The New Wave in Blogging: I swear, I came across this "blog" accidentally - actually by pressing the "Next Blog" button at the top of this one. Sometimes a random search will turn up an interesting blog. Anyway, this one, ostensibly about baseball is quite about something else.

I had to click a few of its links just to make sure that I was thoroughly appalled.

Better than Groundhog Day: Mark your calendars...February 8th, 2005. Mark them well.

Re: Bass Ackwards: Sounds like universities could meet Razor's standard by simply airing reruns of the Daily Show. Seriously, the Economist article is right in the respect that as long as the business community cares more about science and technology there's no way to start a trend towards academic "balance." There is no solution that I can see. I certainly wouldn't endorse any government action to legislate hiring/voting policies at private universities and any attempt to effect change at public institutions would fall flat. If the faculty is already so biased, which I agree it is, can you really imagine them putting forth an honest effort towards balance?

The only hope is for "conservative" academics to have better credentials, publish more, and make themselves impossible to marginalize. Or, as the article points out, continue the flight to "think tank" world.

Rumsfeld Sucks: Hey, don't take my word for it. Just ask Bill Kristol.

Bass Ackwards: The Brits are finally just realizing that professors of American universities have a umm, slight political bias toward the left. This is apparently news across the Atlantic.

What is funny about article is what Conservatives want to do about this imbalance: use the government to force universities to give more opportunity to the Right on campus. Yes, you heard correctly; it's affirmative action for right-wing principles. You can imagine the directives to the professors: "Henceforth, for every three statements deriding President Bush or his administration, you must deliver commentary that mocks a) the current state of social security; b) public education; or c) Al Gore (sample jokes provided herewith). In the alternative, you may simply hand out copies of The National Review."

Best of 04: Before all the "Best of" lists start popping up, here's one of my own. Since I am forever at least ten years behind musically, I can't do a "Best Albums" list of stuff from the past year, but I will give you a list of the ten discs I've been playing most frequently in the past 12 months (give or take). They wouldn't have necessarily made anyone's Top Ten in any year, but each has it's own appeal.

So, in no particular order...

Chip Taylor & Carrie Rodriguez: Let's Leave This Town One (of several herein) that were recos from Eno, this collection of duets by two relative unknowns reafirms my belief that country music isn't all Nashville Pop. Only all country music that makes money. I can't list my favorites off this album, since that would be pretty much all of it, but "You Are Danger" is probably the standout to me.

Coldplay: A Rush of Blood... Yeah, i told you I'm always behind. This made everyone's list last year, but it didn't make it to my collection till this year. Suffice that the heavy praise it received upon release was well deserved.

Joe Jackson: Volume 4 Eno reviewed it earlier this year, and I promised him my take after listening, which I never composed for posterity. A little late for that, but Jackson fans can be comforted that he can still put together a band that jams like it did on Look Sharp, Night and Day, and Beat Crazy. That is to say, that old band can still play. Save the snoozer "Blue Flame" and the good idea/bad execution "Dirty Martini" this album swings and rocks, showing the band's talent for making a studio album feel live and Jackson's sense of humor and ability to mock himself and the rest of us at the same time. Much fun.

Matthew Sweet: Girlfriend An impulse buy for $7 pays off with much good listening. The eponymous single brings back high school memories, but songs like "Evangeline" and "Nothing Lasts" give it some depth of enjoyment that I wasn't expecting. You might be surprised.

The Sundays: Reading, Writing... I recently popped in their second album, Blind, and immediately began scrambling through the closet for the first. Harriet Wheeler was to me what Natalie Merchant was to others: the woman who made me realize how much sexier a beautiful woman is when she can sing too. And she was English, too, which was much cooler. They folded after three albums, and the first was the best. Glad I rediscovered it.

Tears For Fears: Greatest Hits '82-'92 The inclusion of "Head Over Heels" and "Mad World" on the soundtrack for the movie Donnie Darko prompted me to pick this up and I'm glad I did. 'Cause those are two great songs. The rest of it bites (except maybe "Laid So Low"), but sometimes you takes what you gets.

Lyle Lovett: I Love Everbody Still my favorite Lyle and if you're not a fan already this is probably the best intro. It's a little bit of everything.

Reel Big Fish: Turn The Radio Off Remember when ska was cool for 5 minutes in 1998? Me neither, but I can't get rid of this disc. Mostly it lives in my portable, as I love running to ska music. And you will too, if you'll only try. Or maybe cooking to ska music, considering your cardio habits, Eno.

The Beatles: White Album One of those "Why don't I own this yet" albums, until I made Eno make me a copy. When you've gotten burned out on Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road it's just the thing to make you like the Fab Four again.

Various Artists: The Bottle Let Me Down (Songs For Bumpy Wagon Rides) Not what you're thinking. A friend bought this out of the $1 bin, thinking it might be good drinking songs. Not unless your drink of choice is milk or Kool-Aid. It turned out to be a collection of 26 children's songs. Some are well known, like "On top of Spaghetti," "It's Not Easy Being Green," and "Rubber Duckie" (sung in a way that makes you wish the female singer was giving you a bath), while others were previously unknown to me. My favorites are "Godfrey," a diddy about the "sickly, unemployed, amateur, children's magician" that brings back childhood gross out contests at recess and "Sad And Dreamy (The Big 1-0)." Think it's all a breeze turning ten years old? Fat chance. "Candy just don't taste as good anymore." If you've got kids, or if you are a kid, or if you want to pretend you are for a while, this compiliation will be a blast. If nothing else, one song will lay out a plausible scenario by which you could become your own grandfather, and that's the kind of information that amazes people at cocktail parties.

Well, that's a sampling of what's been spinning here this year. Happy listening.

What is it with Alabama?: I'll give them credit, these judges don't give up their convictions easily. I think this scenario is one of the strongest why we need a federal government to keep the states in check. If not, imagine we'd have these certain states which would become little islands of not only religious tolerance, but religious enforcement.

Schools would all teach either creationism or at least "intelligent design". Companies would get tax breaks for including prayer meetings and abiding by christian edicts. Travelers through the state would have to pay "tithe tolls". All courts would open and close with prayers, and the Ten Commandments would become enforceable laws.

Eventually secession would be necessary, and we'd have the NorthEast and the West Coast as the USA. Then we'd have the South as UCSA (United Christian States of America). Last the states in the West (but not the coast) would be for all the separatists, in which case there would be at best a loose confederation of warlords; all of whom would be well-armed. In which case the Mexicans might re-consider their traipsing over the border for work.

Anyway, I think Kevin Costner has already filmed this scenario.

What jurors fail to appreciate: Since I'm on my lawyer kick, no sense stopping now. We all know now that Scott Peterson is headed for the er...lethal injection table (not quite as pithy as "headed for the chair" or "gallows"). This has fascinated the People Magazine editors (read down a bit) to no end, but in terms of jurisprudence, this is a ho-hum, been-there, done-that case. Still, the focus paid by the media bears some further scrutiny - after all, this was a "victory" for Laci's family, and apparently, for other non-related people as well. Well, let's see.

Some analysts were surprised at the sentencing, given the paucity of direct evidence linking Scottso to the killing, however when asked, the jurors were quick to explain how the punishment fit the crime, i.e. a life for a life. Which might make sense if it were true. See, the jurors weren't told what happens to a prisoner sentenced to death in California. There (and in many other jurisdictions) a death sentence is more likely a life sentence with the slim possibility of death - and even then, the death is more likely to occur by natural causes or suicide than by the state-sanctioned method of killing. It's all here in black-and-white folks. Since 1978 when capital murder was approved by the California legislature, courts and governor, 717 prisoners have received a death sentence. 60 were released or re-sentenced. 13 offed themselves, 22 "died" (presume by natural causes, but I suppose could be murdered in prison), and only 10 were "executed" (again assume that this means state-sanctioned).

Yup, my rough math skills show that the actual execution rate for prisoners condemned to death is about 1.4%. By way of example, in 1996 (and yes, I'm really stretching my statistics), accidental injuries caused 4.1% of all deaths in California. Meaning, you are actually safer being on death row in California then you are simply walking down the street! Fortunately, murders only accounted for .oo6% of all deaths of Californians in 2000 (6.1 per 100,000), which gives you some faith in your government I suppose.

The last inmate executed in California was in 2002 - for crimes committed 22 years earlier.

So, 10 executed in 26 years. We have somewhere around 600 prisoners remaining in front of Peterson. Assume even 100 are either released, re-sentenced, "die" or kill themselves. The backlog is so enormous you'd either need a total re-vamping of the judicial process or have elected some testosterone-pumped action-hero type governor to...oh...hmmm.

Anyway, point being, while the jurors thought they were seeing justice done, all they did was ensure another couple of decades of appeals, ensuring their tax dollars are spent not only fighting those appeals, but feeding and housing Scott Peterson. Who knows, maybe he'll even get conjugal visits. Bravo.

Why people hate lawyers: I'm not big into the self-loathing that some lawyers like to emote; we're as necessary as anything in our world. Even deposed dictators should have them, in order that we as a civilized people not endorse and further a system which countless lives have been sacrificed to overthrow.

However, Pinochet's lawyer takes the cake (and believe me, I whole-heartedly support the notion that any lawyer has a duty to zealously defend his/her client within the bounds of the law). In commenting on a recent decision by a Chilean judge holding that Pinochet is mentally competent to stand for trial, his lawyer objected to the ruling, stating that the decision "overruled human rights."

