Thematic Appropriateness at the RNC

At the RNC, they fill time between speakers (non prime-time) with knock-off artists doing covers. For example, a woman introduced as a "model, actress, and a champion long-board surfer" sang "I Got the Music In Me". That song begins:

Ain't got no trouble in my life,
No foolish dream to make me cry.
I'm never frightened or worried,
I know I'll always get by.

Now here is a song which apparently tells it all: Republicans aren't foolish enough to dream, they're happy to just muddle through.

The song goes on, later, to say:

I got words in my head so I say them
Don't let life get me down
Catch a hold of my blues and just play them.

So, again, we have Republicans who hear voices in their heads, and that's what's responsible for their annunciated policies. And, when their policies cause trouble for us, they turn around and complain about it.

War Without End

Much shifted this week. An article in the Sunday Times that, while we worried about Sadr's hold-outs in Najaf during August, Falluja and Ramadi (and much of the western Iraqi Province Anbar) were ceded by the US military to the Islamic militants. Sadr eventually gave-up Najaf to Sistani -- but it's still one more city that is not under the control of Allawi. This mind-blowing loss of political control has been lost in the din of the RNC in NY this week. The administration has not acknowledged it, nor announced any plan to deal with it.

Krugman gives it a name. We're losing Iraq. Allawai has no control in the country-side.

And then, David Brooks wrote this morning that this election is now about Courage: who has the guts to go after radical Islam worldwide. And the Republicans can win it with the simple statement that they have made over and over. We must wage aggressive war against worldwide radical Islam: Attack. Attack. Attack.

The optimist in me says Kerry will win this election. The pessimist in me says, if he does not, we will open up a generation of aggressive, American-led worldwide war against weak regimes, like Iraq, which are not promoting American interests. It's the neo-con utopia: Pax Americana.

A Simple Legal Question

Cipel --who had the gay affair with McGreevey, the announcement of which preceded the NJ governor's resignation -- has declared he will not sue for sexual harrassment. The statute of limitations (2 years since separation) expires on Monday.

Now, McGreevey resigned because -- and only because -- this bombshell (a gay affair with a poorly qualified and richly paid aide) would have ruined him politically. However, arguments have ensued regarding his Nov 15 resignation date: if he stepped down before Sept 3, the voters get a special election to replace him (very democratic, little d); after Sept 3, his term is filled out by the Senate President (a fellow Democrat, big D). Republicans criticise him for trumping little d with big D.

But, does the Nov 15 resignation date give him a shot at staying? McGreevey needed to nulllify this lawsuit, and announcing his resignation and coming out did just that -- the lawsuit threat has passed. Also, his announcement that he's gay was pretty much taken with a collective shrug -- so what?

My legal question is simple: are there legal conditions under which McGreevey can nullify his own announced resignation? Who accepts his resignation under New Jersey law? (Usually, me-thinks, it is the Supreme Court who accepts a resignation from an Executive.) Can they refuse it? Can McGreevey renege on it?

It would, in part, explain why he set his resignation date so far into the future -- it was meant to cover the statute of limitations for the lawsuit, and offer a suitable "cooling down" period, during which the political winds shift, making it safe to change tacks, and sail back into office.

The New Apple iMac

They did it again.

A new innovation in computer design. The new Apple iMac raised the bar in physical design, by doing away with the computer. The whole fricking thing -- G5 chips, hard-drive, CD/DVD-RW, is now inside the 17" or 20" display.

Highlights from the McCain Speech at the RNC

He started by quoting FDR, "To some generations, much is given; of others, much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny." He invoked 9/11, and the War against Terrorism, calling it a fight between right and wrong, good and evil.

We are engaged in a hard struggle against a cruel and determined adversary. Like all wars, this one will have its ups and downs. But we must fight. We must.

...

Those who criticize that decision say it was between war and a benign status quo. It was not. It was between war, and an even graver threat.

This was not understood by the war's critics. Certainly not a disingenuous filmmakers who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace. [This aroused a huge booo from the crowd; Michael Moore was in the press area, and he got a good laugh from the reaction.]

U.S. Rep. Ed Schrock Retires Instantly, Withdraws from Race, Doesn't Say Why.

U.S. Rep. Ed Schrock , one of the most conservative Republicans on the hill (from Virginia) summarily announced his resignation, and that he was withdrawing from his re-election race, citing "allegations" that will not allow him to focus on the issues.

