig was originally billed as. She's got a speech of her own. She seems to be slightly ad-libbing. Either that, or she knew precisely what Alston was going to say in advance. Actually, the latter is most likely, but the effect is, well, effective.

Update: She hammers on health care above all other problems which John Kerry is going to "solve." I'm beginning to suspect that I will see complete socialized health care in my life. The Democrats are going after this hard in a year when it's not even a strong talking point--Bush increased medical spending more than any president in history with the prescription drug benefit.

Update: "Smart, energetic, and empathetic." The three adjectives Hillary uses to describe Edwards. I'd choose a different three, but then, I probably wouldn't say them on prime time broadcast TV. Not without the FCC pwning my ass.

Update: Hillary asserts that the 9/11 commission never would have been created but for the 9/11 victims' families insistence. Elaborating, it would appear that the only thing we need to solve all our security problems is train first-responders and secure our ports. Typical defensive-stance bullshit. Sorry, honey, but it doesn't work that way any more. If we don't take the fight to the enemy, the enemy will take it to us again and again and again until they succeed.

My god, I just heard a Democrat call for a larger military. Hillary will be president some day. I'm predicting that today.

Update: I can't even imagine how much fun it would be to hack Hillary's teleprompter. Every time she mentions Bill, my mind is screaming re-written lines which would be both more accurate and more entertaining. Hint: most of those lines involve blowjobs.

Written by: Beck

The Republicans need to get some black southern preachers to speak at their own convention. The guy on right now--David Alston, a pastor from SC and also a former crewmate of John Kerry--is a walking definition for the word "charismatic."

Written by: Beck

They have a 16 year old playing violin now. Congratulations Dave Lefkowitz, you are bar none the best thing I am likely to hear at the DNC.

He's playing "Amazing Grace"... and he sounds fantastic.

Written by: Beck

Glenn Close is doing the 9/11 speech. Very theatrical, though she stumbled twice on "spontaneously." And the Republicans exploited 9/11 for political gain by using brief footage from the tragedy in television ads? Fuck these people. Fuck them in the ear. Isn't it about time our tax dollars were put to work buying the entire left wing an individual, personalized slice of shut-the-fuck-up?

Update: Allah doesn't think too highly of Glenn Close either.

Written by: Beck

Tammy Baldwin, designated health care speaker -- "...a bill for over $2,000...for a single injection...talk about a shot in the arm!"

Note to politicians of all stripes: you're politicians, not comedians. Your delivery sucks, your material is weak, and you're not funny. Stick to tugging at emotions, you seem to be much better at that.

John Kerry, it would seem, plans on introducing universal child health care. This is the first I'd heard of it. I guess they figure Hillary's universal health care plan failed, so instead they're going to do it in smaller, bite sized pieces. Start with the children. Who can vote against something which helps the children? We're doing it all...for the children. Of course, Bush & the Republican congress have already taken the biggest step by signing into law the prescription drug benefit.

I really hate socialism. As soon as I can afford it, I'm moving to Bermuda.

Written by: Beck

Live blogging is fun.

Written by: Beck

It occurs to me that when Carter dies, he'll receive the sort of attention from the left which Reagan received from the right. That's going to be exceptionally unpleasant for me to watch. Hopefully I'll have the good taste to behave better than the far left did, not that the likes of Ted Rall set the bar too high. I think I'll just be silent.

Carter's harping his military service. Of all things, why open with that? Could it be that John Kerry's entire political platform seems to revolve around the fact that he served in Vietnam?

"Our dominant international challenge today is to restore the dominance of America." Evidently Mr. Carter hasn't heard of terrorism. I guess he has more in common with Yasser Arafat than just a Nobel Peace Prize.

"Let us not forget that the Soviet Union lost the Cold War because of American adherence to values and bipartisan support." I'm paraphrasing again. Looks like the Dems are trying to coopt Reagan's legacy. They seem to have forgotten how viciously they opposed everything Reagan did. Bipartisan my ass.

"...Israel withholding justice from the Palestinians..." WOW.

"In the world at large, we cannot lead if our leaders mislead." That's the final item on his list of values (I'm not sure how that constitutes a value, just try to keep up) which America must remember if it's going to be successful in fighting the war on terror. Is that really the best line you could come up with Jimmy? I mean... that quote would have gotten me a 'C' in high school English.

Conclusion: they started strong with a strong speech from Al Gore and have been heading steadily down hill. Now I see why this is the first DNC Carter has been allowed to speak at in over a decade. At times his speech sounded like he was making it up as he went along. Much of it didn't make any sense beyond empty rhetorical flourishes.

Update: Carter being interviewed after his speech on PBS:

Carter says he wasn't irritated to not speak at any convention since 1992. Evidently it hasn't exactly been a burning desire for him (he sounds quite sincere when he says that, which I can respect).

Carter has been to over 120 countries. Impressive tally.

Carter clarrifying his message: Bush is an extremist. No one in the world trusts Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld (Rice and Powell get a pass). Saddam has been proven to not have a connection with Al Qaeda.

Now a third mention of Cheney. Carter has it in for him. Big time. Carter refuses to say what we should have done in response to 9/11 beyond, "We should have stayed in Afghanistan." Ummm... we're still there dude.

The decision to invade Iraq was made before Bush took office. And yes, he made that accusation with a straight face. Now he's reiterated it.

Finally, the Democratic strategy for comatting Islamic extremism should be to combine anti-terror efforts with France, Germany, and Russia. Really. Carter just said that.

Update: Protein Wisdom has some invaluable insights into Carter's nefarious strategy.

Update: Kevin of Wizbang doesn't think too much of Democrats' wisdom choosing Jimmy Carter to speak on foreign policy blunders.

Written by: Beck

Note to Al Gore: When you have to explain your jokes, they're not funny.

"Four years ago, I had hoped to be here before you in 2004 under different circumstances. Running for re-election."

Update: Good god, the guy opened with six jokes in a row about the 2000 election. Not one of them was original (interruption: he just floated number seven) or, more importantly, funny. (Up to eight nine now. Seriously. He dropped a new one before I could even finish typing the sentence).

Holy shit, this guy is mad. He's getting more and more steamed. All he can think about is the fact that he isn't president right now. This is so inadvertently funny, I could almost feel sorry for the guy if it weren't for the fact that I despise him.

Update: He just made another joke ("I know about the bad economy, I was the first one laid off"). That was as he accused Bush's economic policy of not being conservative. And by god, I actually agree with him. The red faced spittle flecked loony.

I may have to stop now, as to continue commenting on Gore's ongoing speech would likely use up all the storage capacity of the internet.

Update: Much as the guy's rage is amusing to watch, when did Al Gore become an impassioned public speaker? If he had shown this much personality in 2000, he'd be the president today.

Update: Gore gaffe: "eco-terrorism" instead of "narco-terrorism." OOPS.

Update: Right Wing News to Al Gore: You lost. Get over it.

Written by: Beck

Another Democratic operative just explained that a very important thing for people to remember is that, "80% of Americans make less than $100,000."

That, incidentally, was intended by the speaker to be a negative. It amazes me. I didn't realize that a full 20% of Americans make more than $100,000. That's unbelievable. That's wonderful. That's something to be proud of and to shout from the rooftops.

Incidentally, are we supposed to feel bad about the 80% of Americans making less than 100 grand? $100,000 is a ton of money. Is the Democratic party proposing that the new definition of the poverty line should be $100,000?

It's time to put down the crack pipe folks.

Written by: Beck

Same expert as previous post--I just watched a gentleman field the question, "Will Kerry's inconsistent voting record be a problem," by saying, and I paraphrase, "I think that after this convention, Americans will see a man who served his country in Vietnam, who earned metals, who understands foreign policy, and who understands a better way to do things."

Were one to rigidly apply the rules of logic to this answer to such a straightforward question, I believe we are meant to understand that inconsistent voting records reflect a better understanding of how the world works. Take that how you will.

Written by: Beck

I just heard someone being interviewed at the convention express a desire to negotiate with terrorists rather than to confront them. Apparently this would be "safer."

The more I watch of this, the more I hope the rest of America is watching this. Because it's a stark reminder of how genuinely unpleasant these people are. I just finished listening to an "expert" explain that the American people are unhappy that Bush didn't exhaust all his options before going to war with Iraq. Then, in the very next sentence (seriously--the next sentence), the guy said that Bush was "going it alone" in Iraq (so much for the coalition) and is only "asking for help" now that he's, "Exhausted all the other options."

Remember the scene in 1984 when the speaker at a war rally, having been handed a note, switches the names of the nation's enemy and ally in mid delivery? The audience immediately decides to run with it. Works for them! Time to tear down those posters of Tony Blair, the foul traitorous backstabber. Long live Saddam!

That was the least believable part of the book for me. Now I'm not so sure.

Written by: Beck

I stumbled across a relatively insignificant news item today which, in itself, isn't especially noteworthy. What is noteworthy is the way people are scrambling to try and spin things. The entire episode proves rather amusing, what with how the story doesn't especially need any spinning. I guess politicians and their handlers just don't know any other sort of behavior. So, briefly, here's the "news" item:

Heinz Kerry's comment came Sunday after she told a group of voters, "We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics."

As she was leaving, Colin McNickle, the Tribune-Review's editorial page editor, asked her what she had meant by, in his words, "un-American activities."

She denied having said "activities" and also denied saying "un-American."

After stepping away and speaking briefly with Democratic organizers of the event, she returned and asked the reporter whether he worked for the Tribune-Review. He said he did. "Understandable. You said something I didn't say, now shove it," she told him.

That's it. She told a reporter to "shove it." Frankly, I'd like to see that sort of behavior more often from our nation's leaders. Now comes the fun bit where I quote a bunch of other crap and then make fun of it. It's what I do. First up to bat:

The Kerry campaign and other Democrats have said the paper is biased against the Kerry campaign and the Democratic Party.

That's right folks. Any time a major media outlet fails to back the Democrats, it's a sign of bias. Conversely, when a major media outlet attacks Republicans, it's a sign of journalistic integrity.

"She is such an enormous asset to our campaign," [Devine] said.

Now that's not a very nice thing to say. I mean, sure, she could afford to lose a pound or two in the caboose, but it's not like she looks any worse than you would expect a woman her age to look.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said only, "She is obviously a spirited campaigner."

This is my entire line out of the bunch. Perhaps "spirited campaigner," when translated into some foreign language or other, is an anagram for "screaming bitch." I mean, is there any question that that's what Gillespie was thinking?

Asked about the comment Monday on CNN's "American Morning," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she believes that "a lot of Americans will say, 'Good for you -- you go girl.' And certainly that's how I feel about it."

Someone might want to inform Hillary that, "You go girl," went out of fashion in 1999. Even the Jerry Springer set has moved on to greener pastures. Now, for some bullshit so deep you'd be well advised to pull on some hip waders.

Devine said Heinz Kerry has been a great campaigner for her husband. "She's someone who connects with voters, who cares deeply about issues. And the fact that she speaks what's on her mind, I think it's enormously refreshing. It's something the American people want to hear more of."

That's right folks. The billionairess connects with voters. I'm sure she truly, "Cares deeply about issues," but I have a hunch the issues she cares about aren't quite the ones the American people can relate to.

Heinz Kerry will deliver an address at the convention Tuesday night, he said.

"I'm sure the nation wants to hear from her because she can lend so much valuable insight as to who John Kerry is, where he comes from and what he believes," Devine said.

You know, Devine is right. I can't wait to hear from Teresa Heinz. If only they would let her write her own speech.

Update: Roach over at mansizedtarget writes on the same event, pointing out the double standard of the left's calls for a, "Return to civility," in political dialogue.

Update: Ace-o-Spades takes a crack at Heinz's remark, with special emphasis on the fact that, well, she was lying when she claimed not to have said, "Un-American."

Written by: Goemagog

Catwoman bombs. Maybe, in the future, when someone makes a movie about a scantily clad woman, they'll remember that the internet now exists and their competition includes free porn. At least it wasn't starring Rosanne.

Goe, shuddering at the thought.

Written by: Speculator

Sometimes it might be best to just call it a day.

Untied Airline's holding company, UAL, secured a new Debtor-in-Possession agreement on Friday that staves off the company's liquidation party until early 2005. 

Note: DIP, simply stated, is considered one of the last lending resources available for a distressed company.  What it effectively does is "transfer" most or all valuable (by that I mean assets that can be assigned an independent value by a third party) assets to a lender, or in UAL's case, a consortium of lenders, who monitor financial operations at the company with all the attentiveness of a sucrose-packed 5 year old at the base of a chimney on Christmas Eve.

The reward for the lenders is the front spot in the pay-me-line (per asset) should (when) things go awry.  So, when a company engages a DIP facility, it is effectively replicating the actions of a cash-strung, obligation-laden jackass at a pawn shop ("$500 for a '93 Rolex Daytona......I'll take it!").

So, what did Friday's agreement bring about?  Well, among other things, UAL essentially flung a mature hornets nest into each of their employees union camps.  UAL has announced that they intend to suspend all future funding of their pension plans.  The Wall St. Journal reports this morning:

The company said the terms of a new DIP financing arranged late last week to fund operations in Chapter 11 "effectively" prohibit it from making scheduled contributions to the plans.  UAL also said it hasn't decided whether it can sustain what it called "a huge financial burden" when it emerges from bankruptcy protection.

On July 15, UAL missed a $74.5 million contribution payment to the underfunded plan.  The company cited the need to "manage its resources".  Last year, UAL reported a top-line of $14.27 BB in revenues.  This missed payment represents 0.51% of last years annual cash generation.  This is a dire sign.  

By how much is the plan underfunded, you ask?  Depends upon who you consult.  UAL reported an underfunding of $6.2 BB on 31 Dec.  The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp (PBGC), a quasi-federal agency that takes over plans when companies cancel them, finds the water-mark to be, as of 31 Dec, $7.5 BB.

Here is where the fun really starts.  Earlier this month, the feds gave UAL's chief Glen Tilton the finger by refusing his request for an additional $1.6 BB in lunch money (about time).  This left UAL reeling, and resulted in the consternation that surrounded UAL's attempt to secure further DIP arrangements.  Well, UAL in effect knocked the ball back into the government's court by announcing their intention to suspend pension funding.  If United terminates the pension plans, the PBGC gets to pick up the tab.  This would result in the largest financial loss in the history of PBGC, and the suffering of a great deal of pension recipients, as the PBGC is under no obligation to maintain the current level of payments.  UAL essentially told the government on Friday that they are going to pay, one way or another. 

This is when philosophical thoughts and arguments enter.  Maybe the use of Chapter 11 facilities are enjoying a little too much preference (as opposed to their Chapter 7 distant cousins) when a company who has been in Chapter 11 for over 12 months announces to the financial community that their scheduled emergence has been postponed for at least an additional 6 months because they could not secure the pinko-transfer of $1.6BB in government funds.  Granted, a company's ability to remain under Chapter 11 auspices is a direct function of the courts and financial markets' appetite for their story, and while this remains an efficient judgment-mechanism, it still raises questions.  Is UAL essentially committing financial destruction as it saps financial, capital, and human resources in its, in all likelihood, doomed attempt to reemerge as a fully functional, self-sustaining enterprise? 

There exists a truly artless statistic in the measurement of airline operating costs that facilitates effective comparison across all airline carriers.  It is a variable called Cost-per-Available-Seat-Mile, or CASM.  What it essentially communicates is an airline's total cost (sans fuel considerations) to move a seat, be it empty or occupado, one mile.  In 2003, the global industry average was around 9.50 cents.  The industry-leader, no surprise, was the perennial b-school case subject, Southwest Airlines, at 6.06 cents (others followed closely to SWA, including JetBlue at 6.18 cents.  Of all the airlines that were below the mean, only one was a non-low-fare carrier). 

United Airlines reported an 11.59-cents CASM in 2003. 

There is very little left to discuss. 

Over the past 20 years, "economy" airline travel has essentially become a commoditized business.  Outside of considerations surrounding unique city-pairs (e.g. Continental is the only airline that offers non-stop Tokyo-Houston service) and the airlines' attempt to forestall the forces of microeconomics by introducing the now ubiquitous frequent-flier programs, a flight from Chicago to New York is a flight from Chicago to New York is a flight from Chicago to New York.  The only differentiation point worthy of discussion is price.  And when your basic cost structure is 122% (this is following aggressive cost cutting, the likes of which are only reserved for Chapter 11 participants) of the industry average and 191% of the industry leader, it takes only a fundamental understanding of business to fashion a conclusion.

UAL needs to call it a day.  While the financial markets no doubt still find opportunity (which is a function of price and should NOT be construed as a collective statement of confidence), it would be prudent for the parent company of United Airlines to consider the fact that they are consuming finite resources in a bid that shares probability with Athens being crowned "Most Hospitable Olympic Host".