Right. Pinochet...on trial...for his various and sundry crimes against humanity, violates human rights. Good one.

In the clinch: While a Philly/P'Burgh Super Bowl would be the NFL's worst nightmare (from a marketing/ratings standpoint), it would certainly make our little blog an interesting place to be. Surely, Eno won't make the mistake once more of trifling with Destiny, but he may still be willing to tempt her a bit assuming our respective teams make the Big Game, and place a friendly wager on the outcome. Let's not put any equine before its heavily-laden cart, but keep these things in mind as the Iggles continue their march to destiny.

As an aside, the Eagles' fight song is well-known and loved around these parts, but I've always quibbled with its words. Part of it goes like this: "Fly Eagles Fly, on the road to victory..." Who flies on a road? I suppose you could interpret the two clauses (here's where Eno's training will be of some value) separately, and read it so that the first part is the directive (fly you Eagles), and then the second part is merely descriptive of the team as a whole (it's on the road to victory, generally), but I really think that is a bit tortured.

So I propose an amendment: "Fly Eagles fly, through the sky to victory." OR "Fly Eagles fly, soaring on to victory." Something like that. It really bothers me...which clearly says more about me than I'd care to admit.

Clinched: Doesn't it figure. This year I decided that I would waste no time with the NFL since a) it has become a league of prancing egotists (and, to be redundant, Deion Sanders once again), hip-hop wannabes, and overpaid wideouts who run three steps and then pull up on a draw play, usually to look for the nearest camera; and b) the Steelers had lost all of their clutch games in the last few years, and the deja vu was getting to me.

Naturally, this year they have locked up their division title and are a hot pick for the Bowl, green QB and all.

If I start watching, they'll lose, of course.

Don't Let the Door . . . Parting is such sweet sorrow:

His elegant, red-walled Capitol office is filled with boxes of memorabilia and photos and artwork in bubble wrap. At the end of this week, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., will close the doors for the last time and leave behind the view of the National Mall that he has enjoyed for a decade.

So Let It Be Written: Now that you both have responded, I'm chastened. I apologize for doubting your mettle, even implicitly, in the midst of doubting my own. I still wonder whether the blog thing is played out. For our purposes, it suits nicely. But, as I mentioned earlier, we've never really thought much about traffic (okay, occasionally), writing mainly for one another.

Faux lives: Since this blog is primarily the domain of its creators I witheld my comments until Razor had spoken. Since he's indicated his feeling that the blog will survive even W. 's reelection, I'll say only that I agree with him. If you're in the tax preparation business imagine this is two weeks before April 15 and you'll have an idea what my world's like right now. Add into the mix that your firm was just acquired and predictable confusion has ensued and you'll appreciate it even more. Of course, other bloggers are busy as well and they still manage to post heavily and frequently, but, hey, that's why I have the lowly "associate" tag. And that's the way I like it.

I'll continue at my usual (ahem) leisurely pace, picking it up a bit when Eno and Razor are swamped themselves. I think we all have more to say about te world, political and otherwise.

Bet You Didn't Know: Your government has decided, in conjunction with its counterpart behemoth in Europe, that you just don't pay enough for textiles, dammit. So they got together and told China that it better raise prices (by tariff) or else.

You've heard of win-win situations? Well, meet the opposite. Okay, U.S. and European textile companies win in the short term, but its a pyrrhic victory. First, they don't have to become competitive now. Ed Deming said that if you don't have to change, you won't. (Take a look at the domestic steel industry, fellas.) Second, artificially inflating the prices on cheap goods has its own unforseen consequences. As the story notes,

Dozens of U.S. retailers, including J.C. Penney Co. and Liz Claiborne Inc., have filed suit to block the Bush administration from imposing textile limits, which would raise the price of imported clothing and other goods.

They have two choices: Suck it up and raise prices, or find new suppliers. I just bought my son two new pairs of cheap, elastic-waist pants so that he can practice totally independent bathroom use (he's 14, and it's a real drag for his junior high teachers . . . just kidding -- he's three); the pants were made in Kuwait. Hey, as long as we're over there fixing Iraq's wagon, maybe we could RPG some tariffs over the border.

China's textile producers lose. The tariff makes them less competitive, but they don't see a yuan of it. And they're bound to lose volume in the process. There's always another place with cheap labor that hasn't yet bent over for the WTO. Maybe Afghanistan will soon start flooding our country with cheap sheets and hand towels. Martha Stewart, wearing fashionable stripes, will chuckle, and our trade representatives will sigh, "Why didn't we let them stick with opium?"

And you don't cuddle anymore either: I feel that we just needed some time off from the froth that was the election. There were too many strong feelings (if not necessarily ours, then we emoted for them), and to be frank, I was just a bit disappointed with the outcome, so I figured why not let things cool for a while. And not to be left unsaid, Blogger's technical difficulties were enough to drive any man away. How many posts did we lose in the past 45 days?

That said, I don't want to give up the ship. Just because Eno's sensibilities make Kissinger seem reasonable doesn't mean I've abandoned all hope of turning him, or at least making him admit to the inherent truth and reason of my arguments.

I've never been the greatest political polemist - Eno has me by a mile there. I'm usually more intrigued by the off-beat, the nonsensical, and the obscure (which Eno might suggest sums up my political theories quite nicely). In any event, I'm ready to head back into the breech - assuming Blogger cooperates. I've had a busy past few weeks, and but for a judge-brokered settlement on Friday, would be hip-deep into my opening arguments to a jury of pissed-off Philadelphians right now.

So, let the games begin (real games, not one where you can nearly make the top 20 money leaderboard while smoking a cigarette, Flyer). Plus, there's some really interesting stuff going on right now in the world.

Blog-ola: Ahem. I feel like I'm stepping onto an empty, cobwebby stage. Aside from a couple of vacations, this blog has run nonstop for two years. Now, I'll grant that we may have shot our wad a bit over the past 6 months. We did just have a presidential election, after all. But I think I see something a little deeper than that.

I think the political angle is tapped out. We don't, as a rule, write for the edification of others. That was never the aim of Fauxpolitik. This site was conceived as a discussion site where Razor and I could hash out our policy differences, as we had done via e-mail for some time. The difference? Instead of sending discreet missives, we'd have the equivalent of a front-porch argument: Anyone passing by could stop and listen for a while. (During a particularly busy time, Flyer came on to lighten the load and add some cultural diversity, but politically, he and I are not far enough apart to be be fully two voices.)

The problem is that I know where Razor stands now, and he knows the same of me. There's not much left to argue, since I'm unlikely to change his mind on any core issues. One that has come up repeatedly is the question of whether the government has a legitimate role in the personal welfare of its citizens, as opposed to simply in the "general welfare" of the republic. To oversimplify, he says yes, I say no. This is pretty much played out.

I'm not sure any of us has the time to delve into actual reportage. And, given how far we are geographically flung, parochial issues seem a little too, well, parochial. We don't share a vocation, or even an avocation. (For example, Flyer thinks golf is a sport. Razor thinks golf is tiddlywinks in funny clothes, with sticks.)

Maybe I'm just feeling tapped out, as I said, following the election. Perhaps it will pass. Perhaps not. I guess I'm wondering, where do we go from here? We could talk about books. Sounds fun, eh? Oh, and our name doesn't quite work then. Yes, I know I sound like that certain type (male or female) that we've all dated: the one constantly needing to discuss the state of the relationship. Sue me.

Holiday wishes: There's been little chance to hit the blogosphere lately, for all of us it seems, but I wanted to say Happy Thanksgiving to everyone, and hope your holidays are less hectic and confusing than expected and more fun and filled with good memories than you could reasonably hope for. Sometimes it seems like we just want to survive the next 6 weeks intact and somehow solvent, but this year I'd like to make a commitment to thinking more of those less fortunate than of the societal urge to spend and consume.

I'm put in this frame of mind this season by bad news about a good friend, and at the risk of driving away any readers who still visit us for rants, complaints, and humor in questionable taste, I'd like to share it.

Katie Kuslak Rader, a great friend of mine from the University of Dayton, was diagnosed with breast cancer a couple years ago, and after a period of remission it recurred, having spread to other, more vital parts of her anatomy. The prognosis has not been good for quite some time, but I've recently heard that the word "terminal" is coming up with more frequency now.

I understand that cancer patients, as well as those with other terminal diseases, are told that a positive attitude is their greatest weapon in fighting their ailment, and if this is true then Katie has not been "outgunned" in this fight, just outfoxed I guess. She truly has been the bravest, most positive, radiant person you can imagine. On the occasions that I get an update on her condition I'm astounded that someone can have such a selfless attitude in that state. One or two dry paragraphs about her condition is followed by a page of stories about her two young girls and the joy they bring to her and her husband, Donnie. They visit family and friends, when she's able, and are planning a trip to Disneyworld (paid for by friends and family) and try to live each day to the fullest. Katie insists on a "no pity" policy from everyone who she comes into contact with, and is loathe to accept charity from anyone, even though they are under enormous strain from the medical expenses. We've probably all known someone who's been in this scenario. I've had three other good friends go through cancer and survive, and though the hardship and fear was considerable in each case, it never got this bad for them. This time I'm truly afraid things will not end well.