What allegations? Oh, apparently, somebody recorded him using phone services to solicit gay sex.

Chit Collecting

The speaker's list is simply a list of people who need to burnish their Republican bona fides so that they can credibly make a run in 2008: McCain, Guliani, Bloomberg, Schwarzennegger (following a constitutional amendment) -- these all drop into the death hug with Bush. It's win-win: Bush needs to put a moderate face on, these guys need to say the pulled out the stop for Bush in 2004 to get party support in 2008.

Witching Hour Approaches

Y'all may recall that, at 5:30pm the Friday before the Democratic National Convention, the Pentagon announced that they hadn't, as they had previously claimed, destroyed Bush's payroll records for the summer he was in Alabama after all. And, examinations of those records showed Bush hadn't been paid. The military issues checks to people who show up to work, and no checks to people who don't. Thus, Bush clearly hadn't shown up.

Yet all this was pretty much lost in the press rush to the DNC.

So, you wonder: what embarrassing fact will the Kerry campaign release today, in the hopes it similarly gets lost in the RNC shuffle?

Nader Off The Pennsylvania Ballot (swing state, 21 EC votes).

Nader turned in 48,000 signatures
, but examination of 1300 of those so far have turned in 75% being invalid (forged, illegible, voter not registered, or voter not registered at the address indicated). Thus, he'll only have 12,000 signatures in a state where he needed 25,000 to make the ballot.

PA has 21 electoral college votes, and is considered a swing state. Gore won it in 2000.

Bush says I Want to Help McCain abolish 527s

Bush is getting shellacked by moveon.org, ACT, and other 527s. And, he's getting shellacked by Kerry for what the Swift Boat Veterans are saying. So, today, he says he wants to help McCain abolish them, first by suing them, then by making laws against them.

McCain's response?

He's not against 527s. Thinks they're just fine. Wants the President to condemn the Swift Boat Vets in particular, and not 527s in general.

All in Today's NYTiimes :

"I'm very appreciative of the president's effort to do that," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I want to emphasize if I could that we're not saying that 527s should be abolished. We're just saying they should live under the same campaign finance restrictions (as hard money groups) because they are engaged in partisan activity."

McCain added: "I've said before I would like for the president to specifically condemn that ad, but the president has said John Kerry served honorably and also the president is now committed to acting to try to bring 527s into regulations that are appropriate."

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Kerry continues to to defend against charges that he received his medals fraudulently, and Bush continues to deny responsibility for the ads. Even more ridiculously, Bush calls for the banning of all 527-funded ads, effectively "We should get rid of mouths", rather than he himself should stop lying.

Having a voice doesn't make you a liar, and Bush's -- and Republican's -- problem is that Dems organized these groups far more quickly and raise funds more adeptly than the Republicans did. And, maybe, Dems will *always* be able to do so. Republican's sure can get sugar daddy to drop $200K in a pinch, but it may just be that power is in the hands of the people after all -- and a million people stepping forward with $20 for a 527 (that's $20 million dollars for those keeping score at home) is broad-based support which Republicans do not have. Sure, maybe they can get 20 folks to put out $1M, but those folks will always be close friends of the party boss, and so they will always look like Republican party efforts -- which would make them legally vulnerable to accusations of skirting campaign finance laws.

Even so, you can't win elections screeching "Victim!". It makes you look weak, people think you're a whiner -- even when the whines are well justified (need evidence, look at McCain). When Bill Clinton effectively countered attacks in the '92 campaign, he spent no more than 1 day on the issue, then moved on. If Kerry doesn't get out of this rut before Sunday, when the GOP National Convention starts, "Victim" is how that slate of "nice" speakers are going to paint him.

Even more so, Kerry is carrying water which should be carried by John Edwards, and as Slate opines today, Edwards is not stepping up -- and so, is threatening to become the new Lieberman. Answering attacks is exactly what a VP candidate should be doing -- you're the campaign hatchet man. Dems have got an ex-trial lawyer as a VP candidate, he should know how to hold an axe handle, and yet he remains upbeat and positive.

He's Just Not Into You

WaPost. One of the writers of SEX IN THE CITY, along with a consultant for the show, is writing a book explaining the awful truth to women: if he doesn't call, he's just not into you.

Apparently, women -- as men, it should be said -- craft explanatory narratives, to justify why the phone remains silent after that great date, the promising first meeting. The hard reality is that the chemistry didn't happen, and he was not intoxicated.