Written by: Beck

An entire day without a post? Can't have that.

Written by: Beck

California is currently considering a ban on allowing buses and trucks to idle for more than five minutes.

Your first impression is likely to think this is simply silly. The author of the article points out a few good objections to the law, with special emphasis on enforceability and economy.

The problem is enforcement. Are California Highway Patrol officers and local police officers, armed with stopwatches, going to stand around monitoring every truck and every bus at every stop they make, counting off the minutes?

Curbing pollution is important, but a ban that's utterly unenforceable and would take law enforcement officers away from more important duties is scarcely worth the effort.

More important, trucking companies and bus operators have a vested interest in curbing idling on their own -- the high price of fuel. Isn't the more realistic answer an education program for drivers on how they are wasting their company's money? And isn't their boss likely to get a more positive response than a cop with a stopwatch?

This misses the point entirely. Anyone who has pulled into a truck stop late at night on a cross country road trip has seen the lines of semi trucks lined up, parked for the night, and idling away. Truckers often leave their trucks idling all night. In that sense, it'd be quite easy for a highway patrolman to walk up and issue twenty tickets in a row, no inconvenience whatsoever. California lawmakers think this is perfectly logical, as the thought of an 18 wheeler idling all night for no reason makes their skin crawl--such wastefulness is anathema to the anti-pollution pro-conservation mindset.

Do these people really think truck drivers leave their engines running overnight out of carelessness? This isn't like turning off the running water while you're brushing your teeth. These truck drivers, stopped for the night in the middle of nowhere, are living in a home away from home. They need the engine running so that they can power air conditioning and heating. They need it to power their little mini-TV's and VCR's. They need it because for the time spent on the road, they're in their homes. Legislators don't complain about central air. The thought that a person would cool 3000 square feet of home so that they can sleep comfortably in their 200 square foot bedroom never raises an eyebrow. Meanwhile, a truck driver's comfort, already tenuous at best, hinges on that internal combustion engine chugging away through the night.

California's a state controlled by Democrats, right? I thought Democrats were supposed to care about "The Little Guy." I guess when the constituency involved is such a small part of the population--one not broadly represented by special interest groups or public sentiment--The Little Guy doesn't really count for squat.

Written by: Speculator

I haven't mentioned this in a while but I had a run in today with a collection of "professionals" that scared the living hell out of me and served to reminded me of how obstinate many in the financial space can be: the historical levels of incremental liquidity currently being injected into the global financial system have forced people to compress credit spreads in order to garner a return.

These compressed spreads then lead to dangerous inferences on existing risk levels.  It evolves into a sort of tail-wagging-the-dog effect: do tight corporate credit spreads indicate low levels of risk, or do they evidence that parking spaces for cheap money are becoming as scarce as a tequila-wielding virgin on the second Saturday on Padre Island (which is quite a risky situation indeed)?

Written by: Beck

It's not often you hear something truly candid and honest from the highly controlled and xenophobic Arab press, but when you do, it's extraordinarily refreshing. I can't imagine that this article will have much impact, if any at all. Still, I delighted in reading it, and it bears drawing attention to it.

The author's goal is to point out some "truths" which are typically taken for granted in Arab media and which quite simply aren't true. He highlights 16 things which people need to understand, the highlights of which I'll excerpt here:

1. Our biggest enemy is not Israel or America. Our enemy is our dogmatic approach that leads us into more than temptation.

2. Our anger at the world these days is not justified since we are no more than crybabies who cannot get their visas on the same day we apply.

3. Israel is not wrong to build a wall; they are wrong in building it on other people’s land. We should know that since all our homes are walled in a way that makes the Israeli project silly in comparison.

4. It is not natural to employ suicide bombers to advance any agenda.

5. It is wrong to behead people in public to force others to do your will.

7. Saudis have no birthright to enslave expatriates only because they have the money to hire a maid or a cook.

8. You cannot have any sort of "election" in this day and age without women participating.

9. Those thugs on videos issued in Iraq and in the name of the Iraqi people, are not Iraqis. The accent says it all.

10. George Bush is not an inherent enemy. He is an elected official and should be held as such.

12. Controlled elections, as we are promised to have, are a sham before they even take place.

13. Offering amnesty to thugs and murderers is wrong. And it won’t work.

15. A professor who cannot conjugate the verb "to put" should not be teaching English literature to students at our universities. (Name available on request).

Considering the political leanings of most of INCITE's readers, every one of these points likely come across as simple statements of the obvious, yet somehow a majority of the people in the world (take one look at the UN resolution to condemn Israel for the security fence which only six nations voted against) completely fail to grasp them.

(Hat tip: Bastard Sword)

Written by: Goemagog

The federal government plans on making sure all of your medical records are kept private. This means, of course, that they will all be kept at Sandy Berger's home. Or in his pants, whichever he finds more comfortable at the time. It's a shame that this means your medical records will probably be lost. Berger's pants seem to be the only place our government will keep it's secrets, as the National Archives, normally trusted with secret papers, has been slowly emptying into those pants for over six months. As this would normally be a crime, and nobody's been indicted for anything, one must assume that the FBI and the National Archives have given their consent to this.

I know some people who wish the FBI gave them this much leniency when, for a span of about 12 hours, they couldn't remember which safe in a locked vault in a secure building had a KYK-13 locked inside.

Goe, wishes the people in charge of national security actually took national security seriously.

Written by: Goemagog

It turns out that putting our entire defense on carrier battle groups is probably a bad idea. It turns out that a small boat, which could be loaded with explosives, can reach a nuclear carrier unhindered by the vast flotilla that accompanies it, even if the British are trying to help.

Of course, the chicoms want us to stop providing real weapons (not the extra-fluffy teddy bears being issued to our soldiers) to Taiwan. The last thing China wants is for someone to shoot back when they invade. This is why they started their global conquest campaign with pacifistic Tibet, and backed down from Vietnam.

Goe, thinking Rumsfeld should be fired.

Written by: Beck

There are plenty of reasons why everyone should read Protein Wisdom daily, most of which involve a wicked--if bizarre--sense of humor. Perhaps a more important reason, however, is for the razor sharp socio-political insights (and I don't just mean the bits about Michael Moore's obesity). Writing about the pernicious influence of multiculturalism, which raises its head in an arguably unlikely place this time, Jeff Goldstein has this to offer:

In my personal estimation, the elevation of group identity politics--helped along by the PC handmaidens who actively champion it--is the biggest threat to individual liberty in this country, as Wood is correct to suggest. Which is why I'd like to see a whole lot less handwringing over the pragmatic PATRIOT Act, and a whole lot more resistance to the diversity movement, which truly does threaten to rob us of our liberties by forcing on us a Balkanizing mindset that can only lead, legislatively, to legally enshrined relativism. Which. y'know, would totally suck.

Go read the whole thing, as a man says. And then when you're done reading, bookmark the damn site already.

Written by: Beck

And finally, Man in Pajamas vs. Department of Homeland Security: Homeland Security gets the ultimate upper hand, but Man in Pajamas gives them a serious run for their money, and he definitely wins points for style.

An airline passenger wearing only a pair of pajama bottoms stole a baggage tractor at the city's main airport and drove it onto an active runway early Wednesday, police said.

Any airport security personnel who might be reading INCITE: for future reference, a man walking around an airport in nothing but pajama bottoms, while fairly certain not to be carrying concealed weapons, is still something of an abnormality which you might wish to investigate.

Atlanta police say Robert W. Buzzell, 31, had walked out an exit door that had an alarm at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

Ah, now I see how he got away with it. He used the age-old technique of crafty escape artists everywhere, originally pioneered by Harry Houdini: walking through an unlocked door.

The man was stopped by mechanics who asked him for an employee identification card. When he could not provide one, they escorted him to an office and called police.

At least someone still has some common sense around there. Thank god for blue collar common sense.

Authorities said the man appeared mentally unstable.

YOU THINK???

Police said Buzzell, of Warner Robins, Georgia, told Delta employees that an alarm sounded when he opened the door to the tarmac, but that no security personnel were around.

Airport officials said they are working with police and the airline to determine if security changes need to be made.

I mean, not that I like repeating myself or anything, but again: YOU THINK???

Written by: Beck

Why fly to Mars when we can just let Mars come to us?

Hippy Van vs. M1A1, who wins? Hint: not the nine Iraqis packed into the van.

A minibus collided with a U.S. tank Thursday night, killing nine Iraqis and injuring 10 others, according to a U.S. military spokesman.

The minibus tried to pass another vehicle in Baghdad, the spokesman said. No U.S. forces were injured.

FYI: The headline "Catwoman a muddled bore," turns out to be about a super-hot woman with cat-like supernatural abilities. It is not, in fact, about Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Written by: Beck

For news junkies. It's neat.

Written by: Beck

Boring economics post alert. You have been warned. The Senate's Joint Economic Committee recently sent out analysis showing that the Economic Policy Institute's reports claiming new jobs are lower paying than recently lost old jobs (a talking point the Kerry campaign has leaned on heavily) is complete bunk. Read the sentence again, it makes sense if you stare at it long enough. I don't have a link at the moment, but I can email the PDF of the study to anyone who's especially interested.

I do have a link to EPI's "evidence" of lower pay for newly created jobs. If it doesn't look to you like something from which you would readily draw policy recommendations, you're not alone. Anyway, here's the buld of the JEC report for your reading enjoyment:

THE FACTS: The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) derives its conclusion about wages by using unconventional and potentially misleading definitions. With regard to employment, most independent observers would generally define a "growing" -- or expanding -- industry as one in which employment is increasing over a period of time. Conversely, a "contracting" industry would be one in which employment is decreasing over a period of time.

However, EPI does not use these conventional definitions. Instead, it defines an expanding industry as one in which employment is increasing as a share of total national payroll employment. A "contracting" industry is defined as one in which employment is decreasing as a share of total national payroll employment, regardless of whether or not that industry actually added jobs.

Using EPI's unconventional methodology, an industry that added jobs over time could very well be defined as a "contracting" industry. For example, during the 1990's the financial activities industry added 1.089 million payroll jobs. Over that same time period, employment in the financial activities industry as a share of total national payroll employment fell from 6.05 percent in December 1989 to 5.88 percent in December 1999. According to the definitions used by EPI, this industry would be defined as a contracting industry, even though employment in the industry grew.

Government, which added nearly 2.5 million payroll jobs throughout the 1990's, would also be defined as a contracting industry as its share of total national payroll employment fell from 16.61 percent to 15.74 percent. Even the industry of trade, transportation, and utilities, which added more than 3.5 million jobs in the 1990's, would be classified as a contracting industry using this methodology! EPI's conclusions about the labor market are based on the premise that actual employment growth is irrelevant.

OK, so it's not especially interesting or exciting, but you likely won't see or hear it anywhere else, so I thought I'd reprint it here. Next time you hear Kerry or one of his cronies whining about laid off white collar workers taking jobs flipping burgers for McDonalds, you'll have the proof for calling bullshit.

Written by: Beck

It kind of looks French, doesn't it?



Obligatory Planet of the Apes Quote: YOU MANIACS. YOU BLEW IT UP. DAMN YOU. GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

Well, it was either that or, "Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!"

I can see Kerry saying both under the right circumstances, but the former one caught my eye first.

Written by: Beck

You can quote every economic indicator you choose, none of them presage the return to economic strength like the resurgence of Stupid Stock Advice. Remember the go-go days of, oh, 1997-2000 when all you needed to become an overnight millionaire was a few thousand bucks and a lucky stab at the latest dot-miracle? Sure, that's not what actually happened, but that was the mindset of people at the time. Who doesn't remember the stories of secretaries at Amazon who, thanks to a stock pension plan, became millionaires in a matter of just a couple years? It didn't matter what magazine you picked up (or what hot tips you got online from that newfangled Interwebnet thingy), you couldn't help but find stock tips. When little old ladies from a quilting club can successfully sell a book about stock market investing, you know that things have gotten out of hand, though for some reason the only person in the entire nation who seemed to realize it was Warren Buffet. But that's neither here nor there.

The boom is back. I've been watching employment soar, GDP rocket, consumer confidence surge... I'm starting to run out of verbs meaning "to rise rill rill fast." None of those won me over. And then I saw this article.

5 bargain stocks trading under $5

Not all sub-$5 stocks are bargains, but the field is littered with underpriced gems. We found a biotech, an oil industry stock, a dot-com survivor, a retailer and a computer maker with potential -- all selling for less than a 5-spot.

You want to make some real money on the stock market? Here, I'll tell you what to do. Watch those five stocks pop today in response to this article, then start selling short. Come back in a week and close the position. I'll wager you rake in at least a 5% gain.

The price of a stock has nothing to do with whether or not it's a "bargain." If Microsoft wanted to split their shares enough time, Microsoft stock could sell for under $5. Of course, there'd be about 60 billion shares outstanding, so your "bargain" purchase would be worth fuckall, but then people always tend to forget that the calculation of value requires more than just share price to establish.

Long story short: people are suckers, and the more stuff you see like this being marketed to suckers (often written by those who are completely convinced suckers themselves), the better the market is doing. It's time to start buyin' folks, bubble boom time is back!

Written by: Beck

I'm inclined to simply cut & paste Rich Lowry's entire post from The Corner.  Since that would be bad form, I'll simply direct you to go read it. 

In short, it excerpts a section of the report detailing how partisan shill & all-around jackass Richard Clarke tipped off Osama to a pending US strike against him. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the term "Treason" involve aiding and abetting enemies of the state?

Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke's phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted. CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, were irate. 'Mike' thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting bin Laden.

I mean, I don't honestly expect the DOJ to show up at Mr. Clarke's door to clap him in irons (though how wonderful would that be?), but it would be nice if the left could stop fellating this guy. They're already guilty enough as it is, what with the worshipful treatment of him during the release of his book and his 9/11 testimony (nicely timed to coincide with each other for maximum publicity impact). Sometimes an expression of contrition and shame can make a big difference (something which Clinton knew well--just look at the number of times he apologized for lying to the country about his pudgy girl friend), but I don't expect to hear anything this time around.

Go read it already, it's succinct and to the point.

Written by: Goemagog

The Pentagon changed it's mind AGAIN on how many soldiers it needs in Iraq. Maybe somebody should tell them about this, before they shut down what's left of our active duty force and put national defense in the hands of one dozen Pinkerton men.

In addition to the war on terror, which the pentagon has run out of resources to fight the few battles it's been forced into, we're looking at a war with the chicoms sometime in the next 16 years. A war with a high likelyhood of going nuclear.

And what do we have on our side? Carrier battle groups. Everything else is committed to either Iraq or Afghanistan, or unusable because it's just gotten back. Our soldiers, if we had any to spare, wouldn't have the finely honed training we've heard so much about, because they'd have spent no time training, but a lot of time doing nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And they wouldn't have any tanks. The Pentagon plans to phase out tanks, and replace them with the soviet manufactured BTR, erm, I mean the american designed stryker, or whatever. In the future, the only ones with armor will be the people trying to kill us.

When I, as a young private, was taught the difference between cover and concealment, the instructors always said "cover is better!" Cover is now against army policy, instead of using cover, we'll try to conceal ourselves, and shoot down incoming rounds.

All FCS systems, manned and unmanned, will have an inherent, lightweight, small arms protection, capable to withstand a first hit from a 0.5" cal fire.

Which will do what when they shoot a second round, or use a 152mm cannon?

Plus, if China starts a war with the United States, as they plan, they'll be the ones running North Korea's army (and nuclear weapons). North Korea isn't a rogue state, it's China's vicious dog, loyal to it's master and aggresive to all others.

Goe, praying that carrier battle groups will be enough to stop the chicoms.

Written by: Beck

Would someone mind buying me one of these?



I mean, I think I'm beaing reasonable when I say that it would be wonderful to wear one of these to the next anti-war rally (not that we have too many of those in Texas).

Written by: Beck

What is the point of going back to the moon?

I've always been a science buff, and have long had a fascination with astronomy. I think the first moon landing was amazing, and don't think it's hyperbolic when people describe it as the greatest accomplishment in the history of mankind. I can see the reasons for going the first time--the scientific discovery yielded alone nearly justifies it, plus we were in a race with the Soviets to capture the hearts and minds of the entire world. The first superpower to the moon would send a message to the rest of the world which, at the time, was still trying to pick the likely Cold War winner and align themselves with the proper gravy train.

But what will we gain now by returning, apart from an additional umpteen billion dollars in spent tax payer money? Why do I get the feeling that this is all about keeping unelected bureaucrats employed & burnishing Washington egos? Do we really expect to yield the sort of scientific windfall that the original NASA operations generated? Velcro was a great invention and all, but the price tag for this sort of operation would be better put to use by private sector for-profit industrialists who can direct their efforts more efficiently and productively, to say nothing of the multiplier effect of never taking those umpteen billion dollars from tax payers in the first place.