Everybody has their pet causes, issues, and charities, and I find it a little rude to push one's own on others, be it in conversation, through massive chain emails, or in posts on insignificant little weblogs, so bear in mind that I understand that you all are most certainly kind, generous, thoughtful, and charitable people who don't need to be alerted to every story or crisis as if it's new or somehow more important than another. However, if you're feeling particularly generous this year, or you have been looking for another way to give of yourself, or if the CEO of your current pet charity was recently found to be spending his/her six figure salary on booze and coke filled orgies and you've sworn off giving them another dime, I'll simply mention some options you might consider.

You can drop a check to: The Rader Fund First Merit Bank 1105 South Court St. Medina, Oh 44256

You might consider supporting The Fairy Godmother Foundation, an organization similar to the Make A Wish Foundation, but for adults, mostly women suffering from breast cancer.

A donation to the American Cancer Society or any other organization with a similar commitment would be a fine and generous thing as well.

Or just think a little more this year about someone in a difficult condition and maybe do something kind for them. If when you do it you manage to think for a moment about Katie, I'll be personally very thankful. Again, I know everyone has their limits and I know neither this story nor this request is unique. If you manage anything on Katie's behalf, know you did it for someone that you'd certainly love and admire as much as I do.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving tomorrow, everyone. Hope I'll be around a little more in the next few weeks.

War is heck: By now we're already up to our hips in the fallout from ABC's decision to promote "Desperate Housewives" by way of T.O. and Monday Night Football. You know what? Fine. I don't particularly want to see Nicollete Sheridan during a football game, but it was mildly amusing, and at worst, highly suggestive.

What I'm more concerned about is 66 ABC affliiates refusing to show "Saving Private Ryan" b/c of the fear of the FCC cracking down because this war movie, *gasp* has swear words in it. The fundamentalist groups are swarming, screaming over this travesty. First of all, who is this going to offend? It's a three-hour movie about WWII...is anyone letting their 5 year old kids watch this with the understanding that Barney will be appearing doing a silly dance? Are people going to get a half-hour in and then realize that Lawrence Welk is not in fact on this channel, and what's with all the potty-mouth?

I'd be much more understanding and supportive of this objection if the church-goers were complaining that this movie somehow promotes or glorifies war - which you know, can be kind of horrible. But no, it's that a realistic movie would dare show soldiers, who are getting shot at, letting loose with a few f-bombs. Our country is going down the drain with this holier-than-thou censorship. It's the band-aid on the sucking chest wound that is the real downfall of our society: poverty, disease, crime, "The View". It's only b/c it's easy that this issue gets so much attention. You don't find nearly the amount of energy put into churches and foundations solving local problems like homelessness or drug abuse. Nope, just keep hollering at them Hollywood types - that will save us all.

Whiplash: TNR, which ignored or dismissed Kerry through much of the early primaries, only to get into a comfortable fellating position after he rebounded to win the nomination, has quickly distanced itself from the candidate. Editor Marty Peretz says . . . aw, screw it. You gotta read the whole thing. It is filled with backbiting ("Kerry (assisted by genius advisers like Bob Shrum and John Sasso) underperformed"), insults ("The only person I've known who really [personally likes Kerry] is David Thorne, the brother of his first wife and his classmate at Yale."), and instances of "just as I thought" and "as I expected" language ("Still, in the end, the nomination fell to Kerry, who, as I expected all along, duly lost the election to George W. Bush").

As they push Kerry away with both hands, TNR's editors should remember that they whored for Kerry these past six months, often nearly reduced to the level of calling Bush an ugly baby who was a burden to his mother. (And this is the magazine that endorsed Joe Lieberman, for chrissake! Only an idiot ever thought that, between Kerry and Bush, Kerry was the nearest to Lieberman's positions. I wouldn't be surprised if Rabbi Joe himself, all alone with Yahweh in the voting booth, pulled the lever for Dubya.) If I hadn't canceled my TNR subscription when they did their 180 on Kerry, I would have canceled it upon seeing them complete the 360. This kind of memory hole politics, with the I-told-you-so attitude, illustrates everything that is wrong with your party. Grow the f*ck up.

Rant: Just finished Jim Miller's Flowers in the Dustbin, which claims to chronicle the "rise of Rock and Roll, 1947-1977." I think rock had risen by then, though. Miller suffers from the usual, terminal case of criticitis: Anything commercial is E-V-I-L. He even slags Springsteen (in an idiotic essay) for hyping himself, with the help of rock journalist turned manager Jon Landau. How crass, how commercial, sniffs Miller. Of course, Bruce followed up his hype with two bleedingly authentic, decidedly non-commercial albums.

Miller's other disease is baby-boomeritis, based in that generation's pathological need to claim that everything that was real or authentic or unsullied happened in their day; that, briefly, they came upon this boring world, delivering unto us Elvis, civil rights, the Beatles, and the revolutionary notion that peace is, often, better than war. (Whence the popularity of the whole Fabian/Annette Funicello/How Much Is That Doggie in the Window vibe? A mystery, apparently.) I mean, thank god they came along to take us out of the dark ages, pushing aside their racist/fascist/Amerikkka parents who probably each worked four jobs to buy their kids the navel-gazing time it requires to be this self-righteous. (Cf. a modern version at Razor's link to the "F*ck the South" guy.)

More bitches: Miller cribs a whole lot from liner notes, vainly hoping, I guess, that nobody reads them. His essay on Sun Records and Elvis borrows heavily from the liner notes to The Sun Sessions, just as his essay on Marvin Gaye's What's Going On doesn't reach too far beyond what can be gleaned from the liner of the anniversary CD issue. Meanwhile, Miller harshes the Crew Cuts for their gentle, novelty-style cover of the Chords' "Sh-Boom" seemingly for no other reason than to prove that he's down with the original (and black) artist. Says Miller, "the Crew-cuts [sic] had no sense of rhythm." That's obviously untrue, since what makes their version so white is its inflexibility with the beat, seemingly sung by a military marching band. Look, the Chords were a better, more talented group (though they weren't Jesus, okay?), but Miller is simply reaching for totems to prove his own authenticity -- something he blows completely by repeatedly referring to Fats Domino's "Ain't That a Shame" as "Ain't It a Shame." His observations on the Beatles and Stones are banalities, squared: "[John] Lennon . . . was deeply ambivalent about fame." Did he get that from reading Lennon's lyrics to Bowie's "Fame"? Or "Their Satanic Majesties Request had been a pale imitation of Sgt. Pepper." Hmmm. Ever see Spinal Tap? Check out the video for "Listen to the Flower People" or the oldies radio spinning of "Cups and Cakes"; this isn't exactly groundbreaking criticism.

Selecting a moment to capture reggae, Miller picks Jimmy Cliff's appearance in The Harder They Come, while all but admitting that Cliff was a ringer, a professional R&B singer, and not nearly as influential as Marley would be just a few years later. The only reason to point this out is to point out the nexus of commercial and artistic interests. But if Marley really was more pure, and more influential to boot, what exactly is the point?

The only point at which Miller really impresses me is in his view of Jim Morrison: one "would be hard-pressed to describe Morrison as anything other than a monumental jerk." Again, not exactly a new insight, but at least he's not part of the breathy club of critics that rates Morrison just below Dylan as rock's literary "real thing."

I guess you can't ask for much more from a gummy socialist who has the nerve to laugh at "solemn academic treatises on how the heavy metal played by rock bands like Iron Maiden and Megadeath 'articulates the anxieties and didcontinuities of the postmodern world'" while teaching at the New School for Social Research (an institution that seems to have taken as its goal the employment of every washed-up Marxist and tame radical that happens to spout some, ahem, postmodern idea that praises their own ideals while excusing their enormous faults) and writing books about Foucault and calling himself an "intellectual historian," a meaningless and idiotic term that implies that most historians just keep track of the dates and place names that caused folks like Miller to fail their undergrad history courses.

I hate to pound on this shit so hard, since his essay on the Sex Pistols is not bad (for once, he blurs the line between authenticity and commercialism, though he appears to scare himself, and he retreats), and his unblinking overview of the payola scandal (particularly the way Dick Clark dodged several bullets that brought down Alan Freed) is one of the better short pieces I've read on the subject. But 99% of it is bullshit.

Seen Downtown Today: A guy with the usual piece of tattered cardboard, the kind that usually says "Will work for food." His said "Why lie? I need a beer."

A cop was in the midst of asking him to move it along when I drove by. Funny, they never roust the smelly, offensive, aggressive bastards who ply the pavement along Main Street -- because, I suppose, those panhandlers have the sense to lie.

Nuclear power to go: Reserachers at Lawrence Livermore and other national laboratories are working on a portable, lightweight, nuclear reactor that can help take safe, efficient power production to third world countries and other isolated areas with all sorts of benefits over building nuclear infrastructure on sight. It's called SSTAR, or a small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor.

The SSTAR design will accomplish DOE’s goals by allowing the U.S. to provide a tamper-resistant reactor to a nonnuclear state while still safeguarding the nation’s sensitive nuclear technology. SSTAR will also secure the nuclear fuel because, after its operation, the sealed reactor will be returned to a secure recycling facility for refueling or maintenance.
Designed to be deployable anywhere in the world, SSTAR may also meet a national need. In the U.S., the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) oversees more than 100 nuclear power plants that were built during the 1960s and 1970s. SSTAR would provide a secure and cost-effective system to replace older nuclear reactors as well as aging fossil-fuel plants, particularly in an isolated location.