Why this should be difficult to accept, in a culture which places high value on romantic love -- that is to say, love not based on rationalism -- is beyond me. Women want men to swoon over them because they add up, they're the total package, they're all a man could ever want. But if people fall in love for romantic reasons, then having the total package isn't a benefit -- it's irrelevant.

Recently, after drinks out on a third date (her invitation), a woman asked me up for tea. After our cups had cooled, I tossed out the question: "So, I had mentioned my making dinner on Saturday -- can you come over for dinner?" Silent smile. Protracted silence.

Ah. Well, maybe she has some issue of being alone with a guy in his apartment..... "Or, I can take you out to dinner?". Silent smile. Protracted silence. She replies: "I'll have to think about it."

When I've told this story to female friends of mine -- they always come up with justifying excuses: Maybe she just wasn't sure, she needs time to make up her mind, she had a bad experience. Maybe whatever. Make allowance for their baggage.

Folks, we had just had tea, and she was debating dinner. Really -- it wasn't that she was working out her weekly menu, or checking a calendar -- she just was so not into me.

The point of dating, is to make up your mind by having dinner together, and figuring out if you're sure. Not staying at home and musing over the finer points. The deal was: she was just not into me, kind, but timid.

My point, and I do have one: it's a turn off to be a turn-off and a turn-on to be a turn-on. If you're not getting the response you expect, it's because it's you. Move on.

For this we need a book?

We Don't Live Here Anymore

This movie will certainly be forwarded as the relationship drama of the season. Two couples -- played by Mark Ruffalo, Laura Dern, Peter Krause and Naomi Watts -- get bundled in a love quadrangle, and there's anger and recrimination.

While drama is dramatic, there's no reason for this film to be remembered in 5 years. The conflicts are the usual ones played in couple's films -- drama around how the adultery will be discovered, what the impact will be on the relationship and the children, on the friendship between the couples, will the couples survive. The characters are familiar -- the angry spouse in an unhappy marriage, the miserable spouse in the unhappy marriage, the one who postures maturity to be above it all, and the one trying to posture maturity but can't morally accept their own adultery. Ummmmmm.... okay.

Want to see a fascinating character study in destructive relationships and adultery? Rent WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? Wear armor, and be prepared to spend the next week in a deep depression.

Team America: World Police

A New York Times story on the new film project of Trey Parker and Matt Stone -- the creators of SOUTH PARK. It's a puppet movie in the paoridic vein. Website .

Avoiding the TSA Watch-List

US Representative John Louis had been stopped 35 times by the Transportation Safety Administration for questioning prior to flying. His entreaties to the Homeland Security Department went unheeded. But, all those problems ended when he added his middle initial when making flight reservations. Seems they're not interested in John R. Louis.

Bush Sells More Lies About Supporting Education -- "No Highschoolers Left Behind"

Remember "No Child Left Behind"? No, I mean the primary educational initiative that Bush shouted around the country during his 2000 election campaign and then failed to fund when he was President -- completely screwing up a generation of school kids -- not the motto itself, which Bush stole without permission from the Children's Fund.

Well, he's doing it again. This time, he aim's to fix all those struggling high school students. Forgetting that it was him that screwed them up in the first place.

Cue close-up of Bush, saying "And this time, I'll fully fund it (big wink)". Move off-stage as Bush joins his chuckling corporate buddies for a laugh and a brewski.


As Bush says himself: "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." This is standard Bush campaigning. Offer the programs as a sop to those people who -- if they care about the issues -- shouldn't vote for him, and then in office, pass it with the opposite party, and then yank its funding! What a used-car salesman.

Bush Administration Walks Out on Union Talks

Saying that they had a deadline to keep -- the Election -- Homeland Security management walked away from the bargaining table.


WaPost Article.

Why The Shrine at Najaf? Money

On the one hand, the US military is probably hesitant to attack al-Sadr and his fighters in the shrine in Najaf -- the most important shrine in Shiite Islam. However, there's an additional motivation: the Shrines in Islam are sites of pilgrammage, and those who control the Shrine also collect pilgrammage taxes.

After the fall of Saaddam, struggle for control of the shrine broke out, and now, al-Sadr controls the shrine in Najaf, and surely he wants to keep it that way. So, taking the shrine away from al-Sadr threatens his long-term and lucrative income.

Swift Boat Vets Actually Are A Front For the Bush Campaign

Sure, Kerry said it. But is it true?

Well, the NY Times reports that the group was funded by a longtime political associate of Karl Rove's and a fundraiser for Bush's father.