Going back to the moon today would be akin to rebuilding the pyramids with industrial cranes & poured cement and expecting people to regard it as an achievement comparable with the Egyptians' accomplishments 4000 years before.

Update: Another point occurred to me during an IM conversation with regular INCITE commenter Drethlin. The simple process of technology development, innovation, and fabrication has radically changed since the 1960s when the original moon program was launched. No longer necessary or desired is the Manhattan Project style massive budget project. The inefficiencies, bureaucracies, and coordination implicit in such large scale plans create more waste and problems than they solve. The work by Scaled Composites in their bid for the X-Prize serves to illustrate that nicely. For less money than it costs to launch a space shuttle, a privately funded and built manned rocket has reached outer space. By the time the government is done planning the designs for Moon Base One, privately backed, profit motivated firms could be tulip farming on Mars. There has been a paradigm shift away from the super-large approach to technology, and no one has bothered to inform the United States government.

Written by: Beck

Iraqi terrorists have kidnapped six truck drivers and are threatening to behead them, one every 72 hours, if their respective countries don't pull all military support out of Iraq. There's just one small problem: the truck drivers' home countries--Egypt, Kenya, and India--aren't members of the coalition. They don't have any troops in Iraq. Oops.

And one other thing... the group calls itself "Holders of the Black Banners." Is it my imagination, or are Iraqi militant terrorist groups running out of names? I'm reminded of the scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian with the various Jewish liberation movements having trouble keeping track of which liberation movement they belong to. Come to think of it, the situation in Iraq mirrors Life of Brian in a frightening number of ways, apart from the whole taking-place-in-the-Middle-East bit:

Reg: If you want to join the People's Front of Judea, you have to really hate the Romans.
Brian: I do!
Reg: Oh yeah, how much?
Brian: A lot!
Reg: Right, you're in.
...
Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Attendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace - shut up!
Reg: There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.
Dissenter: Uh, well, one.
Reg: Oh, yeah, yeah, there's one. But otherwise, we're solid.

Just replace "Romans" with "Americans" and you've got the trasncript for the latest Iraqi Insurgent Recruiting Video.

Written by: Beck

Attorneys General from eight different states are suing five of the nation's largest electric utilities over carbon dioxide emissions. This assault on common sense suffers from a whole host of flaws.

First of all, have a look at the litigants: California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin, along with New York City's corporation counsel. The only people on this list who would even have a shred of hope of keeping the lights on during the summer without coal generation are Iowa and Wisconsin. New Jersey could probably pull it off by bringing power from the south, but they would pay a huge premium for it as the power would have to come from Virginia which is already a net power importer.

Next, have a look at who's being sued: American Electric Power Co., Southern Co., Xcel Energy Inc., Cinergy Corp. and the federal Tennessee Valley Authority. Xcel was on the brink of bankruptcy a few years ago--indeed, Xcel unit NRG spent the better part of 2002 and 2003 reorganizing under Chapter 11 protection. TVA is a relic of FDR's administration, and their hands are entirely tied by federal regulations. The other three are some of the largest coal burning utilities in the US, although Cinergy is awash in relatively clean combined cycle natural gas generation for which the state AGs should be happy.

More bizarre, however, is that these utilities for the most part don't serve the states which are filing the lawsuits. TVA serves, surprise, Tennessee. Southern Company is a sprawling utility centered on Georgia. Cinergy serves parts of Ohio, as does AEP--which also supplies power to seven neighboring states, as well as operating generators in parts of the southwest and elsewhere.

Translation: the only reason these law suits exist is to use the courts to create carbon dioxide regulation which the normal process of legislation hasn't seen fit to enact. And no, none of these people has ever heard of checks & balances. These AGs have taken it upon themselves to solve the world's global warming problems, and it's an outrage that such a cabal would attempt something like this. What's more, on the outside chance that they were to succeed, none of the 5 companies named could really afford the massive new expenditures which would be required to bring them within a level of compliance sought by the AGs. Also, the new level of compliance would be such a tiny drop in the bucket of carbon dioxide production that the impact on the environment would be nil.

A press release from the National Center for Public Policy Research takes a swing at the pseudo-science involved and lands a resounding hit:

"Global warming" -- the theory that behavior by human beings is causing the Earth to warm significantly -- is highly contested scientific issue, one on which many climate scientists disagree. Even those scientists who believe human behavior is causing the planet to warm disagree significantly about causes and degree.

Scientists furthermore differ on the impact global warming would have on the Earth. Some expect global warming would cause sea levels to rise. Others believe it could cause sea levels to lower -- as increased amounts of water vapor in the air result in more snow congregating at the still-frozen poles.

Some global warming debaters stress the possibility that global warming could hurt plants, while others note the beneficial effect of increased carbon dioxide levels on plant life (carbon dioxide is, roughly speaking, to plants what oxygen is to human beings).

What's more, they expose the flaw in attempting to use the courts to force policy which elected legislatures have rejected.

Court decisions are blunt instruments and ill-suited for determining policies on such matters as global warming, where opinions are constantly undergoing change as new scientific knowledge is gained. The judicial branch, unlike the legislative, is not designed to accommodate the easy repeal or amendment of flawed policies.

Trials are by nature a debate between two parties -- the plaintiff and the defendant. Legislatures convene hearings, hear from witnesses, review testimony and debate at length, with many voices and perspectives considered. The public, furthermore, is aware of the proceedings of legislatures and is easily able to communicate desires to lawmakers.

One bit of good news: NRO's Jonathan Adler doesn't think this case has a chance of succeeding.

If the draft press release circulating around is accurate, this suit is particularly outrageous. It seeks a court order to require the relevant utilities to reduce their emissions under the federal common law of public nuisance -- an ambitious claim, to say the least. Unless the state AGs have come up with a particularly ingenious legal theory, this suit is nothing more than a publicity stunt. Even if the AGs could win, and managed to shut down the targeted utilities completely, this would not abate the alleged nuisance, as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and predicted climate change would scarcely be affected at all.

(Hat tip: Protein Wisdom)

Written by: Beck

I've made this point so many times, people are likely getting tired of it. Abu Ghraib made front page headlines for a solid month. Where is the outrage, then, over the genocide going on in the Darfur region of Sudan? For that matter, where's the reporting period?

Arab militias in Sudan are gang-raping and abducting girls as young as eight and women as old as 80, systematically killing, torturing, or using them as sex slaves, an Amnesty International report said on Monday.

Militias known as Janjaweed, which rights groups say are backed by the government, have been fighting rebels in Sudan's western Darfur region since last year, triggering one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.

"When we tried to escape they shot more children," one woman identified only as A. told Amnesty researchers.

"They raped women, I saw many cases of Janjaweed raping women and girls. They are happy when they rape. They sing when they rape and they tell us that we are just slaves and that they can do with us how they wish."

As many as 30,000 people have been killed in Darfur and more than a million displaced, their homes bombed by government planes, their crops stolen.

In a report called "Rape as a Weapon of War," Amnesty outlines sexual violence against women it says is happening on a massive scale. It says Khartoum is actively violating its legal obligations to protect civilians. [ed: various bits of emphasis all mine]

Let me make sure I have this absolutely positively straight. It's OK when Arab gangs rape, torture, and kill tens of thousands of civilians, but Lyndie England tortures a few dozen prison inmates and it's the end of the fucking world?

What's more, while the mess in Abu Ghraib represents the actions of a relatively small group of people who were condemned by the US government and who will spend time in jail, the genocide in the Sudan is actually sponsored by the Sudanese state.

Written by: Beck

The Philippines got their truck driver back. Don't be afraid to answer that knock at the door, everyone knows that the monkey's paw never fails to deliver...

"The Philippines, a country with millions of its nationals working overseas and with a domestic Islamic insurgency of its own, is a country with a lot to lose from acceding to terrorist blackmail," The Asian Wall Street Journal said in an editorial Thursday.

"That it finally did so yesterday, by agreeing to pull its troops out of Iraq in order to save the life of a Filipino hostage, may trouble the life of this nation for years to come."

...but don't be surprised by the bloody footprint you find.

Written by: Beck

I would have to imagine that people attending a show in Vegas represent a pretty decent cross section of the United States. If anything, they'd be skewed towards the liberal demographic given the proximity of concentrated blue state population centers. More on that in a moment.

Being on the right, I may have developed something of a skewed impression of America's reaction to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. You see, the media, while happy to talk about how the film is "controversial," has delighted in crowing the film's box office success and popularity across America. I guess I've developed the impression that the average apolitical American who saw F 9/11 would take for granted that Moore's film was generally accurate. Perhaps I was mistaken.

It's no surprise that yet another person in showbiz has taken time out from a performance to fellate Michael Moore. What is a pleasant surprise is when a Vegas audience at Alladin's casino walked out on a performance by Linda Ronstadt when she dedicated a song to Michael Moore. Even better, the casino then proceeded to throw Ronstadt right out the door. Perhaps there's hope for this country yet.

Singer Linda Ronstadt was thrown out of the Aladdin casino in Las Vegas on the weekend after dedicating a song to liberal filmmaker Michael Moore and his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," a casino spokeswoman said Monday.

Ronstadt, who had been hired for a one-show engagement Saturday night at the Las Vegas Strip casino, dedicated a performance of "Desperado" to Moore and his controversial documentary, which criticizes President Bush and the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

That dedication angered some Aladdin guests who spilled drinks, tore down posters and demanded their money back, said casino spokeswoman Sara Gorgon.

"We had quite a scene at the box office," she said.

About a quarter of the 4,500 people in the audience got up and left before the performance had finished, Gorgon said.

Granted, despite the diverse demographic one expects to find in Vegas, I would have to imagine that the typical audience for Linda Ronstadt weighs in a bit more conservatively than the Vegas median. Still, I'm quite pleasantly surprised to see such a strong reaction, especially the bit where they demanded their money back. Needless to say, the casino was not pleased.

A statement issued by the Aladdin said Ronstadt had been "escorted out of the hotel" just after her performance and said the performer would "not be welcomed back."

"Ms. Ronstadt was hired to entertain the guests of the Aladdin, not to espouse political views," the casino said.

I wonder how long it will be before every talking head who can find a willing media mouthpiece decries this as a form of censorship. The simple fact that an audience which chooses not to listen to a performance doesn't constitute censorship in any way shape or form will doubtlessly go unmentioned. Quick, Elton, call your publicist!

Written by: Speculator

Here's something I hadn't thought about.  We are apparently running out of Air Traffic Controllers.
 
I have always thought that this job was up there in the unsung-hero category - almost a silent service, if you will (save heartfelt attempts to bring it into the limelight) 
 
According to various government sources, within 6 years, over half of the country's 15,000 controllers will have or will be eligible to retire.  Government regs mandate that a controller must retire by 56 years of age. 

Johnny Lake, an air traffic controller in Honolulu said his facility is already understaffed by six controllers:  "It starts to concern us as we see gray hairs all around us and we don't seem to see any youngsters," he said. "I've been here 15 years. When I got in, I was probably the median age of the facility. Fifteen years later, I'm still the median age."

Not unlike many public service jobs, there is little doubt that young people find little incentive to entertain a career in ATC.  The pay is low and the stress can range from very high to lethal, all depending upon which space you are assigned to.
 
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the federal government has not allocated funding to the FAA to hire more controllers:  

In fiscal 2003 and 2004, the FAA has hired only one air traffic controller.  No new hires are planned for fiscal 2005, and the earliest the FAA could get funding for more controllers would be in the federal fiscal 2006 budget.

Accoriding to the ATC's union, and we publish union statistics here at INCITE only when there is an absence of any other source, including my own imagination, the FAA will need to hire 1,000 controllers every year until 2007. 
 
So, what happens when the FAA doesn't hire 1,000 controllers per year, or even a tenth of that?  Delays, copious amounts of delays.  This will be followed by markedly fewer flights to some of your favorite North American desitnations.  An ATC can only handle so many planes per hour per unit of area.  That means that Tom Thomerson over at Cleveland Center will still be required to handle as many planes as he did before all his ATC buddies bailed, but he's gonna be the only one there.  So, a hell of a lot less capacity will be able to be handled by the system.  Amazing, that in the end, the capacity constraint has to do with the guys we never ever think about.

Written by: Beck

How do you tell when you're taking life too seriously?

When you feel the need to exhibit faux outrage over being called a "girlie man."

A spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Sunday that the governor would not apologize for calling lawmakers "girlie men," despite criticisms from Democrats that the remark was sexist and homophobic.

Sure, sexist and homophobic. OR, it could be that the governor is making a pop culture reference which originally poked fun at him. It's time for Californians to lighten up. You'd think the state that pioneered legalizing medicinal marijuana would be more laid back. Or maybe California Democrats are just the kind of people who enjoy looking for things to take offense to so they can wallow in their self-righteous indignation. That wouldn't be hypocritical would it?

(Hat tip: Protein Wisdom, Cold Fury)

Written by: Beck

On the same subject as the post below, a friend and former blogger--Blow Hard of We Are Full of Shit fame--for whom there is a standing offer to publish material at INCITE, has a few words to say. It all dovetails rather well with what I've already written, so here you go:

"Bloggers Are the Sizzle, Not the Steak: Convention seats do not turn Internet gossips into journalists."

So reads the headline of some harsh commentary from one Alex S. Jones in the Los Angeles Times.

Our good professor links to this and seems to take issue with it. And, who in this medium can disagree? The media tend towards crap so they have something bigger in their eye, bugger off, etc.

Yet, let's get more specific. Is there anyone in particular who has been given press credentials, I don't know, let's say from MTV, that might be described as a gossip columnist. (See title.)

Someone whose format seems to be dominated by the gay-baiting of conservatives and the heavy-hitting journalism entailed in having readers send in tips about having seen D.C. luminaries at various places?

And, finally, someone hyped and consistently linked to by the good professor himself?

Of course I'm referring to the blogosphere's answer to, I don't know... is there anyone one as worthless in the mainstream media as Wonkette? No one comes immediately to mind.

So, spare me from this particular messenger if not the message.

When I hear complaints about gossip columnists rising above their station, I'd prefer not to hear a retort from someone who helped give the old media such an excellent case in point.

Update: Bloggers all over the place, big surprise, have sunk their teeth into this story like rabid pit bulls. I've already seen 5 different posts on it, and I haven't even really begun my daily blog-surfing rounds. Matt Welch, a professional journalist himself, offers an especially relevant point:

There are two types of reporting that even the most nakedly partisan political bloggers routinely engage in: eyewitness testimony, and press review-style research. Both of which, and particularly the former, will add value to the conventions, which are largely made-for-TV fabrications that can benefit from more you-are-there-behind-the-curtain reportage. Also, it can be very useful to read descriptions by people whose politics are on their sleeve & whose takes on things you trust from intimate personal experience.

Further Update: For some of Blow Hard's fiction, which he quit blogging to devote his time to, have a look at the remains of his old blog. Pay no mind to the name of the site or the fact that he now goes by "Maynard."

Written by: Beck

The LA Times seems distinctly uncomfortable about the rising power of blogs to influence ideas and draw eyeballs. Their most recent bit of pontification only goes to throw into relief the concern of old media over a millions-strong army of independent writers whose favorite phrase of all is "fact-check your ass."

The Democrats and the Republicans are inviting a limited number of bloggers -- those witty, candid, irreverent, passionate, shrewd and outrageous Internet chroniclers -- to their 2004 conventions. It's a gesture of respect for the growing influence of the blogosphere, and if ever there were events ideally suited to bloggers, the heavily scripted and tensionless conventions top the list.

But make no mistake, this moment of blogging legitimization -- and temporary press credentials -- doesn't turn bloggers into journalists.

Uh-oh. I haven't heard any bloggers referring to themselves as journalists lately, so I can only the assume LA Times "reporter" suffers from an acute case of defensiveness.

However, bloggers, with few exceptions, don't add reporting to the personal views they post online, and they see journalism as bound by norms and standards that they reject.

Pardon? I mean, hell, the most successful blogs out there are journalists. What in hell is this guy talking about? I'd say there's a direct relation between blogging success and the journalistic qualities of the blog author.

That encourages these common attributes of the blogosphere: vulgarity, scorching insults, bitter denunciations, one-sided arguments, erroneous assertions and the array of qualities that might be expected from a blustering know-it-all in a bar.

Umm... ok, he has a bit of a point there. Not that I would have a leg to stand on if I did decide to argue the case, but it doesn't help that my previous post prominently features use of the word "clusterfuck."