This stuff is certainly beyond me technologically speaking, but I found it interesting in light of the ongoing debate over alternative energy needs. I don't know for certain (wish I did, though) what the future for fossil fuels is and when it will hit a wall, or what will replace it. Wind, solar, hydrogen, nuclear? Probably some combination of all of those and others. But I'm always amazed by our ability to design and build things that seem inconceivable to previous generations. It's why I'm confident that, though there will be bumps along the way, the eventual transition away from a petroleum dominated energy market will be viewed as relatively seamless some hundred years hence.

Via Casey Research's What We Now Know.

I mean, it's vitriolic and mostly illogical: But if you'll allow this Kerry supporter one last moment before he shuts up about the election, then this is pretty funny.

Talk about useless info: Just what you've always wanted, a searchable, sortable database of all salaries and payrolls for NFL teams and individual players for the years 2000-2003.

For instance you might like to know that Teyo Johnson, a TE for the Raiders in 2003, "only" made $225k in base salary that year. Ahhh, but did you know that his signing bonus counted for an additional $1,231,131 that year bringing his total compensation to $1,456,131? However, his cap value that year was only $430,188.

Then when you run a comparison to the other tight ends for that year, you see that while his total compensation was in the upper third, his cap value or "hit" was in the bottom third. And still the Raiders couldn't leverage this cap wizardry into a successful year, post- SuperBowl. This is need-to-know stuff people!

Red vs. Blue - Redux: One of my more liberal friends sent me this link which re-draws our country's map to account not for geographic size, but population size. Many of we whining Dems have complained that while the Reds seems to account for the vast, vast majority of the states (and counties), this is only in geographic scope (i.e. Rhode Island is twice as big as Wyoming, population-wise). So, the above link is supposed to make us feel better.

It actually makes me feel worse, b/c no matter which way you contort things, the Dems lost, and if you use the squished map, you see that the Blues had every chance of pulling this thing out.

Moving on: I saw an especially odd piece on "Today" this morning as I was getting dressed, which highlighted the quid-pro-quo the Religious Right are going to demand from Bushie (i.e. only pro-life judges, more money for religious charities, etc.). The Today show tried to spin it by re-playing W's press conference after the count was over when he speaks much more about social security and bridging the gap between the parties, as opposed to any "moral" agenda. The voiceover posits that it is far from assured that he will be bowing down to the Baptists, et al.

Ha! People, this is called lip service. W is going to do his damndest to reward his friends and supporters, and there's really no reason why he shouldn't. A leopard doesn't change his spots. Get over it and move on with your sad, pathetic lives.

Sh*t...meet fan: The despot is dead, long live the next despot! Now, aside from his death being part of the Zionist plot, what else do you think results from this event?

Number one will be to find the either couple million or several hundred million dollars that Arafat has squirreled away. His wife has apparently been getting by on a $100,000/mo, but there is no indication that she has the keys to the vault (or the numbers to the Swiss accounts) - although the French are investigating large-sum transfers that took place in 2002 and 2003. More likely though that money was just laundered through her accounts and ended up in the hands of Hamas et al.

The more interesting issue revolves around that age-old question: Is this good or bad for the Jews? Surely his death brings some rejoicing, but there's another age-old maxim that applies: The devil you know is better than the devil you don't. It would seem clear that the power vacuum will create a rather ugly struggle...seeing as how Arafat refused to ever nominate a number 2, and each attempt at a Prime Minister was an effort in futility. His rule was a cult of personality, and we all now how much those narcissists like to view their own mortality. I'm sure he imagined great wailing in the streets, and impassioned speeches from mullahs, rejoicing at his greatness. On the other hand, I can't imagine he wouldn't have forseen the battle for the power and money. The fact that he did nothing to prepare for this may turn out to be the greatest of his many disservices to his people.

Will torts be first?: BusinessWeek has an article in its Nov. 15 issue (reg. req.) that says it might be.

Now Corporate America is gearing up to win three big prizes: caps on medical malpractice damages, which business believes will lower health-care costs; a move to make class actions less expensive to defend; and a business-funded global settlement to compensate workers and others harmed by asbestos. "With the renewed focus of the Bush Administration, we could have a lot of success," says Sherman Joyce, president of American Tort Reform Assn.

Reformers are so optimistic that they hope to wrap up a measure on class actions before Inauguration Day. The legislation, long stalled in the Senate, would move many multi-state class actions to federal courts, making them easier for business to defend. Supporters had enough Democratic votes to break a filibuster earlier this year, but business -- and the GOP leadership -- dropped the ball. Now they think they can tack the measure on to an omnibus spending bill during November's lame-duck session of Congress.

It would be nice to see Bush move on a campaign promise and it would be sound policy. But best of all it might put John Edwards out of his fallback job.

More Reality: Flyer, the economic view from IBD is generally sound (though don't discount the possibility that Bush could fight a second recession though spending -- hell, he's spending enough during the recovery). I'm more bullish for the short-medium term. Bush's re-election quells a number of regulatory fears; his economic policy (see Steltzer in Nov. 8th Weekly Standard) is on balance about as good as one could hope for from a president going into a tough re-election fight; and stocks were all up on the news of his victory last week. Unless the bottom drops out of real estate (or, god forbid, there's another terrorist attack of 9/11 magnitude or worse) we're in pretty good shape going (as the candidates would say) forward.

Beyond that, I think the GOP bench is deeper than anyone suspects for 2008. Jeb Bush is out. Even Giuliani will likely be passed over (or, more likely, he will take a pass). Condi Rice is a total long shot. Bill Frist is an unlikely choice; 2004 has reinforced the Senate curse. Look for Bill Owens or Mitt Romney as the odds on favorites, particularly Mitt. A Republican who can win in Massachusetts without being a Bill Weld clone is a guy with serious f*cking chops.

On the Dem side, as I noted, the Senate curse rides on. Look for this to dampen Hillary's chances. Obama, as you mention, is another story, a likely VP candidate for sure. As I've written in the past, I don't think the Dems can keep a minority off the ticket again. Blacks have become such an important part of the party base (cf. Man Without Qualities, here), and holding Hispanics and women has become so difficult, that the Dems need a stunt (no slight to Obama, who seems like a smart and gifted, though wrong on the issues, politician) to keep the masses on the reservation. That alone might pressure a "Draft Condi" movement, or a feeling that Ohio SecState Ken Blackwell handled his 15 minutes in '04 rather, er, well . . . better than Katherine Harris, and she got elected to Congress in '02. Who knows? We might see a sudden minority-on-the-ticket arms race.

Reality bites: Investor's Insight analyst John Mauldin has some thoughts on the economic and political future, and a big warning to Karl Rove and George W. Bush.

Bush did the right thing for the economy during the last recession. He lowered
taxes again and again. Luckily, the Fed had plenty of ammunition to fight the
recession, aggressively lowering interest rates and avoiding deflation. The
consumers helped by refinancing against their home values, resulting in the very
positive twin combination of lower mortgage payments and cash-out borrowing,
allowing them to spend more than they made. Even in the face of 9-11 and massive
debt and trade imbalances, the combination of such massive stimulus helped
engineer a very shallow recession. The problem is that we will not have these
recession fighting tools when we enter the next recession. Interest rates will
likely be no more than 3%. Even cutting rates to zero will not be much stimulus,
as the last 1% is mostly psychological. If a deal can't get done with interest
rates at 1%, it is unlikely to get done at 0%. As much as I would like, there
are no more tax cuts available which would provide any significant stimulus.
Mortgage rates would have to drop to 4.5% or lower to allow home owners to
re-finance and lower their costs. However, such low rates would indicate that we
would already be in a much worse recession than last time.

He's quite bearish on the short term economic future (next two or three years) and pushes for some serious reform during the next term. Social Security, tax reform (he's a proponent of a national sales tax), tort reform, and serious free trade zone increases. Amen.

He also, interestingly, thinks that Hillary might be the least of Republican's
problems in 2008.Bill King, the bond god over at Pimco, says we will have to
deal with Hillary in 2008. We should be so lucky. My bet is the Dems find
another Clinton clone without the blue dress and negative history. Someone who
can feel their pain and articulate their angst. Even though demographics and the
conservative tide are on our side, from time to time that tide goes out. While
we have a better and deeper bench for potential presidential candidates than the
Dems (Giuliani, McCain, Frist, Ridge, Condie Rice (!), among others), they only
need one person. Couple him (or her) with Barack Obama as VP, and their ticket
is formidable coming off a recession.

I don't know if I'm more disheartened by his warning of another Bill Clinton or by his list of the Republican bench warmers (please don't make me listen to Tom *$%!$#! Ridge campaign for two years!), but I would be more fearful of a non-New England Democratic governor (Bill Richardson, my own Mike Easley) with Obama (think he'll tell everyone in Boston he's Irish, but his granfather misplaced the apostrophe?) to play the left-wing heavyweight. The best strategy Republicans have is to take the next two years, cancel all Killington and Aspen ski trips, and play serious hardball. It's time to get to work.