And People Ask Me, If I'm So Smart, Why Aren't I Rich?

On Google's First day on the Market, it has a capitalization greater than Lockheed Martin or General Motors.

I have no idea what money means in a universe like that.

Pope lending a helping hand

The pope is offering to mediate the fighting at Najaf.

Right after he finishes his morning routine of stomach crunches, wind-sprints, and underwater kickboxing.

The Character Issue -- Bush and Plushy-Boosters

Another measure of charcter is, that those with strong character seek out their critics, and answer them. Weak character people surround themselves with plushy-boosters.

Here's were Bush falls, at pancake breakfasts of plushy-boosters.

Example:

"Mr. President, as a child, how can I help you get votes?'' a youngster asked at the "Ask President Bush'' event in Oregon on Friday.

"Thank you,'' the president responded. "That is the kind of question I like to hear.''

Supression of the Black Vote in Florida By Governor Bush?

Bob Herbert columnizes on an "investigation" by Jeb Bush's police force (werd thing: Florida State Police answer to the governor) into voter fraud. Seems they decided to investigate criminal voter fraud among absentee ballot voters in the black community, and have interviewed dozens of elderly black voters in their homes "selected at random". However, they won't say what the investigation is about, what the alleged infractions are. Bob Herbert suggests the point is actually to intimidate elderly black voters from voting.

Bush's New Ad

In Bush's new ad, he's shown sitting next to a silent Laura, and he says:

"I just can't imagine the agony of a parent, trying to make the decision which child to pick up first on September 11."

You know, there were many buildings targeted on September 11th, but day care centers were not among them. The tactic we're seeing here: Bush is emotionalizing the issue, basing his plea in shared emotions with families, rather than actual reason.
It's the famed CHEWBACCA DEFENSE. How do you attack it? Of COURSE, someone straining to pick up their kids on that day must have felt awful. But that's not an issue directly addressible in the national poltical sphere, except to make sure Sept 11 never happened.

End of Cold War Deployments

We're pulling out of Germany. Defense Department also says: "We don't have any troops in France. But if we did, we'd pull them out too, and quicker."

On the other sidde of it.

Here's a Houtson Chronicle article which describes the arrest of a Pakistani man who has lived in the US since 1989, but who apparently likes videotaping banks, buildings and rail systems as a "tourist" while in various US cities, and acted all cagey when approached by a police officer.

Granted, this is all law enforcement leaked information.

Bush Makes Cars More Dangerous

One of the policy changes mentioned in the NYTimes article on federal policy changes under the Bush administration is the forbidding of public release of some data relating to unsafe motor vehicles, saying it would case "substantial competitive harm" to American manufacturers.

I hear Bush also likes to soccer-ball-kick crawling babies around the South Lawn.

Julia Child is Dead

Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?

Ashcroft: Detention of One is the Symbolic Detention of Masses

Bob Herbert reports on a Hatian immigrant who has been detained two years on personal orders by John Ashcroft. Everyone agrees the skinny little guy is no terrorism threat. But, Ashcroft explained his actions to Senator Arlen Spector:

"Sometimes individual treatment is important. Sometimes it's important to make a statement about groups of people that come."

Are you getting this, people? Because that's going to be what we hear when Ashcroft orders mass detentions of thousands of people on the charge that maybe one of them is a threat -- sometimes it's important to make statements about groups of people.


Oh, wait. I forgot.
That already happened.

Folks, this should make your souls shudder. We have had our rights of habeous corpus stripped from us by the Bush team. And if you're a reader of history, when governments do this to their people, things don't get better, they get much, much worse.

We're Here, We're Queer, I Resign?

It turns out the governor of New Jersey is gay, had an affair with a man, and so is resigning.

I'm calling 'bullshit'. Is there anyone in the state of New Jersey who cares if the twice-married father of two says he's gay, and he had an affair? It's not an impeachable offense.

But, the more obvious reasons -- swirling fundraising scandals -- aren't yet fully ripe either. So what gives?

Maybe it's just 18th century silliness.

Olympics to be swept clean of rival logos

According to this article, Olympics fans who are carrying or wearing logos featuring products that are rivals to the Olympics sponsors will have their product confiscated and/or told to wear their shirt inside out.

It's good to see that the IOC is finally owning up to who really "owns" the Olympics.

Giuliani running for AG

Rudy Giuliani is running for Attorney General of the United States: NYT Front Page story.