In these early days, blogging still has the charm of guileless transparency, which in the blogosphere means that everyone -- no matter how cranky or hysterical -- is presumed to be speaking his or her mind with sincerity. It is this air of conviction that makes bloggers such potent advocates.

However, if history is any indicator, such earnestness will attract those who would exploit it, and they include some canny, inventive people. There is already talk of bloggers who would consider publishing items for cash and commercial blogs that tout products.

The author has another good point here. While I suspect that most of the predictions made thus far about the blogosphere are grossly inaccurate as such things tend to be; nonetheless, the medium is definitely enjoying something of a honeymoon of authenticity and at the moment. While a few frauds have been exposed thus far, so far they're of the elderly-man-posing-as-college-girl variety. At some point there will be some big kerfuffle when a major name completely fabricates some news. It'll be interesting to gauge the severity of collateral damage as a consequence.

(Hat tip: The Corner)

Written by: Beck

Today's word for the day suggestion comes from the fledgling Palestinian territory: clusterfuck.

Here's a good indicator for when your aspiring nation is on the skids: when two separate people claim to be the security chief, and your prime minister can't convince your president that no, he really meant it when he said, "I quit."

Two officials both claimed Monday to be head of general security in Gaza and the West Bank, but Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat was saying nothing.

No public announcement was made, but Abdel Razik Majeideh told reporters in Gaza he had been reinstated as security chief. Arafat nephew Mussa Arafat had replaced Majeideh as head of general security in Gaza and the West Bank on Saturday.

However, Mussa Arafat denied he had been fired, Palestinian sources said...

Meanwhile, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qorei, who has tried to quit twice over the security crisis, said Monday his written resignation still stands. At a press conference in Ramallah, West Bank, Qorei said he has not received a written response from Yasser Arafat.

That not conclusively bad enough for you? How about when kidnappers start demanding an end to government corruption?

[The group Abu al Reesh] claimed responsibility for abducting four French nationals and a Palestinian who were working to restore electricity at Khan Yunis. They were taken to the office of the Red Crescent at the camp, Palestinian security sources said.

The group released a statement saying it would demand an end to corruption within the Palestinian Authority; a pledge to place the right people in the right positions; the establishment of a fair judicial system; and monthly payments to families of Palestinians killed or held prisoner by Israel.

It's such a shame that Arafat has managed to live this long. He's like some sort of Castro of the Mid-East.

Written by: Goemagog

Evil Glenn is behind the times. Given the quality of the material the times puts out, it's no wonder his shoes stink.

Goe, prefers being ahead.

Written by: Beck

In 1969, a reporter from the Soviet Union interviewed American astronaut Pete Conrad about Neil Armstrong's recent historic moon landing. One of the things he asked about was Armstrong's famous first words after stepping foot on the moon: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." [Incidentally, Armstrong flubbed that line. That's why it doesn't seem to make sense. It should have been "...step for a man..."] You see, the reporter was curious to learn who in the government was responsible for originally writing that line.

Conrad, a good friend of Armstrong's, informed him that Armstrong had thought the line up himself. While he clearly had planned it well in advance, no government propagandist had written it for him. Moreover, American astronauts were free to say whatever the hell they wanted. The reporter simply couldn't believe it. After all, as far as 1969 Americans were concerned, Neil Armstrong was the greatest hero in the history of the world. The Soviet reporter simply assumed that the government would want (and need) to control something like that. Conrad, to prove it to him, declared right then and there that when HE landed on the moon--Conrad was slated to be on the second moon mission & would be the third man to walk on the moon--he would say something at the expense of Armstrong's original quote. And he did just that.

While the reporter recognized that there were structural differences between his own government back in the USSR and the US government, he nonetheless assumed that all governments are basically alike in certain respects. Having lived his whole life in the Soviet Union, the man presumed that government oppression is a necessary aspect of life--in other words, it's for our own good. Tough love and all that. The propaganda arm of his own government was thorough and successful enough that even an educated and intelligent person--one who had been to America and spoken at length with Americans--still couldn't imagine a world in which people were free to do and say whatever they wanted.

The Soviet Union is gone. Russians today are free to come to the United States and see for themselves how we live and to draw their own conclusions. Nonetheless, this propaganda-blinded worldview lives on, albeit in a different land. People in the middle East hate America. There are exceptions, primarily amongst Muslim intellectuals, much as there were exceptions in the Soviet Union. The propaganda takes on a softer form of tyranny as well, with open borders and access to outside news outlets.

The anti-American propaganda, however, is a religious one rather than a secular one, making it that much more insidious. An intellectual living in the USSR, cut off from outside influences, can still deduce for himself that communism is a bad thing. Religion, however, relies on faith to make its arguments. And while you can present a person with 100 irrefutable arguments as to why the American way of life is superior to, say, the Iranian, and present the evidence to back it up, religious faith can sweep away all those arguments at a gesture.

Furthermore, the propaganda is a much more difficult target to pin down. When a state-run news agency says something anti-American, the State Department can counter, exert pressure, and hold it up for international inspection and opprobrium. And some times that does happen, inasmuch as most of the dictatorships in the Middle East have state-run media outlets. The worst of the propaganda, however, comes from private fundamentalist religious institutions & organizations. Apart from the PC paranoia about offending Muslims, the State Department has a much harder time arguing with or putting pressure on such difficult targets.

During the Cold War, the Soviets were the evil empire. They were the great enemy. They were an easy target, America was largely unified in opposition to it, and the government could gradually chip away at the Soviet regime until it crumbled. It was one target, easily identified, secular, and a UN Security Council permanent member. In other words, knocking down the USSR was an easy task relative to the one faced today. And it only took a little over 70 years to accomplish.

Yet most Westerners refuse to even acknowledge that they face a new enemy. People argue that Islamofascism only represent a tiny percentage of Muslims worldwide. I don't believe that myself--after all, they do run several countries, and Wahabi mosques densely carpet Europe. Much like that Soviet reporter, these people don't even begin to conceive that their view of America is horribly stilted, wildly inaccurate, and ultimately self-destructive.

And they hate us. And the threat is greater than anything we've ever faced before. I could go into why that is at length, but Lileks has saved me the trouble.

The presidency is not the sort of job for which you volunteer unless you're willing to do everything that's necessary. If we lose a city (and what a mild, offhand term for such a horror) there isn't going to be any debate about getting UN resolutions. At least I hope not. And what do you do then? Attack Iran's nuclear facilities, hope you can flatten North Korea before they decide the game is up and it's time to go first, oh, and incidentally the new missiles can hit LA -- surprise! Do you pave Syria if they don't roll over on day two? Damned if I know. I don't have to know what to do. Not my job. But if you want the job, you have to be willing to open the tubes and order Slim Pickens to the cockpit. It's always been that way, sure -- yet these things have had an odd distant theoretical flavor predicated on an unpredictable escalation. That enemy [i.e. our old enemy the Soviet Union] would nuke us as a last resort, because that meant the end of everything - power, caviar, liquor, nice cars, good dentists, dames, those nice little cigarettes with the gold bands around the filters? The ones that burn evenly, and you can smoke a dozen in an hour without getting tongue fur? Heaven on earth.

Our present enemy will nuke us as soon as they can, because it means heaven, period.

It seems that people have completely failed to realize the magnitude of any of this. The last poll data I heard showed that less than half of Americans now support the decision to go to war with Iraq. The truth is that we are fighting for our very lives. The only Americans losing lives right now may be soldiers that Bush chose to send to Iraq, but thrice as many died on September 11. Has everyone forgotten that? The Americans dying in Iraq are just one segment of American casualties suffered thus far in the defining conflict of the 21st century. And I don't have any illusions about it being over in under 70 years.

Oh yeah, and astronaut Pete Conrad's quote upon stepping foot on the moon? "Whoopee! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me." Betcha thought I wasn't going to tell you.

Written by: Beck

One of the missions of the two Mars rovers still crawling over the alien surface was to attempt to locate any signs that life may have once existed on the planet. They located traces of water and a few interesting looking rocks, but that was far from anything conclusive. Scientists have long thought that conclusive evidence would require a mission far beyond our current level of sophistication.

I've long been fascinated by the thought that life might exist on Mars. Astronomy has always interested me, so any chance that extra-terrestrial life could be found interests me. While I always assumed that there was a decent chance that life once existed on Mars--especially now that it has been shown that water still exists on Mars and once likely existed in much larger quantities, one thing I never considered it to be especially likely that life could still exist there today. With little atmosphere or planetary magnetic field, very little exists to protect Mars from the impact of solar radiation.

Now it looks like life may indeed not only have lived on Mars, but also still lives there today.

Ammonia may have been found in Mars' atmosphere which some scientists say could indicate life on the Red Planet.

Researchers say its spectral signature has been tentatively detected by sensors on board the European Space Agency's orbiting Mars Express craft.

But how is the presence of ammonia in any way significant, you ask?

There are two possible sources: either active volcanoes, none of which have been found yet on Mars, or microbes.

Could the ammonia could simply be left over from long-extinct life, you ask?

Ammonia survives for only a short time in the Martian atmosphere so it must be getting constantly replenished.

To sum up. A European satellite orbiting Mars has detected the spectral signature of ammonia, ammonia could only come from living things, and ammonia only lasts for a few hours in the Martian atmosphere. Do I have anything else to share, you ask? Why I'm glad you asked!

The importance of ammonia is that it is a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen.

Nitrogen is rare in the Martian environment but because no form of terrestrial life can exist without it, the presence of ammonia may indicate that Martian microbial life is hoarding it.

"There are no known ways for ammonia to be present in the Martian atmosphere that do not involve life," the NASA scientist said.

So rest assured, folks, life likely exists on Mars, so it can only be a matter of time before some of it gets back to Earth and wipes out life as we know it, covering the planet in a thick blanket of Martian microbes. I'll bring the popcorn.

(Hat tip: Rambling's Journal)

Written by: Goemagog

The wrong hormones make women cranky.

1) I doubt it's just the listed drug.

2) Everybody already knew this.

3) If they had more self-control, instead of randomly turning into shallow flakey psychotrendywhorebitches, this wouldn't mean anything.

Goe, thinks medication is not an excuse for giving up self-control.

Written by: Beck

Today, INCITE received its 10,000th unique visitor.  Ordinarily I think I'd use this milestone as an excuse to lobby every high profile... and mid profile... and ok, everyone on the planet who has a blog... as I was saying, lobby everyone to link me and send some traffic my way in celebration.  But this is a weekend, so traffic is going to be craptastic anyway.  Actually, I haven't entirely ruled out launching a massive bout of link-whorage.  Ya know, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea.  Maybe I'll just float a trial balloon with Instapundit and see what happens.
 
Regardless, it took just over 4 months to get this far.  Hopefully, a further 4 months down the road will see much better.  That shouldn't be too hard, what with how March saw only 1,049 visitors.  Any way you slice it, though, it's been a hell of a 4 months.  Those months have seen the number of writers here grow from 2 to 5, they've seen the hosting of a Bonfire of the Vanities (a monumental flop, bringing in barely over 100 unique visitors).  They've seen a whole shitload of writing, much of it utterly unworth the time, most of it someday doomed to oblivion, but all of it worth the effort.  Well, with the possible exception of this monstrosity which just goes to show that you should never drink and blog. 
 
Not that this is some sort of Academy Award acceptance speech, but there are a few people I need to thank.  First, JeffG at Protein Wisdom is responsible for 946 of the 10,000 people who have been here.  He has been by far the biggest referrer to this site, to say nothing of his influence on my approach to writing & blogging.  Second, I'd like to thank Mr. Roach of mansizedtarget.  You'll notice his site at the top of my blogroll.  He's a friend in the real world, and was at least partially responsible for my ultimate decision to get into blogging.  More importantly, he helped me set the site up early on, and has been one of INCITE's most regular readers & commenters.  His blog is a bit hosed up at the moment, but he's one of the most intelligent writers I know.  
 
I also need to thank the folks over at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.  In INCITE's microbial days, I emailed him asking him to link me.  He responded with a nice long humorous message, blogrolled me, and then tossed up a post profiling the site.  Prior to his linkage, our biggest day had seen 33 visitors.  The day Misha linked us, we had 201.  Furthermore, BC over there helped get us over the final push linking us today when he heard that getting over the 10,000 hump was going a bit slowly.
 
Finally, I'd like to thank INCITE's other writers.  I'm the one who runs the page, handles the HTML, and does all the linkwhoring, but though they all seem to have wandered off at the moment, they've all been critical in helping me to carry the load--especially in the early days when it was just me and Answerman.  Maybe one day they'll actually wander back and write something.  I can only hope.
 
Something else I just noticed: not counting this, I've penned precisely 400 posts and written just over 95,000 words.  I would say that so long as I've changed one mind, altered one vote, shaken one person out of the stupor through which they walk the paths of life, that alone would make it all worth it.  But that would be complete bullshit.  I'm doing this for me.  That's why it's actually worth reading.  Now, without further ado, I present you with... 10,000:
 

 
Now if you'll pardon me, I'm going to go celebrate.

Written by: Beck

I had to read this twice to make sure I'd gotten it right.  From the Hill News, I bring you... The Future!

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) will be arrested today in front of the Sudanese Embassy as part of an ongoing protest against what members of the Congressional Black Ccaucus say is genocide in the country's Darfur region, Rush's spokesperson confirmed yesterday.

This post isn't about the Sudan, it isn't about the Congressional Black Caucus, and it isn't about the NAACP, though I may have plenty to say on that later.  No, this is about the latest innovation in reporting: news on things which are yet to happen.  It turns out, in fact, that they have things down so effectively that they can see a full week in advance:

Julian Bond, chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said he will submit himself for arrest sometime after July 25.

(Hat tip: a_sdf)

Written by: Beck

"Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage."
               -- Dwight David Eisenhower, 1954

This speaks to me.  You see, I (obviously) am a major politics watcher.  As such, I'm always a bit surprised when I discover that many people--most people in fact--couldn't give two shits about politics.  In one very real sense, politics should be the most important thing to a free citizen living under democratic rule.  Politics defines the entire framework under which you live your life. 
 
In a free society, however, citizens are free to live their lives however they please without interference from the state beyond a bit of paper work here and there.  In fact, in a free society, a productive citizen shouldn't worry themselves about anything but being productive and finding happiness.  Politics, then, becomes the last thing which that person should care about, the assumption being that the state is in good hands and will take care of itself.
 
There's a fallacy in that assumption, however.  The fallacy assumes that inasmuch as everything today more or less works well, there's no cause to change or meddle with anything.  People go about their daily lives in confident anticipation that the status quo will continue to assert its inertial sway over everything.  The truth of the matter is that people with an active desire to run the state seek that power precisely because they've the sort of personality which delights in meddling in that which they do not understand under the vague notion that they can somehow improve things for everyone.  They are, almost to a man, completely mistaken in this belief.  Nonetheless, we've been ruled by that sort of person for over 200 years, and they have made an absolute mess of it.  And it's not going to get better on its own. 
 
An entirely different type of ruler--a different mindset, a different personality archetype--shant be coming along any time soon.  The sort of person who would deliver good government is precisely the sort of person least likely to seek public office.  As such, we're left with no alternative but choosing between lesser evils and doing whatever we can to influence & direct their meddlesome influence.  Which brings us back to Eisenhower.  "Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage."

Written by: Beck

Martha Stewart gets 5 months and a $30,400 fine.  The one bit of good news for her: the courts have agreed to allow her to remain free pending the outcome of further appeals.  Not that it really matters.  The government has already succeeded in utterly destroying a strong company, to say nothing of the money lost by those who owned a share of Martha Stewart Omnimedia (a hell of lot more people than you might initially think).  Oh, and those Imclone shares she sold at $60 which got her in all this trouble in the first place?  It now trades around $80/share.
 
Justice has not been served.  Not in any way, shape, or form.
 
(Hat tip: The Corner, whose post predates the WaPo article it links by half an hour.  Now THAT is what I call impressive reporting.)

Written by: Beck

The media--anyone critical of the war for that matter--quickly begins shouting, "How dare you question my patriotism?" anytime someone criticizes or argues with their anti-war beliefs.  People take it for granted that Democrats and Liberals will oppose the war simply because it's being fought by a Republican.  Somehow, saying, "I support the troops, but..." absolves any and all criticism no matter how unbalanced, irrational, or obscene.
 
During World War II, the Japanese successfully dropped several bombs on mainland America.  You almost never hear about it today.  One of the main reasons you never hear about it is because it wasn't reported in the press at the time.  You see, the press recognized that reporting on the location of balloon bomb successes would encourage the enemy and give him valuable information. 

Newspapers later said U.S. intelligence had heard about the balloons and warned authorities to keep any sightings secret.