Incidentally, I get Mauldin's newsletter every week, and while his writing style tends to annoy, his analysis is usually exceptional. He's been right on about the current recovery, it's timing as well as its depth and breadth, for a couple years and has been warning of a 2005/2006 recession for at least a few months.

"Get a grip": Bob Barr has a great piece out (I believe it's in the Washington Times, but this link is to his own site) about fear as a problem in America, specifically over the flu, but generally about fearmongering by politicians on both sides of the aisle. Some good lines:

The CDC formed its own special ethics panel to weigh the moral questions about
who gets vaccinated. (We need ethics in government, Lord knows, but a panel of
ethicists to decide who gets a flu shot? Come on, folks, get a grip.)

And...

If every American followed the basic life lessons learned in kindergarten, the
CDC wouldn't have to go to red alert every time something like this happens.

I'm afraid (ha ha) he might be right.

Great Line: Viking Pundit identifies the five words that sank the Kerry candidacy. Go read it; you'll wish you thought of it.

Another Question: Can we count on Air America to, er, move on now?

(By the way, check out Air America's lead story, slugged "Kerry Concedes, The Nightmare Continues." I am very nearly sexually aroused by schadenfreude this rich.)

How Do You Really Feel? Robert Corr pulled this from CNN/Netscape (before they renamed the image "georgelaura135.jpg).

Of course the media leans to the right. A real lefty wouldn't have left off the "major league."

(Via Timmy.)

Another "Think" Piece: Another example of a journalist searching, desperately, for a way to crap on Bush's victory.

With President Bush winning the first popular-vote majority in 16 years over Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, but adding almost no new states to his column since 2000, the 2004 election has revealed a political landscape that remains deeply, and almost immovably, divided - but one in which Republicans now seem to hold a clear upper hand.

Read it one more time. Now how does it possibly make sense? Bush won a majority, the first since his dad's. Yet "the divide is deepening." The GOP added House seats and Senate seats while seeing an incumbent president re-elected, for the first time in history. And yet we are "almost immovably" divided. Bush took a decisive electoral college win, adding New Mexico and Iowa, and leaving Kerry with only four states outside of the coastal enclaves of liberalism. And yet, and yet.

Seems to me that what the author, Liz Marlantes, is really concerned about is a GOP victory of this magnitude. It makes you wonder whether a Kerry victory based on the exact same numbers wouldn't, according to Marlantes, show a country "coming together," "beginning to heal," "leaving behind the partisanship of 2000."

As for all the garbage about how divided our country is, remember this: getting less than about 47% of the popular vote is considered, historically, a serious ass kicking. Past presidents were not elected by universal public acclaim. Thomas Jefferson himself had a reputation for anonymous mudslinging. Hamilton and Burr took pistols to Weehawken over their political rivalry. This fretting about the divisions in America is as bad as the moaning about partisanship. Folks, partisanship is a good thing. It means sticking to your principles when an opportunity to compromise them comes up. Besides, partisanship is a sin only conservatives seem to carry. Republicans are staunch, stubborn, partisan. Democrats are "principled." Bipartisanship, naturally, refers to situations in which the conservatives compromise, not the liberals. Think of the 80s and 90s, when George Mitchell and Tip O'Neill (and later Jim Wright and Tom Daschle) ran the houses of Congress as their own little emirates of corruption, arm-twisting, and log-rolling. Then the GOP got control, and everyone in the press got religion. Suddenly, with Newt Gingrich in charge, the worst thing you could be was partisan, and the most unfortunate social mistake you could make was to wield power.

Bah. I'm sick of it. A liberal acquaintance said today, "I'm just worried about where our country is going." Oh, get off your high horse.

As Long As I'm Working the Shithead Beat: Can Alan Keyes go away too soon?

Alan Keyes blamed the media and fellow Republicans on Thursday for his lopsided loss to Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate race in Illinois.

Keyes also said he did not congratulate Obama after the race was called, a tradition among politicians, because doing so would have been a "false gesture" because he believes Obama's views on issues like abortion are wicked.

There's always someone else to blame, isn't there? Keyes needs top park his titanic ego and equally large store of self-righteousness and moral self-satisfaction for just a second. Talk about a Jesus complex. He's starting to make Eddie Vedder seem well adjusted and taking to the thorazine nicely, thanks.

Go home, Alan, and sit there with your diplomas, your ambassadorial credentials, and the deep, gnawing feeling that, despite your opinion of yourself and your high-flying rhetoric, you have done nothing in life but act like a pompous horse's ass.

Don't Let the Door Hit You: Arafat reportedly at Death's door in Paris. (No word on whether he just happened to be there, or if the gates of Hades open off the Champs Elysee. As good a place for hell as any.) It will be good f*cking riddance.

"It tears your heart up," said Mahmod Nimr, a 36-year-old unemployed Palestinian. "I can't see someone taking his place."

I can't either. This guy has caused as much misery as any man alive today, and all in the pursuit of . . . a Palestinian state? Nope. He could have had that in 1994, with a goddamn bow on top, with a kiss on the cheek from Ehud Barak and one on the ass from Clinton. He traded it for ten more years of blood in the streets and funds diverted into his Swiss accounts.

Just drop dead already. I'm not religious, but I'm put in mind of the Italian guy, Giuseppi, in Zoltan Korda's great propaganda piece Sahara, and his final speech on the evil of Hitler, before he is knifed by a Luftwaffe pilot: "It is for men like him that god, my god, created hell."

Dare I try to post again?: I'm keeping this short so in case Blogger decides to throw it into the cyber-gutter, I will only have wasted a few minutes of my life.

Here is a blow-by-blow of the Rather and CBS coverage of election night (from RatherBiased - which is sort of link-dead right now):

BIZARRE/BIAS CHRONOLOGY
Beginning with reverse order, all times Eastern. Each timeline item has a
permalink on our news page


--7:23 pm "I know it's Copley Plaza but we were having a 3,000 calorie
attack every half hour as close as this race is."
Visit our News page for more current ones.

--7:36 pm "Ohio now turns into a sauna for both of the candidates. All they
can do is wait and sweat."

--7:43 pm, On polling: "This is more complicated than the wiring diagram for
some hydroelectric dam dynamo, trying to figure out the absentee ballots,
the people who voted in advance and taking in the exit poll data from
today."

--7:54 pm, Bob Schieffer reported that Joe Lockart, campaign adviser to the
Kerry campaign says that he thinks Kerry has a chance to win every one of
the battleground states, despite the fact that hardly any polls had come in.

"Well, you know the old saying, Bob--Don't taunt the alligator until after
you've crossed the creek. Apparently joe lockhart doesn't subscribe to
that."

8:24 pm, Cautioning that viewers shouldn't read too much into early
electoral vote counts: "In some ways, George Bush's lead is as thin as
November ice."

8:35 pm, Lesley Stahl calls the NRA the "NAR."

10:04 pm, On the importance of Democrats keeping Bob Graham's Senate seat:
"Democrats almost absolutely positively, teetotally need to hold that seat."

10:18 pm, CBS's John Roberts has some trouble with his math, see


11:10 pm, Sean "P. Diddy" Combs channels Dan Rather on MTV: "This race is
tight as a frog's ass"

11:26 pm, On desirability of Florida: "hotter than a Times Square Rolex."

12:52 am, Subtle dig at Fox News which had just projected Bush would win
Ohio: "In case you've been watching one of those other places that doesn't
have as good of information, here's what's happening."

1:02 am, NBC calls Ohio for Bush. "President Bush's reelection is at the
door, knock, knock, knock."

1:11 am, Still reluctant to call Ohio for Bush, CBS tries the alternate
route: reporter Bill Plante relays that Bush adviser Karl Rove told the
president he would win the state.

After break, Rather adds: "Yes we are aware that in some other quarters they
have projected it, but we would rather be last than wrong."

RATHER: "Is this just gamesmanship? Are the Bush people saying these things
to make themselves look better in case there's a recount?"

BILL PLANTE: That's true. They always act like they're winning even when
they're not

1:33 am, On closeness of race in some states: "This race is hot enough to
peel paint off a house."

2:14 am, Dan starts getting frustrated. "Our coverage continues with Ohio,
'Hey kimosabe, no one knows.'"

2:22 am, "Folks, these are the kinds of nights that give campaign managers a
case of the hives or something. One reason so many of them drink a lot,
because you have these situations in which, you know, you think you got it,
you're right there, you're right there, you're close enough to feel it, and
then somebody like one of these overpaid television anchor men come up and
say you know what, that state may not just be going your way."

3:21 am, Dan Rather plays psychiatrist to Lesley Stahl:

STAHL: Well, it's unique, and I don't know about you, Dan, but it makes me
despair, because it's up in the air. It's unsettled. I know we all talked
about this before we started getting returns. What we all prayed for was a
decision that was final, that we could go to the American people and say
this is it. Anything that's left uncertain like this is sure to create more
turmoil, it's just not healthy for our system. It's not a good thing that we
are sitting here telling the American people. We can't help it, but we want
to see healing, and this is not conducive to that, it doesn't seem to me.
RATHER: Let me say something to you personally. Don't despair. Despair is
not in the American character. The country will be all right whatever
happens here, however long it takes to square it away, and i understand
you're saying the heartache we're going to have to go through, but we're a
big continental country, so don't despair. Not in our character. We're
optimists by experience and by nature here in this country, so however it
turns out, we're going to be ok.