The thing is - if it were an elected post, I'd vote for him. Even if it wasn't a question of Rudy vs. Ashcroft.

Goss Slams Goss -- Michael Moore

Apparently,
CIA Director nominee Porter Goss told Moore in an on-camera interview that he was unqualified to be in the CIA today (it appears he was referring to being a CIA operative or Analyst).

Required Reading for the Impending Plame Scandal Explosion

washingtonpost.com – White House Briefing.

Subpoenas have apparently been issued to all four journalists who are known to have stated they heard independently about Plame's CIA connection from an unnamed government official -- including Bob Novak (who broke the story in the Chicago Sun-Times), Tim Russert (of Meet the Press, who has now already complied, and appeared before the grand jury), Walter Pincus (Washington Post), and Matt Cooper (Time Magazine, who is appealing his sentencing and fine of $1000/day, for refusing to comply).

Russert answered questions about his conversation with Scooter Libby -- Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

Of interest is that Matt Cooper's sentencing for refusing testimony, when, according to the sentencing judge: "all available alternative means of obtaining the information have been exhausted, the testimony sought is necessary for the completion of the investigation, and the testimony sought is expected to constitute direct evidence of innocence or guilt."

In other words, indictments of high government officials in the Executive Branch will be handed down -- or not -- on the basis of what is said by Novak, Russert, Pincus and Cooper.

The White House Is Lying About Security Threats to the Capitol?

WaPost: Frances Fragos Townsend -- White House Homeland Security Advisor who no one had heard of until she appeared on Meet The Press this weekend --- had said that the recent intelligence on threats by al Qaeda include mention of the Capitol and members of Congress.

But, Capitol Poliece Chief Terrance Grainer -- and other law enforcement officials -- say they've never seen it. They've just been told to batten down Capitol Hill, simultaneous with the battening of NY financial insitution targets, and the IMF and World bank in DC.

Hey, who's to notice if you just toss in the Capitol building -- where a fully independent branch of government operates -- onto the list of buildings to batten down?

The Administration should not have free hand to limit operations of other branches of the government.

Why are Interest Rates Going Up? Bush's Massive Borrowing.

As Krugman says today: "even before Friday's grim report on jobs, I was puzzled by Mr. Greenspan's eagerness to start raising interest rates. Now I don't understand his policy at all."

Economists are predicting a quarter point increase today to 1.50 percent for the overnight rate. Greenspan has, historically, said he raises interest to cool down a too-rapidly expanding economy.

But the stock market is in the cellar with a cold towel on it's head, the jobs report is at the bottom of a 1M jobs well, and anyone with the smallest amount of prognostication can see that we are about to enter a hamstrung economy, thanks to sky-rocketing oil prices which will not get better (This morning: oil production in Iraq was suspended, under threats from Sadr's boys of sabotage).

What gives? The economy is not on fire, so why the cold water of an interest rate hike?

Well, perhaps it's the old-fashioned market: Bush's tax cut has lead to $300-400 Billion in new debt each year of the last three years, taking $1 Trillion out of the cash supply. Greenspan's perhaps caught on by now that, with $400B yearly deficits as far as the eye can see, we'll have trillions of dollars of federal government debt, sucking up borrowing supply. That makes the government by far the biggest borrower -- and it can't be permitted to suck up the whole supply, which is not infinite. Smaller supply,bigger demand -- the costs of borrowing must increase. Thus, it's time for a higher interest rate, to stop this wild government borrowing Bush has brought us.

In other words, we've returned to a time of massive government borrowing, and spiraling interest rates.

The solution: roll back the Bush tax cut on the wealthiest americans -- those earning above $200K/yr, who never asked for it in the first place -- and return to fiscal responsibility, and get the government out of the massive borrowing business.

Plummeting Economy, thanks to Bush.

The dollar is weakening, weakening, weakening.

Interest rates are going up.

Oil prices are at an all time high.

The administration has lost 3M jobs, replacing 2M of those with jobs which pay worse. And present job growth just plain sucks .

Everything's bad and it's heading toward worse.

Bush can't run on the economy -- he's sending the nation into the poor house.

Reporter Sentenced Jail for Not Naming Source of Valerie Plame Leak: is Bob Novak Next?

The sentence is suspended while the reporter appeals it. NYTimes article: Time Magazine reporter put Matthew Cooper in Prison for refusing to name the government official who told him Valerie Plame is a CIA Agent. They're also fining time $1000/day until he does name the official.