"I think the Japanese were thinking that would be reported on -- where these balloons went, and then they could do further attacks," said Art Haney, who owns Baum Drug near where the bomb went off.

Keeping quiet was a way to help the United States win the war. Years after, the news came out.

Can you imagine what the uproar would be like today if the Bush administration asked newspapers to not report on certain things because they could be materially beneficial to our enemies?  The indignant outrage would be deafening.  People would announce that Bush was trying to cover up war crimes.  The very vital national interests that needed protecting would be promptly FedEx'd to our enemies on a silver platter.
 
But what's so different about newspapers during WWII and the news media today?  It wasn't lack of desire for greater sales--those were as voracious then as now.  Furthermore, it certainly wasn't that the press uniformly liked the FDR administration.  No, there's only one fundamental difference between Big Media today and Big Media sixty years ago: patriotism. 
 
People have simply forgotten what patriotism means.  Inasmuch as the media A) has a startling amount of control over usage of the English language, and B) is no longer patriotic; they have done everything they can to verbally drape themselves in the flag of a nation which they no longer support.

Written by: Beck

It's not cool to nominate yourself for an award, right?
 
Hint.

Written by: Beck

Did you know that in the United States military, cowardice is a crime punishable by death?  I don't just mean in the sense that you might get killed by the enemy either.  I mean firing squad.

The U.S. Army Thursday dropped its case against a soldier who was initially accused of cowardice after he suffered a panic attack when he saw the bloody corpse of an Iraqi on his second day in the war zone.

The decision to drop the case against Sgt. Georg-Andreas Pogany came after a Navy doctor last month diagnosed him as suffering from damage to his balance system, most likely caused by Lariam, an anti-malaria drug issued to some troops serving in Iraq...

However, a few days later, he was shipped back to the United States to face the cowardice charge, the first such case since the Vietnam War. Conviction on the charge can result in the death penalty.

The cowardice charge was reduced to dereliction of duty last November. The lesser charge was later dropped, but the case was open until Thursday's decision.

Michelle Malkin links to this article about some scary goings on in an airplane recently.  My take on it: it's too far fetched.  If something like this really happened, every news outlet in the world would have news on it inside an hour.  My guess is it's a hoax.  Still, it makes for an interesting read.

Update: Welcome to those coming here from the Museum of Hoaxes.  For the record, I no longer believe that this story is untrue.
 
Finally, a news item that I know at least one other reader here will appreciate (enjoy BH).  Steve Hawking has concluded that some "information" actually re-emerges from black holes.  

In the 1970s, Hawking said that once a black hole formed it lost mass by radiating energy, known as "Hawking radiation," but it contained no information about the inside matter and once the hole evaporated, all information was lost.

This however, created a paradox, since the laws of quantum physics assert such information can never be completely wiped out.

Hawking responded that the gravitational pull of black holes was so strong, it unraveled the laws of quantum physics. But that argument failed to convince skeptics in the scientific community.

He will now argue that the black holes never quite shut themselves off completely and, as they emit more heat, they eventually open up and release information.

That's right.  I'm a quantum physics enthusiast.  You wanna make something of it?  I didn't think so.

Written by: Beck

If you pay any attention to politics at all, you've heard people say things which insinuate either that we're worse off today than we were decades ago, or that the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the poorest Americans continues to get wider.  It's complete bullshit; nevertheless, people don't tire of saying it. 
 
First of all, about the widening gap between poor and wealthy... poor people don't have any money to speak of.  They didn't in 1970, they don't today.  Basically, those living in poverty make enough to survive (otherwise they'd be dead instead of being impoverished) and no more (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).  The rich get richer because the economy continues to grow and because the hardest working people are going to be more successful than the "average" worker.  As everyone gets richer, the spectrum widens as a natural consequence.  This concept is not complicated, but people still completely and utterly fail to grasp it year after year.  Don't be one of those people.
 
Then there's the whole Two Americas thing which Waffles Kedwards keeps yammering about.  The idea here is that the middle class is shrinking, and but for a few of the wealthiest at the top, people are generally getting poorer.  Tell me, have you observed this?  Do things seem worse to you?  Consider the words of Vermont "Independent" (in this case, socialist) congressional representative Bernie Sanders from last year:

From the end of World War II until the 1970s the middle class in the United States expanded as millions of workers earned higher wages and saw their standard of living improve. As the middle class grew stronger, the gap between the rich and the poor declined and the U.S. became, in a very important sense, a more democratic nation.

In fact, "the great middle class" of the United States became the envy of the world. Tragically, all of that has changed. Today, the United States is reverting back to the economic picture of the 1920s -- the "gilded age" in which a handful of families held extraordinary wealth while most Americans struggled hard just to keep their heads above water.

Again, utter bullshit.  Arnold Kling, writing for Tech Central Station, has penned a thorough assault on this empty rhetoric exposing it for the half-truths and full-lies that it is.

What disappeared between 1970 and today was not the middle class but the lower class...

Given these statistics, what explains the fact that, adjusted for inflation, the pay of the lowest-wage workers has not increased much over the past thirty years? There are a number of factors involved, but I suspect that the largest component of the explanation is a shift in the composition of the low-wage work force. In the 1970's, many of the people at the bottom of the wage scale were heads of households. Today, many low-wage workers are providing second or third incomes to families.

The important point to bear in mind is that "the bottom fifth of the wage distribution" does not represent some permanent group of people. Instead, it signifies the earnings of workers who at that time have the lowest levels of skills and experience. My college-age daughters, doing temporary clerical work, are in the bottom fifth. But even if the income of the bottom fifth were to stagnate over the next twenty years, my daughters will earn higher incomes as they acquire valuable knowledge...

Furthermore, Americans work many fewer days than they did a century ago. Using as a benchmark a 365 day work-year, Fogel calculates that in 1880 on average male household head worked 8.5 hours per day, but only 4.7 hours per day in 1995. With less time spent working and somewhat better health, total leisure available has more than tripled, from 1.8 hours per day to 5.8 hours per day...

In 1875, roughly 3/4 of consumption was on basic necessities -- food (49 percent), clothing (12 percent) and housing plus consumer durables (12 percent). By 1995, these necessities accounted for only 13 percent of consumption. Able to acquire the basic necessities with less than one-third of the labor formerly required, households have dramatically increased leisure. In addition, the share of consumption of services has gone up, including education (from 1 percent in 1875 to 5 percent in 1995) and health care (from 1 percent to 9 percent)...

Quality of life is improving at least as dramatically as longevity. Fogel reports that the average number of chronic conditions per U.S. male aged 60-64 fell from 5.6 in 1900 to 1.6 in the mid 1990's. This represents an average annual drop of 1.3 percent. The rate of decline reached 1.7 percent per year from 1982-1999, and Fogel notes that some evidence suggests that even within that time span the improvement was greatest in the most recent years.

The reality is that neither the rise in health care expenditures nor the standard of living of working Americans represents a problem. The false portrayal of these issues by the Left is more likely to provoke a crisis than to solve one.

Be sure to skim through the article itself for a well arranged pile of rather interesting statistics.  The simple truth of the matter is that we have the wealthiest poor people in the world.
 
(Hat tip: The Shallow End of the Gene Pool & Protein Wisdom)

Written by: Beck

Eric at Classical Values has a vastly amusing collection of recent quotes from various Democrats on Iraq. Every once in a while it's important to remind yourself just how principle- and character-free these scumbags can be. A few examples:

• "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
  - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


• "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
  - President Clinton, Feb 4, 1998


• "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
  - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


• "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
  - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Would someone like to explain to me what has changed between when these things were said and today? Their story has changed 180 degrees, but the only real difference people can point to is that our intelligence on Iraq's specific WMD stockpile was inaccurate. Obviously, that could not possibly be a logical reason for changing one's opinion so drastically; therefore, the reason must be that pure politics are more important than truth, security, or any other values.

Written by: Beck

Two bits of bad news for social conservatives hit at once today. First, the FMA couldn't even make it past a procedural vote in the Senate. Conservatives have vowed not to give up the fight, but the truth of the matter is that there's no way this amendment will ever pass. They should seize the chance now to embrace federalism and go after individual state legislatures if they really want to obstruct gay marriage.

In other news, the very conservative Mike Ditka announced that he won't run for the Illinois senate seat. In other other news, aren't we overdue for some sort of large disaster or something?

Written by: Beck

MSNBC manages in a single article to pen both the world's most apt headline ever written and the world's most unfortunate subheadline ever written.

Drinking and shotguns in your pants don't mix

Man jailed for illegal firearm possession after shooting self in groin

Update: In other stupid news, via Fark, some British druid is going on trial for bringing a sword into a store. This is the best part:

About a dozen fellow members of the Insular Order of Druids sat in the court's public gallery, while chief druid King Arthur Pendragon, wearing white robes with a red lion emblazoned on the front, acted as Williams's legal adviser.

That's right. His name is King Arthur Pendragon.

Written by: Beck

At what point am I supposed to begin to worry?

You see, the libertarian part of me automatically twitches at anything allowing the state to increase control over its citizens. One of the best ways to impose control is to strip away privacy. After all, if the state always knows where you are and what you're doing, you can't possibly be doing anything bad. The simple knowledge that there's no hope of getting away with a crime is sufficient to deter the vast majority of society from committing crime.

Unfortunately, privacy activists have far too much in common with the tin-foil hat brigade for many people--myself included--to feel entirely comfortable with them. Furthermore, in many cases (the Patriot Act anyone?), things which privacy advocates consider offensive or intrusive are indeed nothing about which law-abiding citizens need to worry. It is undeniably true that there are circumstances in which complete access to personal/private information allows government officials to save lives. It's a mistake to attempt to restrict law enforcement's ability to act in such situations. It's foolish to wait for police to wake up a judge for a phone tap authorization or a search warrant when you know perfectly well that the judge is going to sign off on anything police officers put under his nose anyway.

So why worry? Why concern oneself with where the proverbial line is drawn?

Why should stories like this cause such a visceral reaction? Why should it cause a lingering sense of worry when I hear that Japan has begun tracking school children with RFID tags?

I know that part of the reason is because there is an extent to which I am not a law abiding citizen. I like to drive fast, and I have the common sense to realize that speed limits are arbitrary and artificially low (I linked once to a study showing that fewer traffic accidents happen if people are allowed to drive more "naturally" at whatever speed they feel comfortable with, but I can't for the life of me find the link). However, I also have the common sense to realize that no amount of argument, lobbying, or voting in Houston City Council elections is going to change the law. Instead, I defy the law. I drive at speeds I consider appropriate and within my abilities as a driver, and I accept the occasional speeding ticket as a special tax on people who don't like spending their lives blindly obeying the traffic code.

It would be relatively easy and inexpensive to attach a device to my car which monitors my speed, calls up the police whenever I speed, and has a ticket faxed to my home for convenient handling. It's funny when wall mounted machines print out citations for swearing in Demolition Man, but there's no reason why that couldn't become a reality. To any who object saying that the implementation costs would be prohibitive, I'd like to point out to you that we live in a world where the government thinks nothing of spending half a trillion dollars to buy off the senior citizens lobby (largely unsuccessfully I might add). Besides, citations for trivial law breaking have always been about raising money rather than about citizens' safety.

The other great concern is for things which are currently legal which might later be outlawed. The classic example is gun control laws. The extent to which I'm a law abiding citizen and wish to help the government in fighting terrorism & other crimes, I have no problem with the government knowing about how many guns I own. If I felt that I could trust the government to never outlaw gun ownership, I could almost support such weapon cataloging (I wouldn't, in the end, but I wouldn't worry nearly so much about it either). Unfortunately, no one in their right mind trusts the government not to succumb to liberal/European anti-gun sentiment. As such, it's a legitimate concern of any gun owner that the government might try to take them away. If a law in Australia can result in confiscation of swords, then the US government can declare handguns illegal and confiscate them. In anticipation of further inadvertent law breaking, once again, the privacy advocate has no choice but to oppose government invasiveness, even though that invasiveness is for a "good cause."

In a world where you far too often find yourself in powerless opposition to irrationally conceived and inconsistently applied laws, the only viable options are conformance or defiance. For those inclined to defy, success is measured in small doses. Simply getting away with defiance represents a small victory over the state. As such, protecting privacy is of major importance to those who feel that the state is not their friend.

(Hat tip: Hit & Run)

Written by: Beck

Discuss.

Written by: Beck

The Rocket had a bad night last night.

"I put our guys in a hole," Clemens said.

Which is a really nice way of saying, "The runs I gave up in the first inning cover the American League's entire margin of victory." At least this was at the All Star game and not during a regular season Astros game, not that it would make much of a difference at this point.

Written by: Beck

OK, first, read this:

Despite an electronic voting fiasco in 2000 and the furor over e-voting in the United States, Venezuela is using untested touchscreen computers for its recall referendum on Hugo Chavez's presidency.

Now tell me, does that not look like the lead sentence to an article from The Onion? It reads almost like a tag line from Fark. I kept expecting to see "hilarity ensues" while reading it. But no, it's a real headline. Let me go over that just one last time in case anyone didn't catch it all.

1. Voting fiasco in 2000
2. Furor over e-voting
3. Untested touchscreen computers
4. Presidential recall referendum
5. This is Venezuela we're talking about

Honey, I think we'd better cancel that trip we had planned to Caracas. And how's this for some nicely reassuring news:

The touchscreen machines on which a third of the U.S. electorate will vote in November are dangerously vulnerable to hackers, rigging and mechanical failure, computer scientists generally agree.

Oh goody. Naturally, the company that makes these voting machines is from, you guessed it, Florida.

Written by: Beck

Tony Blair has had a very rough couple of months. His party's thrashing in various local and EU-wide elections has sparked calls for his resignation, and at one point the party faithful had to publicly announce that Blair was not, in fact, planning to resign. Another hit came today when the UK's version of the Senate committee report on pre-Iraq war intelligence announced... pretty much what everyone expected it to announce. Something really jumped out at me when I read this article. It was the picture CNN had accompanying the story.



It's not the best picture, I'll admit. Still, is it my imagination, or does the Prime Minister look like he's aged about a decade in the past two months? Blair has been on the receiving end of the political equivalent of the Lyndie England treatment for a solid year now. I can't imagine he's going to remain in politics too much longer.

Written by: Beck

International sandwich store chain Subway announced it's bringing back ads featuring famous ex-fat-person Jared, and a nation of commercial watchers groans. Even South Park couldn't make Jared watchable (hint to would-be TV writers: twenty-minute long running jokes hinging on the fact that AIDS and aides are homophones are a bad idea). And people ask me why I watch almost no television...

In other news, the European Space Agency is embarking on a project to study ways to deflect or destroy potentially earth-threatening asteroids. The article is vaguely interesting, especially if you're a space watcher, but I link to it because the article contains what I think may well be the single worst synopsis ever penned of a major literary work.

The slam-bang 'Don Quijote' mission would help scientists figure out how to deflect or destroy any asteroid in the future that might be found to be on a collision course with Earth. The project uses the Spanish spelling of Don Quixote, the protagonist in Cervantes' novel who has chivalrous ideas that tend toward the impractical.

I'm actually rather impressed with the government agency's choice of project names. It's not often that any government agency holds itself to such lofty standards of truth in advertising.

Written by: Goemagog

We don't like to read.

I was a voracious reader when I was young. Now, I only read King and Rowling, and King's been getting pretty weak lately.

What has contributed to the drop-off, then? "All the other alternatives that compete for your time," says Schroeder.

No. If that were true, Harry Potter author Rowling wouldn't have sold so many books. People make time to read what's worth reading.

Fewer than half (47 percent) of U.S. adults now read fiction, down seven percentage points from 10 years ago. "That's especially sad," says Schoeder. "Literature is a culture's DNA. But the good news is that non-fiction has held up better. Serious books, especially political works, have been moving off the shelves."

In the world of political books, people rarely read what they don't already agree with. It does not broaden minds or lift spirits.

The problem with reading is you can only read what's been written, and most of what's written isn't worth reading. Given the multitude of entertainment and information venues available to us, very little of it is original or of quality.

The last sci-fi show with some originality went to hell after the second season, with speech-making taking priority over stories. How many angsty teens do we really need on our televisions? How many afterschool or Lifetime specials telling us that something is bad are we expecting to sit through? People want entertained, Hollywood generates billions of dollars for the countries they'll actually film in. The computer game industry is even larger. We have more television channels than stuff to put on them. Why wouldn't someone want to get away with a good book?

They've already read it. In books and magazines, there's a shortage of quality. Very few people want to read Ulysses, and nobody out of grade school wants to read Dick and Jane. What's left? Harlequin and ... well... King and Rowling. Clancy reads like a technical manual, Grisham writes about lawyers, and then we pretty much run out of people worth reading. There are a lot of other authors, but as with B-5, I'll go to a church if I want preached at or flip through my high school yearbooks if I want to reminisce about teen angst.

