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.