Richard Clarke on This Week with George Stephanopolous

Richard Clarke had this to say about Bush's response to the 9/11 Commission report:

"I used to co-ordinate $12B in intelligence budget, and 'coordinating' compared to having control of the budget is like kissing your sister. I think Donald Rumsfeld won this battle in the White House, where President Bush says he accepts the reports conclusions, but he doesn't really."

What Clarke is referring to is the fact that Bush has declared that he will not go forward with the commissions recommendation for a National Intelligence Dirctor who is in charge of the full $40B intelligence budget and personell -- now divided between 15 agencies. Why won't Bush do this? Because Donald Rumsfeld is in charge of 80% of that budget, and he has made it clear to Bush that he will not give it up.

In other words, Bush lost a political argument with Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld is calling the intelligence shots, not Bush.

2004 Democratic National Convention, Free on iTunes Music Service

You can download all the major speeches --- everything from the main podium, including Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and of course the major modern players -- from the 2004 DNC from iTMS.

Bush the Liar

In the same four years, Bush pushed a war claiming it was to get at Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, while pulling out of the ABM treaty with Russia (loosing controls on WMD there), and now gutting a treaty banning production of uranium and plutonium (again, loosing controls on WMD production).

How can Bush take contradictory actions? Because he lies about his motives.

He guts treaties, because he's an America Firster, and doesn't want the US to have to answer to international bodies, or even have made any promises to other countries. And his motivation against Saddamm was not WMD, but personal revenge for affronts against his dad -- an insult to the good men and women in uniform over there who are dying for a cause that Bush said exists, but didn't.

As if we didn't already know...

Bush Insists His Administration Seeking 'new Ways to Harm Our Country' - from TBO.com

Will Ferrell

Will Ferrell is a very funny man.

Sen. Shelby (R-AL) Leaks to Fox, FBI Concludes

Apparently, Shelby gave them classified information which, minutes earlier, had been handed him in secret Senate Intelligence Committee hearings by NSA. It was broadcast on FOX within 30 minutes -- before they'd convened for the day, and quickly enough that the briefing NSA agent dressed-down the committee for handing it out so quickly.

Note the article contradicts itself -- at the top, it says FOX Chief Political correspondent Carl Cameron confirmed to the FBI that Shelby was the source of the leak. However, at the bottom, it quotes Cameron as saying he did not confirm the leak.

If Fox did roll over on its Republican sources to the FBI, then you can bet Republicans will stop leaking to FOX news. And won't that change things.

But How Does It Play In St. Louis? Will Gay Marriage decide the presidential election?

Sure, the Federal Marriage Amendment failed on the Senate floor. But in Missouri, where a state constitutional amendment was on the ballot yesterday, how does it play?

Those opposing the amendment spent $450K in the big MO, while those for it spent a paltry $19K. And in an August election, where turnout was historically 15-25%, this election saw 41% participation. The amendment passed, with 70 perent of the vote -- and 60% had been forecast. This means the issue gets out non-traditional voters, in droves -- ones who likely support Bush.

In November, swing states of Arkansas (6 electoral college votes), Michigan (17), Ohio(20) and Oregon (7) will have similar amendments on their ballots -- a total of 50 electoral college votes, out of 270 needed to win, which can be delivered to Bush's column. According to the Cook report on the status of electoral college votes, if you move those votes to Bush's column, he's assured
224 EC votes, against 165 in Kerry's column (if you ignored the Gay Marriage factor, the race is roughly 182 vs. 165, with the rest up in the air).

If Kerry is to win, he has to figure out how to stop those people from voting Bush, or pull out in even greater numbers (more than 15% of the voting population) other non-traditional voters (the young?) who would favor him over Bush.

Article here.

SUVs piss you off? They're probably illegal on your street.

I have nothing against SUVs -- except the Hummer. It's hard not to be bothered by a car which is marketed as one great big flipped-up middle finger, cruising down the road with enough momentum to send an entire 8th-grade class of Catholic school girls sailing over downtown. Other SUVs, hey, if you want to pay $40 in gas to travel 50 miles, go right ahead.

But, where you are you gonna drive it? It turns out that, when city streets were built in California, they were engineered largely for light vehicles -- cars less than 6,000 lbs. Heavier than that, the roads get ripped up. That's why there are signs everywhere, excepting major thoroughfares, which say "No vehicles above 6,000 lbs".