For originality of story line and plot devices, science fiction and fantasy are the two genres that offer the most potential, because they're not tied to reality. Once reality is disposed of, anything can happen or be justified. I haven't seen a new idea in science fiction televisionsince the original Star Trek. New names for old gizmos. Newer sci-fi shows replace gizmo-based stories with soap opera angst (usually with a teen or two, i.e. Deep Space 90210). Movies offer some, but for sci-fi books, it's all about the angst, the drama, the hero overcoming the inner demon that any sensible sidekick would have beat out of him in the first chapter.

Fantasy has come to us in three stages. Pre-tolkien has simple stories, usually with a moral, and only a few types of creatures. Tolkien put everything into his stories that he could find a way to fit in. Post-tolkien fantasy has everything the author can squeeze in, just like Tolkien's work, but a hero with an inner demon that any sensible sidekick would have beat out of him in the first chapter... sound familiar? Read up a paragraph.

Sometimes there is an original idea, but that's rarely enough for more than a short story. Far too often these are stretched into novels or, even worse, a series. Angst is padding, not plot, unless it's Harlequin, in which case angst is the whole story.


Rowling's fantasy series has angst, but that's fluff to pad out the story, and hasn't thusfar been the story. King has monsters (and who doesn't like monsters?) but his characters all have voices in their heads. Rowling writes for what used to be called "young adults". Young characters dealing with adult (not sexual) themes. She's the only person that I know of that writes for that market since Nancy Drew and the Hardy boys.

Better books will bring readers. Rowling has proven that. People aren't too busy to read. Rowling has proven that. The problem isn't that there's only one Rowling, it's that publishers print too many angsty pretentious books with hero's that annoy more than they inspire. What's the point in escapism if their world is as fucked up as ours?

Goe, thinks the thunderstorm passed.

Written by: Beck

Welcome to the web's 54th edition of the Bonfire of the Vanities, the weekly roundup of self-appointed rubbish from the blogosphere. Submissions seem to pretty much cover the entire spectrum of rubbish. Some lean towards the humorous-but-completely-off-topic-and-inappropriate post, others are more of the it-seemed-funny-in-my-head variety. Then there are a few of my favorite species of rubbish, the post which was clearly written under the influence of one or more chemical substances. I leave it to you to decide which are which.

In the mean time, my thanks go to Kevin at Wizbang for all the work over the past year to maintain the BotV. Also, I want every single one of you who reads this to bookmark INCITE, add it to your blogrolls, link people to this post, and visit here daily. Hey, I'm sorry it has to be this way, but I didn't make the rules, I'm just following them. And now, on with the bonfire (yes, that's an outhouse on the top):



Starting off in no particular order, Aaron the Liberal Slayer of Aaron's Rantblog submits a recent foray into Photoshop depicting the Dem's Magical Misery Tour. My favorite song from the album you ask? "Moore is a Walrus," of course.

Eric of Classical Values presents an eminently bonfire worthy post about, well, hair. Warning: post includes pun.

Susie of Practical Penumbra, afflicted by a common blogger ailment--the unnatural fear of allowing a single day to go by without an update on their site--fills the dark hole in her soul with... roughly two lines of fairly random text. You have to admire her spirit though: she does manage to work in a reference to her breasts. High marks for effort!

Feste at Foolsblog presents the worst marketing idea since New Coke. I was impressed--Feste dug back to May 20 to find something Bonfire-worthy.

Sean at The American Mind posts about his all-American 4th of July celebration which, frankly, I can't find anything wrong with.

Brian of Musings from Brian (blogspot warning: scroll to Discriminating Taste) ponders the wisdom of athlete becoming vintners.

Wake Me Up On Judgment Day offers one of those occasions where bloggers suddenly decide that all of their readers want to know about what's going on with their bodily functions.

What more can you want beyond joking about candidate's names, discussing the magic of average call times, and daily diary style stream of conscious comments? Sneakeasy's Joint has it all.

Dodgeblogium offers the best tips I've seen yet for thunderstorm safety.

Uncensored Blog Madness lives up to its name, in the post Irony of the Year.

Can a photoshop at the expense of a politician ever be a bad thing? That was rhetorical. The Everlasting Phelps offers up their latest work.

Bryan confronts his household electronics, various tools, and some vegetation--meeting with decidedly mixed success--over at Spare Change.

When I first saw this article on Fark I recall fighting a very strong urge to toss up a blog post about it. Snooze Button Dreams was not as strong as I.

The Smarter Cop fnord presents yet another pictorial documenting the romantic overtones of Kerry & Edwards torrid campaign. Can a campaign even be torrid?

Last of the entries in this week's Bonfire, King of Fools presents his design for a stop sign which the UN can use. Sure, it's not that profound, but it takes potshots at both the French and the UN, so it's worth reading as far as I'm concerned.

That's it for Bonfire of the Vanities #54. Next week's bonfire will be hosted at Practical Penumbra (beware of pirate kittens). For further info, see Wizbang's Bonfire of the Vanities archives. Now remember your assignments. Bookmark. Blogroll. Link. Visit daily. That will be all, you are now dismissed.

Written by: Beck

There's a reason why you never hear about violent conservative protesters. It's because that would be an oxymoron. Amusingly, the militant left more often than not winds up targeting Democrats rather than Republicans (though they get their fair share of harassment as well). As convention season comes around, it looks like the Republicans are going to get hit pretty hard.

In a disgusting display, militant left-wing organizations have already begun disseminating information to the party loyal on how to disrupt the 2004 RNC in New York this August.

Fringe elements are hoping to spark major disruptions at the Republican National Convention with a series of sneaky tricks - including fooling bomb-sniffing dogs on trains bound for Penn Station, the Daily News has learned.

Internet-using anarchists are telling would-be troublemakers to decoy specially trained Labrador retrievers with gunpowder or ammonium nitrate-laced tablets in a bid to halt trains or even spur the evacuation of Madison Square Garden.

What's even worse than the fact that these people are doing this at all is the fact that they intend to cause disruption by overloading the city's anti-terrorism forces. I wonder if they even pause for a microsecond to consider whether it might be a bad thing for the city's anti-terrorism forces to be stretched to the limit. Naturally, American lives mean nothing when there are Iraqi despots to be saved.

Then on top of it, in a mind-boggling move, the article goes on to quote specific detailed instructions on how to cause disruptions in convention security. Inasmuch as I'm not a complete moron, I'm not going to reprint it here, but if you care to see just how egregious this whole thing really is, just follow the link to the article above (I assume that none of our readers are left-wing militants, right?).

(Hat tip: Blogs for Bush)

Written by: Beck

I must say, I've never heard of freelance uranium mining before, but it doesn't especially surprise me that a horrible accident resulted.

Part of an east Congo uranium mine has collapsed, killing at least eight miners digging there illicitly, authorities said Monday.

The collapse occurred Friday at the Shinkolobwe mine, an open pit honeycombed with tunnels. News reached the capital only Monday because of poor roads and communications in Congo.

That's right, the accident occurred on Friday, but news didn't make it to the capital until Monday. Now that's what I call a break-neck pace. Now as crazy as that all sounds, you may be thinking, surely this couldn't have been going on for very long? I mean, how much time can you productively go digging around closed mines?

The Shinkolobwe mine has been officially closed for decades, and its main shaft sealed.

President Joseph Kabila ordered the zone around the mine closed earlier this year amid growing concerns that unregulated nuclear materials could get into the hands of so-called rogue nations or terrorist groups.

That's right. Decades. At least it only took them until 2004 to realize that anonymous uranium mining might not be a good thing. Speaking of which, what do you think the odds are that miners practiced safe radioactive materials handling procedures? I mean, I realize that unprocessed uranium ore isn't especially dangerous, but it's still not exactly the sort of thing you want to be inhaling airborne flakes of and whatnot. And it's not like this was just a few people either.

Thousands of miners continue to work illegally in its tunnels, most in search of cobalt ore also found in the soil.

Six clandestine miners were pulled out safely after the mine collapsed Friday, said Mwema Teli, a safety official for the Congo government mines agency, by phone.

You heard it here first folks: clandestine miners.

Written by: Goemagog

On Friday, the government reported more such incidents for the first half of 2004 than for all of 2003.

Goe, can't sleep.

Written by: Beck

Frankly, I think this latest invention will be quite helpful to police and the military. It'll likely save quite a few lives. Nonetheless, I can't help but twitch anytime the state acquires new powerful weapons with which to control the unruly masses.

A hi-tech device that can bring speeding cars to a halt at the flick of a switch is set to become the latest weapon in the fight against crime.

Police forces in Britain and the US have ordered tests of the new system that delivers a blast of radio waves powerful enough to knock out vital engine electronics, making the targeted vehicle stall and slowly come to a stop...

Tomorrow, at the Euroem 2004 science conference in Germany, Dr Giri will describe recent trials of the device. The tests proved that the system could stop vehicles from up to 50 metres away.

The bulk of the device is designed to fit in a car boot and consists of a battery and a bank of capacitors that can store an electrical charge. Flicking a switch on the dashboard sends a burst of electricity into an antenna mounted on the roof of the car. The antenna then produces a narrow beam of intense radio waves that is directed at the vehicle ahead.

When the radio waves hit the targeted car, they induce surges of electricity in its electronics, upsetting the fuel injection and engine firing signals. "It works on most cars built in the past 10 years, because their engines are controlled by computer chips," said Dr Giri. "If we can disrupt the computer, we can stop the car." A prototype is due to be ready by next summer.

I can't help but wonder what sorts of other things get destroyed in the process (digital watches anyone?). Furthermore, how much does it cost to repair a car that's been stopped using this method? Regardless, expect for this nifty little gadget to be just another mundane part of life inside the next decade or so.

Written by: Beck

Actually, it's exactly what you think it is.

Discuss.

Written by: Beck

INCITE will be hosting the 54th weekly Bonfire of the Vanities this Tuesday. For those unfamiliar with the Bonfire, it's a collection of bloggers' worst posts of the week (voluntarily submitted mind you), and it's hosted at a different blog each week.

Email submissions to INCITE@gmail.com, or you can always just send them to bonfire@wizbangblog.com and they should get autoforwarded to me. Please include a trackback URL if applicable.

Written by: Speculator

A follow up on Beck's post, and subsequent comments, regarding tuition hikes.

Sicilian: The price elasticity of college tuition is a lot lower than you would think. One of the greatest tricks played by schools is the financial-aid game -- it all comes back to monthly payments that don't start in years, will be paid with that amazing, yet undefined, post-graduation salary, and are financed at extremely artificially low rates (the credit quality of underclassmen ranks with mine and they find financing at levels reserved for government agencies). While scores of would-be students do not for a moment consider certain classes of schools due to tuition rates, I believe you would be hard pressed to find prospective students actively engaged in pursuing a certain school to "fall off the bid" should they witness even sizeable tuition hikes -- this doesn't even begin to speak of the current students who would have almost prohibitive switching costs should they be forced to absorb large hikes while in school.

The school where I just recently finished my grad work is one of the nine private institutions that Moody's has assigned its highest credit rating-Aaa. The chief reason this school has this rating is because of its operating margin, which is published at 19%. (The reason I have this information, which you would correctly imagine is held under lock and howitzer, is because I got the chance to be involved with their recent $250MM bond offering.) Interesting to note that an organization can sustain a 19% operating margin and still find classification as "non-profit".

I have heard people within the sphere of academia claim that actual tuition costs for a school are about twice the tuition rates listed, that is, if true costs were to be absorbed exclusively by students, rates would be 200% of what they are now. While I have been presented zero evidence of this, it seems to me to be reasonable to assume that students are not asked to incur the full costs of their studies.

Written by: Beck

Don't you just love history?

Written by: Beck

One question I get asked a lot is, "Beck, what do you think Jimmie "JJ" Walker of Good Times fame think of affirmative action (apart from dyn-o-mite)?" Well now I can tell you:

Minorities should be insulted by affirmative action! We are too intelligent to be held "back" by the shackles of the affirmative action mind set. California, Florida, and Michigan have stepped to the forefront and eliminated affirmative action from their university systems. Affirmative action has served as the tricycle of education, it's time to take off the training wheels. It's trivial that minorities aren't on game shows, but it's the tip of the iceberg. America, like these game shows, want the best and the brightest . And minorities can't do that by being held to lower standards and expectations.

Jimmie Walker has a blog, who'd'a thunk it?

(Hat tip: Ace of Spades)

Written by: Beck

I can still vaguely recall from grade-school history classes tales of Magellan's grueling passage through the straits which today bear his name. The amazing feat of navigation had an impact on both the local politics of the era and on the course of history in general.

The history behind narrow and winding body of water only adds significance to the USS Ronald Reagan's recent distinction as the first nuclear aircraft carrier to successfully navigate the straits.

It was an amazing two days capped by absolutely breathtaking scenes yesterday. This idea began with a nudge from the Chilean Navy. They told one of my officers at a planning conference some months ago we'd be foolish to do other than go through the Straits in the Winter. The storm track moves North and uncovers the Strait for the most part. My Navigator, Capt (sel) Terry Rucker, and his team attacked the plan and worked on it for months.

Read the rest for some amazing descriptions of the scenery and conditions on the two day long transit.



(Hat tip: Murdoc Online)

Written by: Goemagog

An excerpt from the rules of the Democratic Underground message boards:

Treat people with respect. Don't be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger

This, from a group based on believing conspiracy theories and other paranoid delusions. A group which champions genocide the world over, who think Howard Dean is a right-wing extremist, and that IngSoc is a desirable goal wanrs us against rudeness.

Goe, cause killing people is about as disrespectful as you can get.

Written by: Beck

The L.A. Lakers have announced their decision for a new coach to replace the departing Phil Jackson. Former Houston Rockets coach Rudy Tomjanovich will take over the helm for the Lakers. First of all, Rudy T shares in common with John Edwards the palpable fact that he was only the second choice. Before offering the job to Rudy T, they offered the job to Duke's Coach K. In a fantastic display of good taste, Coach K turned them down.

Worse than that, however, is the fact that Tomjanovich is inheriting a gutted team. While he did manage to preside over two championships in Houston, his last four years with the Rockets failed to see a single playoff game. Now he finds himself in command of a team which has been a force in the championships for years, and will likely get to preside over a grizzly and painful rebuilding process. About the only thing Rudy T has going for him is the fact that L.A. doesn't have an aversion to spending money to get good players. I don't know how much good that will do, however, when you have to endure:

Kobe Bryant is an unrestricted free agent and Shaquille O'Neal has demanded a trade. Derek Fisher and Karl Malone are also unrestricted free agents.

I can't help but think that Tomjanovich is walking into a deathtrap. I'd only be more conflicted if somehow Houston wound up signing Kobe Bryant.

Written by: Beck

My guess is it's just a function of the maximum length of our attention span.

In less than a week's time, three of my favorite blogs have gone to the elephant graveyard. In case you were wondering, the elephant graveyard is the mythical place where right wing bloggers go to die. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what Kippling had in mind. Anyway, say, "Good bye," to We Are Full of Shit, Rachel Lucas, and The Sicilian (no parting message to link to). Perhaps at some later date they'll come to their senses (or be overwhelmed by their outrage) and return to the online world. In the mean time, I'd like to wish them the best of luck in whatever it is they do now that they have spare time again (I expect an autographed copy of the book Blow Hard).

Either that, or I'll find some way to get them all to join me in writing for INCITE. And so what if Rachel Lucas has never even heard of me.

Written by: Beck

I read a story earlier that's been nagging at me all day. You see, the story isn't all that interesting in and of itself. Basically, it shows that college tuition continues to rise at a greater rate than inflation. Frankly, it would be surprising if tuition costs held steady. In order to be even remotely useful, modern universities need to be on the technological cutting edge, and while general technology costs have dropped, the price of cutting edge never goes down.

But that isn't the point of this post. The point of this post is that lawmakers are idiots. Earth shattering, isn't it? But really, these people are stupid. Our elected officials--the people we voluntarily choose to lead us (that is the point of democracy after all, being able to choose your own leaders)--often have only managed to survive this long because they've lived lives where others are continually putting fresh food in front of them. As Speculator once said about a mutual acquaintance of ours, the only reason these people are still alive is because they live in walking distance of a grocery store. Sorry, am I beginning to repeat myself? My point is that we elect some dumb people. And here's how that all relates to the article linked above:

Anger over tuition inflation has caught the attention of lawmakers in Washington, where Congress is considering reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Rep. Buck McKeon, R-California [ed: big surprise that this guy's from California, republican or no], recently proposed penalizing colleges for tuition increases. He withdrew the proposal in March, but pledged to reinstate it if the trend didn't slow.