Idiocy of the day: Via Sullivan's email box

EMAIL OF THE DAY II: "I am a 25 year-old gay man, and I can't even describe how
saddened I am today by the re-election of President Bush and the numerous state
amendments banning gay marriage that were passed on election day. I'm not really
angry... just very sad and afraid. I don't know what country I live in anymore.
I thought this was the land of freedom. I thought I was free to pursue my own
happiness. But right now I feel like my country hates me. What is going on?"

Look, I'm sympathetic to the cause, and I was disappointed that many states enacted those laws yesterday. But are you for real? "I don't know what country I live in anymore?" Read American history, pal. Your country is more tolerant now than it ever has been of virtually any lifestyle choice you want to make, and more tolerant than and accomodating to your lifestyle than most places on this planet. And this one offers it along with a (usually) strong economy, (usually) safe borders, and regular opportunities to participate in the process of choosing the people who make those stupid laws. And best of all, you can jump ship anytime and move to one of the several states that either now or in the future allow you to marry whomever you like.

Do some people hate you? Yeah, probably. So what? Others don't, at least until you do something to deserve it.

Is Bush already reaching out?: Drudge reports Aschcroft to resign. I'll wait and see. But if it's true, it should ease some fears, right? Not likely.

Numbers, Numbers: I concur with Razor's point about the raw numbers that voted for Bush. It's a pretty transparent talking point for a GOP delighted to finally have a mandate. Still, I caught socialist crypto-polemicist Barbara Eirenreich on News Hour tonight, and her take was the equally laughable reverse. More people voted against Bush, she said, than had voted against any previous candidate.

It's worth noting, though, that Bush got the first majority since 1988 -- a long time, if you think about it. The gains in the House and Senate only add to the inescapable fact that this is a president with a mandate now. He had cobbled one together in the past few years, made of scraps of 9/11, the mid-term gains of 2002, the patriotic fervor of war. But this is a straight-up legitimate president now, with the guns in Congress to back him up. I suspect (and, more to the point, expect) some second-term action on the tax code and social security. This may turn out to be the first two-term predident whose lame duck term was the first one.

On another of Razor's points, the rudderless Democratic Party, where does this leave you, exactly? Bush made big inroads to the hispanic vote and the women's vote. That leaves you, um, let's see . . . the blacks, the trial lawyers, union members, and everybody getting a welfare check. How do you build a 21st century party on that? Others have speculated that the Dems are too fragmented, too much of a slapped-together mess of special interests, to have a coherent message anymore. I think it showed this year. Was Kerry the nuanced flip-flopper Bush railed against, or has the internal triangulation of the Democratic Party, its need to appease its disparate bases, becoming a bit of a lion's den? In essence, could Kerry have won the nomination without having to be squishy on a lot of stuff? I don't think so.

More: As if on cue, the prez sallies forth to declare the second term priorities: social security reform, scrapping the mind-bogglingly stupid tax code, and capping damages on med-mal suits. I like the cut of this guy's jib, goddammit. You sure he's the same one what's been running the place these last four years?

An Update: I'm all revved up for another "constitutional crisis" and Kerry has to go and be gracious about it all. Well, hats off to him. Nothing in his candidacy became him like the leaving of it.

Back at the desk: New laptop arrived today, a day earlier than expected, so the better part of the day has been spent taking out the old desktop, cleaning the office, and getting the new machine installed to the network. Feels good, and it's been a great distraction to election coverage, though CNN's been on in the background all day.

Razor, you're right about the population issue, but the backslapping seems louder over the "majority" issue, since a plurality has been the best anyone could do lately. Repubs are very eager to claim the mandate, as they're entitled to. Now what will W. do with it. That is indeed the question.

Despite general agreement on the mandate issue, by commentators I mean, there is still a lot of talk about "Bush must reach out to the opposition" etc. That's true, of course, as much as it's true of any president. But Bush has an opportunity to leverage his confirmed popularity, and I don't expect to see any weakening on critical issues.

Final Thoughts (well not really final b/c they're still being counted): Now that Blogger seems done with its day-long meltdown, I can actually post something - although I've forgotten most of what I wanted to say. So, some rapid-fire points:

** As Eno alluded to, watching the coverage was the most fun. CBS was falling over itself to call states for Bush as fast as it dared, while FOX was showing incredible restraint and being very slow to call states for either side. Sheppard Smith was actually pretty funny at times and kept good control over the various "desks" and "centers" that all the networks deemed necessary (nothing more silly than NBC's quilt-like map showing the voting method each district in each state used -- Ohio had the highest concentration of punch ballots -- I think NBC was four years too late on this idea).

** If I see one more self-congratulatory message from the GOP about how Bush garnered the highest popular vote count in history, I'll...I'll...well, there's nothing I can do, but I'll be steaming mad, I can assure you. This is like saying Lord of the Rings made more money than Star Wars. Well, duh. Movie admission cost eighteen cents in 1978. You spend more on a "small" coke today than a ticket and a Volkswagen back in the 70s. Say it with me now: "There are more people in the US today than ever before."

** Exit polls -- they're history as of this election, don't you think? I mean, everyone was breathless about them at 3:00 in the afternoon, and the networks made great hay about how nervous the Bush camp was. Really? This from the side that won in 2000? I'd think anything short of Texas blowing up would result in a massive yawn from the GOP before you had at least 50% of the precincts reporting in. In any event, they bore little resemblance to reality, as we can clearly see.

** Indiana - staunchly Republican, yet continues to elect a Dem senator. Having been born in Indiana, I can attest to the Hoosier level-headedness. Good for them.

** On a personal note, I am only mildly disappointed. I'm more upset over the lack of substance in the Democratic party. As someone said yesterday, in the 90s, people voted for Clinton, not for the Party. Once he was gone, we're left with a rudderless ship. The Party chose to ignore the Senate and House races, and just blindly expect that there was support for the Party Plank. There wasn't. It was just Clinton doing what he does best - bamboozle and charm your pants off (no need for a "literally" tag there - it's presumed). He was a very centrist guy (universal healthcare notwithstanding). With the Civil Rights movement now part of our way of life, there's nothing left for the Dems to shout about. Abortion, while interesting, smacks of being evil, b/c let's face it, you're killing a life (reasons abound for it, but still). Kerry wasn't anti-war at all, even though there are plenty anti-war people in the Democratic party.

If 9/11 never happened, chances are Bush never got to act Presidential, and he would have stumbled along, getting everyone's names wrong, and losing jobs in the process. But, the terrorism issue gave him his voice. To his credit, he seized the day, although many thought he seized the better part of the week along with it.

Well, the ball's in his court. Control of the Senate, House and now a "mandate". No excuses W. No excuses.

Best Of All Worlds: This finale was custom designed for me, I think. First, both parties will now debase themselves in legal wrangling -- always a pleasure to watch. Second, Bush will likely take Ohio -- thus the election (and New Mexico and Iowa to boot) -- unless the Dems can finagle a very relaxed standard for including provisional ballots. Third, Kerry has pretty convincingly lost the popular vote, so he's toast anyway. For a party that has spent the last four years carping about an "illegitimate president" and giggling at "let's not elect him in 2004 either" slogans, this is a nightmare. They'll have to go the "big lie" route and claim, straight faced, that losing the popular vote most certainly does not deny a president a mandate.

Ain't we got fun?

Following CNN's lead: Not prepared to call Ohio, and I'm getting tired. Lots of provisional ballots etc. to go. At least NBC has called it for Bush, but I don't want to get ahead of things. I've been arguing stem cells, abortion, and Iraq with the roommate for a couple hours, so I can't accurately predict anything. Except that bedtime is nigh.

Damn blogger: Very slow to post right now. Frustrated, I am.

I smell bacon: But they smell a conspiracy. Well, I can't always be trusted. I smell bacon quite often. But I think they're wetting the bed.

Back to the game: So Florida goes Bush, which is a huge win. But Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Hampshire are looking Blue.

It's still very dicy, so I'm staying up awhile.

The "marriage ammendments," to define it as a man/woman deal only, seem to be doing well in many states. That's too bad. That's an issue on which I disagree with Bush and I think, sadly, those ammendments are bringing some people out to polls. Helps my candidate, but I feel sick associating myself with many of those voters. Oh well, the bright side is those are state issues, best decided by the folks that live there.

For Now: It doesn't look like Ohio or Florida will be called soon. I'm confident, but not overwhelmingly so, as I shut down and toddle off for another beer. Tomorrow will be a busy day for the lawyers.

Who Knew? Charles Schwab stopped coloring his hair.

Breaking News: Andrew Sullivan announces that he's switching his endorsement to Bush!

Naw, I'm kidding. But you believed it for a second, didn't you?

Eating My Words? Well, this might be a speed record. No sooner do I declare NH dead for the GOP . . . Bush has a slight numeric lead now. What do I know. As TMQ used to say, guaranteed wrong or your money back.

All Over? A number of sources are showing Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin "leaning" Bush. Michigan, surprisingly, leaning strongly Bush. Again, early numbers, but if they hold, Bush can start waiting for Kerry's call.

More: New Mexico, which went (barely) for Gore in 2000 is breaking early for Bush.