It's the fact that many of these SUVs are above 6,000 lbs that permits them to be huge federal tax breaks -- writing off 100% of their value the first year you own them -- if they are "business" machines (the tax law was written for tractors and farm equipment; because, hey, who would be crazy enough to simply buy a car because it's heavy, right?). This tax break is, in part, responsible for their huge popularity.

But what they don't point out at the dealer or your accountant's office, as this Slate article points out, is that nearly every residential street in California (and *every* one in Pasadena, CA) is illegal to these SUVs. They're too heavy.

Oh, and the likelihood this law will be enforced anytime soon? About the same that Dick Cheney runs the Long Beach Marathon this year.

Bruce Springsteen Working to Unseat Bush

In this NYTimes OpEd, Bruce describes why he is touring this October -- with the Dave Matthews Band, Pearl Jam, R.E.M., the Dixie Chicks, Jurassic 5, James Taylor and Jackson Browne -- to remove the Bush Administration from office in November.

Dave Letterman on the Orange Alert

"So, today's terror alert is based on intelligence which is four years old. I can't wait for 2008 to find out what's going on now."

NYT Duped Again

Lead story on today's front page: New Qaeda Activity Is Said to Be Major Factor in Alert.

So let's review the timeline. About two weeks ago, a low-level Al Qaeda operative is captured in Pakistan by their security forces. Conveniently his identity is not "confirmed" by Pakistani intelligence until the Democratic National Convention is in full swing, just as the Administration had discreetly requested several months ago.

On Sunday, Tom Ridge takes to his podium to announce that as a result of intelligence collected at the time of this capture, he is raising the alert level to Orange in NYC and DC, saying that financial centers there are under direct threat. In case anyone was missing the political connection, he closes his press conference by saying, "We must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the President's leadership in the war against terror."

The Monday papers are full of coverage of the threat, and beefed-up security measures (NYT fronts a picture of military police at the NYSE, in flak jackets and assault rifles), to the detriment of the usual boiler-plate "first days" of the new Kerry-Edwards campaign. However, at the same time, the WSJ is breaking the news that most of the threat information discussed by Ridge was 3 to 4 years old (see Bob's joke). I've got three relatives younger than that.

Tuesday's papers give a large weight to this "stale" aspect of Sunday's threat alert. At this point the most charitable interpretation is that the alert was a bit of judicious ass-covering by the Homeland Security team (What if Al Qaeda had attacked on Monday?). But most people catch a whiff of politics in the air - David Letterman asked Clinton about it on his show last night - and given Tom Ridge's aside on Sunday, one can hardly credit his subsequent claim that "We don't do politics at Homeland Security." The key point here is that Ridge made no reference on Sunday to the moldy nature of most of the intelligence he referred to - in particular, the "casing" reports found on Ghailani's laptop in Pakistan.

Comes the NYT on Wednesday with the story I point to above. Anonymous "Senior Administration officials" are revealing to the NYT reporters that there is "new intelligence" (from "late last week") that bolsters the moldy intelligence, and justifies Sunday's Orange Alert. How convenient for an Administration under attack for propagating false alarms! Unfortunately this intelligence is classified, and its nature is so sensitive that it cannot be revealed, even under cloak of anonymity.

Obviously we are getting a strong feeling of deja vu here. But even if we take the anonymous sources at their word (as the NYT apparently does), what are we to make of this? How exactly does it happen that "new intelligence," gathered only within the last week, bolsters the likelihood of a years-old scenario transpiring within days of our completely serendipitous discovery of it? It utterly defies belief.

That the NYT chose to run this concoction as their lead story today proves that they have learned nothing from the run-up to war with Iraq.

Administration Goes into Lockdown, to Spread Fear

Streets around the White House and other Federal Buildings in DC are being closed off, and cars are being searched if they approach.

Why? What intelligence tells us that there is a new threat there? None, apparently -- there was no specific threat to the capitol, according to security associated with the shut-down.

Justification given by DC police chief Tarrance Grainer: "By golly, it is inconvenient to people. It would have been inconvenient to people in August 2001 to increase security at the airport. But if we had done that, two airplanes wouldn't have flown into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon."

In other words, because Al Qaeda is out there, and they re-visit targets and use car bombs, they are going into lock-down security.

This cases more fear and dread in the population than actual security -- Americans should not choose to live in a police state.