That's brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Penalize colleges for raising tuition when the only way they can pay for things like, you know, penalties, is via tuition. Which they would then, you see, have to raise. Fucktards.

Written by: Beck

For some reason, the press seemed to ease up on their daily shouting of the current tally of deaths in Iraq. It happened right around combat death #800 when one news anchor devoted an entire program to reading the names of the American servicemen killed in action (for some reason I can't for the life of me find a link). My guess is that the major media outlets realized Americans were beginning to suffer from casualty fatigue--the numbers had begun to cease meaning anything to people inundated with the latest statistic a dozen times a day from a dozen different sources. So instead, the media decided to quiet down for a while, give people a chance to forget about the exact number, and then ambush everyone on the day that the death toll reaches 1000.

My theory seems to have already begun to play out. You see, it's tough to put a finger on just one death toll number. You have two different pools to draw from--all coalition troops or only American troops--then you can further break it down by combat deaths or overall deaths. The milestone you'll reach first is "total multinational fatalities from all causes," and the last is "total American combat fatalities." I had already begun to suspect that virtually every news organization out there already had a story ready to fly as soon as the benchmark passed. CNN, not to be outdone by anyone else, is quick on the trigger with the first 1000 deathcount milestone.

In a grim milestone, the number of deaths in the American-led coalition in Iraq surpassed 1,000 this week.

The latest reported deaths include a U.S. soldier who died from wounds in fighting Thursday in Baghdad, an American soldier killed in a Samarra attack Wednesday and another who died in a nonbattle-related incident Thursday.

The deaths bring multinational fatalities -- both in combat and "nonhostile" situations -- to 1,002 since the start of the war in March 2003. U.S. military deaths now total 881.

Notice how they wait until the third paragraph to explain just which count of casualties they're discussing? The most important milestone, American combat losses, likely won't be crossed for another month or two. Believe me, when we reach that point, you'll hear about it. From everyone. Simultaneously. We're talking Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound(tm) here.

Written by: Beck

Saddam Hussein may have ordered the code red, but Americans neither want to hear, see, nor read about it. At least, that's the case according to a recent study.

Half of Americans object to the online availability of graphic war images, though millions have actively sought them out, a new study finds...

According to the random telephone-based survey of 2,200 adult Americans, conducted May 14 to June 17:

--Internet users approve of the images' availability by 47 percent to 44 percent, which is within the margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Only 29 percent of non-users approve having the photos, while 58 percent disapprove.

--Fifty-three percent of men approve, compared with 29 percent among women.

--Fifty-two percent of adults under 30 approve, while only 31 percent of those 50 or over do.

--Fifty-two percent of Democrats and 53 percent of independents were OK with having the images, compared with 42 percent of Republicans.

Here's something I'd like these people to explain to me: how exactly does one object to the existence of online material? I mean, the internet isn't a government body or a corporation, it's a bunch of independently operated computers all wired together. To suggest that the availability of specific online content is objectionable is to suggest that you object to your own actions, what with how online content has to be actively sought out.

Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that people need to be confronted by the harsh realities of Islamofascism as often as possible to remind them just what sort of enemy we are faced with. Actually, what's really occurring is that Americans have grown so used to being coddled and handed their bad news in bite-sized easily digestible doses. Then when something truly shocking & eye-opening comes along, they get upset that Big Mother wasn't there to protect them (often despite the fact that they were actively seeking it out in the first place). Don't imagine for a second that our enemies don't understand this principle.

Written by: Goemagog

The International Court of Justice, in what is claimed to be a typographical error, declared judaism illegal, and ordered the United Nations to disassemble them, by machete if necessary.

In other news, Chirac says, "It's good to hate the French.

Goe, needs to eat something.

Written by: Beck

Kerry's selection of Edwards as running mate doesn't make any sort of especially good sense which is very upsetting for the political cognoscenti. Edwards compliments Kerry in the sense that he's younger, more charismatic, and more energetic (or at least that's how people describe him, I'm yet to buy into the notion that John Edwards is somehow the most compelling public speaker since Abraham Lincoln). However, he doesn't bring any new demographics to the board, and is widely considered incapable of even bringing his home state's electoral votes to the table.

Despite all this, the talking heads are trying to cobble together creative explanations in an attempt to demonstrate that Kerry couldn't possibly be that stupid. Ken Bode, writing for the Indianapolis Star, is typical. Bode's explanation? Kerry really picked Edwards... out of a desire to carry the Midwest!

During the primaries, Kerry offered two political calculations: first, Democrats are mistaken to think they can win in the South, and second, that John Edwards couldn't carry his home state of North Carolina. He was right on both.

In most Southern states, the GOP margins of victory in 2000 are far too large to overcome. Gore, a son of the South at the top of the ticket, couldn't carry his own state. North Carolina voted for George Bush by 13 points last time. It will be no rap on Edwards if he does not carry his home state.

A GOP spokesman said the Edwards selection represents a political calculation. True, but the target is the Midwest, not the South.

Americans are beginning to understand the Electoral College better than they had ever thought necessary. Consider the math. The Midwest clout more than rivals the South. Six states in this region -- Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Missouri -- were won or lost last time by 5 percent or less.

The Democrats must defend this territory, must hold what they have and gain if possible. This is the part of America where job losses have been most extreme and where voters are most pessimistic on the question of whether America is on the right or wrong track.

Bode, attempts to explain that Edwards' "message" will play well in the Midwest. What Bode fails to explain is how John Edwards could somehow play better in the Midwest than, say, Dick Gephardt, arguably the Senator with the closest ties to the powerful labor unions of the region. Bode does have one legitimate observation to make, however, though I would argue he's drawing the wrong conclusions.

One good thing about all this is that the vice presidential debate in Cleveland ought to be a doozy.

With his recent instruction to Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor and his scolding audiences to quiet down and listen on the campaign trail, Cheney is beginning to look like a grumpy uncle. Contrast this to the boylike Edwards and his happy warrior act. If they sold tickets to this vice presidential debate, the scalpers in Cleveland would make a fortune.

Written by: Beck

I do believe the DNC owes some cashola to Bill over at INDC Journal.

Last night, I received the following e-mail:

Date: 7/7/2004 17:44:09 -0400
From: "DNCC Gallery" dnccgallery@dems2004.org
To: bill@indcjournal.com
Subject: Urgent: DNCC Press Gallery Notification

Dear William:

Last week you were sent a credential allocation letter not properly
authorized by the DNCC for press coverage of the 2004 Democratic
National Convention.

Upon further review of the overall site capacity at the FleetCenter, we
are no longer able to issue your organization a DNCC Press Gallery
Credential. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

Again, we thank you for your interest in covering the 2004 Democratic
National Convention and wish you well in your endeavors.

Sincerely,

Francesca Gage and Michael Hurlbut
Directors of the DNCC Press Gallery

I can easily believe that the DNC made an honest mistake and tried to correct it as soon as possible. They weren't quick enough to prevent Bill from spending some money in anticipation, however, and if they're smart, they'll help make good on the debt. And what kind of name is "Hurlbut" anyway?

(Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

Written by: Beck

As I said several days ago, John Edwards brings absolutely nothing to the table.

Forty-eight percent of 1,008 likely voters polled by Zogby from July 6-7 supported Kerry and Edwards and 46 percent back Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The two percentage-point margin is within the poll's 3.1 percentage point margin of error and matches the two point spread in a Zogby poll taken June 2-5. [ed: Emphasis mine.]

Can you imagine the polls remaining unchanged if the VP announcement involved Hillary, McCain, or even Gephardt? In the short term, this failure to help doesn't translate directly into causing harm. Down the stretch, however, as people begin to perceive Kerry & Edwards as being basically one interchangeable human being, the lack of distinctiveness, personality, flavor, etc., is going to harm the ticket's chances. Even a controversial pick, which could cause short-term harm, would potentially have better long-term appeal.

(Hat tip: Protein Wisdom)

Written by: Beck

Basically, someone appears to have cleverly adapted a Myers-Briggs personality sorter into a new system which, among other things, has the virtue of requiring 20 questions rather than 70. Further, the quiz doesn't so much ask questions as ask you to rate pairs of words on a spectrum. Just go look at the quiz yourself if that isn't clear.

Of the 16 possible personality archetypes, I fell under the one I would have chosen. Possible types include Golden God, Enemy of the State, People's Advocate, Anarchist, Paul Begala, Hacker, Candle burning at both ends, Menace to Society, Ayn Rand ideal, Mob Boss, Politician, Dictator, White House staffer, Fountain of Knowledge, Hippie, and Evil Genius.

My results:

You are an SEDF--Sober Emotional Destructive Follower [ed: the first category is a reading of the Sober-Wacky axis and should just be thought of as new names for the introvert-extrovert personality types. I've been accused of many things, but sobriety has never been one of them].

This makes you an evil genius. You are extremely focused and difficult to distract from your tasks. With luck, you have learned to channel your energies into improving your intellect, rather than destroying the weak and unsuspecting.

Your friends may find you remote and a hard nut to crack. Few of your peers know you very well--even those you have known a long time--because you have expert control of the face you put forth to the world. You prefer to observe, calculate, discern and decide. Your decisions are final, and your desire to be right is impenetrable.

You are not to be messed with. You may explode.

Amusingly, I found a link to this quiz originally from A Small Victory, the author of which falls under the exact same category as I do.

Feel free to cut & paste your own results into the comments.

Update: Another great quote from the same site offering that quiz:

It's OK to be a jerk, as long as you're a funny jerk. Just remember that the difference between a jackass and an asshole is a jackass doesn't know what he's doing.

Be the very best asshole you can be, my friend.

Written by: Goemagog

Inequality, Poverty Fuelling Spread of Aids

I thought someone had already told them that they could limit the spread of AIDS by keeping their dicks in their pants, loincloths, whatever.

"Mrs Annan said women in Africa need to stand up and fight for inequalities, which make them vulnerable to HIV/Aids."

What about unprotected sex with whomever comes along? Shouldn't they try to discourage that?

Goe, cause at least it's not rabies.

Written by: Speculator

Have you seen the latest cover of TIME Magazine?

If not, here it is.

What a smug fuck. What a haughty, arrogant fuck.

Written by: Beck

I would not want to be this guy. You figure SOMEONE has to wind up being the media contact, but after seeing what can happen to reporters after the execution of Daniel Pearl, it's not exactly the most stress-free job in the world.

"I certainly go out there and expose myself. I've been to the safe houses. I surrender myself to their control. I've sat in living rooms face-to-face with these men," [Michael Ware] said.

"Maybe I am too close to all of this. I've been this close, and it terrifies me. It terrifies me on a personal level and it terrifies me in terms of what we are up against. This is far more serious, far more organized, committed, than many of us realized."

They can't possibly be paying this man enough.

Everyone has seen this coming since the collapse of Enron back in November-December of 2001. Still, it seems momentous that Ken Lay has finally officially been indicted.

"I have been advised that I have been indicted," Lay said through a spokeswoman. "I will surrender in the morning. I have done nothing wrong, and the indictment is not justified."

Whatever you say Kenny. How long until we see, "I have been advised that I have been sodomized by a giant drunken hillbilly named Jimbo," Lay said through a spokesman.

This news, if accurate, is worrying. Congressmen have warned the Pentagon that troop levels are critically tight. Why it is exactly that lawmakers are informing the Pentagon rather than the other way around escapes me at the moment. Nonetheless, the details in this article are grounds for concern.

Defense Department officials testified at a committee hearing about troop rotations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The session followed last week's announcement that the Army was calling up soldiers who had already served in the Middle East.

Stretched by war needs, the Pentagon already had declared a "stop-loss" to prevent troops from leaving once they have finished their obligation.

The Army in April broke a promise to some active-duty units, including the 1st Armored Division, that they would not have to serve more than 12 months in Iraq. It also has extended the tours of other units, including some in Afghanistan.

Written by: Beck

What's more fun than guessing the date on which a deposed dictator will be executed? Winning a prize for it.

Written by: Goemagog

Yeah, yeah, we all know the fascist Sauron recently went public with his support of Sarumon as co-evil-dictator. But the halflings are under attack, being eaten by the evil uruk-hai. The traditional guardians of the munchkins were eating, and unable to help.

"You should try some of this tasty meat the uruk-hai left behind!" said the ranger spokesman, who requested anonymity. "This is yummy!"

Pushing away a starving child, he continued, "Why doesn't Rohan do something to help. They do nothing but ride their horses around all day. Are you sure you don't want something to eat? Saving lives makes me really hungry!"

Minas Morgul issued a statement denying any involvement, saying it's armies were doing their master's work elsewhere.

Goe, against genocide.

Written by: Goemagog

Lance don't.

Goe, cause the french can't even win a rigged race.

Written by: Speculator

Please Sam, tell me you haven't done anything rash.

Written by: Goemagog

Strategy developed by Rufus T. Firefly, explained and modified thusly.

Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches. Wait a minute, get them this high [gestures to his chin] and our soldiers won't need any pants. Wait a minute, get them this high [gestures over his head] and we won't need any soldiers.

Goe, stole this from someone he knows in real life.

Written by: Beck

• It may have taken them decades to realize it, but the medical community has made a startling revelation: the main ingredients in cough syrup are ineffective. Naturally, the medical community has gotten things completely backwards. They used the wrong criteria to determine effectiveness: they only attempted to gauge the extent to which cough syrup prevents coughing. What are they thinking? Everyone knows you take cough syrup to get fucked up.
  

  The two ingredients are dextromethorphan -- often listed on labels as "DM" -- and diphenhydramine, an antihistamine. The former is the most common nonprescription cough suppressant on the U.S. market, and commonly abused by adolescents who try to get high on cough medicine.
  

• You have no idea how long I've been hoping to hear something like this.
  

  A previously unknown militant group in Iraq is threatening to kill the most-wanted terror suspect in that country: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
  
  The Arabic-language TV network Al-Arabiya said it received a taped statement from an organization that calls itself the Rescue Group warning al-Zarqawi and his followers to leave Iraq or face the consequences.
  
  One masked militant read a stamen denouncing the actions by al-Zarqawi and his followers as hurtful to Iraq, particularly the kidnapping of foreigners.
  
  The group has called for the killing of the Jordanian-born al-Zarqawi if he doesn't leave Iraq.
  

  As far as I know, this group is just a CIA front, but frankly, if it is, then it's about time the CIA started earning their paychecks.


• Some good news from Iraq for once.


• Even more good news.


• But of course, you can't end things on a good note right? If there's one thing I've learned from ABC, CBS, and NBC it's that negative news gets ratings. So here's a little something which nicely illustrates what's wrong with low-level law enforcement in America today. Police officers are so busy patrolling the streets to make absolutely certain that no speeder goes unticketed that people whose rights (e.g. life) are actually threatened often go unprotected.
  

  A community college professor was shot to death in front of an empty police station by her husband, who then committed suicide, police said.
  
  Debra Allen Vazquez, 50, had driven to police headquarters to get help, but all officers were on assignment at the time, authorities said.
  

  Well hey boys, don't get down on yourselves about failing to provide your primary job function. At least the doughnut shops were all safe & sound.

Written by: Beck

Which is why it surprises the hell out of me. John Kerry has finally named his running mate. Everyone and his dog has had plenty to say on the topic so far, and I've nothing new to contribute beyond one observation: since when does the general consensus projection of a VP pick ever wind up being a good VP pick? John Edwards has way too much in common with John Kerry. The two may have completely different backgrounds, but listening to one speak is no different from listening to the other speak apart from a minute discrepancy of accent.

I'll say this right now: John Edwards was the worst possible selection for John Kerry's VP choice. He's the safe choice. He's bland, he's friendly, he's from a vaguely different region of the United States, he's guaranteed not to offend a soul. There is absolutely nothing about this man to care about. Kerry needs to electrify people. He's managed to just about convince the entire United States that George Bush is the greatest yet dumbest nefarious mastermind since Mike Myers' Dr. Evil, but still can't get anyone to like him. When the chips are down, everyone knows in their heart of hearts (and I hate that expression I'll have you know) that if John Kerry is president, every American's chance of a sudden violent death increases astronomically over those chances under a Bush presidency.

Democrats need a reason to get out of bed and vote this November. The independent and undecided voters need a reason to decide that the Democrats offer something more valuable than increased odds of survival if they're going to be drawn away from Bush. A Hillary Clinton or a John McCain might have achieved that. The only thing John Edwards brings to the table is the Carolinas and another guy in Washington named "John". And don't be too sure about the Carolinas. After all, Gore couldn't even carry Tennessee.

Written by: Speculator

So, what's the play should our country suffer another massive attack, similar to Sep 11?