Not Drunkblogging: I have a hard time with this. I can suck Budweiser, and I can type, but I tend to do one to the exclusion of the other. How does Steve Green do this? One plus, my wife just walked in with a new optical, wireless mouse. Much better than the touchpad, since I can keep it to the side and use my Bud hand on it. Cool.

Another Worry: Bush could easily lose Missouri, which he squeaked out in 2000, despite the kind of late voting irregularities Ohio is about to see. That's 11 electoral votes Bush doesn't want to have to make up elsewhere.

All right, I'm taking a break for beer and a smoke. Razor, it's never too early to concede.

Heading out: Gotta go meet some folks, so I'll be offline for a couple hours. Eno, I hope you're able to keep it up for awhile. I'll be back to pick it up later.

WVa: Flyer, Buchanan's point was what I was referring to below, but the more I think about it, the more I doubt the predictive power of WVa. I think Bush has a good shot at Ohio, but the cities are all still controlled by Democrats. Bush has to win by a lot in the sticks to make up for what he'll lose in the cities. His margin in WVa, if it proves predictive of rural Ohio's outcome, doesn't make me confident.

More: Will Collier notes this oddity:

Michael Barone says Bush is getting slightly greater numbers in industrial cities in Indiana and Kentucky than he gained in 2000. Interesting to see if that is echoed in neighboring Ohio.

If that's true, I could be totally wrong about Ohio. As the early numbers shake out, it certainly looks as if Bush is solidifying his small lead.

Reported on MSNBC: Lines are so long in Ohio that a judge has ruled that people waiting in lines must be given paper ballots to cast their votes now. Smell that? That's the scent of litigation. Florida redux indeed.

Cokie: Didn't she always sound like that? I gave up on Rather for Brokaw and Russert. They're about as solid as it gets, and Russert is a smart bastard and a vet of Moynihan's team, so he has one foot in the neo-con world and one foot in the old-school liberal world.

I'm more convinced that ever that Brian Williams is the wrong guy to go to when Brokaw walks away tomorrow. He lacks (wait for it) gravitas. And the way he points with his chin and scrunches up his neck reminds me of Jennings. They must teach it in anchor school.

Continuing coverage reviews: Pat Buchanan never fails to annoy. He sounds like he's delivering a stump speech about exit polls. But he makes a good point about Bush holding WV. The people there are culturally similar to the western Pennsylvania and southern Ohio voters. That seems true, although it may have been a lot more so twenty years ago.

Ohio: Could we be looking at this year's Florida? It's early days yet, but these electors are worth fighting for.

Sominex: Just switched to ABC. Peter Jennings and George Will sound like they're discussing opera. The most calm voices I've heard tonight. But Cokie sounds like she's losing her voice already.

Fun, fun, fun: I couldn't take any more Larry King, who's practically lounging on the conference table at CNN HQ. NowI've switched to NBC which has a nice ominous background music every time they make a call.

I agree with Eno's point about early calls and would note that the Florida panhandle will probably be as critical as in 2000. It could come down to Miami v. Pensacola.

Local Hero: James Miller, game theorist and he of TCS fame, is running for state senate in my district, and he's getting stomped like a drag queen at a biker bar. He got my vote, but I don't think it helped much. He's getting about 9% of the vote right now. This is the fate of the Republican in Western Massachusetts. But hats off to Miller for giving it a whirl anyway.

I'm actually surprised that a game theorist would run with the GOP here. He'd do better out here as an independent or Libertarian -- and he never has struck me a a guy wedded to right-wing politics. I can only suppose that he ran the regression analyses and thought this his least worst option.

A Word About Turnout: My guess is that turnout will be as much of a factor in Florida as anywhere else. Since the numbers are breaking for Bush, I'm guessing that turnout will not be a big boost for Kerry. I had figured that an early indication that Kerry was running away with Florida would be the night's first tip-off that the Dems had the upper hand on GOTV. It may be the case that turnout for the Dems is biggest in safe states anyway: New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont.

New Hampshire is interesting. A former solid red state, it is following the Vermont pattern of becoming a moderate-to-liberal state as middle-class refugees from southern New England take advantage of lower taxes and lower housing costs to the north. (I've considered the move myself.) I think the GOP can start to write off New Hampshire.

I'm not sure that the GOP can count on Hawaii to fill the resulting void. If Hawaii goes GOP this year, it will simply be a fluke.

Caution: The networks are playing it very close to the vest tonight. In Virginia (too close to call, sayeth NBC) Bush is up 58-42, with 18 percent reporting. In 2000, this would have been a called state. Florida, too, is breaking solidly for Bush with about 20 percent of precincts reporting. I'm not saying that the numbers can't change, but I think it's unlikely. We're looking at a media that was berned once and is working very hard to avoid red faces tonight.

One Way to Look at It: Of course, as we all know, the national popular vote is meaningless. Still, most sources are showing Bush running ahead by about 57-42, roughly the same break that the market-based sources (Tradesports, etc.) were calling. If nothing else, this election will put this kind of forecasting though its paces nationally.

Ratherism of the Moment: Referring to Joe Lockhart's confidence regarding swing states: "Lockhart hasn't learned not to talk to the alligator until after you've crossed the creek."

Inside Baseball: Surprisingly, Blogger is running pretty well tonight -- not great, but decent, and better than the past few days . . . Hold on a f*cking second.

Rather, referring to how states will be "called": "Doesn't this all sound as complicated as the wiring diagram for some kind of hydro electric generator?" I'm either going to have to change the station, or spend the whole night documenting Rather's blather.

Back to the details. I'm drinking a good red-state beer tonight -- none of that metrosexual fruit-beer shit for me. I'll be blogging until the beer runs out, or until I get sick of this crap. I've only got the networks, so chances are I'll shoot the tube and go to bed in about 20 minutes, unless Dan Rather keeps cracking me up.

Bush Takes WVa: I thought at first that this might be a good sign for Bush, perhaps a belwether for Ohio. But so little of WVa is urban; Ohio has Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton. In the stix, there's quite a bit of demographic overlap.

Rather: "Ohio is a sauna now. Candidates can only wait and sweat." Jesus, is he the idiot savant poet of the networks, or what?

CBS: I'm watching now, and it looks a bit like a pledge drive with lots of money and silent phones. Danny Rather just said, "One thing nobody wants is a repeat of the vote counting of 2000." Shut up, Dan. I for one would love to see that again. November/December of 2000 was a bracing time period. Constitutional crisis? Naw. Democracy in action.

Exit poll fears: I haven't been following them closely, but the mood at The Corner isn't good. Ergo, Bush may be in trouble. Of course the thought of Kathryn Lopez pulling her hair out and wailing about Catholics in Wisconsin is a fair trade for losing the election. Too funny.

More Worrisome: Anyone else notice that Vodka has been down all day? I'm sure he's just resting up for when the returns start rolling in, but can someone maybe run over and ring the doorbell just to make sure all is well?

Sidenote: Saw the new movie Ray last night, with Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles. Overall, I'd give it a B+, a good story with lots of great music. Foxx makes a good effort at imitating Charles' unique facial expressions and head movement. The supremely talented musician who becomes a womanizing junkie and cleans up his life after hitting bottom is not a new story, but I expect much of it is true, so they did their best to tell it well. Ray was apparently traumatized as a young kid when he watched his brother die in a drowning accident and he takes drugs to repress the memory, and can't be free of heroin's grasp till he deals with it. Okay, I've seen this before.

Really, the best parts of the movie deal more with his struggle to find his musical voice, his own style instead of replicating other more established stars. His dealing with Atlantic Records and eventual move to ABC for more money and control of the music is also interesting, though I'd be interested to find out how much back story was left out.

Also, the movie makes it seem as if Ray's social conscience was nearly nonexistent until one sudden day in Georgia when he refused to play to a segregated audience. As a black, blind musician playing in Southern clubs, he must've been the vicitim of some pretty nasty discrimination and formed some thoughts on civil rights along the way. But in Ray he goes from Southern "boy," content to make a living playing the Jim Crow "chitlin' circuit" to standing up to the man in about 30 seconds. Some evolution might have been portrayed.

Some of the best secenes were of Ray and the Sonny Fulson band playing those Southern, black, clubs. Interestingly, I spotted two places within a few blocks of my old New Orleans apartment, the Half Moon and Saturn Bar. Whether Ray actually played those places or not I don't know; they may have just made good film and apropriately signaled that he was playing in New Orleans, but not many people would recognize these two places so I doubt the latter. Maybe they're just cool signs.

It's worth seeing, even if you wait to rent it.

Libertarians: There were a number of LP candidates on the ballot in my district, including one for Commissioner at Large (a cool title, I think). He's a guy named Jack Stratton, and he made the news big in Charlotte a couple years ago in a battle with the local social services department. He's a Christian Fnndamentalist and all around strange character, but he exposed the local DSS for the anti-civil liberties crowd that they are. I'm not sure he's entirely balanced, but I voted for him because I think he's right in his case and he's said his campaign is all about getting enough attention to get his kids back. He has no chance, but good luck anyway.

Done: Just back from the polling site, and all is calm. I expected to see picketers out front screaming and chanting and handing out pamphlets that call into question the oppostitions stand on the whole puppies/boiling oil issue. At least maybe some voter intimidation to worry about. Nope,everybody stood in line peacefully and made polite jokes about waiting in line. Slight drizzle.