Bush Loses Turf War with Rummy

Bush, who otherwise seems to love concentrating power in his branch, has been wary about the National Intelligence Chief called for in the 9/11 report. Yesterday, while he said he backed the idea, he said he would not give the chief cabinet-level power; and he and Andrew Card did not speak about overall budgetary control and hiring-and-firing power either -- but discussed the chief's "coordinating role" in the budgetary and hiring processes of the Federal Governments 15-agency intelligence efforts, with an estimated budget of $40B.

What gives? I'm not looking forward to the day that we have a KGB-style powerful spy-captain, but I'd think Bush would. Perhaps the answer lies in this NYTimes article, which states that 80% of that $40B in intelligence lies under the Department of Defense -- Rummyland.

That's a huge chunk, meaninig that Rummy, for all practical purposes, controls most of the nation's intelligence apparatus. He's already come out against the super-spy (see article), saying it would do the country "a great disservice". And former Sec'y William Perry said it's unlikely the DoD would agree to give up control of that budget.

In other words, this ginger stepping by Bush is happening so that he doesn't have to tell Rummy what to do.

The Kerry Quote: (Or, what John Kerry should say about this): "When I'm President, we will not have a Secretary of Defense who can over-rule the Congress and the President on what's best for the Nation in intelligence matters. There should be no place for turf wars like this -- but if they happen, the President shouldn't lose them to the Secretary of Defense."

Tom Ridge Joke

Some people wonder why Tom Ridge hit NYC and DC with Orange terror alert. This little anecdote may be revelatory:

A Southerner walks into a bar in Washington, DC, orders a drink. A completely inebriated Tom Ridge stumbles over to him, and takes a wide swing, just missing him.

The Southerner says, "What the hell was that for?"

Ridge says: "You Southerners started the Civil War!"

The Southerner says "That was over a hundred years ago!"

And Ridge replies: "I just found out about it."

Three-Four years old? Then we'd better get moving on it!

Say you come across a 3-4 year old plan to take out several buildings. What do you do? Well, if you're Tom Ridge, you immediately raise the terror alert level to orange.

If you're a rational person, you wonder, "I wonder why this was never acted upon."

Ernie in NY, DC

For those of you waiting to see the Sesame-Street inspired terror alert level icon go "Ernie" -- it has been in Bert since we put it up -- it has indeed changed, with an "Ernie in NY, DC" notation in the bottom right.

Which makes one wonder: if we're going geographic-specific, why aren't we Grover in Idaho? We should probably be Grover in Idaho.

Or at least Oscar.

Reality vs. Documentary -- Performance vs. Objectivity.

We've discussed the problem previously of categorizing "reality" movies in a filmic genre. The IMDB calls JACKASS: THE MOVIE a documentary. However, this would put it in the same category as SPELLBOUND or CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS -- which makes some blanche. The problem is not so much gnomic as, as much as audiences may be attracted to the "reality" genre of explosive bowel movements, false love affairs, and

A proposed solution: the former is a "performance" documentary -- done as performance, for the benefit of the camera, and the events depicted would not otherwise happen. The latter are "objective" documentaries -- depicting events which occur unaffected by the presence of the camera.

Another distinction: TV shows where a prize is involved (SURVIVOR, THE BACHELOR) are game shows -- not reality. There is nothing real about getting a million bucks because you could live in an enclosed house all summer.

Even so -- performance vs. objective raises the problem of authenticity. Would Nick and Jessica be leading separate lives were it not for the camera, or did the camera catch what would otherwise have unfolded? Who doesn't believe the Osbornes really are all that strange, even as they seem to be projecting with crisp diction so that the boom mic can pick them up.

Nonetheless, it keeps JACKASS out of the column where FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is.

July Box Office Largest Ever

But what's interesting is that the second-highest top grossing film was a documentary-- Fahrenheit 9/11, at 106.3M -- way behind Spider-Man 2 (335M) and just above I, Robot (104M).

No Central Park Protest! Says Professor of Turfgrass Science at Cornell

New York City has been saying this all along as their justification for denying permits to organized protesters of the RNC in NYC in a month for Central Park: it will ruin -- just ruin! -- the lawn.
And they weren't being disingenuous In a NYTimes Letter to the Editor, one of the lawn designers explains that the lawn could handle about 50,000 people, but was never designed to handle a 250,000 person event, and the lawn would indeed be ruined, with costly repairs.

Of course, what the city-folk seem to not realize, is the protesters regard the state of the union to hang in the balance, and given the choice between 4 more years of Beat'em-Harder Bush/Concentration-Camp-Cheney, and some turf replacement -- get out the trowels!