Victor Hanson (I don't subscribe to the three-name reference or address - if you currently ask your fellow man to address you with a hat-trick of names, rethink things) raises a key point: there has been precious little discussion of our response should, what has now almost been termed "the inevitable", happen.

Hanson suggests that deterrence still trades with those waging jihad. Not directly, of course, but as local chapters of the radical group du jour have yet to arrange divine sustenance, they require funding from states. If these states are to understand in clear terms the consequences of their affiliations, they would find reason for pause, so goes Hanson:

What to do? The key for the United States - in very quiet and deferential tones, in private, and to the albeit illegitimate leaders of these relevant countries - is to convey the message that if there should be a repeat of 9/11, the United States will hold any countries responsible who are proved to have aided or sheltered any of the guilty. Now what does that overused and near-meaningless phrase "hold responsible" really mean? (emphasis original)

Perhaps it would be best to inform hostile countries right now of a (big) list of their assets - military bases, power plants, communications, and assorted infrastructure - that will be taken out in the aftermath of another attack, a detailed sequence of targets that will be activated when the culpable terrorists' bases and support networks are identified and confirmed.

Both sides should anticipate the consequences should another 3,000 Americans be incinerated at work.

I like the idea. We should have an established SOP published so as to be understood by the entire global community. And we better damn well have the fortitude to execute it to the letter (this is the exclusive reason that abstaining from voting in this year's upcoming because of your hang-ups with the current administration, albeit potentially legitimate, is just wrong).

I however do not agree with Hanson's requirement that these radical groups exist at the exclusive gifting of states. I believe that we have inadvertently forgotten just how easy, from an operational and fiscal standpoint, it was to execute 9/11 (it seems to me that the only two other ingredients were suicidal delusion and extreme amounts of patience, often complimentary traits). We seem to have arrived at an undiscussed assumption that the sophistication of the attacks must be commensurate with the results. It simply took the tragic amalgamation of specific variables, the biggest being the fact that you could board a plane in Portland, ME with a predictable lax amount of inspection, and be given system-wide access to the domestic air-travel system.

We have a much more rigorous and homogenous screening system in place today. This creates additional problems and costs for would-bes. A good debate would be found in discussing whether this is a key part of the reason we have gone almost 3 years without a repeat attack. I don't know. I often think of the reasons why we have not revisited 9/11 and I cannot come to a clear determination (I do believe it has a great deal to do with the increased complications in trying to enter this country, which should only be enhanced). But, while I agree in having a globally-understood US reaction set, should we find evidence of a state-funded operation, where does that leave us if we are to be attacked by a group exclusively funded by the Elk's Clubs of Greater Damascus? What would be our legitimate response? Would it be to punish the country that had such a negligent police force? Would it be to begin installing our own paramilitary training efforts in problematic countries? Or would it be something so, gasp, rash as to understand and execute upon the idea of extermination?

I believe our over-subscribed assumption of the necessity of state sponsorship in global terrorism is a dangerous faith.

Written by: Beck

Who says CNN isn't worth reading?

• Nifty telescope you have there. Hope it doesn't, you know, burn to the ground or anything.


• Are you supposed to take protestors more seriously when they're not wearing any clothes? I'm rather glad this isn't happening in the states. God knows, those moonbats are about the last people I'd want to see naked.


• And people wonder why I weep for the future of our society. I can't believe this argument still gets taken seriously.


• Human rights vanishing one by one, naturally starting in Massachusetts.


• McCain continues to enjoy his new career as a professional at making presidential candidates wet themselves with excitement.


• Another reason for conservatives to dislike Nurse Bloomberg.


• It turns out that sometimes there are higher values than money--and people who act on them.


• Asinine. Really people. This is not art.


• Gee, I wonder if this is going to piss anybody off.


• This:
  

  A poetry-writing, guitar-playing ex-general named Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has taken the early lead in...
  

  is not the beginning of some random scrap from a Douglas Adams book. In fact, it is non-fiction. The line continues:
  

  Indonesia's first direct presidential election, but a September runoff looks likely.



• Finally, the political world is all atwitter over speculation about Kerry's Vice-Presidential selection. And I still don't give a shit.

Written by: Goemagog

NEWS FROM FRANCE.

The five Harry Potter books - enormously successful in French translation - are stiffed with "neo-liberal stereotypes" which caricature approvingly the "excesses of the Anglo-Saxon social model", Yocaris said.

France stands up to IngSoc's tyranny! Down with those pesky liberals and their Anglo-Saxon social model! IngSoc is not for the frogs! Frogs have higher standards! Frogs demand... A SWAMP, where stagnation and decay are the norm!

Yocaris says that the Harry Potter books are an example of the totalitarian universe imagined by George Orwell, come to life.

The totalitarian universe of English Socialism, referred to by Orwell as "IngSoc", to differentiate it from French Socialism, i.e. "SmellySoc". IngSoc is characterized by Orwell as having chronic shortages, a population comprised mostly of slaves ("proles"), a government which kills anyone who even thinks about dissenting, and no soap.


So which part do the french disagree with?


I'll give you a hint, it's not the lack of soap!

Thus all representatives of the state (the Ministry of Magic) are lampooned as ridiculous, or incompetent or sinister. Harry goes to a "private" school, whose "micro-society" is a "pitiless jungle" which glorifies "individualism, competition and a cult of violence".

...

"Capitalism is now trying to shape, after its own taste, not only the real world, but the imaginary world of its consumer-citizens."

The French are against the individualism imposed by the tyranny of IngSoc. Thinking bad things about the government is punishable by death under IngSoc, but France believes that to be too individualistic! Being enslaved inside their own skulls isn't good enough for frogs, state control must run deeper!

Under IngSoc, there is no competition, but that's too much for France!

Under IngSoc, "War is Peace". For France, war is a festival where everyone waves white flags! What violence could there possibly be in France's Festival of the White Flag? Far less than the cult of violence called "peace"!


IngSoc is a horrible thing, and that's why Orwell wrote 1984. He wanted to warn people about the oppression needed to sustain a socialist state. The French don't see this as a warning but as a starting point, and intend to go far beyond the tyranny of Orwell's 1984.

Of course, you may ask who I am assuming speaks for France. I gave you a link above, but not everyone follows links, so I'll include that as well.

Ilias Yocaris, of the Institut Universitaire de Formation de Maitres (secondary teacher training school) in Nice.

...

Yocaris, one of the people responsible for training the next generation of French teachers

The frogs are not being taught this by just the thousands, generations of frogs are being taught that Orwell's imaginary IngSoc tyranny permits too much freedom and individuality.

This is not an isolated example.

Goe, because we know freedom's enemy, and it is France.

Written by: Goemagog

could a rolling robot?

Goe, thinks keith richards has gathered too much moss.

Written by: Goemagog

"In perusing newspapers and websites regarding current events, one would be led to believe that all Christians are right-wing Republicans and that all Democrats and "leftists" are Godless Communists. In fact, qiute the reverse is true."(sic)

With minds that work out such complicated logic, it's no wonder that they still believe liberty belongs in a gulag.

Goe, mocking the DU because it's just so easy this early in the morning.

Written by: Goemagog

Is there an answer to A Cry in the Dark?

Inquiring minds want to know.
And, damnit, so do I.

Goe, wantsta know.

Written by: Beck

Don't I wish.

(Hat tip: Allah)

Written by: Goemagog

Army Times - Guard and Reserve - News: "The government is currently trying a program that gives reservists access to full military health care benefits while on active duty."

Maybe they figured out that Iraqi and Afghan doctor's usually don't take Blue Cross. That the Army will so openly document it's substandard treatment of reservists is a bit alarming. An incoming round is an incoming round, and I am definately against the Army's second-class soldier policy. But then, I think the reserve components should not be called up on any noteworthy scale without being augmented by draftees.

Goe, favors starting up the draft so we can "fix" Syria, Lebanon, Iran, et al.

Written by: Beck

We've got a new blogger working at INCITE. You've probably seen his writing in the comments section in the past, and I've known the guy for several years. Anyway, everyone welcome Goemagog, and I hope you enjoy his stuff. One minor word of warning: he is not fond of the French. REALLY not fond.

Technically speaking, this wont be the first time something written by go has seen the main page of INCITE.

Written by: Goemagog

Polish soldiers play tourist, go shopping, get witty t-shirts, chemical weapons, and dysentery.

Goe, found this on the Corner.

Written by: Goemagog

If the government bans immunizations as a jewish plot to sterilize muslims, would the ensuing outbreak be the wrath of God? Or just Khan?

Goe, mostly hates the french.

Written by: Beck

One of this site's regular commenters is a Korean War vet named Walter. Posting will remain light, but I wanted to put something up on the front page which he originally left in the comments. The War on Terror has been going on for a long time--America may have come a little late to the fight, but we're in it now.

July 4, 1976 the final collapse of freedom in South Vietnam was well under way as the 200th birthday of the United States dawned. It was a sad day, freedom was in full defeat through the world.

For freedom lovers everywhere, one bright spot was unfolding. In Entebbe, Uganda, Israeli Lt Col. Yonatan Netanyahu led a force that freed a planeload of hostages from sure execution by Palestinian terrorists. In a plan audacious in its planning and heroic in execution, the hostages were rescued and extracted to freedom. 2 hostages died during the assault, and Col. Netanyahu was a final casualty.

When news of the rescue came out, I was heartened with the news that the whole world had not reverted to craven poltroonery. There were brave men with brave governments still around. Just not, temporarily, here at home.

Thanks, Johnny
Walter E. Wallis

Lest any enemy of the United States--external or otherwise--ever think otherwise, we're still willing to fight for our independence today over 225 years later.

Written by: Beck

Two things. First, I'm house sitting this entire week, and the only internet connection I have is a 26.4k dial-up, so don't count on a whole heck of a lot of activity out of me. Second, this post makes 500 posts for INCITE since its inception. Yay us!

Written by: Beck

"Ooh! Pick me! I know this one!" says Saddam at his first public appearance since his hit performances in "Out of the Spider Hole" and "Say Aah!"

Saddam Hussein was finally dragged before an Iraqi court today to hear preliminary charges against him. True to from, Saddam reminded us all why he's everyone's favorite wacky-Iraqi. He's had over a year to work on material, so we should expect nothing but the best from the deposed strongman.

When he was ushered into the court, the judge asked him his name and twice he said, "I am Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq."

This prompted gales of laughter after which an appreciative Saddam said, "Thank you folks, thank you, I'll be here all week." The tribunal then went on to enumerate the one or two naughty things from Saddam's past which they expect him to feel a bit naughty about.

The former dictator listened to seven preliminary charges outlined in his arrest warrant -- the killing of religious figures in 1974; gassing of Kurds in Halabja in 1988; killing the Kurdish Barzani clan in 1983; killing members of political parties in the last 30 years; the 1986-88 "Anfal" campaign of displacing Kurds; the suppression of the 1991 uprisings by Kurds and Shiites; and the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

In response, Saddam objected to listing the invasion of Kuwait amongst all his other crimes. The rest of it he was inclined to agree with, but man, those Kuwaitis had it coming!

Saddam challenged the judge on the invasion of Kuwait, saying: "How could you say that? I did that for the Iraqi people ... how could you defend these dogs," he said, referring to the Kuwaitis.

Come on Saddam, surely you have more to say on the topic than that? I want some insane-dictator style old-fashioned rhetoric here! I mean, you've gotta EARN that two drink minimum buster.

Saddam said Kuwait had been trying to bring down the price of oil and turn Iraqis into paupers and Iraqi women into prostitutes.

OK, that's more like it. So, Saddam, what do you think of this court which will likely see you hanged some day?

"This is all a theater" designed by President Bush, whom he called a criminal, to win re-election, said Saddam, looking around the court with a half-smile during one outburst.

Well, we know Saddam doesn't think the invasion of Kuwait constitutes any kind of crime, but what does he think about using WMD to gas his own people in the 80's? I'm glad you asked.

Saddam also referred to the accusation of gassing Kurds.

"I heard about that on the television reports, saying it happened during the rule of President Saddam Hussein," he told the judge.

Ah the old "I heard about that on TV" defense. No wonder this guy managed to hold onto the reigns of power for over 30 years. Crafty bugger.

In March 1988, Iraqi warplanes bombed the northern Iraqi town of Halabja. More than 5,000 people reportedly were killed in the attack, which used multiple chemical agents, according to international scientists.

Naturally, the international community isn't so much disturbed by a man who would kill 5,000 of his own people in a single incident as they are concerned about Americans killing armed terrorists. Perhaps if Bush had randomly fire bombed an Iraqi city, "To make an example out of them," or something, Bush would be more popular.

And of course, one of the golden rules of stand-up comedy, you always want to finish with some of your strongest material.

In another exchange, the former dictator said no one had the authority to strip him of his title of president if he is being accused of committing the crimes while he was in office. "I'm elected by the people of Iraq. The occupation cannot take that right away from me," he said.

In court, each time Saddam wanted to speak, however, he was respectful, saying "please" and making a hand gesture as well to indicate that.

I can just see it now. "I am the president! May I please have permission to go to the bathroom!?"

Written by: Beck

Republicans, upset at the behavior of their chief rivals the Republicans, have decided to take their ball and go home. At least that's the way it seems, given that we control both houses of congress but can't even seem to get a budget passed. I mean, it IS the primary function of congress, right? That and declaring wars. They seem to have the second half down pretty well, time to move onto other things. Not surprisingly, John McCain is at the center of things.

With deficits soaring to record levels, this year's snarl occurred when McCain (R-France) and three other moderate GOP senators demanded a requirement that any future tax cuts be paid for with spending cuts or tax increases. Joining him were Sens. Lincoln Chafee, (R-Saturn), plus Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both (R-Lunchbox).

Only a politician could talk with a straight face about paying for tax cuts with tax increases. That must take some serious detachment from reality--further proof that there's something unhealthy about the air in Washington. And the sparks did fly...

But it was an emotional fight on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, (R-Binky), accused moderate Sen. John McCain, (R-Mommy), of not understanding sacrifice during wartime, prompting McCain -- the former Vietnam prisoner of war -- to question his party's devotion to reducing deficits.

I have to admit, it does take balls to accuse a former Vietnam P.O.W. of not understanding sacrifice during wartime. Naturally, this will all end up making the Republican party look especially silly, as they can't even arrive at an agreement with members of their own party.

Update: Andrew Sullivan sees this conflict as part of a broader civil war in the Republican party waiting to erupt.

Written by: Beck

It doesn't especially surprise me when Al-Jazeera or the Saudi Interior Ministry announce that the United States is a puppet of Israel, but I must say I'm a little surprised to hear it coming from someone who--in theory--is a serious presidential candidate.

"What has been happening over the years is a predictable routine of foreign visitation from the head of the Israeli government. The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington. The Israeli puppeteer meets with the puppet in the White House, and then moves down Pennsylvania Avenue, and meets with the puppets in Congress. And then takes back billions of taxpayer dollars. It is time for the Washington puppet show to be replaced by the Washington peace show."

After which, Nader declared that when he becomes president, monkeys will, in fact, fly out of his ass.

(Hat tip: Captain's Quarters)

Written by: Beck

Tom Brokaw somehow secured the privilege of interviewing the new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. You'd think these people would at least have the common sense to keep at bay the likes of Brokaw. The article on MSNBC about the interview is typical.

On Tuesday, NBC's Tom Brokaw spoke with new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who still believes that Saddam was connected to al-Qaida.

What's this Tom? Have you got your hands on some amazing piece of evidence showing that there were no ties between Saddam and Al Qaida, because all the other evidence in the news lately suggests that there were numerous connections. Oh, wait, I forgot, anything that comes out of Tom Brokaw's mouth instantly becomes fact since, well, he's Tom Brokaw damnit!

Brokaw: As long as the United States military remains a conspicuous presence in your country working hand in glove with the new Iraqi government, won't you always be seen really as an instrument of the U.S. military and therefore of America?

Wow, Brokaw, not even going to give him a fighting chance are you? The Iraqi government is already convicted and sentenced as American Stooges in the eyes of the international press. Another question:

Brokaw: Prime minister, I'm surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The 9/11 commission in America says there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al-Qaida.

The connection is that 9/11 prompted the War of Terror. And Saddam got in the way, what with how he was for all intents and purposes a terrorist himself. Allawi fielded the questions like a veteran diplomat, not giving Brokaw any satisfaction.

Allawi: No. I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al-Qaida. And these relations started in Sudan. We know Saddam had relationships with a lot of terrorists and international terrorism. Now, whether he is directly connected to the September--atrocities or not, I can't--vouch for this. But definitely I know he has connections with extremism and terrorists.

The media research center has even more, including information on how certain parts of Allawi's responses were edited.

(Hat tip: small dead animals, Ace of Spades)