I walked over to the designated elementary school with my roommate Seth and neighbor Ted. I voted Bush, as I declared I would. Seth voted Kerry, as a Bubsh hating sci-fi geek should. We cancel each other out, meaning Ted was the "battleground" vote in our party. I didn't ask who he was voting for. Didn't seem right, and politics takes a backseat to friendship at the end of the day.

Congrats, by the way to Eric Lindholm, whose site is getting a much deserved traffic boost these days. His workmanlike pace of posting is getting its reward.

I know why too, Andrew: Let's see, you're a president who lost the popular vote in your first campaign and went through a court case that gave a stain of illegitimacy and lack of mandate to your first term. The worst terrorist attack on American soil happens under your watch and the economy reacts by diving further under the bed than it already was. Then you take the country to war, despite the criticism of most media and punditry and the going is a lot rougher than anyone was willing to believe it would be. And your opponent still can't get half the country to say we could use a different guy?

Some Quick Hits: First, it's about damn time this happened:

The Internal Revenue Service has informed the NAACP that it is investigating whether the civil rights organization improperly "intervened in a political campaign" when it posted on its website a speech by Chairman Julian Bond that condemned the Bush administration's policies.

The NAACP has been a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party for my lifetime. They and the teachers' unions should get frisked in a big way.

Second, all the mainstream press could say about Karl Rove all year is that he's got a bag of dirty tricks, and he's used them all before; he's as cold-blooded as Lee Atwater, but without the dead man's love of the blues. (Last month's Atlantic Monthly had an archetype of this sort of crap. As a side note, have you noticed that, since Mike Kelly died, Atlantic is crawling with liberals? The magazine, which enjoyed a couple of years of whacking both sides, is back to its old place on the left.) Anyhoo, where's Rove's October Surprise, his last minute splash of mud, his final great dirty trick. Either way, 2004 is likely his swan song. Why not pull out all the stops? Could it be that Karl Rove is no worse a piece of shit than Donna Brazile? You won't read that in the Atlantic, anymore.

By the way, gents, cheers to you both for making your relatively unqualified (and I mean that in both senses) endorsements. The blogosphere, in general, is running pretty hard toward Bush (typical roundup here). The question remains whether this has to do with the right-winginess of this particular echo chamber. Razor always seems pretty convinced that the left is under-represented in blogland; but some relatively level-headed folks out there are using the word "landslide" rather freely. I think we're in for some surprises on Tuesday night. I suppose that's a pretty safe prediction, based on 2000. I still think that among the scenarios, one of the likeliest (and most satisfying) is the possibility of Kerry taking the electoral college, but not the popular vote. It would be throbbin' boner time to see how they address the no-mandate, illegitimate-president arguments they spat out in 2000. Some high-ranking Dems, in moments of sheer idiocy and naked partisanship, suggested that the electoral college had outlived its usefulness. I'd suffer a Kerry presidency just to laugh in their faces. Of course, one can expect the GOP to eat its own arguments from last time and take up its opponent's free cudgel: Bush v. Gore redux, but this time the GOP hires David Boies and starts impounding ballots.

At any rate, I think it will be close. See you Tuesday night.

Time to commit: As my fellows have done, so will I. I don't think it will surprise anyone, but I'll tell you why I've decided to vote for Bush.

First, while I wasn't biased at the start of the campaign, I did feel that any challenger to Bush had to convince me why they deserved my vote. I needed to be sold, otherwise I was sticking with the president we've got. That hasn't happened.

The situation in Iraq is troublesome, indeed, but I was supportive of the reasons for going to war in the first place and I still believe there is a lot of good being accomplished there and a lot more to be accomplished in the future. So we haven't found the not-yet-smoking gun of WMD; that doesn't mean that Saddam wasn't a threat, it just means the threat hadn't entirely manifested itself. Terrorism was a problem long before 9/11, and I don't think John Kerry was unaware of the problem, nor do I think the Clinton administration is to be held at fault entirely. Our collective thinking on security hadn't evolved to take into account the type of attack we were hit with the next day. It's easy to look back today and see how wrong we were, but none of the presidential candidates in 2000 made terrorism a central issue to their campaign, especially not Bush who ran against excessive overseas involement and "nation-building." I agreed with him then, and I've changed my tune as well. No, we cannot go everywhere or oust every distasteful despot, but the events in the Middle East have a newfound meaning in our lives and I want a president who is willing to take the fight overseas when it is to our advantage. I've seen nothing from John Kerry, in his record during the cold war, during the 1991 Gulf War, nor during his campaign that makes me feel he is of a similar mind. Many others have made the same argument better than I can, so I'll just say that I believe Bush is capable of "waging the peace" (there's a phrase I never thought I'd use) despite the fact that it's been difficult to this point.

On domestic issues, they're like chocalate and vanilla - different, but neither one is all that interesting or new. I think David Hogberg's Libertarian Guide is a pretty good wrap-up of most domestic issues and Bush wins by his standard which is good enough for me at this point. While I'd like to hold Bush accountable on things like steel tariffs and farm bills, as well as his inaction on real reform of education, healthcare, or social security, I think Kerry would be worse. Meanwhile, there's war to win and that's a little more important to me.

I flirted with the idea of voting for Michael Badnarik, even as purely a protest vote that in my small way chastises Bush for his domestic failings and mistaken planning (though not nonexistent as Kerry would have one believe) in Iraq and falls short of endorsing a man, Kerry, I have little common ground with ideologically. But third parties that are so unorganized and full of internal squabbles, as the Libertarian Party is, are not worth supporting just because they won't win. The fact is, one of these two men is going to win, and I felt I needed to cast a vote with one or the other. There are a lot of thoughtful, learned, and nobly intentioned people who have decided to cast their votes the other way, and, though they may not believe it, I think I've heard and understood their arguments. Some I don't agree with, others I simply think are for a different time with a different set of candidates. In the meantime, I agree with another George, that for all his faults, it must be Bush.

I mean, I really need to move: If you think I'm whining unnecessarily about the political ads, then look no further than this.

Blogger [Sound]Bites: Three posts over last three days never saw the light due to the apparent problems Blogger was experiencing. I suppose I could complain, but then again, it's free. I guess the question is whether it's the best of the free, and I think the answer is "no". But, when you invest so much intellectual capital (well, in Eno's case anyway), in a particular url, it's hard to pack up and leave...

Let me do a quick run down then of what I wanted to say earlier, plus a few things for today.

On Tues. night, I was watching the World Series, but since the Cardinals didn't seem interested, I figured I wasn't obligated. I wandered up one channel to PBS, which had a great "Frontline" piece on the rise of the Neo-Cons, taking Cheney, Rummy and Wolfy from their early Nixon years to the present-day. Then, they threw in Powell to show the contrast. Now, this was clearly a slanted look at the Neo-Con road to perdition, but it was fascinating nonetheless. Showing early versions of the preemption doctrine that is in play today, and how it had to be modulated over time, until it was ripe for the picking (i.e. Iraq). Showing too the rancor of Powell, and how he and his truly conservative (small "c") brethren over in the Army got cut out of the power structure on the war-planning, leaving Rummy all the cards. Again, you don't have to agree with the take of the piece to still end up being enthralled. Come to think of it, maybe that's what Tony LaRussa was doing in the dugout.

I need this election to end. Unless you cut yourself off from all media, living in this state (sorry, commonwealth) has become unbearable. From the national down to the local, the ads are just overpowering and sickening. The worst yet is one by a GOP running for U.S. Rep. who is promoting the fact that a couple of individuals who are associated with Moveon.org are endorsing a particular Dem, also running for Rep. They then make the logical (in an election year) conclusion that this candidate is supportive of al-qaeda, and wants another 9/11. Lovely.

Last, I watch Paul Bremer today on "Today" regarding the new videotape, which was taken Apr. 18, 2003, or 9 days after the fall of Iraq, of what may or may not be the conventional explosives stockpile south of Iraq which is at issue. Lauer asks Bremer if this new evidence controverts the Admin's wishy-washy talking point that "we don't know all the facts." Bremer's response: "Well Matt, we don't know all the facts." With truthful, thoughtful responses like that, you wonder why we lose faith in politics.

Really, the truth is much easier than the contorted stump positions each side is locked into. We went to war based on flawed intelligence: fact. We executed a perfect knock-out punch to Saddam and his forces: fact. The world is better off without Saddam: fact. We really weren't in any near-term danger from Saddam: fact. We bungled rather massively the post-war occupation as we didn't have enough "boots on the ground" (see "Frontline" show, supra): fact. Democracy is a wonderful thing, and in the long run, the Iraqis are much better off: fact.

Admitting you make mistakes does not mean you're unqualfied, unintelligent or uncaring. It makes you human, and it shows that you can learn, because you don't make the same mistakes twice. Unfortunately, Bush doesn't see that. His blind faith in his god and his provenance compound that flaw.

I think it's misguided to believe that Kerry will put our country at risk. While the man is indecisive in political decisions, he has always shown great personal courage, and I don't think he'd be afraid to use force where needed. The best argument I can make is that our country may be more vulnerable in the lame-duck period.

However, I won't vote out of fear. That may be called foolish, naive, or simply partisan; so be it. Kerry gets this Pennsylvanian's vote.